Eutanasia?

[SebastianJu]

If there is a group of person which should have the right to end their life with doctor-assistance, it is the faggots  . Less of this shot can just benefit   !

Oh well... a nice dose of homophobia was what was needed in here ... somehow i know you will beat around when someone asks you if you are homosexual. All this fear...

Maybe in some years you become sexually stable so that you don't feel the need to show that you are not homosexual, by attacking homosexuals that way.

You're taking the problem by the wrong side... I do not hate them because I am too. I just know how things have to be. In sexuality, it's male and female, not male and male ! That's this way world has been created ! If I follow how you think, I hate niggers because I am ? Be sure not !

No, i did not say that you are homosexual. Some of the persons that go against homosexuals are faggots too, though they hate it. But i know that practically every heterosexual man fears being seen as homosexual. That's something you simply don't want to be. Though that goes away at some point.

So you come from a religious side? Well, stories written by people in the past should not decide how reality is. Reality shows that homosexuality is there by animals as well as with humans. And i came to the conclusion that it is a perfectly fine type of love. It's not that they decided to be that way. So if they were born that way, then, as a religious person, you might need to think that god created them that way. No problem.

I think you do not born gay. That's why, like every mental illness it's not God creation but an ill that you catch, like Alzheimer's or schizophrenia.

I know that mindset and you can be sure that there were a lot of religious groups that tried to heal that "sickness". The simply result is that it is no sickness. It can't be healed. It is what it is.

So if it can't be healed, this is an incurably ill like AIDS. The solution to such a problem is teaching at school that it is bad and unnatural. Unfortunately, most of the time they teach the inverse  ...

Simply because you will not reach more than pushing some persons into feelings of feeling bad and wrong about their sexuality. You can't do anything if someone does not get attracted by the other sex. You won't change it. The only thing you can do is make him or her feel bad and wrong. For a thing that surely is not an illness. There is no bad harm to the body or anything that would meet the description of aan illness. It is love in another way. Nothing more or less. The only problem coming from it is the problem some religious people have with it. And religion was often enough very bad in deciding what is correct and what not. Since even though religious books were claimed coming from god all the time... at the end they are books written by people that believed doing what god wants.

Surely that is no base to justify that homosexuality is bad or an illness. Though religions achieved to turn sex into something bad, sinfull and thing to avoid anyway. That alone shoul show that religions really can't be taken as a guideline of what is right or wrong. Religions simply were created by persons, these persons usually had a very antique view of the world. We would still throw rocks at people having free sex when we surely would believe that these books were written by god. Well, some believe so and join isis. But the sane part of the world knows that this can't be the way.

You seem to be a non-religious guy and that's not a problem for me. I think that homosexuality is bad because it's against Nature (or God's law if you prefer), because it stops some people to have child and because they're simply not men anymore.

It's not that i not believe in god. I think it's logical that the total amount of life existing has a conscious of itself, which could be named god. You know, even the citizens of a country work like neurons like in a brain and they form a kind of big will of the masses. So it's not hard to imagine god exists.

Though i don't trust religions, books about religions and so on. They are all written by man and even those interpreting are man. There is no religion that directly has god speaking to you. That would be an interesting religion indeed.

I don't think it is against nature. It's part of life and only humans allow themselfes to mark some things as bad and some as right. Mostly they mark those things bad that hurt others. Gay persons don't hurt anybody. They don't have a problem with that besides that that others might have a problem with it. Sexuality is made bad in many religions or restricted. Though it is a perfectly natural thing to do. And surely sexuality is not only for having childs. Even some monkeys have a very rich sexual live and it is not for having childs all the time. It's because they enjoy Sex. So besides gay man not getting children, it still would be fine. I mean otherwise you would need to mark everyone wrong and sick who decides that he doesn't want kids. So that is no reason to blame someone being sick.

[1715334432]

1715334432

[1715334432]

1715334432

[1715334432]

1715334432

[1715334432]

1715334432

[1715334432]

1715334432

[SebastianJu]

when you shoot a dear and it still breath... do you watch it die helpless or you do what's necessary? what would a lion do?

Though i think it's not about the mercy to give someone a fast painless death. It's more about deaths that might end a life that in fact could be a rich life when death would not have been chosen.

Well, i think, if a person went through a thouroughly psychological examination where several doctors agree that this person will not change his mind or so. If there really is no hope. Then it might make sense. But otherwise society would be at fault ending lives out of a whim.

