Drug Dilemma

[Chestaan]

I would prefer to try and get to the bottom of why people were rioting so much and fix those problems.

Much easier said than done.

Sure, it's harder than simply drugging people. But drugging is simply targetting a symptom, same as shooting rioters. People don't riot for the fun of it, material conditions push them to it. Finding and fixing the source of the problem is tougher, but at the end of the day you will have actually fixed the disease, rather than just suppress some symptoms.

[San Lumen]

Much easier said than done.

Sure, it's harder than simply drugging people. But drugging is simply targetting a symptom, same as shooting rioters. People don't riot for the fun of it, material conditions push them to it. Finding and fixing the source of the problem is tougher, but at the end of the day you will have actually fixed the disease, rather than just suppress some symptoms.

agreed and by taking drastic solutions like having the police kill people will only make things worse.

[Skyhooked]

Vote against. That's the right thing to do. Aside from health risks there are also significant risks of international scandal and potential enviornmental consequences. Once the drug spreads across all the water supply, it will be hard to remove. And eventually this poisoned water may affect other towns and lord knows, what impact it will have on agriculture. Also it can have different effects on different people. Some may just go insane and the chaos would engulf the city again.

Riots can be stopped, with diplocamcy or force. And if not, they will burn out eventually.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

If the people of the city cannot be bothered to exercise their freedom responsibly, as is evidenced by their lawless and violent ways, then they do not deserve any. If they insist on behaving like a bunch of degenerate apes, then they ought to be treated as such and pacified by the zookeepers, i.e. the authorities.

So for me adding that drug to the water supply would be a no-brainer decision. Authorities exist for the exact reason to protect the good law-abiding citizens from the outbursts of their less-conscious fellows, and if the authorities have the means to permanently bring peace and stability but refuse to exercise them, then such decision isn't just foolish but criminal.

[San Lumen]

If the people of the city cannot be bothered to exercise their freedom responsibly, as is evidenced by their lawless and violent ways, then they do not deserve any. If they insist on behaving like a bunch of degenerate apes, then they ought to be treated as such and pacified by the zookeepers, i.e. the authorities.

So for me adding that drug to the water supply would be a no-brainer decision. Authorities exist for the exact reason to protect the good law-abiding citizens from the outbursts of their less-conscious fellows, and if the authorities have the means to permanently bring peace and stability but refuse to exercise them, then such decision isn't just foolish but criminal.

so you'd have police systemically mow people down and cause further distrust and more unrest? You'd risk health problems and possible environmental damage? I would not want to go to prison for possible poisoning people and for ordering police to commit murder.

[Infected Mushroom]

Vote yes.

The risks (and potential benefits) really excite me as a government bureaucrat; its not everyday that you actually decide something that matters. Voting no would be a bit too anti-climactic don't you think?

[San Lumen]

Vote yes.

The risks (and potential benefits) really excite me as a government bureaucrat; its not everyday that you actually decide something that matters. Voting no would be a bit too anti-climactic don't you think?

Im sorry but potential health and environmental risks are not worth it. Violence or potentially poisoning people is not the answer. Putting drugs in the water is a door no government should open

[Imperium Sidhicum]

If the people of the city cannot be bothered to exercise their freedom responsibly, as is evidenced by their lawless and violent ways, then they do not deserve any. If they insist on behaving like a bunch of degenerate apes, then they ought to be treated as such and pacified by the zookeepers, i.e. the authorities.

So for me adding that drug to the water supply would be a no-brainer decision. Authorities exist for the exact reason to protect the good law-abiding citizens from the outbursts of their less-conscious fellows, and if the authorities have the means to permanently bring peace and stability but refuse to exercise them, then such decision isn't just foolish but criminal.

so you'd have police systemically mow people down and cause further distrust and more unrest? You'd risk health problems and possible environmental damage? I would not want to go to prison for possible poisoning people and for ordering police to commit murder.

It's certainly better than doing nothing and letting society tear itself apart.

Even very liberal and freedom-loving societies aren't above defending themselves and putting down violent rioters and criminals with force. Using a drug to the same effect would be even more humane, since it would stop the violent and antisocial urges of people at their source, making physical suppression entirely unnecessary.

[Infected Mushroom]

Vote yes.

The risks (and potential benefits) really excite me as a government bureaucrat; its not everyday that you actually decide something that matters. Voting no would be a bit too anti-climactic don't you think?

Im sorry but potential health and environmental risks are not worth it. Violence or potentially poisoning people is not the answer. Putting drugs in the water is a door no government should open

Doing nothing is not the answer either. It says in the OP that there is a high death toll and lots of rioting.

