Should the USA be the policemen of the world?

[Battlecow]

As for the war on drugs I have actually reconsidered my position. I think indeed rehabilitation would go much further than police actions, economically and socially. I also think that they should still be illegal, just that rather than punish users with jail time, demand rehab. Crimes connected to drug use/abuse/acquisition should still be tried accordingly. You can't claim "I was drunk" as a legal defense in a murder for example, so too should you not be able to claim "I was high" or "I was craving for a fix."



OT: No. If the War on Terror proved anything, it's that we're not nearly as powerful as we once thought. We couldn't afford to stay at war with one nation let alone two (Iraq and Afghanistan) and then throw Libya in here, and any other desert dwelling nation with a Muslim population and riots in the streets, it's just way too much for us to handle alone. True the UN is normally ineffectual, but at least if they pass a resolution that the larger world powers can get behind, there is multi-national support. The US may be a shining star in the sky, something to emulate, and we may be responsible for forcibly spreading that message through political socialization (remember back in the day when Coke and Nike would dump buttloads of product onto the heads of scrawny 3rd-world peoples)... but we cannot go it alone as the only nation in the world that enforces "truth, justice and the American way." It's not smart, or feasible.

See now, I don't think the war on drugs is being run perfectly. Nevertheless, demanding rehab? Way too expensive if the government's paying, and good luck getting crackheads to pay for their own rehab. I'm betting it would be pretty ineffective if they didn't volunteer for it anyways. Jail's pretty harsh, but drugs are a serious ****ing problem and to make any sort of dent at all we need serious ****ing punishments.

OK. We're not all powerful, and we've learned a few lessons in the last decade. I think that what Iraq and Afghanistan teach us, however, is that we should police better, not that we shouldn't police. Maybe we should get more multi-national support more often- if we can, great- but I'd be lying if I said that I couldn't envision situations wherein Europe would see fit to hold back and America would see a moral imperative to intervene. Regardless, we'll be doing the heavy lifting.

I do agree, however, that we can't police everything. We should pick our battles.

RE ballin: I wouldn't say it's unenforceable. Of course, it can't be enforced perfectly, but it has an effect. Remember: Alcohol consumption went way down during prohibition. But forget that; let's argue this on a purely theoretical level. Let's say we could perfectly and relatively cheaply enforce the ban on heroin. Would you support removing said ban? People are going to do it because people do dumb things/have moments of weakness. Once they do it, it's very very very very hard for them to back out and it ruins their lives. In this situation, would you relax your libertarian principles in favor of government intervention?

 

[eschemat]

But drugs are a victimless crime, victimless crimes by principle should be eliminated. We can say that we could ban eating too much fast food a day or whatever, because it's just as harmful, but we don't ban it because it's the liberty of the people to do it. While we don't support it, we don't outlaw it, especially because outlawing something makes treatment less common.

 

[ballin4life]

this thread is amazing.

Nichols, Nixon wasn't a monster. He accomplished quite a bit for the US. (EPA, freeing us from the Gold Standard, opening the doors to China) to name a few.

Except that going off the gold standard was a bad thing (although we weren't really on the gold standard at the time, so meh).

Anyway, it did at least represent a default on the US's promise to pay gold in exchange for dollars. Kind of funny you would praise the US defaulting on an obligation given the current situation.

EPA also a bad thing. Not because helping the environment is bad, but because the EPA does a bad job at accomplishing that goal in an efficient fashion.

As for the war on drugs I have actually reconsidered my position. I think indeed rehabilitation would go much further than police actions, economically and socially. I also think that they should still be illegal, just that rather than punish users with jail time, demand rehab. Crimes connected to drug use/abuse/acquisition should still be tried accordingly. You can't claim "I was drunk" as a legal defense in a murder for example, so too should you not be able to claim "I was high" or "I was craving for a fix."

What's the point in making them illegal? What gives you the right to use violence to stop someone from doing drugs? They aren't hurting anyone else. What if that someone really does want to do drugs?

And even if you can answer all those questions, what gives you the right to draw the specific line between what should be legal and what should be illegal? Why can't I come in, use your argument, and say we should ban caffeine, morphine, and fast food? How about driving? That's one of the most unhealthy activities one can engage in. Yet a HUGE percentage of the population does it. Time to start rallying against all those driving addicts.

RE ballin: I wouldn't say it's unenforceable.

lol

Of course, it can't be enforced perfectly, but it has an effect. Remember: Alcohol consumption went way down during prohibition.

no - results are not conclusive on this question.

http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm

By the greatest majority of indicators, the biggest drops in alcohol consumption and alcohol problems actually came before national prohibition went into effect. Those drops continued for about the first two years of Prohibition and then alcohol consumption began to rise. By 1926, most of the problems were worse than they had been before Prohibition went into effect and there were a number of new problems -- such as a drinking epidemic among children -- that had not been there before.

Anyway, does this sound familiar?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point

But forget that; let's argue this on a purely theoretical level. Let's say we could perfectly and relatively cheaply enforce the ban on heroin. Would you support removing said ban? People are going to do it because people do dumb things/have moments of weakness. Once they do it, it's very very very very hard for them to back out and it ruins their lives. In this situation, would you relax your libertarian principles in favor of government intervention?