[SebastianJu]

when you shoot a dear and it still breath... do you watch it die helpless or you do what's necessary? what would a lion do?

Eat him maybe? 
There is many ways a person which can use to end his life including suicide, euthanasia... The only difference is that you get killed by someone else in euthanasia.
Never will support or encourage someone to end his life instead I will refer him to a psychiatric to treat him (talking about the OP case).
If he has an end stage cancer, painkillers even knowing that they aren't helping a lot, can reduce his pain.
For dementia & schizophrenia they need someone who help them. (not to get ride of them, this only will make the retirement assurance happy).

Finally, should we end a life of a young girl because she suffers during her periods? Someone who has a chronic headaches? ... Next years i think we will hear about theses cases!

Next thing would be we hear about relatives deciding to kill their grandma because she got dementia and can't decide that anymore. Well, that would be eutanasia really. Reminds me on hitler on his "ending unworthy lives".

[subSTRATA]

when you shoot a dear and it still breath... do you watch it die helpless or you do what's necessary? what would a lion do?

Eat him maybe? 
There is many ways a person which can use to end his life including suicide, euthanasia... The only difference is that you get killed by someone else in euthanasia.
Never will support or encourage someone to end his life instead I will refer him to a psychiatric to treat him (talking about the OP case).
If he has an end stage cancer, painkillers even knowing that they aren't helping a lot, can reduce his pain.
For dementia & schizophrenia they need someone who help them. (not to get ride of them, this only will make the retirement assurance happy).

Finally, should we end a life of a young girl because she suffers during her periods? Someone who has a chronic headaches? ... Next years i think we will hear about theses cases!

Next thing would be we hear about relatives deciding to kill their grandma because she got dementia and can't decide that anymore. Well, that would be eutanasia really. Reminds me on hitler on his "ending unworthy lives".

getting a bit slippery slope there, but regardless, i think that a topic as controversial as euthanasia will come to be more or less accepted in the future, as with many controversial things. take drugs for example, we're sitting here having  discussions on having drugs be legalized, wouldnt surprise me if euthanasia were to become accepted in the next few decades (likely on the basis of free will to do what one wishes with their life).

[SebastianJu]

when you shoot a dear and it still breath... do you watch it die helpless or you do what's necessary? what would a lion do?

Eat him maybe? 
There is many ways a person which can use to end his life including suicide, euthanasia... The only difference is that you get killed by someone else in euthanasia.
Never will support or encourage someone to end his life instead I will refer him to a psychiatric to treat him (talking about the OP case).
If he has an end stage cancer, painkillers even knowing that they aren't helping a lot, can reduce his pain.
For dementia & schizophrenia they need someone who help them. (not to get ride of them, this only will make the retirement assurance happy).

Finally, should we end a life of a young girl because she suffers during her periods? Someone who has a chronic headaches? ... Next years i think we will hear about theses cases!

Next thing would be we hear about relatives deciding to kill their grandma because she got dementia and can't decide that anymore. Well, that would be eutanasia really. Reminds me on hitler on his "ending unworthy lives".

getting a bit slippery slope there, but regardless, i think that a topic as controversial as euthanasia will come to be more or less accepted in the future, as with many controversial things. take drugs for example, we're sitting here having  discussions on having drugs be legalized, wouldnt surprise me if euthanasia were to become accepted in the next few decades (likely on the basis of free will to do what one wishes with their life).

I don't think so. Legalization of drugs only gets discussed seriously because marijuana has certain positive effects on health and probably less negative effects than alcohol. I think the harder drugs are not really discussed by normal people in the majority.

Next thing is the religious people that see it as a sin to commit suicide. They are influential and that can have a big impact too.

[subSTRATA]

when you shoot a dear and it still breath... do you watch it die helpless or you do what's necessary? what would a lion do?

Eat him maybe? 
There is many ways a person which can use to end his life including suicide, euthanasia... The only difference is that you get killed by someone else in euthanasia.
Never will support or encourage someone to end his life instead I will refer him to a psychiatric to treat him (talking about the OP case).
If he has an end stage cancer, painkillers even knowing that they aren't helping a lot, can reduce his pain.
For dementia & schizophrenia they need someone who help them. (not to get ride of them, this only will make the retirement assurance happy).

Finally, should we end a life of a young girl because she suffers during her periods? Someone who has a chronic headaches? ... Next years i think we will hear about theses cases!