Would you rather I called in the army and crush the rebels? (that would have been my back up if the drugs did not work)

[Infected Mushroom]

so you'd have police systemically mow people down and cause further distrust and more unrest? You'd risk health problems and possible environmental damage? I would not want to go to prison for possible poisoning people and for ordering police to commit murder.

It's certainly better than doing nothing and letting society tear itself apart.

Even very liberal and freedom-loving societies aren't above defending themselves and putting down violent rioters and criminals with force. Using a drug to the same effect would be even more humane, since it would stop the violent and antisocial urges of people at their source, making physical suppression entirely unnecessary.

And in case that fails, we can always send in the military. But I'm glad the drug alternative can be tried first.

[Xelsis]

Referendum it by neighborhood.

In the places where it wins, two things happen:

1. People who don't like it move out. A significant portion of those people are going to be the ones causing the trouble.
2. Said neighborhood experiences a sharp drop in crime.

Meanwhile, in the places where it loses

1. They have a solution sitting there, and choose not to take it. Public discontent at nothing being done will be lessened, remaining public anger will be split between the government and the non-adopters.
2. Those avoiding the drugged areas likely move into these neighborhoods if they don't leave the city, spiking crime there.

As people begin to see the difference in the neighborhoods, two things happen.

1. People seeking quiet peace move to the drugged neighborhoods. These are more likely to be middle/upper-middle class, and parents. The neighborhoods get economic benefit in addition to the reduced crime.
2. Those in non-drugged neighborhoods increasingly face pressure to vote themselves into a drugged neighborhood.

Main issues are the difficulty in limited provision (divide it up by the water grid as best as possible), and that people will buy up bottled water. The former is an inefficiency that you can overcome, the latter is some free stimulation of the economy, and not a universal action regardless.


Should give the best of both worlds, democratic choice, and stepping towards reducing the violence.

[San Lumen]

so you'd have police systemically mow people down and cause further distrust and more unrest? You'd risk health problems and possible environmental damage? I would not want to go to prison for possible poisoning people and for ordering police to commit murder.

It's certainly better than doing nothing and letting society tear itself apart.

Even very liberal and freedom-loving societies aren't above defending themselves and putting down violent rioters and criminals with force. Using a drug to the same effect would be even more humane, since it would stop the violent and antisocial urges of people at their source, making physical suppression entirely unnecessary.

I think putting such drugs in the water is a dangerous door to open. It opens the door for other possible substances in the water and thats not a path id want to go down. Plus it was said you don't know the side effects. What if this drug causes health problems or death? You'd be liable for those health problems and deaths and would go to prison.

[Anollasia]

Doesn't sound very ethical. I would vote against.

[Infected Mushroom]

It's certainly better than doing nothing and letting society tear itself apart.

Even very liberal and freedom-loving societies aren't above defending themselves and putting down violent rioters and criminals with force. Using a drug to the same effect would be even more humane, since it would stop the violent and antisocial urges of people at their source, making physical suppression entirely unnecessary.

I think putting such drugs in the water is a dangerous door to open. It opens the door for other possible substances in the water and thats not a path id want to go down. Plus it was said you don't know the side effects. What if this drug causes health problems or death? You'd be liable for those health problems and deaths and would go to prison.

OP doesn't say but I would assume we are protected by a parliamentary/legislative privilege of some kind right? Worse case scenario people sue the government for damages and the government as an amorphous entity may be liable for damages.

I don't think you can charge legislators with a crime for voting in a certain direction

[San Lumen]

I think putting such drugs in the water is a dangerous door to open. It opens the door for other possible substances in the water and thats not a path id want to go down. Plus it was said you don't know the side effects. What if this drug causes health problems or death? You'd be liable for those health problems and deaths and would go to prison.

OP doesn't say but I would assume we are protected by a parliamentary/legislative privilege of some kind right? Worse case scenario people sue the government for damages and the government as an amorphous entity may be liable for damages.

I don't think you can charge legislators with a crime for voting in a certain direction

For voting to put a drug in the water that causes health problems or death? You absolutely could be charged.

[The Iron Skull]

1984, here I come!! No, just kidding.I would vote against it as I like having the ability to think for myself as I don't want a pesky thought police messing around in my brain to tell what I should and shouldn't think, just not cool.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

It's certainly better than doing nothing and letting society tear itself apart.

Even very liberal and freedom-loving societies aren't above defending themselves and putting down violent rioters and criminals with force. Using a drug to the same effect would be even more humane, since it would stop the violent and antisocial urges of people at their source, making physical suppression entirely unnecessary.