No.

I might use violence to stop a friend from doing heroin if I really thought they would thank me later. I just don't think you can meet that burden of proof even in your ridiculous hypothetical.

 

[Battlecow]

No.

I might use violence to stop a friend from doing heroin if I really thought they would thank me later. I just don't think you can meet that burden of proof even in your ridiculous hypothetical.

So... we should have people's friends violently stop them? WTF are you getting at?

On a policy level, there are times when the government has to stop people from doing what they want even if it hurts no one but them. That's what I'm getting at.

 

[ballin4life]

So... we should have people's friends violently stop them? WTF are you getting at?

On a policy level, there are times when the government has to stop people from doing what they want even if it hurts no one but them. That's what I'm getting at.

...why?

The point of my post was that violence shouldn't be used lightly. That much should be obvious.

Are you going to take up the cause for banning driving? After all that's one of the most dangerous activities around, yet people do it all the time. Clearly we need the government to violently force people to not drive.

 

[Battlecow]

There are differences of degree here, obviously. Driving is at once quite necessary to our way of life, and not that dangerous (heroin inevitably ruins lives (although it arguably has initial benefits) , whereas driving kills 30,000 to 40,000 people per year in the US- about 1% of people who drive or are driven. Take away drunk driving, etc., and it goes way down). If driving were more dangerous- say, if it killed 10% of drivers or drivees every year, or if it were less necessary to our way of life (e.g. if someone invented a teleporter), I might advocate banning it. I'm making a judgement here- heroin is far worse than driving, therefore heroin is banned and driving isn't.

I missed the point of the violence thing before, now I get it. Well, I'd stop my friend from using heroin no matter what- because if he never thanked me, it simply shows that he never truly understood what was good for him.

Anyways NOT THE POINT. You're a smart guy- you realize (I assume) that heroin leads to misery in 99% of cases. In my scenario, the government can stop said misery. Don't worry about how unlikely it is- if it existed, would you be cool with it?

 

[ballin4life]

There are differences of degree here, obviously. Driving is at once quite necessary to our way of life, and not that dangerous (heroin inevitably ruins lives (although it arguably has initial benefits) , whereas driving kills 30,000 to 40,000 people per year in the US- about 1% of people who drive or are driven. Take away drunk driving, etc., and it goes way down). If driving were more dangerous- say, if it killed 10% of drivers or drivees every year, or if it were less necessary to our way of life (e.g. if someone invented a teleporter), I might advocate banning it. I'm making a judgement here- heroin is far worse than driving, therefore heroin is banned and driving isn't.

"Necessary to our way of life" is meaningless. The ultimate purpose of driving is the same as the purpose of heroin - the action makes people happy. In fact, I think you'd agree heroin creates happiness much more directly for most people than driving does.

Also why do YOU get to set the limit? What if I think 1% is too much? Does that give me the right to go around forcing people to not drive?

I missed the point of the violence thing before, now I get it. Well, I'd stop my friend from using heroin no matter what- because if he never thanked me, it simply shows that he never truly understood what was good for him.

Or maybe he just had different preferences than you.

Anyways NOT THE POINT. You're a smart guy- you realize (I assume) that heroin leads to misery in 99% of cases. In my scenario, the government can stop said misery. Don't worry about how unlikely it is- if it existed, would you be cool with it?

I don't agree with that statement. Do you have any proof?

I still wouldn't support the government case because it sets a bad precedent.

 

[eschemat]

Iron law of prohibition seems to make sense, so I would say that's a tangible reason to legalize drugs. Of course, why does the government have to protect the people from themselves? Under the Harm Principle, one can be sovereign over their own body as long as they don't harm anyone else.

 

[Battlecow]

"Necessary to our way of life" is meaningless. The ultimate purpose of driving is the same as the purpose of heroin - the action makes people happy. In fact, I think you'd agree heroin creates happiness much more directly for most people than driving does.

Well, "necessary to our way of life" isn't meaningless. If you can't drive or be driven, you'll have a really hard time getting anywhere, and it'll cramp your style in a serious way for your entire life. You'll have to live in a way that's different from the way the rest of America lives. Heroin creates direct happiness, true, but it's inevitably followed by a bunch of really nasty side effects and a crippling dependency. Plus, your ability to get high eventually, like, wears off, so you have to keep taking it but you don't get any pleasure from it? That's what I learned in health class 4 years ago lol.

I only directly know one person who's been addicted to heroin, and he says that, all in all, it was not very fun at all, and, in fact, more of a nightmarish living-hell sort of deal. Anecdotal evidence is probably frowned upon here (for good reason) but his story seems to mesh pretty well with my societally instilled vision of heroin addiction: Misery. Lots and lots of it.

Also why do YOU get to set the limit? What if I think 1% is too much? Does that give me the right to go around forcing people to not drive?