Next thing would be we hear about relatives deciding to kill their grandma because she got dementia and can't decide that anymore. Well, that would be eutanasia really. Reminds me on hitler on his "ending unworthy lives".

getting a bit slippery slope there, but regardless, i think that a topic as controversial as euthanasia will come to be more or less accepted in the future, as with many controversial things. take drugs for example, we're sitting here having  discussions on having drugs be legalized, wouldnt surprise me if euthanasia were to become accepted in the next few decades (likely on the basis of free will to do what one wishes with their life).

I don't think so. Legalization of drugs only gets discussed seriously because marijuana has certain positive effects on health and probably less negative effects than alcohol. I think the harder drugs are not really discussed by normal people in the majority.

Next thing is the religious people that see it as a sin to commit suicide. They are influential and that can have a big impact too.

but its not just marijuana, take portugal for instance, when they decriminalized all drugs 14 years ago:
https://www.thefix.com/content/decrim-nation-portugal-ten-years-later

"Time: “Judging by every metric, drug decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success. It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country.""

decriminalizing in the US as portugal has done would solve many problems, including the ongoing problem of overcrowding in prisons. but we all know prisons make way too much money for that to be brought up politics anyways.

another article: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

as for the religion issue, the current generation is currently seen as the least religious generation in a long time, and i expect the trend to continue over the next few decades, as the next generation's children will likely lack a religious influence in their lives with the current, non-religious generation as their parents. as the trend continues, we can logically expect the influence of religion to dwindle in the future society.

http://newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscenter/news_story.aspx?sid=75623

[SebastianJu]

when you shoot a dear and it still breath... do you watch it die helpless or you do what's necessary? what would a lion do?

Eat him maybe? 
There is many ways a person which can use to end his life including suicide, euthanasia... The only difference is that you get killed by someone else in euthanasia.
Never will support or encourage someone to end his life instead I will refer him to a psychiatric to treat him (talking about the OP case).
If he has an end stage cancer, painkillers even knowing that they aren't helping a lot, can reduce his pain.
For dementia & schizophrenia they need someone who help them. (not to get ride of them, this only will make the retirement assurance happy).

Finally, should we end a life of a young girl because she suffers during her periods? Someone who has a chronic headaches? ... Next years i think we will hear about theses cases!

Next thing would be we hear about relatives deciding to kill their grandma because she got dementia and can't decide that anymore. Well, that would be eutanasia really. Reminds me on hitler on his "ending unworthy lives".

getting a bit slippery slope there, but regardless, i think that a topic as controversial as euthanasia will come to be more or less accepted in the future, as with many controversial things. take drugs for example, we're sitting here having  discussions on having drugs be legalized, wouldnt surprise me if euthanasia were to become accepted in the next few decades (likely on the basis of free will to do what one wishes with their life).

I don't think so. Legalization of drugs only gets discussed seriously because marijuana has certain positive effects on health and probably less negative effects than alcohol. I think the harder drugs are not really discussed by normal people in the majority.

Next thing is the religious people that see it as a sin to commit suicide. They are influential and that can have a big impact too.

but its not just marijuana, take portugal for instance, when they decriminalized all drugs 14 years ago:
https://www.thefix.com/content/decrim-nation-portugal-ten-years-later

"Time: “Judging by every metric, drug decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success. It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country.""

decriminalizing in the US as portugal has done would solve many problems, including the ongoing problem of overcrowding in prisons. but we all know prisons make way too much money for that to be brought up politics anyways.

another article: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

as for the religion issue, the current generation is currently seen as the least religious generation in a long time, and i expect the trend to continue over the next few decades, as the next generation's children will likely lack a religious influence in their lives with the current, non-religious generation as their parents. as the trend continues, we can logically expect the influence of religion to dwindle in the future society.

http://newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscenter/news_story.aspx?sid=75623

You are right, hard drugs are discussed too. Though like you state, with the younger generation growing up, there is a problem with that getting to the edge of at least being possible to achieve. I mean many people will be convinced with marijuana but hard drugs are an argumentation that most not can follow.

Maybe it would need a small scale test to convince people. But even that sounds impossible at the moment.

And yes, it would be interesting to see the results.

[subSTRATA]

when you shoot a dear and it still breath... do you watch it die helpless or you do what's necessary? what would a lion do?

