Post by: Seymour Skinner on December 01, 2005, 05:46:20 AM
DON'T tell me what kind of gun I can have. DON'T smash in my door becuse I'm owning an "unapproved" firearm. DON'T go house to house taking people's guns. DON'T entrap gun owners on "technicalities." I'm a citizen and have rights to property and privacy. DON'T make the law vague and complex so that gun owners are trapped and prosecuted for owning gun B that is the same as gun A except for barrel length. Even though the law hasn't allowed me to have an unregistered machine gun since the early 1930s, I still consider it my right to own one, and the heavy handed federal government has no authority or jurisdiction to essentially invade my state and invade my home and force me to register MY property, let alone forbid me from owning something that they FORBID me to register. It is wrong and unconstitutional to prosecute a gun owner for being in "constructive possession" of a machine gun simply for owning PARTS to an M-16 AND a SEMI auto AR-15 at the same time. Gun prohibition does not work because criminals do not obey laws. Repeal gun laws that don't stop crime, which is 99% of them. The 2nd amendment to the constitution protects my right to own the gun of my choice. Government bans guns so it can have a monopoly on them. Government always compiles lists of citizens and then abuses that information. There should be an amnesty for people who have found grandpa's machine gun that he brought back from WWII but didn't register. I'm a member of 4 gun lobbies.
Same gun owner to same government:
DON'T legalize that plant. DON'T allow that plant to be prescribed for the sick and dying. KEEP pulling people over and searching for certain drugs. Yea, TAKE their house, that will teach them to sell something that was legal prior to the 1930s. If we RE-legalize drugs, especially marijuana, immediately, people will abuse them. We need to build more prisons to house these scumbags who buy, use, sell something that was legal prior to the 1930s. "No knock" warrants for drug law violators are AOK, because they might flush that plant/substance down the toilet and then how would we be able to pay $30,000 a year to house them in a federal prison? I see no problem with prosecting people for putting prescription meds in an unmarked bottle, or merely possessing a bottle labeled for someone else's prescription. The "drug war" is not successful but we can't stop now. Nowhere in the constitution is there a protection to own a plant like marijuana or a substance from a plant that I and the federal government don't approve of [even though the constitution is ALL about individual rights and property protection from government] Snooping on people's electric bills is acceptable because we HAVE to fight the "war on drugs." It's good when government agents arrest and prosecute people for having "drug paraphernalia," which yes, could mean almost ANYTHING, but hey, we HAVE to fight the "drug war" and we can't give up even though I admit it's unwinable, expensive, and actually a war on Americans. Don't tax and regulate marijuana/other drugs because addicts DESERVE to die if they use and adulterated/tained drug. Groups like The Marijuana Policy Project are just potheads and should be ignored even though they're fighting for the same rights to privacy and property ownership I am.
Post by: Fly320s on December 01, 2005, 05:52:28 AM
Post by: griz on December 01, 2005, 06:08:00 AM
Post by: Paddy on December 01, 2005, 07:16:25 AM
Firearms use and possession have no such inevitable consequences. Sure, addiction is a possibility, but it doesn't lead to a complete inability to competently operate in society.
Post by: cordex on December 01, 2005, 07:34:16 AM
Quote
Well, just to take a contrarian position, drug use inevitably leads to addiction and it is not long before the used is completely unable to function. He/she becomes dependent on society and engages in other, sometimes violent, criminal behavior. There is a legitimate public policy reason to curtail the use and possession of dangerous, mind altering, mood affecting chemicals.
Then to be consistant we should remove all such recreational drugs. Right?Should we start with alcohol and tobacco and move on to caffeine later?
And drug use inevitably leads to addiction?
I don't drink, have never smoked pot or taken any illicit drug, don't care about drinking caffeine one way or another and very, very rarely smoke a pipe with tobacco. If all recreational drugs were outlawed it wouldn't bother me a bit. Still, I don't think it is right to outlaw them simply because I choose not to use them or think they are bad for you.
Post by: Guest on December 01, 2005, 07:52:09 AM
"Cost to Society" is right up there with "It's for the children"
I have been around lots of dopers, if they want to kill themselves why should I care? (and a lot of them will not )The essence of freedom IS free choice. The thing I do care about is the fact fact they have to commit crimes to finance thier habit because the government has artificially driven up the cost of thier supply.
"War on Drugs" = "War on Civil Rights"
"War on Terror"= "War on Civil Rights" x 10
Post by: Paddy on December 01, 2005, 07:58:03 AM
Post by: griz on December 01, 2005, 08:27:58 AM
Quote
I'm just saying there isn't a direct correlation between gun possession and use and drug possesion and use
The correlation isn't about possesion, that's just the way the laws are written. The correlation is outlawing a particular item because of the POTENTIAL for abuse.
Post by: Paddy on December 01, 2005, 08:53:05 AM
Quote
The correlation is outlawing a particular item because of the POTENTIAL for abuse
Yeah, and I already said that use of outlawed drugs has more than a potential for abuse-it's inevitable. Not so with firearms. Show me a long term recreational user of heroin or cocaine who still functions independently.