I don't get to set the limit. America as a whole does; we vote for people who try their hardest to do what we want because then we'll vote for them more. Kind of how the system works; it's done pretty well for us so far. We've decided that 1% is acceptable, and if you disagree, you can start an anti-driving movement. If a bunch of d00ds agreed with you, you'd have enough pull to force compromises and if more than half of the country agreed with you, you could probably get driving banned. If that fatalities statistic turned into 30% for some reason, I'd imagine that America as a whole would (assuming that there was no way to tamp down that number short of this) ban driving altogether.

Or maybe he just had different preferences than you.

Don't be obtuse. Very few people "prefer" short-term gratification followed by long-term suffering; they just choose it a lot because they're stupid.

I don't agree with that statement. Do you have any proof?

I don't. If you really do disagree, I could, like, link you to a bunch of anti-heroin websites, but eh. Wouldn't accomplish much.

Do you think, then, that the reported side-effects are exaggerated? Or just that for some people, it's "better" long-term to have a good time for a short while and then go through hell to recover or else die/live in pain and delirium for a long time?

I still wouldn't support the government case because it sets a bad precedent.

I think you should probably support the right decision even if it doesn't go well with your politics; if everyone voted on party lines even if they were proven wrong on the issue simply because they didn't want to set a precedent of their opponents being right, things would go pretty badly.

 

[ballin4life]

Well, "necessary to our way of life" isn't meaningless. If you can't drive or be driven, you'll have a really hard time getting anywhere, and it'll cramp your style in a serious way for your entire life. You'll have to live in a way that's different from the way the rest of America lives. Heroin creates direct happiness, true, but it's inevitably followed by a bunch of really nasty side effects and a crippling dependency. Plus, your ability to get high eventually, like, wears off, so you have to keep taking it but you don't get any pleasure from it? That's what I learned in health class 4 years ago lol.

If you can't do heroin, you'll have a really hard time getting high from heroin, and it'll cramp your style in a serious way. See how those kinds of appeals don't work?

I was talking about banning driving for everyone. People got by before driving existed, and we would save tons of lives.

I only directly know one person who's been addicted to heroin, and he says that, all in all, it was not very fun at all, and, in fact, more of a nightmarish living-hell sort of deal. Anecdotal evidence is probably frowned upon here (for good reason) but his story seems to mesh pretty well with my societally instilled vision of heroin addiction: Misery. Lots and lots of it.

So you know someone who, under criminalization, did heroin anyway and had an overall negative experience, yet you still support criminalization? That doesn't make much sense. One of my points was that these laws are unenforcable. Making drugs legal would lead to better and safer drugs for users, less money for criminals, and more options for the users if they want to quit.

But anyway, back to fantasy land where we could 100% ban drugs for all people. The problem there is if there is one person who wants to do the drug still, then banning drugs violates that person's right to do what he wants with his own body. It comes down to you thinking you know what's best for someone else and taking away his right to do what he wants to do.

I don't get to set the limit. America as a whole does; we vote for people who try their hardest to do what we want because then we'll vote for them more. Kind of how the system works; it's done pretty well for us so far. We've decided that 1% is acceptable, and if you disagree, you can start an anti-driving movement. If a bunch of d00ds agreed with you, you'd have enough pull to force compromises and if more than half of the country agreed with you, you could probably get driving banned. If that fatalities statistic turned into 30% for some reason, I'd imagine that America as a whole would (assuming that there was no way to tamp down that number short of this) ban driving altogether.

Democracy is bad because it's 51% of people telling the other 49% what to do.

Don't be obtuse. Very few people "prefer" short-term gratification followed by long-term suffering; they just choose it a lot because they're stupid.

Ok, so you really do believe you know what's best for others better than they do for themselves. Do you see the problem that occurs when you (and everyone else) tries to enforce that? To use a silly example - I can say we should ban video games because they make people fat. But that doesn't give me the right to force people to stop playing.

Do you think, then, that the reported side-effects are exaggerated? Or just that for some people, it's "better" long-term to have a good time for a short while and then go through hell to recover or else die/live in pain and delirium for a long time?

Yes. At the least, it is their choice to make.

I think you should probably support the right decision even if it doesn't go well with your politics; if everyone voted on party lines even if they were proven wrong on the issue simply because they didn't want to set a precedent of their opponents being right, things would go pretty badly.

It's not about politics; it's about principles. If you ban drugs, by the same principle you should be able to ban driving, certain foods, video games, movies and whatever else. You cede the principle of freedom - that you have the right to choose things for yourself.

 

[Battlecow]

So a guy campaigning for the right to not wear a helmet while motorcycle-riding died in an accident that could have been prevented by a helmet the other day.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/04/motorcycle-helmut-death.html

Should we allow unlimited freedom, or should we tell people what to do?

In my opinion, some people are idiots and need to be told what to do for their own good. See: heroin. People do heroin because they're stupid or uninformed, and then they can't stop because they're addicted. If we could ban them from doing this effectively and cheaply, I think that we should. Now, the banning that we can do nowadays is somewhat expensive and ineffective, but we're arguing big-picture theoreticals here. Basically: if the majority agrees that thing X is so stupid that people should be denied it for their own good, it should be banned. This won't happen to video games because people see that they're not that harmful. It will happen to heroin because it is quite harmful.