Eat him maybe?  
There is many ways a person which can use to end his life including suicide, euthanasia... The only difference is that you get killed by someone else in euthanasia.
Never will support or encourage someone to end his life instead I will refer him to a psychiatric to treat him (talking about the OP case).
If he has an end stage cancer, painkillers even knowing that they aren't helping a lot, can reduce his pain.
For dementia & schizophrenia they need someone who help them. (not to get ride of them, this only will make the retirement assurance happy).

Finally, should we end a life of a young girl because she suffers during her periods? Someone who has a chronic headaches? ... Next years i think we will hear about theses cases!

Next thing would be we hear about relatives deciding to kill their grandma because she got dementia and can't decide that anymore. Well, that would be eutanasia really. Reminds me on hitler on his "ending unworthy lives".

getting a bit slippery slope there, but regardless, i think that a topic as controversial as euthanasia will come to be more or less accepted in the future, as with many controversial things. take drugs for example, we're sitting here having  discussions on having drugs be legalized, wouldnt surprise me if euthanasia were to become accepted in the next few decades (likely on the basis of free will to do what one wishes with their life).

I don't think so. Legalization of drugs only gets discussed seriously because marijuana has certain positive effects on health and probably less negative effects than alcohol. I think the harder drugs are not really discussed by normal people in the majority.

Next thing is the religious people that see it as a sin to commit suicide. They are influential and that can have a big impact too.

but its not just marijuana, take portugal for instance, when they decriminalized all drugs 14 years ago:
https://www.thefix.com/content/decrim-nation-portugal-ten-years-later

"Time: “Judging by every metric, drug decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success. It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country.""

decriminalizing in the US as portugal has done would solve many problems, including the ongoing problem of overcrowding in prisons. but we all know prisons make way too much money for that to be brought up politics anyways.

another article: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

as for the religion issue, the current generation is currently seen as the least religious generation in a long time, and i expect the trend to continue over the next few decades, as the next generation's children will likely lack a religious influence in their lives with the current, non-religious generation as their parents. as the trend continues, we can logically expect the influence of religion to dwindle in the future society.

http://newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscenter/news_story.aspx?sid=75623

You are right, hard drugs are discussed too. Though like you state, with the younger generation growing up, there is a problem with that getting to the edge of at least being possible to achieve. I mean many people will be convinced with marijuana but hard drugs are an argumentation that most not can follow.

Maybe it would need a small scale test to convince people. But even that sounds impossible at the moment.

And yes, it would be interesting to see the results.

on that same note, a film that came out quite recently touched on that subject a little bit: narcopolis (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1957938/) is set ~20 years in the future where hard drugs are legal, namely narcotics. it also depicts most of the population as being under the influence for a great portion of their time as well. the movie itself was sort of meh though, huge parts of the plot that were completely unnecessary and some unexplainable plot holes here and there. what it did however, was present a dystopian society that could possibly be a realistic society some decades in the future.

[Losvienleg]

If there is a group of person which should have the right to end their life with doctor-assistance, it is the faggots  . Less of this shot can just benefit   !

Oh well... a nice dose of homophobia was what was needed in here ... somehow i know you will beat around when someone asks you if you are homosexual. All this fear...

Maybe in some years you become sexually stable so that you don't feel the need to show that you are not homosexual, by attacking homosexuals that way.

You're taking the problem by the wrong side... I do not hate them because I am too. I just know how things have to be. In sexuality, it's male and female, not male and male ! That's this way world has been created ! If I follow how you think, I hate niggers because I am ? Be sure not !

No, i did not say that you are homosexual. Some of the persons that go against homosexuals are faggots too, though they hate it. But i know that practically every heterosexual man fears being seen as homosexual. That's something you simply don't want to be. Though that goes away at some point.

So you come from a religious side? Well, stories written by people in the past should not decide how reality is. Reality shows that homosexuality is there by animals as well as with humans. And i came to the conclusion that it is a perfectly fine type of love. It's not that they decided to be that way. So if they were born that way, then, as a religious person, you might need to think that god created them that way. No problem.

I think you do not born gay. That's why, like every mental illness it's not God creation but an ill that you catch, like Alzheimer's or schizophrenia.

I know that mindset and you can be sure that there were a lot of religious groups that tried to heal that "sickness". The simply result is that it is no sickness. It can't be healed. It is what it is.