Post by: griz on December 01, 2005, 09:07:35 AM
Post by: buy guns on December 01, 2005, 09:11:52 AM
Quote from: RileyMc
Quote
The correlation is outlawing a particular item because of the POTENTIAL for abuse
Yeah, and I already said that use of outlawed drugs has more than a potential for abuse-it's inevitable. Not so with firearms. Show me a long term recreational user of heroin or cocaine who still functions independently.the people who get hooked on drugs are the ones who have shitty lives and think that they have no future. if they dont do drugs everyday then they are going to be drinking instead.
Post by: grampster on December 01, 2005, 09:15:33 AM
I'm 62 years old and have been around people who smoke pot since I was in my late 20's. NOT one of them has graduated to harder drugs, been arrested, sluffed off their jobs, beat their wives or kids or not generally been an upstanding citizen in every way other than they are "drug criminals" as defined by bluenoses that decided that mellowing out from time to time is an awful crime. The awful crime is the really criminal, murderous network that has been set up to line the pockets of the politicians as a result of criminalizing a harmless weed that brings a little pleasure. As for abusers, well, there are abusers of every substance known to man. So what? I'll bet there is a Society for the Prevention of Drinking Too Much Water. If there isn't I'll lay odds that there is group trying to organize it and make a law about it.
Post by: Paddy on December 01, 2005, 09:23:40 AM
The OP asserted an inherent hypocrisy in supporting private firearms ownership and condemning drug use. I'm merely pointing out that the two positions are not incompatible. I'm not necessarily supporting the WOSD.
Post by: 50 Shooter on December 01, 2005, 09:23:49 AM
People who become addicted let themselves get that way. The only way for them to get off drugs is to want to.
Post by: cordex on December 01, 2005, 09:57:51 AM
Quote
The OP asserted an inherent hypocrisy in supporting private firearms ownership and condemning drug use. I'm merely pointing out that the two positions are not incompatible. I'm not necessarily supporting the WOSD.
I thought the original post was not about condemnation of a behavior, rather I thought it was about petitioning the government to criminalize or prosecute violators of laws pertaining to drug use.I condemn drug use.
I don't feel good about paying for hired guns to force others to conform to what I'm comfortable with.
Post by: Paddy on December 01, 2005, 10:03:12 AM
Quote
I thought the original post was not about condemnation of a behavior, rather I thought it was about petitioning the government to criminalize or prosecute violators of laws pertaining to drug use.
The primary function of government is to make and enforce laws in the interests of public policy. Is unfettered drug use in the public interest? That's what the debate is about. Drug use is not AFAIK, a constitutionally guaranteed right as is RKBA.
Post by: grampster on December 01, 2005, 10:29:27 AM
I was going to tell you something....but....hmmmm....I forgot.
Laws are supposed to be passed for the common good. I just have a problem with the fact that this notion has been twisted around to mean that the government must control all of our behavior. Remember, a man that gives up a little freedom to gain a little safety, deserves neither.
Comparing guns and pot is a non issue. Bearing arms is an au priori constitutionaly protected freedom. (At least that's what the scroll says) Pot is merely a weed that induces euphoria, the munchies, and a good nights sleep. Billions are being spent to stamp it out. That is ludicrous. At best it ought to be treated like a traffic violation. Hard drugs are another issue. There are too many people and too many ways to access this stuff. Criminalizing it has not worked, so maybe we ought to go in another direction.. We won't tho, because too many pillars of the community depend on the system we have for power and money.
Post by: Seymour Skinner on December 01, 2005, 10:41:40 AM
Addiction is a specific disease state. That specific disease state is progressive and is clinically defined as "proceeding in the face of consequences." That disease state is identical regardless of the drug of choice, be it gambling, marijuana, sex, cocaine, opium, shopping, whatever, though obviously, some parts of treatment have to be adjusted to deal with uniqueness between various drugs of choice.
A certain biology and a unique gene predispose one to falling into this disease state. The addictive biology is like a switch, that once flipped CANNOT be reversed. Not by will, not by prayer, not by hope, not by JAIL, not by anything EXCEPT the person submitting willingly to a structured treatment program. Actual addicts cannot just CHOOSE to stop. They simply can't. It's not a matter of weak will.
A person with the addictive gene has a 50/50 chance of passing it on to their children. Drew has said that in studies of certain Cherokee indians and those of Irish decent, the presence of the gene was something OVER 50%!
Dr. Drew has best described addiction as the biological hijacking of the brain's survival mechanism (he says this occurs in the medial forebrain bundle). If you've been around true addicts, you know this is true because they will put using their drug of choice ABOVE survival.
Quote
The primary function of government is to make and enforce laws in the interests of public policy.
That is vague and wide enough to drive an open pit copper mine truck through. That "interests of public policy" stuff only applies at the state level because the federal government does not have the authority. Quit assuming that all "government" is the same, or part of one big whole, because it's not (at least under the founder's constitution). The "compelling state interest" doctrine is the most insidious and subversive nonsense that I know of. It is extremely dangerous. It has been used to literally justify everything in the book that would otherwise be held unconstitutional by liberty minded courts. It says that "since drug users cost society, then society, via government power, has authority to do anything and everything to stop drug use" (which doesn't even work). If you accept the "compelling state interest" doctrine, then you are accepting the "logic" that society has a duty to rid itself of the presence of guns, because getting rid of guns really would reduce crimes with guns (crimes with knives etc go through the roof but that doesn't change the facts).