It's not a choice between absolute freedom and no freedom; America as it is allows quite a bit of freedom, but also takes the responsibility for not letting people do things so catastrophically stupid that they kill themselves in easily preventable ways just because they don't know any better.

Example: our campaign against smoking has worked quite well. Because (or at least mostly because) we applied pressure ("sin" taxes, etc.), people smoke less, so people get less cancer and are happier on the whole.

I don't see why we need to allow people to hurt themselves accidentally. I keep my dogs fenced in because they'd kill themselves in the street otherwise; with people, it's a delicate balance.

BTW just realized how much 1% a year would be vis-a-vis that driving fatalities thing. I screwed up my math at some point; it's actually closer to 0.01%.

 

[ballin4life]

In my opinion, some people are idiots and need to be told what to do for their own good. See: heroin. People do heroin because they're stupid or uninformed, and then they can't stop because they're addicted. If we could ban them from doing this effectively and cheaply, I think that we should. Now, the banning that we can do nowadays is somewhat expensive and ineffective, but we're arguing big-picture theoreticals here. Basically: if the majority agrees that thing X is so stupid that people should be denied it for their own good, it should be banned. This won't happen to video games because people see that they're not that harmful. It will happen to heroin because it is quite harmful.

In my opinion video games are quite harmful. When people play video games they are less likely to exercise and eat healthily. People play video games because they are stupid and uninformed, and then they get addicted.

I don't draw lines based on random opinions like X is "not that harmful" while Y is "quite harmful". Some people maybe would be better off in the long run if they didn't play video games. But I don't think a few bad apples warrants taking that freedom away from everyone.

What if I want to do heroin and can enjoy it responsibly? (illegality certainly makes this much more difficult since the drugs become way more expensive and dangerous).

Example: our campaign against smoking has worked quite well. Because (or at least mostly because) we applied pressure ("sin" taxes, etc.), people smoke less, so people get less cancer and are happier on the whole.

The campaign against smoking is more or less fine. I mean, I don't support "sin" taxes, but explaining how something is unhealthy is definitely a good thing. That way people can make informed decisions. Some people choose to smoke anyway, and that's fine too.

I don't see why we need to allow people to hurt themselves accidentally. I keep my dogs fenced in because they'd kill themselves in the street otherwise; with people, it's a delicate balance.

Comparing people to dogs. wut.

BTW just realized how much 1% a year would be vis-a-vis that driving fatalities thing. I screwed up my math at some point; it's actually closer to 0.01%.

Don't forget about injuries. And also all the driving related court cases that take up time and money.

 

[Battlecow]

In my opinion video games are quite harmful. When people play video games they are less likely to exercise and eat healthily. People play video games because they are stupid and uninformed, and then they get addicted.

I don't draw lines based on random opinions like X is "not that harmful" while Y is "quite harmful". Some people maybe would be better off in the long run if they didn't play video games. But I don't think a few bad apples warrants taking that freedom away from everyone.

It doesn't work like that. Your logic is all upside-down and screwy.

"I don't draw lines based on random opinions like "slapping a guy is not that harmful" while "shooting him in the balls is quite harmful." Some people maybe would get hurt by being slapped on the back. But I don't think a few bad cases warrant the taking of back-slappin' freedom from everyone."

It just doesn't make sense, see? We, as a society, come to opinions about what is acceptable and what isn't. Playing video games is less harmful than doing heroin, and therefore it's legal. How do we know it's less harmful? Common sense. Most everyone agrees on it. There's a line somewhere, and although people disagree on where exactly it is, MOST people agree that heroin is on one side and video games are on the other. It's not a "random opinion."

You can judge things based on degree, even if they're the same categorically.

You're also not free to enjoy heroin responsibly. It's very very hard to do so, 'cause it kind of addicts you, takes away your ability to judge **** correctly, and then screws you. If you were some kind of ubermensch or maybe had a terminal illness or something, I guess it might work, but eh. Sorry. Your freedom's being sacrificed for the common good.

Such cases would be rare enough, in the case of heroin, that I believe the greater good kind of trumps them.

 

[Ocean]

you can't equate voluntarily harming others with voluntarily harming yourself. they are completely different.

 

[Battlecow]

You can if there's a point to be made. I'm merely saying that even if two things are the same categorically (slapping and shooting both hurt, video games and heroin both harm) they can be different enough in terms of degree to warrant different laws. My point wasn't that because shooting a guy in the balls is illegal, shooting yourself in the balls should be illegal.

 

[ballin4life]

It doesn't work like that. Your logic is all upside-down and screwy.

"I don't draw lines based on random opinions like "slapping a guy is not that harmful" while "shooting him in the balls is quite harmful." Some people maybe would get hurt by being slapped on the back. But I don't think a few bad cases warrant the taking of back-slappin' freedom from everyone."

