Dream wrote:I'm not entirely sure of how likely it is, but even then, for me it's important that this doesn't apply to all cases, so it shouldn't be held as an universal principle.
It doesn't have to be universal to be a valid basis for action -- see the numbers comment above. And, past that, it's something no one can know for certain anyway. You may think no one would give a shit if you died, but odds are that's not true.
I mean if you're Charles Manson or someone like that maybe, but the average person would probably be surprised to learn just how many people would be affected by their death.Hmm, i admit i'm pretty uncertain on this one. On one hand, i don't think a right should be trumped by anything, even practical concerns. On the other hand, following such a principle could be seriously detrimental to quality of life.
Pretty much. No right is absolute, no matter how fundamental. They all come with caveats.
I don't know if i have much concern for idiots dying, however. "You deserve what you get" and all that.
Three things:
First, even idiots get to live. No matter how much we might like to we don't get to whack 'em just because they're stupid.
Second, we all have our idiot moments. Think of the last time you did something really dumb, and imagine your reaction if people said "yeah, that's too dumb to live, see ya." That's a fairly daunting prospect for most of us.
Third, even idiots are loved. If the aim of these sorts of laws is to prevent collateral damage the question of what the idiot deserves is moot. Instead they're designed to protect the rest of us from their idiocy.
But yeah, like Jomei said this is getting off-topic.
Meh. The topic is about the use of Asuka in an anti-drug campaign, so talking about the legitimacy of that campaign and the reasoning behind it seems reasonable.
Edit: There's a good article on the complexity of the marijuana issue
here. Good reading for anyone who says "Why are they doing this? It isn't a problem for
me."