Post by: grampster on December 01, 2005, 10:50:08 AM
Post by: Paddy on December 01, 2005, 11:15:58 AM
Quote
Quit assuming that all "government" is the same, or part of one big whole, because it's not (at least under the founder's constitution).
Unfortunately, the founder's constitution doesn't carry much weight in today's legislative environment. Quote
It says that "since drug users cost society, then society, via government power, has authority to do anything and everything to stop drug use" (which doesn't even work). If you accept the "compelling state interest" doctrine, then you are accepting the "logic" that society has a duty to rid itself of the presence of guns, because getting rid of guns really would reduce crimes with guns (crimes with knives etc go through the roof but that doesn't change the facts).
Neither did the founders contemplate the huge welfare state that exists today. If an individual is unable to feed, clothe and house himself due to excessive drug use, the state will provide those necessities. When the state pays the bills, the state makes the rules. Learn it, live it, love it. 
Post by: Seymour Skinner on December 01, 2005, 11:59:56 AM
Quote
Neither did the founders contemplate the huge welfare state that exists today. If an individual is unable to feed, clothe and house himself due to excessive drug use, the state will provide those necessities. When the state pays the bills, the state makes the rules. Learn it, live it, love it.
Soooo since the federal government pays SOME people for food stamps, it can grant itself power to tell EVERYONE they can no longer so much as possess a plant on their own property, in complete defiance of the sovereignty of statehood and the 10th amendment?That is like saying that since government pays to clean up DUI accidents and repair the road after one, it ergo now has the legal and moral authority to tell everyone else they can't possess alcohol (which ironically WAS the argument for prohibition and required an amendment)?
Last time I checked, government can only "set the rules" on things it owns, either directly or via contract. Your argument makes sense for the feds telling food stamp beneficiaries they can't possess some substance or they'll lose their assistance, but not the rest of the supposedly free citizens, especially within the sovereign states.
Post by: Paddy on December 01, 2005, 12:18:56 PM
Our government reflects the will of the people it governs. Most people are not drug users and are opposed to drug use. That's why there are laws against it. When most people are not gun owners and become opposed to gun ownership, you will see laws prohibiting their private possession. You can cite the founding fathers til hell freezes over and all it will get you is carted off as a looney.
Post by: Seymour Skinner on December 01, 2005, 12:34:59 PM
Quote
Hey, I ain't sayin't it's right. Only that the notion of 'free citizens' living in 'sovereign states' went out a long time ago. Government has demonstrated its ability and willingness to control individual behavior on every level, right down the the income tax code. That's the reality, as is a dead end argument that it somehow encroaches on liberties. Government, at all levels, can and will control your personal behavior and there's not a damn thing you or I or anyone else can do about it.
Our government reflects the will of the people it governs. Most people are not drug users and are opposed to drug use. That's why there are laws against it. When most people are not gun owners and become opposed to gun ownership, you will see laws prohibiting their private possession. You can cite the founding fathers til hell freezes over and all it will get you is carted off as a looney.
There's a ton of truth in all that pessimism, that's for darn sure. Trying to restore a culture of people who mind their own business may not be fully possible, but to say there's nothing we can do is just wrong. I've been following the efforts of the Marijuana Policy Project for years, and there is TONS to be optimistic about. Cities are passing initiatives to either legalize or lower the priority of marijuana possession. Many states have passed medical marijuana bills, with more on the horizon. Granted, with this issue, we're now at the level where CCW was 20 years ago, but the dam of prohibition part II is full of cracks and is leaking. It's delayed gratification, but it's fun to help widen the cracks in that dam. Check out what Nevada might pass next year. Minds are starting to change like they did when right to carry laws started getting passed (even though I don't expect such a dramatic shift).
Our government reflects the will of the people it governs. Most people are not drug users and are opposed to drug use. That's why there are laws against it. When most people are not gun owners and become opposed to gun ownership, you will see laws prohibiting their private possession. You can cite the founding fathers til hell freezes over and all it will get you is carted off as a looney.
Post by: Guest on December 01, 2005, 01:04:07 PM
Post by: Art Eatman on December 01, 2005, 01:11:04 PM
I hope that's sarcasm, 'cause if it ain't, it's an untrue statement.
Over the last forty years, I've known more people who were NOT addicted to the marijuana and cocaine that they used than I have known people who WERE addicted. And, yes, I've known folks who were indeed addicted to some degree; some, terribly so.
As with guns, harm can be done by the human users of drugs. both to others as well as to themselves. My observation over the years is that our efforts to control people in these arenas have done more harm to the nation as a whole than good for the nation as a whole.
"It ain't whatcha do, it's how ya do it." applies to both guns and drugs, whether usage or in issues of law.
Me? I'd rather have my Bill of Rights back than either a drug-free or a gun-free country.
Art
Post by: Paddy on December 01, 2005, 01:38:48 PM
Quote
Over the last forty years, I've known more people who were NOT addicted to the marijuana and cocaine that they used than I have known people who WERE addicted.