I have no idea what you are saying here. Both actions are wrong and should be punished. You can argue that the punishment should be based on severity.

It just doesn't make sense, see? We, as a society, come to opinions about what is acceptable and what isn't. Playing video games is less harmful than doing heroin, and therefore it's legal. How do we know it's less harmful? Common sense. Most everyone agrees on it. There's a line somewhere, and although people disagree on where exactly it is, MOST people agree that heroin is on one side and video games are on the other. It's not a "random opinion."

So if MOST people agree to something that makes it right? Dare I bring up some counterexamples?

You can judge things based on degree, even if they're the same categorically.

Of course, but there can't be a random line saying "this far is OK, but that far isn't". That just doesn't make sense - either they are the same categorically or they aren't.

You're also not free to enjoy heroin responsibly. It's very very hard to do so, 'cause it kind of addicts you, takes away your ability to judge **** correctly, and then screws you. If you were some kind of ubermensch or maybe had a terminal illness or something, I guess it might work, but eh. Sorry. Your freedom's being sacrificed for the common good.

Video games are addictive to some people. Sacrifice freedom for the common good.

Such cases would be rare enough, in the case of heroin, that I believe the greater good kind of trumps them.

There is no greater good to using violence against people who aren't harming anyone.


Also, do you acknowledge that in reality banning drugs makes no sense?

 

[Battlecow]

I have no idea what you are saying here. Both actions are wrong and should be punished. You can argue that the punishment should be based on severity.

No. Your argument is: Video games and heroin are both ways to harm yourself, and since banning teh vidya is ridiculous, so is banning heroin?

What I'm saying is that since video games are relatively non-harmful and easy to stop playing in most-cases, (that's not my opinion- that's the verdict that society as a whole has come to) we don't need to restrict people's freedom, because most of them are having fun rather than hurting themselves.

In the case of heroin, most people end up hurting themselves rather badly, so we stop them from doing that.

Even though they're the same categorically, the degree makes all the difference.

So if MOST people agree to something that makes it right? Dare I bring up some counterexamples?

Democracy doesn't always work. It's the worst system of governance there is- except for all the other ones.

Video games are addictive to some people. Sacrifice freedom for the common good.

They don't do enough harm to warrant a ban (in fact, they do more good than harm in my- and probably most people's- opinions).

There is no greater good to using violence against people who aren't harming anyone.

They're harming themselves. If a friend was about to commit suicide, I'd stop him and restrain him until he calmed down.
[/quote]

Also, do you acknowledge that in reality banning drugs makes no sense?

I can't pretend to be certain, but with regards to the "hard" drugs, my opinion is that their use should be suppressed as much as possible even with the current level of cost/criminal-making.

 

[ballin4life]

No. Your argument is: Video games and heroin are both ways to harm yourself, and since banning teh vidya is ridiculous, so is banning heroin?

Your argument is that heroin is a way to harm yourself, so we should ban heroin. I say this doesn't make sense, since so many activities (e.g. video games) are ways to harm yourself, depending on the point of view you take.

What I'm saying is that since video games are relatively non-harmful and easy to stop playing in most-cases, (that's not my opinion- that's the verdict that society as a whole has come to) we don't need to restrict people's freedom, because most of them are having fun rather than hurting themselves.

In most cases, heroin doesn't lead to death either. And what about those people that do become unhealthy because of video games?

In the case of heroin, most people end up hurting themselves rather badly, so we stop them from doing that.

Well, if we want to step back into REALITY, we can see that the attempts to "stop them" DON'T WORK and only lead to higher prices, unsafe drugs and more crime. People don't think "oh, I'm going to not do heroin because I might go to jail", they think "oh, I'm going to not do heroin because it's unhealthy". When your supposed solution has no benefits and MASSIVE costs, it might be time to reevaluate. Seriously, what do you think will happen if heroin is legalized? Everyone is going to suddenly start doing it? No, the answer is that addicts will find it easier to get treatment (if they want to be treated), prices will drop, crime will drop, quality will improve, and everyone will be safer, including the person who voluntarily chooses to use drugs.

Anyway, back to FANTASYLAND: as I said before plenty of things lead to people hurting themselves. I still don't see what right you have to hurt them in an attempt to stop them. I mean, imagine if I broke into your house and threw you in jail for playing video games...

Even though they're the same categorically, the degree makes all the difference.

The point of categorizing actions is to decide which categories are ok and which aren't. If there really is some threshold degree that makes all the difference, you should be able to explain exactly what separates the "OK" category from the "not-OK" category.

Democracy doesn't always work. It's the worst system of governance there is- except for all the other ones.

Ok, but doesn't this mean we should limit the application of democracy as much as necessary? For example, if we held a vote right now about whether video games should be banned, would that be ok with you? What if we held a vote about whether to put certain people into slave labor?

They don't do enough harm to warrant a ban (in fact, they do more good than harm in my- and probably most people's- opinions).

And democracy should be able to make this choice? There's a lot of room for misuse of such extensive power.

They're harming themselves. If a friend was about to commit suicide, I'd stop him and restrain him until he calmed down.

