Fake consequences

[DrFaroohk]

I was reading stuff on why marijuana is so bad for you. Ok, so the first few made sense. Bad for your lungs, brain damage, etc...

But then they start in with stuff like "If you smoke pot, you could get a fine! So marijuana financially hurts you!"

Well, actually it doesn't. The marijuana itself only hurts me as much as I paid for it. The fine is something that someone else invented to tack onto it. They could just as easily say "You must take vitamin C when you smoke pot!" and then be like "See, marijuana contains vitamin C!"

"If you smoke pot, you could go to jail!"

Well, again. The marijuana doesn't put you in a cell. Other people choose to. Again, one could just say "Smoke pot and win a free a vacation! See, marijuana takes you to far away exotic places!"

"Your family might disown you!"

Well again...the marijuana didn't do that. The other people did.

The only actual real effects of it are that you get a little dumber and can't breath as well.

If you wanted something with REAL side effects, you could point out bath salts or oxycodone, which can totally fuck your life up with ZERO outside help. Marijuana cannot do that.

So in conclusion...made up consequences, or as I call it, the self-fulfilling prophecy, needs to go away!

[telecom_goddess]

by using an illegal substance like pot you are causing these things to happen yourself. Other people invented these laws for a reason, because pot does make you dumb and kill your braincells. The pot isn't causing it true but you are causing the repercussions on yourself.

(metaphorically speaking I don't mean you specifically)

[Nekojin]

As Telecom Goddess is pointing out, man-made consequences are still consequences. You can't separate out natural consequences from social consequences and claim that the latter aren't real. They are very real, in that you can't just wave a Jedi hand and nullify them on your own say-so.

Furthermore, these social consequences are all known, potential consequences of pot-smoking. You can't stop your parents from disowning you if they have that strong of a reaction to drug use. You can't stop the police from arresting you if they catch you at it. They are very real consequences if and when they happen. Until they happen, though, they are potential consequences - they might happen, or they might not.

[Andara Bledin]

If I go based on the title, then I'd have to say that manufactured consequences are no more fake than natural consequences.

Going on the topic of the OP, however, the topic is about separating natural consequences from manufactured consequences.

When one engages in a debate regarding the pros and cons of certain activities, it's important to not confuse actual natural consequences (in this case, the carcinogenic nature of smoking marijuana [or anything, for that matter]) with manufactured consequences that are a result of social or legal constructs and which may or may not be based on anything other than "that's how it's always been."

Speaking of marijuana, a lot of what used to be accepted as fact as far as the dangers of use go is being found to be not what they thought. In quite a number of cases, particularly dealing with "side effects" of mental issues, etc, the marijuana use is a symptom of underlying issues, used as a form of self-medication, as opposed to having any causal effect, although there are some cases where it does have contributory effect, and some cases where people have legitimate negative side effects from usage.

There is so much reactionary FUD thrown out about pretty much every recreational drug (other than booze, 'cause alcohol's not really a drug despite it really being a drug and responsible for as much or more damage than many of the drugs they refuse to legalize) that it's no wonder young people have trouble believing the authorities when they speak of the pitfalls of the more dangerous options.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

See, marijuana takes you to far away exotic places!

I thought that was LSD...

(side note: finally a use for the "hippy" smilie.... and it's gone! Wonder how long that's been...)

[Rageaholic]

Yeah, manufactured consequences are piss poor arguements as to why something is bad. The consequences are still there, and should be evaluated when making a decision, but at least those conseqeuences can be changed. Being a man made law does not make something infallable.

I also see similar arguements used to justify discrimination. For example, group B has always been at a disadvantage and never given the chance to prove themselves. Senator Douchebag argues againsts passing a law to give them equal rights because of their inferiority. Never mind that their "inferiority" has been the result of centuries of discrimination.

[Mytical]

I agree with the OP, man made consequences though 'real' shouldn't be used as an argument as to why something is bad..or good. I mean if a refrigerator falls on you, it is very very bad..but you don't hear people telling you you should avoid them because of it.

[DrFaroohk]

Yeah I'm not necessarily arguing about the consequences EXISTING, but they are used to further defend why it should be illegal. "It should be illegal because it's illegal! And it's illegal because its illegal."

I can accept "It's illegal because it's bad for you." I might not agree with it but at least it's sort of a rational argument.

[Nekojin]

Yeah I'm not necessarily arguing about the consequences EXISTING, but they are used to further defend why it should be illegal. "It should be illegal because it's illegal! And it's illegal because its illegal."

I can accept "It's illegal because it's bad for you." I might not agree with it but at least it's sort of a rational argument.

I see your point, and I agree with it. I misunderstood the original post; I thought you were arguing against, "You shouldn't do it because these bad things could happen," not, "It should remain illegal because these bad things could happen to you." The first is a defensible argument. The second isn't, when we're talking about social consequences. Your parents could disown you for joining an Acid-Punk band - does that mean that Acid Punk music should be made illegal?

[draco664]

In my line of work, we manage both risks and issues.

A risk is something that has a detrimental (preferably measureable) effect, but has not yet occured. We manage it based on its likelihood of occuring and its estimated impact.

An issue is something that has a detrimental effect, that has occurred. We manage it based on its consequence and mitigation costs.

Both are considered when managing a project. A PM who declined to consider risks because they hadn't happened would not be employed for too long.

In short, don't discount potential consequences when making decisions. They are not made up.