Reminds me of the smoker who said "I can quit whenever I want. I've done it hundreds of times." It is a fact that long term use of cocaine will cause addiction, irritability, mood disturbances, restlessness, paranoia, and auditory hallucinations. I wouldn't mind having the BOR back either, but I don't think it guarantees unfettered access to cocaine. Nor do I think the FF would support such access.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 01, 2005, 03:14:51 PM
So legalize all immigration. If the gov't can't tell us what we can shoot or what we can smoke then it can't tell us who we can hire or where we can live.
Post by: Strings on December 01, 2005, 04:04:50 PM
Neither is:
having sexual relations with anyone (including your spouse)
keeping a pet
having children
eating a Big Mac
privacy while urinating
I think you get the idea. Just because it isn't in the CONUS, doesn't mean the Feds can play with it...
Post by: Sindawe on December 01, 2005, 05:24:27 PM
Quote
ABSTRACT: The hippocampal dentate gyrus in the adult mammalian brain contains neural stem/progenitor cells (NS/PCs) capable of generating new neurons, i.e., neurogenesis. Most drugs of abuse examined to date decrease adult hippocampal neurogenesis, but the effects of cannabis (marijuana or cannabinoids) on hippocampal neurogenesis remain unknown. This study aimed at investigating the potential regulatory capacity of the potent synthetic cannabinoid HU210 on hippocampal neurogenesis and its possible correlation with behavioral change. We show that both embryonic and adult rat hippocampal NS/PCs are immunoreactive for CB1 cannabinoid receptors, indicating that cannabinoids could act on CB1 receptors to regulate neurogenesis. This hypothesis is supported by further findings that HU210 promotes proliferation, but not differentiation, of cultured embryonic hippocampal NS/PCs likely via a sequential activation of CB1 receptors, Gi/o proteins, and ERK signaling. Chronic, but not acute, HU210 treatment promoted neurogenesis in the hippocampal dentate gyrus of adult rats and exerted anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effects. X-irradiation of the hippocampus blocked both the neurogenic and behavioral effects of chronic HU210 treatment, suggesting that chronic HU210 treatment produces anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effects likely via promotion of hippocampal neurogenesis.
Later in the article...Quote
In summary, since adult hippocampal neurogenesis is suppressed following chronic administration of opiates (20), alcohol (21), nicotine (22), and cocaine (23), the present study suggests that cannabinoids are the only illicit drug that can promote adult hippocampal neurogenesis following chronic administration. Increased hippocampal neurogenesis appears to underlie the mechanism of anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effects produced by a high dose of chronic HU210 treatment. The opposing effects of high doses of acute and chronic cannabinoids, together with the anxiolytic-like effects caused by a low dose of cannabinoids, may finally explain discrepancies in the clinical study literature regarding the effects of cannabinoid on anxiety and depression.
Full text may be found here: http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/115/11/3104?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=+Xia+Zhang&searchid=1133492450532_5878&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jciPerhaps I was too hasty in brushing off this weed all those years ago....
Post by: brimic on December 01, 2005, 06:06:10 PM
I'm completely for legalizing marijuana and can sympathize somewhat with those who want to legalize some harder drugs. That being said, comparing drugs to guns is a fallacious argument. Nowhere in the constitution does it read "....the right to use recreational drugs shall not be infringed." The argument holds about as much water as gun banners who argue that we license automobile drivers, doctors, lawyers, and plumbers, so its perfectly reasonable to license gun owners as well.
Post by: Sindawe on December 01, 2005, 06:11:50 PM
Quote
Ironically enough, I 'm reading this in between running a column chromatography to purify a batch of synthetic Delta-9 THC.
KEWL! What kind of resin you using, and how many liters of it does the column hold? (if the information is not proprietary) Sigh....some times I miss the Bloodmines of Boulder....
Post by: grampster on December 01, 2005, 06:21:49 PM
Driving is necessary for life. Transportation should be easy and the lack of it stultifies productivity and wealth creation. Most draconian driving law punishments only make life miserable for normally law abiding free people. Chronically hazardous drivers could care less about the law. Ergo driving should be a civil right and a drivers license is another way government controls free men; quite cavalierly I might add.
Licenses for the trades are nothing more than gubmints way of infringing upon free men and the confiscation of wealth. Money means power. Who should be most powerful, free men or government? Free men should regulate themselves, but should join together to make sure mutually agreed upon negative behavior is frowned upon. Creativity is lacking in this regard, imho.
Post by: brimic on December 01, 2005, 07:40:17 PM
Quote
KEWL! What kind of resin you using, and how many liters of it does the column hold?
Running through a 10L Biotage Flash column. Not sure of the specifics of the resin cartridge, I'm just a dumb dial turning operator on this one and not the development chemist.
Post by: cordex on December 02, 2005, 05:15:02 AM
Quote from: RileyMc
Quote
I thought the original post was not about condemnation of a behavior, rather I thought it was about petitioning the government to criminalize or prosecute violators of laws pertaining to drug use.
