TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,663
I have come across a very good example that highlights why prohibition doesn't work and in a previous topic, I also mentioned the situation where if one has nothing to lose, then that could lead to unfortunate and unwanted consequences. This video around the 0:42 mark talks about Canada's homeless population as well as how the social services and the government helps the homeless population instead of criminalizing them.
However, had this been the US, not only would there be laws to criminalize the certain segment of the population, but also the prohibition on drugs (the war on drugs itself) and further demonization and marginalization of that particular group of people. Therefore, it solves NONE of the problems that led them to such predicaments while also creating other problems and sweeping the existing (root) problems under the rug.
The concept of "harm reduction", basically instead of out-right prohibition, going for the lesser of two evils, you can't fully stop CTB, only that you end up with collateral damage and other unwanted consequences, so the best policy is to accept that people will always want to CTB, so just by giving them the option would reduce the overall harm towards society (as well as unwilling participants becoming witnesses or affected by barbaric means of CTB) while also honoring the civil rights and liberties of those who are really tired of life.
Before people rebut with "but that's just ENABLING them!", "It wouldn't fix the root problem", or anything against drugs and homelessness, prohibition doesn't solve the root problem (see the same example about alcohol prohibition of the 1920's in the US). This also applies to CTB prevention efforts where pro-lifers (aka pro-sufferers) solely and aggressively focus their efforts to just prevent CTB while ignoring the root causes and reasons for why people want to CTB..
How does this example relate to the right to CTB?
Anyways, in case people may be wondering about the main question of how Canada's handling of the homeless population, mental illnesses, and drug addiction relates to the right to die and my (constant) struggle in a pro-life, prohibitive society, well let me explain and unpack this. First off, as someone who is always a champion towards the right to die itself, in the (current and likely near future) prohibitive society that forbids it's people from being able to CTB by limiting methods, intervening against one's will (if caught or discovered – whether accidental or purposefully) by locking one up for wanting to CTB, attempting, acquiring, and/or planning to CTB, and basically do everything and anything to deprive me of my ability to CTB, forcing me and similar people to have to discreetly plan to CTB, acquire the material and information, hide until the time comes, then at the moment of the attempt hope that I don't mess up or that nothing goes wrong (whether due to incompetence, poor luck, outside factors, poor execution, etc.). Therefore, as a result of the prohibition of the right to die, forced sentience, and perpetual suffering as a result of a prohibitive, pro-life society, I have lashed out like I did pre-SaSu days (2015 and similar as mentioned in other threads).
The reason I used the Canadian government and how they treat the homelessness, drug addiction, and similar problems through means of harm reduction is to show how harm reduction is better than prohibition and persecution. I then also mentioned how the US does the EXACT opposite of what Canada does, and as a result (due to the war on drugs, war on poverty – aka the criminalization of homelessness, and more), the drug problem gets much worse, the homeless causes trouble (not limited to Skid Row, other areas in various big cities and urban areas in the US) due to being criminalized just for being "homeless" and also being punished for possession of drugs and other similar vices.
So, to say this succinctly: Due to the fact that I live in a pro-life, life worshipping, life fetishizing society/world, and that I'm not granted the right to die (on my own terms) without risk and even as far as being intervened against my will for even trying to leave this world (not withstanding failure of attempts), I'm trapped and forced to live (by default). As a result of this prohibition and not being able to freely CTB without consequence and without risk of failure (or intervention and other worse consequences, fates), I have lashed out in the past against pro-lifers by causing 'trouble' (aka trolling pro-lifers – as mentioned in other threads I wrote).
Ergo, I do compare my situation to the war on drugs, war on poverty as there are similarities albeit different issues. I think that the societal ills that result from forced life and prohibition of the ultimate liberty (which is the right to die on one's own terms) is that people will still CTB (albeit with less success, riskier and more barbaric methods resulting in possibly collateral damage), or those who don't cause trouble and other harm to others whether out of malice or just pure desperation (think of the example of the cornered animal).
Similarly, just like the war on drugs and poverty, those who are criminalized for being poor or just for possession or consumption and usage of drugs won't just stop using drugs. Instead, they will find illicit means to acquire their fix (of drugs and other substances), often through unethical, illegal, immoral, and harmful means (such as robbery, theft, vandalism, fraud, and other crimes or whatever to get their fix/high), thus resulting in a net-increase of overall "harm" towards society. Therefore, I do not agree with outright prohibition on drugs (even as I non-drug user myself I do support the decriminalization and/or legalization of drugs).
