Subject:
|
Re: Curious, if true
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Mar 2002 21:23:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
330 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > Or do you mean I'm supposed to care if junkies contract AIDS? I mean,
> > hypothetically, I do care. But at the same time, that's a risk they are
> > balancing as they make their decisions. It's not exactly any of my business.
>
> While I recognize that your statement is consistent with your
> previously-stated viewpoint, it can readily (and not incorrectly) be argued
> that, as a member of society, it is indeed your business whether the
> junkie--another member of society--contracts AIDS.
I sort of agree. I have a financial interest in the situation because I
contribute to funding the remediation. And I may have all the empathy in the
world for people who are hurting themselves. But I'm not sure that I have the
right to stop them for doing that. By the way, I do (well, I did in the past)
support a charitable efforts to bring AIDS awareness to highschools.
> > > #2- It is possible to vent a room easily, but is is risky to dispose of
> > > abandoned syringes;
> >
> > It is no easy task to be rid of the residue from smoke.
>
> The yellowing of walls and the lingering smell of smoke is a "hazard"
> entirely different from the real, actual danger posed by dicarded syringes.
Absolutely. I (poorly, I guess) tried to discuss the nature of the compared
risks before. I've been sort of thinking about it like this:
The risk (including discomfort of all kinds) posed by drug-smoke is much lower
in magnitude than that of discarded needles in the event of contact. However,
the likelihood of contact is wildly greater for smoke. My life suggests
something like 10,000 times greater. When you multiply the two figures --
_probability of contact_ and _severity of contact_ I don't think that syringe
misuse is clearly more significant to my life.
What exactly is the problem that you have with this?
> Again, if you count yourself as a member of society, it does. Further,
> once addiction takes hold, it's all well and good for the bystander to say
> "well, he made his choice--let him live with it," but it's not that simple.
> We could discuss the delusion that "there is no such thing as society,
> only individuals" if you think it would be useful. I have yet to hear a
> convincing argument that the plight of the individual in the society of
> which I am a part has nothing to do with me.
Well, of course it has something to do with you. But what exactly? Which
rights of coercion do you reserve for yourself?
> > weeds then I am affected by their polution. Not so with the injection unless
> > they discard their needle haphazardly.
>
> And that's 90% of the point Pedro is making, of course. But how are you
> affected by their pollution, exactly?
I am made uncomfortable. If I was being totally unclear, I apologize. I
didn't expect this to be an issue.
> then you're still responsible (by your previously asserted logic) for the
> air that you take into your own lungs.
Which logic is that? Your assertion is like saying that one person is
responsible for defending their house from vandalism. It's true on one level,
but meaningless and trite in our societal context.
> If the hypothetical smoker wishes to
> exhale in Place A, and the smoke affects you in Place B, it's not exactly
> any of the smoker's business.
You're attempting (I think) to use verbiage like that previously used by me to
suggest that the two are similar. But it's silly. For your assertion to be
right, you would have to somehow demonstrate that I am culpable for the
junkie's addiction and as we know, you are very resistant to people sharing
guilt or blame. I'd be more likely to agree with that premise than you are.
> Even if Place A happens to be your favorite
> bar, restaurant, or telephone booth, if the owner of Place A imposes no
> prohibitions on smoking, I again don't see how it's any of the smoker's
> business what you do and don't inhale.
I agree. When a venue is owned by someone that owner should have the right and
ability to allow or disallow with impunity the use of drugs of any type...or
any other victimless activity for that matter. I'm not following how this
affects my stance. Even if I wouldn't ban drug use, that doesn't mean it
doesn't affect me which is all I'm claiming. Right?
> > I'm sure that the magnitude of consequences associated with IV drug use is
> > greater, but the risk itself is much less.
>
> On what basis to you make that conclusion?
I meant the risk of exposure to smoke/needles, not the whole of the risk
calculus. I worded it poorly.
> > So it's kind of a balance. I'm bothered by drug-smoke almost every day. I
> > encounter needles on the beach less than once per year.
>
> I suspect that you avoid such needles by avoiding areas of their
> occurrence. I suggest that you avoid drug-smoke by similarly avoiding areas
> of their occurrence.
I'm not sure why it matters, but living in New Jersey and going to the beach
several times each summer, I have access to the waste from NYC. There have
been some famous examples of needles washing up on these beaches. They do seem
to have corrected the problem, I haven't heard much about it in recent years
and I have yet to encounter it personally. I did run across an exposed syringe
while geocaching ( http://www.geocaching.com if interested) under a bridge over
the Raritan River and once as a kid, again under a bridge, this one a rail
bridge in suburban St. Louis.
> Unless the smoker is exhaling directly into your mouth
> or nose, I don't see why it's any of the smoker's business what you do with
> their discarded smoke.
You don't really believe that...at least I think you don't. It seems
inconsistent.
> More precisely, I don't see why you object to smoke
> but not to needles, other than because of your personal convenience (ie, out
> of sight, out of mind).
Well, I object to both, I just encounter one wildly more than the other. My
personal convenience is the primary motivator for my comments.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Curious, if true
|
| (...) Ah, never mind--upon re-reading my post I realize I was sort of picking a fight (it's been too long since we saw a fierce knock down, drag out shouting match around here!) Anyway, I happily accept your apology if you accept mine for being a (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Curious, if true
|
| (...) Yes, for instance. But in addition, there's the danger from needle one user to the next, whereas two pot-heads sharing a bong or a lighter are far less likely to transmit AIDS or Hepatitis. (...) While I recognize that your statement is (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