The primary function of government is to make and enforce laws in the interests of public policy. Is unfettered drug use in the public interest? That's what the debate is about. Drug use is not AFAIK, a constitutionally guaranteed right as is RKBA.With regards to this post, anything and everything can be justified using "public interest" - just depends on which part and how much of the public you care about.
Is widespread obesity resulting from poor diet and exercise in the public interest? Does that justify government regulation of fatty foods and sedentary lifestyles? What about possessions that tend to support sedentary lifestyles such as console games, televisions, computers, books, etc? Of course, it would be rediculous for the government to ban or license Playstations and X-Boxes and restrict fatty foods to combat obesity, but that is completely acceptable with your line of reasoning of controlling people "for the public good". Indeed, it is the inevitable result of your school of thought. Note I didn't say inevitable conclusion, as there is no conclusion when it comes to the idea that one person should dictate to others how to conduct their personal affairs.
The desire to control people's personal lives through threat of deadly force "for the public good" and the mind-set that you or your agents can and should live other people's lives for them in the "public interest" is contradictory to the ideal of freedom. One cannot advocate both. That is what this debate is about. Not whether we should pass out heroin at grade schools.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 02, 2005, 05:39:11 AM
Quote
The desire to control people's personal lives through threat of deadly force "for the public good" and the mind-set that you or your agents can and should live other people's lives for them in the "public interest" is contradictory to the ideal of freedom. One cannot advocate both. That is what this debate is about. Not whether we should pass out heroin at grade schools.
So you are either for total unrestricted freedom or you are a Stalinist?
Post by: Paddy on December 02, 2005, 05:48:26 AM
Quote
Licenses for the trades are nothing more than gubmints way of infringing upon free men and the confiscation of wealth
No, licenses for the trades are an ordered society's method of insuring some minimum competency among tradesmen. Without enforcement of minimum standards, you would have everybody and their uncle holding themselves out as whatever they wanted to be. The result would be chaos, rip-offs, shoddy workmanship and lawsuits up the kazoo. You just had some surgery, didn't you grampster? I'll bet your doctor was licensed by the state to perform that surgery. Would you have rather shopped around a pool of unlicensed, self-declared 'surgeons' to cut you? Building codes are another legitimate use of 'police power' by the state. You'll notice that earthquakes, for example, in third world countries without building codes do massive damage. It is in society's interests to impose minimum standards on tradesmen, physicians, buildings, etc.
Post by: grampster on December 02, 2005, 06:00:59 AM
I prefaced my remarks with the caveat that I was feeling fiesty, not intelligent.
Sometimes I like to throw out a thought just to see what happens.
I actually believe that good government is a necessary leveling mechanism. The problem is that good government is slowly frittering away because the sheeple are not participating in it as the founders hoped. I serve on several appointed boards in my county and township, so I am putting my labor where my mouth is. Our township supervisor is resigning and I'm angling to get appointed to the position. I've been elected to that board as a trustee in the past. If I get the job, first thing I'm going to do is cut the pay in half and find some land and try and get a township range built so we can edumacate kids in the shooting sports.
Post by: Paddy on December 02, 2005, 06:01:48 AM
Quote
The desire to control people's personal lives through threat of deadly force "for the public good" and the mind-set that you or your agents can and should live other people's lives for them in the "public interest" is contradictory to the ideal of freedom. One cannot advocate both. That is what this debate is about. Not whether we should pass out heroin at grade schools
How, in your mind, does the regulation of drugs like herion and cocaine equate to a desire to regulate cheeseburgers, french fries, and xboxes?
As i said in a previous post, our government reflects the will of the people, and most people don't use drugs and don't want unrestricted access to them. When't the last time an obese person broke into a house or held up a liquor store for money to go to McDonalds? See the difference? Or are you so captive to your 'ideology' that you're unable to seperate it from reality?
Post by: cordex on December 02, 2005, 07:09:06 AM
Quote
How, in your mind, does the regulation of drugs like herion and cocaine equate to a desire to regulate cheeseburgers, french fries, and xboxes?
Both regulation of drugs and regulation of fatty foods/sedentary lifestyle are based in the same principle of controlling self-destructive behavior for "your own good".Quote
When't the last time an obese person broke into a house or held up a liquor store for money to go to McDonalds?
The reasons given for banning drugs have been for the most part either targeting a given racial group's recreational drug or because of the toll they take on the user. Prior to being banned, most drugs were typically available enough and cheap enough that resorting to robbery to finance a habit was unnecessary. As well, the concept of "after the first, the rest are free" applies - if you're breaking the law in buying and using drugs, breaking another law against - for instance - robbery is not a large step.Rabbi,
Quote
So you are either for total unrestricted freedom or you are a Stalinist?
Define "total unrestricted freedom".If you're trying to imply that I believe I should be able to run up and whack someone in the head with a 2x4 then you're wrong. That is behavior that the government is fully justified in punishing.
However, I do believe you should have the right to whack yourself in the head with a 2x4 as much as you want.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 02, 2005, 07:48:48 AM
Quote
Both regulation of drugs and regulation of fatty foods/sedentary lifestyle are based in the same principle of controlling self-destructive behavior for "your own good".