So if it can't be healed, this is an incurably ill like AIDS. The solution to such a problem is teaching at school that it is bad and unnatural. Unfortunately, most of the time they teach the inverse  ...

Simply because you will not reach more than pushing some persons into feelings of feeling bad and wrong about their sexuality. You can't do anything if someone does not get attracted by the other sex. You won't change it. The only thing you can do is make him or her feel bad and wrong. For a thing that surely is not an illness. There is no bad harm to the body or anything that would meet the description of aan illness. It is love in another way. Nothing more or less. The only problem coming from it is the problem some religious people have with it. And religion was often enough very bad in deciding what is correct and what not. Since even though religious books were claimed coming from god all the time... at the end they are books written by people that believed doing what god wants.

Surely that is no base to justify that homosexuality is bad or an illness. Though religions achieved to turn sex into something bad, sinfull and thing to avoid anyway. That alone shoul show that religions really can't be taken as a guideline of what is right or wrong. Religions simply were created by persons, these persons usually had a very antique view of the world. We would still throw rocks at people having free sex when we surely would believe that these books were written by god. Well, some believe so and join isis. But the sane part of the world knows that this can't be the way.

You seem to be a non-religious guy and that's not a problem for me. I think that homosexuality is bad because it's against Nature (or God's law if you prefer), because it stops some people to have child and because they're simply not men anymore.

It's not that i not believe in god. I think it's logical that the total amount of life existing has a conscious of itself, which could be named god. You know, even the citizens of a country work like neurons like in a brain and they form a kind of big will of the masses. So it's not hard to imagine god exists.

Though i don't trust religions, books about religions and so on. They are all written by man and even those interpreting are man. There is no religion that directly has god speaking to you. That would be an interesting religion indeed.

I don't think it is against nature. It's part of life and only humans allow themselfes to mark some things as bad and some as right. Mostly they mark those things bad that hurt others. Gay persons don't hurt anybody. They don't have a problem with that besides that that others might have a problem with it. Sexuality is made bad in many religions or restricted. Though it is a perfectly natural thing to do. And surely sexuality is not only for having childs. Even some monkeys have a very rich sexual live and it is not for having childs all the time. It's because they enjoy Sex. So besides gay man not getting children, it still would be fine. I mean otherwise you would need to mark everyone wrong and sick who decides that he doesn't want kids. So that is no reason to blame someone being sick.

In itself being gay, beside it's unnormal aspect, has nothing "dangerous". It is only that if you allow this, you have to allow things likes pregnant interuption, transsexual... And this two things CAN'T BE ALLOWED.

[SebastianJu]

when you shoot a dear and it still breath... do you watch it die helpless or you do what's necessary? what would a lion do?

Eat him maybe?  
There is many ways a person which can use to end his life including suicide, euthanasia... The only difference is that you get killed by someone else in euthanasia.
Never will support or encourage someone to end his life instead I will refer him to a psychiatric to treat him (talking about the OP case).
If he has an end stage cancer, painkillers even knowing that they aren't helping a lot, can reduce his pain.
For dementia & schizophrenia they need someone who help them. (not to get ride of them, this only will make the retirement assurance happy).

Finally, should we end a life of a young girl because she suffers during her periods? Someone who has a chronic headaches? ... Next years i think we will hear about theses cases!

Next thing would be we hear about relatives deciding to kill their grandma because she got dementia and can't decide that anymore. Well, that would be eutanasia really. Reminds me on hitler on his "ending unworthy lives".

getting a bit slippery slope there, but regardless, i think that a topic as controversial as euthanasia will come to be more or less accepted in the future, as with many controversial things. take drugs for example, we're sitting here having  discussions on having drugs be legalized, wouldnt surprise me if euthanasia were to become accepted in the next few decades (likely on the basis of free will to do what one wishes with their life).

I don't think so. Legalization of drugs only gets discussed seriously because marijuana has certain positive effects on health and probably less negative effects than alcohol. I think the harder drugs are not really discussed by normal people in the majority.

