Dangerous Drugs Act when actually banning drugs has little impact on use and makes production, Will

banning drugs has little impact on use and makes production, Will I say sorry for the agricultural policy (of Marcos) that brought us
distribution and consumption more dangerous.
1. There is a clear pharmacological definition for drugs. There isnt what
to self-sufficiency in rice?
we classify as illegal drugs is a 1950s & 60s social and cultural construct with 13. Once listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act, drugs become
no coherent pharmacological rationale. We fail to recognise alcohol, controlled. Technically correct but once a drug is listed as a controlled Will I say sorry for the highest literacy rate in Asia (during his
tobacco or caffeine as drugs and maybe sugar should also be classified as drug, it is forced underground and thus becomes completely outside
government/social control. So ironically a controlled drug, is by nature, an
fathers time)? Bong Marcos (Half-truth mode)
a drug.
uncontrolled drug.
2. People who use drugs are suffering from substance use disorder. Untrue But will I say sorry for the thousands and thousands of kilometers
the vast majority of people using drugs, do so rationally, recreationally and 14. Cannabis is a gateway drug that leads to addiction to hard that were built (by his father)? . . . Bongbong Marcos (classical half-
sensibly, but unfortunately we conflate drug use with problematic use. drugs. Untrue, most young adults have used cannabis and most have not
progressed onto using other drugs, nor have they become addicts. The last truth mode)
3. Drug users are dirty, immoral and dangerous losers. An unjustified and three Presidents of the USA all successfully used cannabis without any
hostile stereotype illicit drug users are a diverse group of people from every gateway effect. Family Code
walk of life. The drug business can be dirty, immoral and dangerous but Fallacy #1: Appeal to Nature This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever
thats because its illegal, extremely lucrative and subject to fierce law 15. People who use caffeine, tobacco and/or alcohol are not drug is natural or consistent with nature (somehow defined) is good, or that
enforcement. users. Untrue they certainly are drug users and many are addicts. These whatever conflicts with nature is bad
three substances are all drugs, and ironically unlike some illegal drugs in high Example:
4. People take drugs because they have problems. Untrue most people dosages caffeine, tobacco and alcohol are toxic and result in death. Marriage is only between a man and a woman because that is the natural
take drugs because they enjoy the effect, just like alcohol, tobacco and law of things
caffeine. Marcos Burial What you can do: Aside from explicitly calling out that this is a fallacy called
3. Bongbong and the POA: Appeal to Nature, you can also point out that it is in our nature to get sick
5. Regular drug use inevitably leads to addiction. Untrue only a small
proportion of people who use drugs develop addiction just like alcohol. and eventually die. This means that preventing death and sickness from
I cannot confirm (the Swiss bank accounts) because I havent seen or read happening is unnatural. And yet we dont consider modern medicine and
6. Taking drugs damages people. All substances (legal and illegal) can them. We I dont know. I cannot I cannot say that I know. Definitely the doctors as bad.
damage people, and the most damaging drug of all is a legal one alcohol. Swiss money were there. Or are there now. Its for us again this constant
However, prohibition makes illicit drugs more dangerous and damaging. In that people are saying more and more participating in that Fallacy #2: Appeal to Popularity The basic idea is that a claim is
addition, acquiring a criminal record for drugs can be more harmful to life Bongbong, speaking to blogger Raissa in 2012 (Squirming mode) accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined
than the drug. towards the claim.
On 21 Mar 1986, Bongbong handed over Marcos power of attorney (POA) Example:
7. Drug use fuels crime. The presence of a drug and the commission of a to Mike de Guzman at a hotel in Honolulu. This POA was to enable US$213 I am against same-sex marriage because a majority of the population is
crime does not equate to a causal connection. The relationship is mm to be moved out of a Marcos account with Credit Swisse, Zurich to a against it.
associated rather than causal. However, there is evidence that prohibition Philippine Govts designated account in Exportfinanzierungsbank, Vienna. What you can do: As with the first fallacy and all the succeeding fallacies, it
and tough law enforcement fuel acquisitive and violent crime. The transfer was eventually frustrated due to Filipino infighting (Mike de is a must that you call out what kind of fallacy the person is using. And then
point out that in the past, a majority of the population also believed that the
8. Legal drugs are safer and less harmful. This is a particularly misleading Guzman, a Filipino banker free-lancing agent to retrieve stolen money for world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. Both arguments
statement, because alcohol and tobacco are far more damaging than Cory, and PCGG.) turned out to be false. If you are in the US, you can also point out that last
most illegal drugs. However, prohibition makes it difficult to know the strength, April, same-sex marriage supporters outnumbered the opposition for the first
ingredients or quality of illegal drugs, which in itself creates an entirely The intrigue is worthy of a Grisham novel, complete with code name time. Unfortunately, we have no such survey in the Philippines yet.
avoidable risk. Operation Big Bird. (You can read about it at Wikipedias Operation Big
Bird , bearing in mind thats only de Guzmans version).