That's hardly the same thing. Drug use has implications beyond the individual. Obesity sometimes does too but until it becomes a major cost to the public no one will want to regulate it. Nor is there an obvious target to regulate since a person could make himself obese by eating corn flakes.But then you agree that controlling immigration is counter to the idea of freedom and we need open borders, right?
Post by: cordex on December 02, 2005, 08:40:36 AM
Quote
That's hardly the same thing. Drug use has implications beyond the individual.
Nearly all actions have some implications beyond the individual. I'm not sure why someone poisoning themselves to death on an arbitrarily designated chemical compound is considerably worse than any other method they want to use to destroy themselves.Quote
Obesity sometimes does too but until it becomes a major cost to the public no one will want to regulate it.
Major cost? At least $117 billion per year in 2000 according to Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona. Much, much more when type 2 diabetes is considered.The National Institute on Drug Abuse puts their estimate at the cost of all illegal drugs combined at $97.7 billion. Dealing with alcohol (a legal drug) alone, the costs are around $148 billion.
Obesity and the conditions it causes currently costs our nation more than all illicit drugs do combined.
Quote
Nor is there an obvious target to regulate since a person could make himself obese by eating corn flakes.
Some foods are more fattening than others. Foods with more greases, refined sugars and such are worse for you, right?I have no more desire to pay for some coke-fiend's health care than you do. Less, probably, as I would prefer to let someone who makes the willful decision to destroy themselves in such a fashion achieve their goal or at least depend on their loved ones and charities instead of the communal pocketbook. But if you're going to say "Your actions affect me because if you get hurt and can't pay for yourself, I have to pay for you. Therefore, upon pain of imprisonment, everyone is forbidden to _____________," then you need to consider that everyone risks their life and health (and thus, our money) every time they drive into work, walk in the park, have sex, move furniture, ride a bike, eat at a restaurant, and anything else they might do.
The solution as I see it is not to work legislatively to dictate how people should live their lives to be less of a burden (or risk of a burden) on society, but to change the rules in society to shift the burden of responsibility for caring for ourselves to ... well ... ourselves.
Quote
But then you agree that controlling immigration is counter to the idea of freedom and we need open borders, right?
No. When exactly did I mention immigration?Oh, right. Now I get it. Because I'm not rabidly anti-drug, I have to be a dyed-in-the-wool capital "L" Libertarian lackey with complete adherance to the party line. Is that about what you're trying to imply?
Post by: The Rabbi on December 02, 2005, 11:38:01 AM
As far as immigration: I have noticed that most "dyed in the wool Libertarians" become statists when it comes to immigration, advocating mines, bombs, and open season on immigrants and public lynchings for employers who hire them. I guess freedom stops at the border.
Post by: Guest on December 02, 2005, 11:39:11 AM
Post by: cordex on December 02, 2005, 12:12:04 PM
Quote
Tell me, what would persuade you that your point of view is incorrect?
My point of view with regards to what, exactly?With regards to personal responsibility?
Quote
As far as immigration: I have noticed that most "dyed in the wool Libertarians" become statists when it comes to immigration, advocating mines, bombs, and open season on immigrants and public lynchings for employers who hire them. I guess freedom stops at the border.
*laugh*Rabbi, I haven't mentioned immigration but you've gone ahead and attacked two positions I haven't even taken.
I haven't said we should mine the borders or solicit terrorists and their families to come on in or even said anything about immigration, emmigration or listening to Lynard Skynard.
Post by: Antibubba on December 03, 2005, 02:29:31 AM
Sounds to me like banning certain semiautos because they look like full-auto guns, when really it's to get rid of guns entirely.
Post by: brimic on December 03, 2005, 06:48:11 AM
Quote
Here's a plant that has thousands of uses, from high quality paper to biomass fuel material, but it is banned because it looks too much like marijuana. In fact, Hearst got it banned because it threatened his income-he had a lot of forestry interests that would have suffered if paper was made from hemp instead of wood.
Hemp was at one time one of the largest cash crops in my state, especially around the area where I grew up for national defense purposes. The crap still grows wild in large quantities in some areas. It wasn't banned becuase of drug purposes, but because it was a strong competitor to some of the powerful old money types.
Post by: Guest on December 03, 2005, 07:25:46 AM
Post by: atek3 on December 03, 2005, 01:57:50 PM
Quote from: riley_mc
Building codes are another legitimate use of 'police power' by the state. You'll notice that earthquakes, for example, in third world countries without building codes do massive damage. It is in society's interests to impose minimum standards on tradesmen, physicians, buildings, etc.
Wrong wrong wrong. Thirld world countries without MONEY have earthquakes that cause massive damage. Pakistan and Iran have incredibly powerful albiet byzantine building codes, however without money, the codes aren't followed. America is a rich country, our buildings survive quakes because we're rich, not because the government mandates that carpenters get paid prevailing wage and the littlest addition to your property requires government approval. atek3
Post by: atek3 on December 03, 2005, 02:02:31 PM
Quote from: RileyMc
Well, just to take a contrarian position, drug use inevitably leads to addiction and it is not long before the used is completely unable to function. He/she becomes dependent on society and engages in other, sometimes violent, criminal behavior.