If you knew he was going to calm down, then this is a perfectly reasonable action.

I can't pretend to be certain, but with regards to the "hard" drugs, my opinion is that their use should be suppressed as much as possible even with the current level of cost/criminal-making.

So it's ok to take tons of money from everyone in order to make pathetic attempts to stop people from voluntarily doing unhealthy things. In the meantime, you make those very things MUCH more unhealthy and make it difficult for people to stop doing the unhealthy action, while also helping criminals make money. Right.


The entire idea of forcing people to do things for their own good is very dangerous. To use a common example: by that logic I should be able to force you to practice my religion. After all, I know you're going to hell if you don't. And even if you're not 100% sure, Pascal's wager is going to make it obviously beneficial on average for you to practice my religion. So then I should be able to force you to follow my religion, right? I mean, we just upped the stakes significantly - this isn't merely saving someone from an unhealthy lifestyle, it's saving someone from ETERNAL DAMNATION.

 

[Sucumbio]

What's the point in making them illegal? What gives you the right to use violence to stop someone from doing drugs? They aren't hurting anyone else. What if that someone really does want to do drugs?

That's mostly beside the point. The law isn't there to be unfair, or to be cruel or something like that. It's there to properly categorize [Heroin's use and sale] so that the correct government agencies may have autonomy. True, therein lies a problem: convolution and bureaucracy. The system does need to be revamped. And part of that revamping would be to change the penalty from jail-time to rehab (for offenses such as public intoxication, DUI, possession). But the key word in this is PENALTY. You can't incur a penalty if it isn't illegal to begin with. That's why it has to remain illegal. The only other option is to completely do away with the Justice system altogether, and place Narcotics in a separate or other category, under which you are not penalized for its use, but this intrinsically means that they become Legal, and that's not viable.

And even if you can answer all those questions, what gives you the right to draw the specific line between what should be legal and what should be illegal? Why can't I come in, use your argument, and say we should ban caffeine, morphine, and fast food? How about driving? That's one of the most unhealthy activities one can engage in. Yet a HUGE percentage of the population does it. Time to start rallying against all those driving addicts.

Well actually, lawmakers draw these lines daily, and they are ever changing. Why is it illegal to sell alcohol to someone under 21, yet an 18 year old can still enlist and die for this country, or vote? Is that 3 year difference REALLY a make or break difference when considering the mental, emotional and physical development of a "minor?" The answer lies in painstaking research, statistical analysis, documented case studies, histories of populations, precedents, etc. etc. If we were to take to the polls RIGHT now and say "Heroin vs. Driving, which is safer?" despite numbers actually showing (probably, I'm not inclined to check) that fewer people die every year from Heroin OD than in driving accidents, people would almost still unanimously vote to keep Heroin illegal and driving legal. Why?

Well lets look at some of the obvious:

1a.) Getting places: Today's busy world is built on the speed of the transportation systems in place. True we may have all just... walked everywhere. But that's not tenable now. People need packages delivered, sometimes thousands of miles. People lead busy lives, also. In many cities where people work, their homes are an hour or two away... BY CAR. Imagine if they had to walk! It'd take them all day just to get to work, lol.

1b.)Shooting up: Does Heroine use change the equation at all? Does being high alter the fact that packages still need to be delivered, that people need to commute long distances? And no, moving closer to work isn't an option either. People don't normally choose to live so far away, they have no choice because all the homes progressively closer to their jobs are already lived in.

In essence comparing driving and heroine falls under non sequitur. Their only link is the danger involved, but whereas one is almost completely recreational (hence, optional) the other is quite frankly required for today's society to function properly.

You also mention, though less vehemently, caffeine, morphine, and fast food.

Caffeine: Here's an interesting article that for 90 percent of it would support your argument.

All until this part:

The short-term effects resulting from caffeine consumption, such as alertness, renewed energy, and pleasure, may not necessarily outweigh the longer-term effects of caffeine addiction. Caffeine, despite its similarities to amphetamines, has side effects that are not nearly as severe, and withdrawal symptoms that are, generally, not life-threatening.

So yeah, it is true that caffeine shares quite a bit in common with coke and heroin. But unlike the illegal ones, caffeine is safer to ingest in large quantities. Note, I'm not saying it's without side effects. And of course there's still withdrawal. But it's not normally life threatening. Here's where a lawmaker would make their distinction, citing how many people die from Heroin OD vs Caffeine OD. This may lead you to an obvious question: well why do either one? Well... people want to stay awake longer, to increase productivity, and coffee allows them to do that. Coffee culture, as I've come to know it (being an employee of a massive-production coffee vendor) is one unto itself, not unlike other sub-cultures. Although a case may be made for the potential productivity level of a Heroin addict vs. a caffeine addict, the simple fact remains that caffeine is a safer alternative, medically.

Morphine: this is a null example. Morphine, Heroine, Cocaine, all are technically viable as medical supplements/used in treatments. This is not in dispute.