I think putting such drugs in the water is a dangerous door to open. It opens the door for other possible substances in the water and thats not a path id want to go down. Plus it was said you don't know the side effects. What if this drug causes health problems or death? You'd be liable for those health problems and deaths and would go to prison.

Well, the authorities are already putting fluoride and chlorine in public water supply, both having rather questionable health effects, but nobody sees anything wrong with that because the benefits outweigh the risks. It would be even more true with a violence-suppressing drug.

Besides, the public doesn't have to know. It wouldn't hurt to suppress any public information about the water supply being drugged. If the drug fails or has too many dangerous side-effects, the authorities will be able to withdraw it without being crucified by the public. If, however, it works as intended, information about it can be released when it's benefits have become so obvious as to leave no doubt that drugging the water supply has benefitted society at large. Besides, any malcontents will themselves be drugged and incapable of rebellion at that point.

[San Lumen]

I think putting such drugs in the water is a dangerous door to open. It opens the door for other possible substances in the water and thats not a path id want to go down. Plus it was said you don't know the side effects. What if this drug causes health problems or death? You'd be liable for those health problems and deaths and would go to prison.

Well, the authorities are already putting fluoride and chlorine in public water supply, both having rather questionable health effects, but nobody sees anything wrong with that because the benefits outweigh the risks. It would be even more true with a violence-suppressing drug.

Besides, the public doesn't have to know. It wouldn't hurt to suppress any public information about the water supply being drugged. If the drug fails or has too many dangerous side-effects, the authorities will be able to withdraw it without being crucified by the public. If, however, it works as intended, information about it can be released when it's benefits have become so obvious as to leave no doubt that drugging the water supply has benefitted society at large. Besides, any malcontents will themselves be drugged and incapable of rebellion at that point.

Any vote by a government body is public and someone would spill the beans at some point. I could not in good conscience vote to be drugging people. I would want to be a good leader and work to find out what is the cause of the problem and fix that. I would not want to go down the route of 1984.

[Infected Mushroom]

OP doesn't say but I would assume we are protected by a parliamentary/legislative privilege of some kind right? Worse case scenario people sue the government for damages and the government as an amorphous entity may be liable for damages.

I don't think you can charge legislators with a crime for voting in a certain direction

For voting to put a drug in the water that causes health problems or death? You absolutely could be charged.

I would clarify with the OP because in my view, if you could be charged with a crime for voting B instead of A... kind of seems to defeat the point of this moral dilemma.

I'm not sure how the law applies to council members (because they seem to be more bureaucrats than actual legislators and so legislative/parliamentary privilege may not apply) but if it was a Congressman... then no you cannot charge him with a crime for voting X even if X leads to harm.

[Xelsis]

I think putting such drugs in the water is a dangerous door to open. It opens the door for other possible substances in the water and thats not a path id want to go down. Plus it was said you don't know the side effects. What if this drug causes health problems or death? You'd be liable for those health problems and deaths and would go to prison.

Well, the authorities are already putting fluoride and chlorine in public water supply, both having rather questionable health effects, but nobody sees anything wrong with that because the benefits outweigh the risks. It would be even more true with a violence-suppressing drug.

Besides, the public doesn't have to know. It wouldn't hurt to suppress any public information about the water supply being drugged. If the drug fails or has too many dangerous side-effects, the authorities will be able to withdraw it without being crucified by the public. If, however, it works as intended, information about it can be released when it's benefits have become so obvious as to leave no doubt that drugging the water supply has benefitted society at large. Besides, any malcontents will themselves be drugged and incapable of rebellion at that point.

Once that information does get out-and it will very, very, easily get out once people start failing drug tests, or even just going in for checkups, that cover-up is going to mean that you have a full-scale violent revolution brewing. The amount of bloodshed from that would dwarf the comparatively minor drop in the murder rate.

[Infected Mushroom]

Well, the authorities are already putting fluoride and chlorine in public water supply, both having rather questionable health effects, but nobody sees anything wrong with that because the benefits outweigh the risks. It would be even more true with a violence-suppressing drug.

Besides, the public doesn't have to know. It wouldn't hurt to suppress any public information about the water supply being drugged. If the drug fails or has too many dangerous side-effects, the authorities will be able to withdraw it without being crucified by the public. If, however, it works as intended, information about it can be released when it's benefits have become so obvious as to leave no doubt that drugging the water supply has benefitted society at large. Besides, any malcontents will themselves be drugged and incapable of rebellion at that point.

Any vote by a government body is public and someone would spill the beans at some point. I could not in good conscience vote to be drugging people. I would want to be a good leader and work to find out what is the cause of the problem and fix that. I would not want to go down the route of 1984.

So putting a drug into the water system = 1984?

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.

