"Dr. Mabuse" - Bernard Sainz - VDB - & prison sentences

[ChrisE]

I think what ChrisE is trying to say here is that you can take a moral stance on a subject or activity without it being regarded as a criminal act that will get one thrown in prison.

IE, he might think that getting high (itself) should be perfectly legal, yet injuring another through one's actions as a RESULT of getting high is where one should have legal consequences.

It's (in short form) what people generally call libertarianism.

I myself don't generally agree. I suppose we could allow unlicenced physicians to prescribe EPO as well (so long as they don't kill anyone), but that makes us lose an entire level of societal protection.

Hookers damage more than their vaginas. And so do the Johns that visit them. They both damage families, kids, unwitting individuals that come in contact with the bodies of their clients, etc (HPV can be transmitted condom or no condom). The line of possible victims is long.

Drug abusers also damage more than just themselves.

And that is where laws come into play. Alcohol is legal, but if you drink and drive you go to jail. Owning guns is legal, but if you shoot somebody in most circumstances you go to prison.

There are repurcussions to all decisions, and if the repurcussions of those decisons are restricted to the decider then it is all good IMO.

Your example of the non-dr prescribing stuff is a strawman...he is affecting more than himself from the outset so that is not the same thing. Your description of the John affecting others is a result he chose, and whether there is a law against that or not it will still happen. The chance of affecting his family should be much more of a deterrant than passing laws not allowing somebody to get a BJ for 20 bucks.

You could extrapolate what you are saying to most everything in society. Cars kill, so let's outlaw them. If you take a bottle of sleeping pills you will die, so let's outlaw them. Etc.

My point is that lines are drawn arbitrarily in society, usually based upon religious BS. Ultimately the decision comes down to the individual and they will do something whether it is legal or not if they want to...why restrict those of us that can handle those decisions, instead of making us all act like sheep because of a few that can't? Last time I checked the Dutch weren't strung out in the ditches with herpes.

 

[BotanyBay]

...why restrict those of us that can handle those decisions, instead of making us all act like sheep because of a few that can't? Last time I checked the Dutch weren't strung out in the ditches with herpes.

And it always boils down to this. That basic lack of human humility that exists in so many. "I can handle this. Not like those ADDICTS over there. Go bother them, not me".

Problem is, we can't take the chances to see which people can handle it and which ones can't. And too many innocents get hurt along the way.

 

[joe_papp]

And it always boils down to this. That basic lack of human humility that exists in so many. "I can handle this. Not like those ADDICTS over there. Go bother them, not me".

Problem is, we can't take the chances to see which people can handle it and which ones can't. And too many innocents get hurt along the way.

Hmmm, well, what makes the Dutch capable then of handling those decisions but Australians not? I'm American, and drugs and prostitution are illegal here (Except that in Nevada you can pay astronomically for over-rated sex at the Bunny Ranch) - but I'm also European - legally so - not Dutch, but still have an EU passport - might I be able to handle hookers and hash w/o bringing about the downfall of society?

I completely disagree w/ the nanny state notion...the Drug War in the US has been a colossal failure and the revenue the state has lost out on through missed taxation/regulatory opportunities has all been collected by the narcotrafficantes in the form of illegal profits. Across-the-board legalization might not be the answer, either, but absolute prohibition hasn't worked. And as for prostitution, again, where it's legal and regulated, the societal harm is minimal - where it's illegal and unregulated is where there is massive human trafficking, rampant disease, the destruction of families when members are either arrested for partaking or serving, or fall ill, etc. In Uruguay, for example, prostitution is regulated by the state, sex workers are individually licensed, subject to bi-weekly medical controls provided by the state, the gov't captures its share of the revenue and 15 year old girls aren't being trafficked-in from Moldavia or Ukraine. The country is principally Catholic and society has hardly fallen apart there (if anything, the family unit is probably stronger than in the USA!).

The reality is that blanket prohibitions aren't nearly as beneficial as one might think, and "we" have the capacity to make responsible decisions concerning recreational drug use and transacting for sex (lol - insert joke re. every relationship ever lol).

Down w/ the nanny state! lol

 

[fmk_RoI]

Nine months for Sainz: http://www.sportstarlive.com/other-sports/doping-doctor-jailed-for-nine-months/article19625824.ece

I wonder if he had his Movistar suitcase packed, ready for this eventuality...

(Source)