Fast Food: actually this one I agree with. I think Fast Food should be illegal. It's purposefully unhealthy, for the benefit of addicting its eaters. It's bad for human consumption, and it is targeted at youth, who know no better. In essence, if I had my way, McDonald's, though I would miss them, would be shut down, or forced to change their menu to a not-so-fast alternative of food preparation.

All of these examples aside, we haven't even touched on the trafficking aspect. It's simple geography that maintains that Heroin production take place in regions of the world not controlled by the United States. As such we have 2 options. Legal import/export agreement or Smuggling. Because the governments of the places where these things are produced have also deemed Heroin illegal (because they lack the proper resources to handle it any other way) it is literally impossible for our government to partake in legal importation of it. This means the only way for Americans to get their hands on Heroin is through illegal import. This means that BY DEFAULT, the product itself is also... illegal. And has no choice but to stay that way.

Now in a future where the US starts growing its own fields, maybe... but then you have to look at what would happen to the population. Will citizens be forced to declare they are addicted to Heroin? If so, will they be able to get a job? What effects would this have on insurance premiums? On liability? Will I be able to sue a Heroin addicted doctor if he ****s up my surgery because he was high while trying to slice me open?

 

[Battlecow]

Your argument is that heroin is a way to harm yourself, so we should ban heroin. I say this doesn't make sense, since so many activities (e.g. video games) are ways to harm yourself, depending on the point of view you take.

Heroin is a way to harm yourself that's incredibly easy to fall into, hard to get out of, and destructive to your well-being. The other, legal activities that you speak of are less so. Since they're not as direly threatening as heroin, we leave it up to the people who do them.

In most cases, heroin doesn't lead to death either. And what about those people that do become unhealthy because of video games?

Heroin is more unhealthy. The gamers can stop playing video games and become healthy with relative ease, and far fewer gamers end up screwed and unhappy than heroin addicts.

Well, if we want to step back into REALITY, we can see that the attempts to "stop them" DON'T WORK and only lead to higher prices, unsafe drugs and more crime. People don't think "oh, I'm going to not do heroin because I might go to jail", they think "oh, I'm going to not do heroin because it's unhealthy". When your supposed solution has no benefits and MASSIVE costs, it might be time to reevaluate. Seriously, what do you think will happen if heroin is legalized? Everyone is going to suddenly start doing it? No, the answer is that addicts will find it easier to get treatment (if they want to be treated), prices will drop, crime will drop, quality will improve, and everyone will be safer, including the person who voluntarily chooses to use drugs.

I know a lot of people who'd do heroin if it was available at the parties they went to. I know a lot of people who'd bring heroin to parties if it wasn't so stigmatized, hard to get, expensive, and illegal (yes, some people are afraid of prison). Heroin is stigmatized, hard to get, and expensive BECAUSE it is illegal.

Anyway, back to FANTASYLAND: as I said before plenty of things lead to people hurting themselves. I still don't see what right you have to hurt them in an attempt to stop them. I mean, imagine if I broke into your house and threw you in jail for playing video games...

We're doing it for their own good. If you jailed me for gaming, I'd say that it was ridiculous because I wasn't doing any harm to myself. If you jailed me for heroin, I'd be like "ya OK I gotcha we have to have a method of punishment to discourage use of that horrible drug that I foolishly became addicted to."

The point of categorizing actions is to decide which categories are ok and which aren't. If there really is some threshold degree that makes all the difference, you should be able to explain exactly what separates the "OK" category from the "not-OK" category.

I can "explain exactly what separates the "OK" category from the "not-OK" category." A certain level of harm that the action causes. I don't have a scale for measuring harm, but I have a pretty good idea of where it lies and so do most people. We judge on a case-by-case basis, democratically.

Ok, but doesn't this mean we should limit the application of democracy as much as necessary? For example, if we held a vote right now about whether video games should be banned, would that be ok with you? What if we held a vote about whether to put certain people into slave labor?

Yes, it would be OK with me. I know that people would vote no to both of those things. Of course, some limits- e.g. the US constitution- should be placed on democracy. it doesn't make sense just to have votes on everything. Still, the system is fundamentally democratic and, at a basic level, it all comes down to the will of the people.

And democracy should be able to make this choice? There's a lot of room for misuse of such extensive power.

Yup. Guess I'll have to trust in the goodwill and common sense of my fellow Americans.

So it's ok to take tons of money from everyone in order to make pathetic attempts to stop people from voluntarily doing unhealthy things. In the meantime, you make those very things MUCH more unhealthy and make it difficult for people to stop doing the unhealthy action, while also helping criminals make money. Right.

See my earlier response. I believe that the ban on hard drugs makes people use them less. I think it's worth the money we put into it.

The entire idea of forcing people to do things for their own good is very dangerous. To use a common example: by that logic I should be able to force you to practice my religion. After all, I know you're going to hell if you don't. And even if you're not 100% sure, Pascal's wager is going to make it obviously beneficial on average for you to practice my religion. So then I should be able to force you to follow my religion, right? I mean, we just upped the stakes significantly - this isn't merely saving someone from an unhealthy lifestyle, it's saving someone from ETERNAL DAMNATION.