I hope this article made sense and if there is anything that isn't clear, feel free to respond and I will elaborate and answer whatever question that I can.
However, had this been the US, not only would there be laws to criminalize the certain segment of the population, but also the prohibition on drugs (the war on drugs itself) and further demonization and marginalization of that particular group of people. Therefore, it solves NONE of the problems that led them to such predicaments while also creating other problems and sweeping the existing (root) problems under the rug.
The concept of "harm reduction", basically instead of out-right prohibition, going for the lesser of two evils, you can't fully stop CTB, only that you end up with collateral damage and other unwanted consequences, so the best policy is to accept that people will always want to CTB, so just by giving them the option would reduce the overall harm towards society (as well as unwilling participants becoming witnesses or affected by barbaric means of CTB) while also honoring the civil rights and liberties of those who are really tired of life.
Before people rebut with "but that's just ENABLING them!", "It wouldn't fix the root problem", or anything against drugs and homelessness, prohibition doesn't solve the root problem (see the same example about alcohol prohibition of the 1920's in the US). This also applies to CTB prevention efforts where pro-lifers (aka pro-sufferers) solely and aggressively focus their efforts to just prevent CTB while ignoring the root causes and reasons for why people want to CTB..
How does this example relate to the right to CTB?
Anyways, in case people may be wondering about the main question of how Canada's handling of the homeless population, mental illnesses, and drug addiction relates to the right to die and my (constant) struggle in a pro-life, prohibitive society, well let me explain and unpack this. First off, as someone who is always a champion towards the right to die itself, in the (current and likely near future) prohibitive society that forbids it's people from being able to CTB by limiting methods, intervening against one's will (if caught or discovered – whether accidental or purposefully) by locking one up for wanting to CTB, attempting, acquiring, and/or planning to CTB, and basically do everything and anything to deprive me of my ability to CTB, forcing me and similar people to have to discreetly plan to CTB, acquire the material and information, hide until the time comes, then at the moment of the attempt hope that I don't mess up or that nothing goes wrong (whether due to incompetence, poor luck, outside factors, poor execution, etc.). Therefore, as a result of the prohibition of the right to die, forced sentience, and perpetual suffering as a result of a prohibitive, pro-life society, I have lashed out like I did pre-SaSu days (2015 and similar as mentioned in other threads).
The reason I used the Canadian government and how they treat the homelessness, drug addiction, and similar problems through means of harm reduction is to show how harm reduction is better than prohibition and persecution. I then also mentioned how the US does the EXACT opposite of what Canada does, and as a result (due to the war on drugs, war on poverty – aka the criminalization of homelessness, and more), the drug problem gets much worse, the homeless causes trouble (not limited to Skid Row, other areas in various big cities and urban areas in the US) due to being criminalized just for being "homeless" and also being punished for possession of drugs and other similar vices.
So, to say this succinctly: Due to the fact that I live in a pro-life, life worshipping, life fetishizing society/world, and that I'm not granted the right to die (on my own terms) without risk and even as far as being intervened against my will for even trying to leave this world (not withstanding failure of attempts), I'm trapped and forced to live (by default). As a result of this prohibition and not being able to freely CTB without consequence and without risk of failure (or intervention and other worse consequences, fates), I have lashed out in the past against pro-lifers by causing 'trouble' (aka trolling pro-lifers – as mentioned in other threads I wrote).
Ergo, I do compare my situation to the war on drugs, war on poverty as there are similarities albeit different issues. I think that the societal ills that result from forced life and prohibition of the ultimate liberty (which is the right to die on one's own terms) is that people will still CTB (albeit with less success, riskier and more barbaric methods resulting in possibly collateral damage), or those who don't cause trouble and other harm to others whether out of malice or just pure desperation (think of the example of the cornered animal).
Similarly, just like the war on drugs and poverty, those who are criminalized for being poor or just for possession or consumption and usage of drugs won't just stop using drugs. Instead, they will find illicit means to acquire their fix (of drugs and other substances), often through unethical, illegal, immoral, and harmful means (such as robbery, theft, vandalism, fraud, and other crimes or whatever to get their fix/high), thus resulting in a net-increase of overall "harm" towards society. Therefore, I do not agree with outright prohibition on drugs (even as I non-drug user myself I do support the decriminalization and/or legalization of drugs).
I hope this article made sense and if there is anything that isn't clear, feel free to respond and I will elaborate and answer whatever question that I can.