Fallacy #3: Appeal to Tradition Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs
9. Law enforcement measures affect levels of drug use. Studies show that in
when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is
advanced western democracies neither tough, nor liberal law enforcement Intrigue aside, this clearly demonstrates Bongbongs active participation
older, traditional, or always has been done.
approaches have much impact upon levels of drug use. and knowledge of stolen wealth.
Example:
10. Addiction is an equal opportunity employer. Drug use is an equal So as not to leave readers hanging in the air, heres a bit more follow Marriage is reserved for heterosexuals because thats how marriage has
opportunity employer, but chronic addiction isnt. While anyone can be been defined for 2000 years
through. This episode exposed Filipinos penchant for palace intrigue and
affected, chronic problematic drug use tends to disproportionately affect What you can do: State that slavery was also acceptable for more than 2000
bumbling teamwork. Had it been properly executed, the funds would have
those with disadvantaged and damaged lives that had significant difficulties years but that does not make it right. Also state that the 2000 year old
been retrieved in 1986 and it could have led on to uncover other Swiss bank definition of marriage has already been redefined a decade ago when
before PDU and these people lack the resources, opportunities and support
accounts of billions of dollars. Legal complexities came into play and it was same-sex marriage was made legal in the following countries: Argentina,
to recover.
not until 1998 that the Swiss remitted the funds (US$540mm with interest) to Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South
11. Addiction is a brain disease. Untrue, yes the brain will be affected but Sandibangans account at PNB, but in escrow, meaning it cannot be Africa, and Sweden.
loss of control of drugs (similar to internet addiction, gambling, over-eating) touched due to some unclear legal issues. There it rested until 2004 (by now Fallacy #5: False Analogy A false analogy is a rhetorical fallacy that uses
has much more to do with social, psychological and behavioural fact than its US$683mm) when it was finally free and transferred to the Bureau of an analogy (comparing objects or ideas with similar characteristics) to
neurological defects. If addiction was a brain disease MRIs would Treasurys account to be utilized as dictated under the Agrarian Reform Act support an argument, but the conclusion made by it is not supported by the
show diagnostic evidence of addiction. partly for agrarian reform and partly for compensation to human rights analogy due to the differences between the two objects.
victims under martial law. It was from this fund that President Gloria Arroyo Example:
12. The government can protect society by banning new drugs. Banning Marriage is not for everyone. For example, minors cant marry. Mentally
diverted money illegally in what became known as the Fertilizer scam. The
drugs masquerades as positive action to deal with the problem handicapped people cant marry. Humans cant marry their pets
balance is still there.
What you can do: Explain why the analogies presented are not similar to the
original argument. In this case, the family code of the Philippines requires
legal consent from both parties, which minors, the mentally handicapped,
and pets cannot provide. And then avoid analogies entirely because if they
are not used smartly, they have the tendency to backfire.
Fallacy #6: Moving The Goalpost The Moving the Goalpost logical person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or
fallacy is another one that has a fairly descriptive name. It is the case when
Person A makes a claim, Person B refutes it, and Person A moves on to a new
or revised claim, generally without acknowledging or responding to Person
Bs refutation. Hence, the goalpost of the claim has been shifted or moved
in order to keep the claim alive.
Example:
PERSON A: Moral relativism causes same-sex marriage!
PERSON B: But earlier, you said same-sex marriage causes moral relativism,
not the other way around.
PERSON A: No, what I meant was same-sex marriage reinforces moral
relativism. I admit that is was poorly constructed because I was in a hurry.
What you can do: Keep track of how many times the person moves
goalposts. If the person does this often enough, faulty logic will soon expose
itself. The key here is documenting the entire conversation.
Fallacy #7: Presenting Opinion as Fact In casual use, the term opinion
may be the result of a persons perspective, understanding, particular
feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in
contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs.
Example:
Laws are based on natural moral standards
*when what the person really meant to say was Laws should be based on
natural moral standards
What you can do: Assert that in the absence of facts, all you have is opinion.