Next thing is the religious people that see it as a sin to commit suicide. They are influential and that can have a big impact too.

but its not just marijuana, take portugal for instance, when they decriminalized all drugs 14 years ago:
https://www.thefix.com/content/decrim-nation-portugal-ten-years-later

"Time: “Judging by every metric, drug decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success. It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country.""

decriminalizing in the US as portugal has done would solve many problems, including the ongoing problem of overcrowding in prisons. but we all know prisons make way too much money for that to be brought up politics anyways.

another article: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

as for the religion issue, the current generation is currently seen as the least religious generation in a long time, and i expect the trend to continue over the next few decades, as the next generation's children will likely lack a religious influence in their lives with the current, non-religious generation as their parents. as the trend continues, we can logically expect the influence of religion to dwindle in the future society.

http://newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscenter/news_story.aspx?sid=75623

You are right, hard drugs are discussed too. Though like you state, with the younger generation growing up, there is a problem with that getting to the edge of at least being possible to achieve. I mean many people will be convinced with marijuana but hard drugs are an argumentation that most not can follow.

Maybe it would need a small scale test to convince people. But even that sounds impossible at the moment.

And yes, it would be interesting to see the results.

on that same note, a film that came out quite recently touched on that subject a little bit: narcopolis (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1957938/) is set ~20 years in the future where hard drugs are legal, namely narcotics. it also depicts most of the population as being under the influence for a great portion of their time as well. the movie itself was sort of meh though, huge parts of the plot that were completely unnecessary and some unexplainable plot holes here and there. what it did however, was present a dystopian society that could possibly be a realistic society some decades in the future.

It would be not unlikely. I mean there were certain drugs in the history and some of them were very commonly used while in the same time letting the work power or health of the society drop. That governments intervened, and at some pointe overreacted, is somewhat understandable. And i now have read that the governments forbid drugs because of the organized crime taking advantage of it. If that is true then legalizing might not bring the effect they wish.

[subSTRATA]

-
It would be not unlikely. I mean there were certain drugs in the history and some of them were very commonly used while in the same time letting the work power or health of the society drop. That governments intervened, and at some pointe overreacted, is somewhat understandable. And i now have read that the governments forbid drugs because of the organized crime taking advantage of it. If that is true then legalizing might not bring the effect they wish.

true, history repeats itself. correct me if im wrong but i believe it was imperial china that was heavily influenced by opiates. that aside, organized crime in drugs exists and is incredibly profitable because it supplies the drugs people want. if those drugs were to be made legal, organized crime would likely turn to stronger drugs that would be classified as illegal, or work to supply drugs cheaper than what would legally be sold to maintain their profits. imo, the drug problem, from a legal standpoint, will never be solved.

[freedomno1]

-
It would be not unlikely. I mean there were certain drugs in the history and some of them were very commonly used while in the same time letting the work power or health of the society drop. That governments intervened, and at some pointe overreacted, is somewhat understandable. And i now have read that the governments forbid drugs because of the organized crime taking advantage of it. If that is true then legalizing might not bring the effect they wish.

true, history repeats itself. correct me if im wrong but i believe it was imperial china that was heavily influenced by opiates. that aside, organized crime in drugs exists and is incredibly profitable because it supplies the drugs people want. if those drugs were to be made legal, organized crime would likely turn to stronger drugs that would be classified as illegal, or work to supply drugs cheaper than what would legally be sold to maintain their profits. imo, the drug problem, from a legal standpoint, will never be solved.

Opium trade was forced on China historically and they lost the opium wars and ended up with an addiction problem.
That said its true that when governments intervene they tend to go to any extent to contain the threat.
Which can give rise to large organizations to traffic those goods like the rise of the mafia, or mexico drug cartels.
Deregulation does have its benefits as it removes the stigma associated with it and provides more options to resolve problems.

That said back on Euthanasia I'm against people asking others to kill them, a license to self suicide if supported makes more sense.

[SebastianJu]

-
It would be not unlikely. I mean there were certain drugs in the history and some of them were very commonly used while in the same time letting the work power or health of the society drop. That governments intervened, and at some pointe overreacted, is somewhat understandable. And i now have read that the governments forbid drugs because of the organized crime taking advantage of it. If that is true then legalizing might not bring the effect they wish.

true, history repeats itself. correct me if im wrong but i believe it was imperial china that was heavily influenced by opiates. that aside, organized crime in drugs exists and is incredibly profitable because it supplies the drugs people want. if those drugs were to be made legal, organized crime would likely turn to stronger drugs that would be classified as illegal, or work to supply drugs cheaper than what would legally be sold to maintain their profits. imo, the drug problem, from a legal standpoint, will never be solved.