That's total nonsense. Might I recommend Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use by Jacob Sullum, a scholar with Reason.You really ought to visit colleges, Stanford and UC-Berkeley in particular. I'd say somewhere between a third and a half of the students there have tried drugs. And the vast majority get a little older and pick up more interesting hobbies and quit.
atek3
Post by: The Rabbi on December 03, 2005, 02:08:28 PM
Quote from: atek3
You really ought to visit colleges, Stanford and UC-Berkeley in particular. I'd say somewhere between a third and a half of the students there have tried drugs. And the vast majority get a little older and pick up more interesting hobbies and quit.
atek3
What a great rec for drug use!atek3
Actually, "drugs" is a pretty broad category. When those in favor of legalization talk about them they invariably invoke the guy home from work on a Friday night relaxing on his couch with a joint. Who could object to drugs if that is what we mean?
People against it invariably invoke the "pipe-head" a half-crazed spectre ready to murder for his next fix. Who could be in favor of that, if that is what we mean?
Quote
Tell me, what would persuade you that your point of view is incorrect?
My point of view with regards to what, exactly?
Are you being disinegenuous or are you not taking a position in this debate?
My point of view with regards to what, exactly?
Post by: Paddy on December 03, 2005, 02:15:20 PM
Quote
atek3 wrote:America is a rich country, our buildings survive quakes because we're rich, not because the government mandates that carpenters get paid prevailing wage and the littlest addition to your property requires government approval.
Wrong. The 'police power' that enforces building codes has nothing to do with 'prevailing wage' clauses in building contracts. The code applies whether or not union carpenters build it. and
Quote
You really ought to visit colleges, Stanford and UC-Berkeley in particular. I'd say somewhere between a third and a half of the students there have tried drugs. And the vast majority get a little older and pick up more interesting hobbies and quit.
And known former coke and potheads have been elected POTUS, so I guess that means legalization is a good idea.
Post by: cordex on December 03, 2005, 03:06:57 PM
Quote
Are you being disinegenuous or are you not taking a position in this debate?
No, I wasn't being disingenuous at all. You asked me what would convince me that my point of view was incorrect.My position on the drug issue is derived from my beliefs that a person should be responsible for what they choose to do to themselves and that if a person chooses to harm themselves, that must be their choice to make in a free society. I have no love for recreational drugs - legal or illegal, but I don't feel that banning drugs is the right thing to do. It is inconsistent with the concept of personal freedom.
Abuse of drugs - whether legal or illegal - is a bad thing. An awful thing. But banning them doesn't provide a solution, it just says that members of the American public is incapable of making responsible decisions for themselves and therefore the responsibility is transferred to the government.
If currently illegal drugs were made legal, some people would destroy their lives just as people destroy their lives today. Undoubtably more would make that choice. Regrettable, but it must be a choice that a free adult be able to make.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 03, 2005, 03:56:12 PM
Quote from: cordex
Quote
Are you being disinegenuous or are you not taking a position in this debate?
No, I wasn't being disingenuous at all. You asked me what would convince me that my point of view was incorrect.My position on the drug issue is derived from my beliefs that a person should be responsible for what they choose to do to themselves and that if a person chooses to harm themselves, that must be their choice to make in a free society. I have no love for recreational drugs - legal or illegal, but I don't feel that banning drugs is the right thing to do. It is inconsistent with the concept of personal freedom.
Abuse of drugs - whether legal or illegal - is a bad thing. An awful thing. But banning them doesn't provide a solution, it just says that members of the American public is incapable of making responsible decisions for themselves and therefore the responsibility is transferred to the government.
If currently illegal drugs were made legal, some people would destroy their lives just as people destroy their lives today. Undoubtably more would make that choice. Regrettable, but it must be a choice that a free adult be able to make.
Post by: Sindawe on December 03, 2005, 07:20:17 PM
Quote
People against it invariably invoke the "pipe-head" a half-crazed spectre ready to murder for his next fix. Who could be in favor of that, if that is what we mean?
I see you've taken to quoting yourself again Rabbi.
Post by: cordex on December 04, 2005, 07:32:24 AM
Quote
So what would persuade you that your position is wrong?
I'd need to be persuaded that:1. An adult should not be responsible for their own body.
2. The bodies of adults in our society are or should be owned by our government and thus are not the property of the individual to harm, improve or use as they wish.
3. That a society which condemns even moderate use of some recreational drugs but allows and encourages the use of other, similarly destructive recreational drugs is sane enough to entrust with the ownership and control of its members.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 04, 2005, 07:47:42 AM
Quote from: cordex
Quote
So what would persuade you that your position is wrong?
I'd need to be persuaded that:1. An adult should not be responsible for their[sic] own body.
2. The bodies of adults in our society are or should be owned by our government and thus are not the property of the individual to harm, improve or use as they wish.
3. That a society which condemns even moderate use of some recreational drugs but allows and encourages the use of other, similarly destructive recreational drugs is sane enough to entrust with the ownership and control of its members.
1) Ideally everyone "should" be responsible for his actions. In real life though this is seldom achieved. Most people are irresponsible to greater or lesser degrees and for 90%+ of the time it makes no difference and actually helps keep people employed in health care, law enforcement, and other fields.