[San Lumen]

For voting to put a drug in the water that causes health problems or death? You absolutely could be charged.

I would clarify with the OP because in my view, if you could be charged with a crime for voting B instead of A... kind of seems to defeat the point of this moral dilemma.

I'm not sure how the law applies to council members (because they seem to be more bureaucrats than actual legislators and so legislative/parliamentary privilege may not apply) but if it was a Congressman... then no you cannot charge him with a crime for voting X even if X leads to harm.

I would think it would depend on what the vote was. In a case like this i believe they absolutely could face criminal charges.

[Infected Mushroom]

I would clarify with the OP because in my view, if you could be charged with a crime for voting B instead of A... kind of seems to defeat the point of this moral dilemma.

I'm not sure how the law applies to council members (because they seem to be more bureaucrats than actual legislators and so legislative/parliamentary privilege may not apply) but if it was a Congressman... then no you cannot charge him with a crime for voting X even if X leads to harm.

I would think it would depend on what the vote was. In a case like this i believe they absolutely could face criminal charges.

For a city council, I'm not sure (it depends on if they are sufficiently "legislature-like" or more like part of the administration/executive arm, which is a question of law and each court might rule differently)...

But for a Congressman or an MP... then for sure they cannot be charged criminally EVER for voting X even if X leads to "foreseeable harm" because of legislative/parliamentary privilege.

Now that is not say a Congressman/MP can't be charged with crimes. If he shoplifts or commits murder than the Attorney General can go after him. But if its in the course of his performance of a legislative function within the rules of the legislative framework (i.e. voting on a bill)... then no that cannot lead to criminal consequences.

The only recourse against that is to either sue the government (as a whole or the legislature as a whole) in which case the government (as a whole) would pay the damages if the person wins... or to use elections and other deterrents WITHIN the legislative framework (ex impeachment etc if applicable)

[San Lumen]

I would think it would depend on what the vote was. In a case like this i believe they absolutely could face criminal charges.

For a city council, I'm not sure (it depends on if they are sufficiently "legislature-like" or more like part of the administration/executive arm, which is a question of law and each court might rule differently)...

But for a Congressman or an MP... then for sure they cannot be charged criminally EVER for voting X even if X leads to "foreseeable harm" because of legislative/parliamentary privilege.

Now that is not say a Congressman/MP can't be charged with crimes. If he shoplifts or commits murder than the Attorney General can go after him. But if its in the course of his performance of a legislative function within the rules of the legislative framework (i.e. voting on a bill)... then no that cannot lead to criminal consequences.

The only recourse against that is to either sue the government (as a whole or the legislature as a whole) in which case the government (as a whole) would pay the damages if the person wins... or to use elections and other deterrents WITHIN the legislative framework (ex impeachment etc if applicable)

Well this would be a situation where the city council vote possibly led to fatalities or injury. Are you telling me they couldn't be held liable or charged with a crime if it was proven they supported this action?

And why do you say he only? Women can't be government?

[Infected Mushroom]

For a city council, I'm not sure (it depends on if they are sufficiently "legislature-like" or more like part of the administration/executive arm, which is a question of law and each court might rule differently)...

But for a Congressman or an MP... then for sure they cannot be charged criminally EVER for voting X even if X leads to "foreseeable harm" because of legislative/parliamentary privilege.

Now that is not say a Congressman/MP can't be charged with crimes. If he shoplifts or commits murder than the Attorney General can go after him. But if its in the course of his performance of a legislative function within the rules of the legislative framework (i.e. voting on a bill)... then no that cannot lead to criminal consequences.

The only recourse against that is to either sue the government (as a whole or the legislature as a whole) in which case the government (as a whole) would pay the damages if the person wins... or to use elections and other deterrents WITHIN the legislative framework (ex impeachment etc if applicable)

Well this would be a situation where the city council vote possibly led to fatalities or injury. Are you telling me they couldn't be held liable or charged with a crime if it was proven they supported this action?

And why do you say he only? Women can't be government?

I'm saying, if the courts consider the city council (in this context) part of the legislature... then when they are voting in accordance with the formal procedure, they (the council members) are shielded from criminal prosecution by the operation of legislative privilege. If that is the case, the government cannot go after the legislators with criminal charges for simply voting one way (regardless of the consequences of the vote, even if foreseeable).

If on the other hand, the courts consider the city council (in this context) part of the executive arm (i.e. more of an administrative/executive functional arm)... then the protection wouldn't apply. In which case... it would be possible for the government to go after individual council members for voting a certain way.

Not all bodies that VOTE even if they sit on a council are part of the legislature. For example, a school board or a hospital board run by the government would probably not be protected by legislative privilege. However, Congress clearly is.