Yes, it surely will hit the organized crime. Though i was surprised to read that the organized crime came first, when these things were allowed. They made a big business with it and government partly disallowed drugs because they made a profit. So the question is if legalization really will have a huge impact. In Portugal maybe the drug lords decided that it would be smart to suppress drugs for some time to have a role model for the worldwide legality of drugs?

I'm not sure if that is possible. Only was surprised that the profits were first and then the permit came.

[subSTRATA]

-
It would be not unlikely. I mean there were certain drugs in the history and some of them were very commonly used while in the same time letting the work power or health of the society drop. That governments intervened, and at some pointe overreacted, is somewhat understandable. And i now have read that the governments forbid drugs because of the organized crime taking advantage of it. If that is true then legalizing might not bring the effect they wish.

true, history repeats itself. correct me if im wrong but i believe it was imperial china that was heavily influenced by opiates. that aside, organized crime in drugs exists and is incredibly profitable because it supplies the drugs people want. if those drugs were to be made legal, organized crime would likely turn to stronger drugs that would be classified as illegal, or work to supply drugs cheaper than what would legally be sold to maintain their profits. imo, the drug problem, from a legal standpoint, will never be solved.

Yes, it surely will hit the organized crime. Though i was surprised to read that the organized crime came first, when these things were allowed. They made a big business with it and government partly disallowed drugs because they made a profit. So the question is if legalization really will have a huge impact. In Portugal maybe the drug lords decided that it would be smart to suppress drugs for some time to have a role model for the worldwide legality of drugs?

I'm not sure if that is possible. Only was surprised that the profits were first and then the permit came.

even if drugs of all sorts became legalized, im of the opinion that humans will always manage to find something new that will be, in turn, classified as illegal because it id too potent/dangerous. however, even if legalization cannot do away with drug cartels and such, there would be numerous benefits, such as the ability to tax drug sales and to have some commission in place to ensure the purity and safety of these substances for consumption.

that being said, this has gotten rather far from the subject of euthanasia, but good discussions usually tend to do so.

Opium trade was forced on China historically and they lost the opium wars and ended up with an addiction problem.
That said its true that when governments intervene they tend to go to any extent to contain the threat.
Which can give rise to large organizations to traffic those goods like the rise of the mafia, or mexico drug cartels.
Deregulation does have its benefits as it removes the stigma associated with it and provides more options to resolve problems.

That said back on Euthanasia I'm against people asking others to kill them, a license to self suicide if supported makes more sense.

thanks for the clarification, but as for the suggestion for a license for suicide, how would that impact anything? would having such a license permit a holder to a facility that would assist in that person's suicide? if so, how is that any different from euthanasia?

[freedomno1]

That said back on Euthanasia I'm against people asking others to kill them, a license to self suicide if supported makes more sense.

Thanks for the clarification, but as for the suggestion for a license for suicide, how would that impact anything? would having such a license permit a holder to a facility that would assist in that person's suicide? if so, how is that any different from euthanasia?

No problem and the benefit of a license is that people will need to decide for themselves without involving the guilt of others who survive after the person is dead. If they are unwilling to do so then they must live on, in the end it's their ultimate choice and they should be held responsible for their own outcome and not put it into the hands of another.

Basically I'm implying a License to Kill (YOURSELF)

Euthanasia in my opinion forces doctors to do the task, which is against their code of well trying their best to keep people alive.
That said if the doctors want to have the right to do it in some cases that would be acceptable but not for perfectly well and fit individuals like in the OP, more for vegetable state individuals etc.
http://www.macleans.ca/society/health/why-doctors-want-the-right-to-pull-the-plug-2/

[subSTRATA]

That said back on Euthanasia I'm against people asking others to kill them, a license to self suicide if supported makes more sense.

Thanks for the clarification, but as for the suggestion for a license for suicide, how would that impact anything? would having such a license permit a holder to a facility that would assist in that person's suicide? if so, how is that any different from euthanasia?

No problem and the benefit of a license is that people will need to decide for themselves without involving the guilt of others who survive after the person is dead. If they are unwilling to do so then they must live on, in the end it's their ultimate choice and they should be held responsible for their own outcome and not put it into the hands of another.

Basically I'm implying a License to Kill (YOURSELF)

Euthanasia in my opinion forces doctors to do the task, which is against their code of well trying their best to keep people alive.
That said if the doctors want to have the right to do it in some cases that would be acceptable but not for perfectly well and fit individuals like in the OP, more for vegetable state individuals etc.
http://www.macleans.ca/society/health/why-doctors-want-the-right-to-pull-the-plug-2/

why would people need a license to kill themselves? that's called suicide and is executed out of free will already. no one else is involved already, why complicate it with a license? i really dont see the point here.