But be cautious, too, because not all facts are from credible sources. Prefer
facts over stats because stats can be manipulated depending on who is
doing the study.
Fallacy #8: Red Herring A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant
topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The
basic idea is to win an argument by leading attention away from the
argument and to another topic
Example:
PERSON A: It is not true that homosexuals were not allowed to run for public
office
PERSON B: Ladlad was barred by Comelec
PERSON A: The Comelec didnt just bar Ladlad because of homosexuality
because that is oversimplifying the position. Just look at gay pride marches.
It is embarrassing. But Im not saying that just because homosexuals behave
that way, they can be discriminated against. I dont understand why people
assume that just because I think homosexuality is disordered that I
automatically want to bully homosexuals. Thats pretty immature.
What you can do: Acknowledge the new information presented. But make
sure that your acknowledgement is not taken as agreement. State the exact
same question for emphasis before the red herring was thrown at you.
Again, this is why documentation is key.
Fallacy #9: Slippery Slope The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person
asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any
argument for the inevitability of the event in question.
Example:
Same-sex marriage will cause population implosion.
What you can do: Ask how and ask for facts just a few repetitions short of
ad nauseam. Let them ramble and eventually, they will run into self-
contradictions. In which case, be ready for more moving goalposts and
more red herrings.
Fallacy #10: Spotlight Fallacy The Spotlight fallacy is committed when a
type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the
media.
Example:
Gays are not oppressed because thats not what we see in the media
What you can do: State factual evidence to the contrary. From an
international perspective, the United Nations recently released its first report
on LGBT rights. You can also download the Philippine LGBT Coalition
report (which I co-authored ) to the UNs Universal Periodic Review. It is a
good resource for citing actual documented discrimination against LGBT
people in the Philippines.
These are just some of the common fallacies Ive encountered recently. If
you know of more or have found other effective ways of handling them,
help our readers and post your experience here.
G.R. No.s 171947-48, December 18, 2008
Concerned Citizens
vs MMDA
Ponente: Velasco
Facts:
January 29, 1999, concerned residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint
before the RTC Imus, Cavite against several government agencies for the
clean-up, rehabilitation and protection of the Manila Bay/ The complaint
alleged that the water quality of Manila Bay is no longer within the
allowable standards set by law (esp. PD 1152, Philippine environment Code).
DENR testified for the petitioners and reported that the samples collected
from the beaches around Manila Bay is beyond the safe level for bathing
standard of the DENR. MWSS testified also about MWSS efforts to reduce
pollution along the bay. Philippine Ports Authority presented as evidence its
Memorandum Circulars on the study on ship-generated waste treatment
and disposal as its Linis Dagat project.
RTC ordered petitioners to Clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay.
The petitioners appealed arguing that the Environment Code relate only to
the cleaning of the specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in
general. Raising the concerns of lack of funds appropriated for cleaning,
and asserting that the cleaning of the bay is not a ministerial act which can
be compelled by mandamus.
CA sustained the RTC stressing that RTC did not require the agencies to do
tasks outside of their usual basic functions.
Issue:
(1) Whether PD 1152 relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution
incidents.
(2) Whether the cleaning or rehabilitation of the Manila Bay is not ministerial
act of petitioners that can be compelled by mandamus.
Held:
(1) The cleaning of the Manila bay can be compelled by mandamus.
Petitioners obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one
hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the other, are two
different concepts. While the implementation of the MMDAs mandated
tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or
the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature
and may be compelled by mandamus.
The MMDAs duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as may be noted, is set
forth not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its
charter as well. This duty of putting up a proper waste disposal system
cannot be characterized as discretionary, for, as earlier stated; discretion
presupposes the power or right given by law to public functionaries to act
officially according to their judgment or conscience.
(2) Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code
Include Cleaning in General
The disputed sections are quoted as follows:
Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality.Where the quality of water has
deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage,
the government agencies concerned shall take such measures as may be
necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the prescribed
water quality standards.
Section 20. Clean-up Operations.It shall be the responsibility of the polluter
to contain, remove and clean-up water pollution incidents at his own
expense. In case of his failure to do so, the government agencies
concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean-up operations
and expenses incurred in said operations shall be charged against the
persons and/or entities responsible for such pollution.
Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned
ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning
operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec.
17 requires them to act even in the absence of a specific pollution incident,
as long as water quality has deteriorated to a degree where its state will
adversely affect its best usage. This section, to stress, commands
concerned government agencies, when appropriate, to take such
measures as may be necessary to meet the prescribed water quality
standards. In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not
conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.