But what about when someone simply bombs out big time? When their actions are dangerous to themselves and others? When people become aged and demented we have a system of conservatorship to take care of such people, and in the last resort it is the state through its agencies that serves that function. So, yes, ideally everyone ought to be responsible but in practice where this is impossible the state takes an interest and ultimately steps in as responsible party of the last resort.
2. Your person is subject to laws of the government. If you drive recklessly through a school zone at 100mph you will go to jail, making your body subject to gov't standards of care. If the gov't deems your services critical enough it has the power to draft you and remove you from your home and surroundings. In everyday circumstances we do not consider this power because it is not in the gov't's interest to detain people for no reason but the power remains there. So ultimately you could say that in fact your body is not yours in an unrestricted way.
3. This standard is incomprehensible. You are confusing and confuting society with government. Society does not make laws, gov't does. I do not know what "sanity" entails as a standard of society. On tthat standard there has never been a "sane" society.
Are you persuaded now?
Post by: cordex on December 04, 2005, 04:01:12 PM
Quote
1) Ideally everyone "should" be responsible for his actions. In real life though this is seldom achieved. Most people are irresponsible to greater or lesser degrees and for 90%+ of the time it makes no difference and actually helps keep people employed in health care, law enforcement, and other fields.
But what about when someone simply bombs out big time? When their actions are dangerous to themselves and others? When people become aged and demented we have a system of conservatorship to take care of such people, and in the last resort it is the state through its agencies that serves that function. So, yes, ideally everyone ought to be responsible but in practice where this is impossible the state takes an interest and ultimately steps in as responsible party of the last resort.
Sounds awful sweet, but we all know that benevolant nanny-government doesn't exist the way you imply it does. Insane people and the elderly are rarely placed in government care unless they violate laws that would cause you or I to be arrested. The state-run conservatorship is far more limited than you think it is ... except in regards to a few plants and chemicals.But what about when someone simply bombs out big time? When their actions are dangerous to themselves and others? When people become aged and demented we have a system of conservatorship to take care of such people, and in the last resort it is the state through its agencies that serves that function. So, yes, ideally everyone ought to be responsible but in practice where this is impossible the state takes an interest and ultimately steps in as responsible party of the last resort.
Our government lets people drink themselves to death every day and only interferes when they endanger others (driving intoxicated, getting in fights when drunk, etc). This is how it should be with other drugs - even if they are equally or more harmful to the user than currently legal drugs are.
Additionally, the threshold for when someone "bombs out big time" and when their "actions are dangerous to themselves and others" is inconsistent; nay, downright meaningless. Someone eating a "special" brownie and vegging out on a couch, or chewing a handful of coca leaves for a little rush, or eating some peyote may be arrested and imprisoned whether their actions are harmful to themselves and/or others or not. (Exceptions are made for Indian tribes who claim peyote as a religious tool, of course.) On the other hand, it is entirely lawful for a bunch of 21 year old college kids to get drunk out of their minds and have promiscuous, unprotected sex. You defend a system that allows people to be wildly harmful to themselves with a few chemicals but punishes people for being even moderately involved in others?
In my mind one should either be in favor of increased restrictions to control the populace or one should be in favor of decreased restrictions, but at the very least one should be consistent. People advocating the preservation of the status quo are anything but consistent.
How do you defend your inconsistency?
Quote
2. Your person is subject to laws of the government. If you drive recklessly through a school zone at 100mph you will go to jail, making your body subject to gov't standards of care. If the gov't deems your services critical enough it has the power to draft you and remove you from your home and surroundings. In everyday circumstances we do not consider this power because it is not in the gov't's interest to detain people for no reason but the power remains there. So ultimately you could say that in fact your body is not yours in an unrestricted way.
Driving recklessly endangers others and the existence of a punishment for that doesn't bother me.That the government can conscript people into its service does not establish the morality of it. As Heinlein said, no "people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery."
But essentially what you're saying is that because the government has the power to control you, they have the right to do so?
Quote
3. This standard is incomprehensible. You are confusing and confuting society with government. Society does not make laws, gov't does. I do not know what "sanity" entails as a standard of society. On tthat standard there has never been a "sane" society.
Very well, in that case the government, or at the very least the laws it creates are irrational. That worded better?Quote
Are you persuaded now?
Not quite. You've tried to challenge my belief that people must own themselves and be responsible for what they do to themselves by saying in essence: "Well, the government knows best, and they have the power to do whatever they want to you, so its right." That doesn't follow for me.Thanks for trying, though.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 04, 2005, 04:24:07 PM
Post by: cordex on December 04, 2005, 05:34:22 PM
Quote
Somehow I'm not surprised that you would weasel out of it. Frankly I doubt anything would convince you but thought I might try. You could at least be honest enough to admit it. There is no shame in that.
Weasel out of it? How so? I told you what it would take to convince me I was wrong and though you tried, your position wasn't strong enough to stand up to even mild scrutiny.
Post by: griz on December 05, 2005, 04:17:33 AM
Post by: Smoke on December 07, 2005, 03:02:35 PM
Smoke