[freedomno1]

That said back on Euthanasia I'm against people asking others to kill them, a license to self suicide if supported makes more sense.

Thanks for the clarification, but as for the suggestion for a license for suicide, how would that impact anything? would having such a license permit a holder to a facility that would assist in that person's suicide? if so, how is that any different from euthanasia?

No problem and the benefit of a license is that people will need to decide for themselves without involving the guilt of others who survive after the person is dead. If they are unwilling to do so then they must live on, in the end it's their ultimate choice and they should be held responsible for their own outcome and not put it into the hands of another.

Basically I'm implying a License to Kill (YOURSELF)

Euthanasia in my opinion forces doctors to do the task, which is against their code of well trying their best to keep people alive.
That said if the doctors want to have the right to do it in some cases that would be acceptable but not for perfectly well and fit individuals like in the OP, more for vegetable state individuals etc.
http://www.macleans.ca/society/health/why-doctors-want-the-right-to-pull-the-plug-2/

why would people need a license to kill themselves? that's called suicide and is executed out of free will already. no one else is involved already, why complicate it with a license? i really dont see the point here.

I meant people need to make that choice themselves
Suicide is the technical term for it but that's what I meant by not supporting Euthanasia.
The only area where it might make sense is where there are people in a vegetable state and it's up to someone else to pull the trigger, where a license to well die in those situations or some sort of consent in the case it happens would be useful.
Sort of like opting-in to be a organ donor if you die of unfortunate circumstance.

[christycalhoun]

I think assisted suicide should be legal for everybody. The Christian nanny state just has to be in everybody's business.

[SebastianJu]

That said back on Euthanasia I'm against people asking others to kill them, a license to self suicide if supported makes more sense.

Thanks for the clarification, but as for the suggestion for a license for suicide, how would that impact anything? would having such a license permit a holder to a facility that would assist in that person's suicide? if so, how is that any different from euthanasia?

No problem and the benefit of a license is that people will need to decide for themselves without involving the guilt of others who survive after the person is dead. If they are unwilling to do so then they must live on, in the end it's their ultimate choice and they should be held responsible for their own outcome and not put it into the hands of another.

Basically I'm implying a License to Kill (YOURSELF)

Euthanasia in my opinion forces doctors to do the task, which is against their code of well trying their best to keep people alive.
That said if the doctors want to have the right to do it in some cases that would be acceptable but not for perfectly well and fit individuals like in the OP, more for vegetable state individuals etc.
http://www.macleans.ca/society/health/why-doctors-want-the-right-to-pull-the-plug-2/

I think only some doctors are ok with doing that anyway. No doctor is getting forced to do that at least. It would be really wrong to force them to do such thing against their hippocratic oath.

[SebastianJu]

That said back on Euthanasia I'm against people asking others to kill them, a license to self suicide if supported makes more sense.

Thanks for the clarification, but as for the suggestion for a license for suicide, how would that impact anything? would having such a license permit a holder to a facility that would assist in that person's suicide? if so, how is that any different from euthanasia?

No problem and the benefit of a license is that people will need to decide for themselves without involving the guilt of others who survive after the person is dead. If they are unwilling to do so then they must live on, in the end it's their ultimate choice and they should be held responsible for their own outcome and not put it into the hands of another.

Basically I'm implying a License to Kill (YOURSELF)

Euthanasia in my opinion forces doctors to do the task, which is against their code of well trying their best to keep people alive.
That said if the doctors want to have the right to do it in some cases that would be acceptable but not for perfectly well and fit individuals like in the OP, more for vegetable state individuals etc.
http://www.macleans.ca/society/health/why-doctors-want-the-right-to-pull-the-plug-2/

why would people need a license to kill themselves? that's called suicide and is executed out of free will already. no one else is involved already, why complicate it with a license? i really dont see the point here.

I think it's not a bad idea. It would simply say that this person had gone through all the psychological and other tests to say that there is no doubt that he wants that and he is fine with forfeiting the chances of being healed in the future.

So they could go to a doctor and ask for a poison.

Such certificate should lose it's validity after 6 months or so. Not that someone wears that all the time and when the next time a woman hurt his heart he gets poisened even though a day later he would be fine.