We have laws preventing you from doing that. Morally, it probably makes sense for you to try that, depending on your religious views, but thankfully, the constitution guarantees me freedom of religion (because the founders weren't idiots). If I had hardcore evangelistic beliefs, I would try to force as many people as possible to follow my religion in whatever way I could.

 

[1048576]

It takes a special kind of arrogance to believe you know better for someone than they do. Nobody goes straight to heroin. It's coffee, then weed, then hard liquor, then heroin (or something like that.) At each stage, the cost of the side effects (and the benefit of the high) is less than the cost of horrible withdrawal.

IMO, calling someone stupid is the quickest way to be recognized as stupid yourself. It means you can't identify the true cause of someone's thoughts or actions.

What does harmful even mean anyway? Who gets to decide that definition?

Also, people in Netherlands smoke less pot than in US, even failing to account for people who go there just because it's the only place they can legally smoke, which bolsters my position that people generally know what's best for themselves.
http://www1.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67

 

[Battlecow]

It takes a special kind of arrogance to believe you know better for someone than they do. Nobody goes straight to heroin. It's coffee, then weed, then hard liquor, then heroin (or something like that.) At each stage, the cost of the side effects (and the benefit of the high) is less than the cost of horrible withdrawal.

IMO, calling someone stupid is the quickest way to be recognized as stupid yourself. It means you can't identify the true cause of someone's thoughts or actions.

What does harmful even mean anyway? Who gets to decide that definition?

Also, people in Netherlands smoke less pot than in US, even failing to account for people who go there just because it's the only place they can legally smoke, which bolsters my position that people generally know what's best for themselves.
http://www1.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67

I'm glad you know so much about how people get into heroin. Coffee the gateway drug, who knew?

If calling people stupid makes you stupid, and you just implied that I was stupid, that makes you...? Oh snap! We're back in third grade again. Seriously though, cut the crap, because we both know that "stupid" is a really succinct and accurate way of describing some people and actions.

People who use heroin are generally stupid, either in general or at a moment of weakness. Anyways, I think that I (and most people; probably even you) do indeed "know better for them than they do." What's better for them is not to do heroin. That's what interventions are all about, right? People who know better than you protecting you from yourself. Or are you anti-intervention now?

And are you saying that the user knows best, or that their addiction is understandable? You seem confused. If you're saying that the user knows best, that's stupid. If you're saying that their addiction is understandable, that may be true in some cases, but nevertheless, we should stop them from getting addicted.

Don't play definition games with me. We all know what harm means. If someone has a good time with heroin at first and then it ****s them over to the point that it usually does, they've been harmed overall. Who gets to decide it? The same people who get to decide whether or not to ban heroin, i.e. everyone. Very few people go into hard drugs thinking "Gee, this'll lead to misery in the long run, but I like to live for the moment!" Rather, they're just not thinking.

Your second source indicates that marijuana use in the Netherlands is indeed about half as prevalent as in the US- but note that use of heroin is one fifth as prevalent, and use of cocaine about one seventh as prevalent. (taken from the "ever used" column, so eh, but you get the point). Clearly, there's just a different drug culture in the netherlands. I think they'd probably have much lower cannabis use if it wasn't legal.

That said, I'm still not against legalizing pot.

 

[ballin4life]

That's mostly beside the point. The law isn't there to be unfair, or to be cruel or something like that. It's there to properly categorize [Heroin's use and sale] so that the correct government agencies may have autonomy. True, therein lies a problem: convolution and bureaucracy. The system does need to be revamped. And part of that revamping would be to change the penalty from jail-time to rehab (for offenses such as public intoxication, DUI, possession). But the key word in this is PENALTY. You can't incur a penalty if it isn't illegal to begin with. That's why it has to remain illegal. The only other option is to completely do away with the Justice system altogether, and place Narcotics in a separate or other category, under which you are not penalized for its use, but this intrinsically means that they become Legal, and that's not viable.

Ironically, everything you say here actually is besides the point. Obviously the purpose of the law is to categorize heroin, and obviously something that is illegal comes with a penalty.

But the whole point of this argument is whether there should be such a law and such a penalty at all. I say they should be legal and have been explaining my reasons why. You then come in and say "you can't incur a penalty if it isn't illegal ... [t]hat's why it has to remain illegal". To which I reply: lolwut.

Well actually, lawmakers draw these lines daily, and they are ever changing. Why is it illegal to sell alcohol to someone under 21, yet an 18 year old can still enlist and die for this country, or vote? Is that 3 year difference REALLY a make or break difference when considering the mental, emotional and physical development of a "minor?" The answer lies in painstaking research, statistical analysis, documented case studies, histories of populations, precedents, etc. etc. If we were to take to the polls RIGHT now and say "Heroin vs. Driving, which is safer?" despite numbers actually showing (probably, I'm not inclined to check) that fewer people die every year from Heroin OD than in driving accidents, people would almost still unanimously vote to keep Heroin illegal and driving legal. Why?

Uh, I agree lawmakers draw lines daily. I'm saying they shouldn't do this. We're arguing about how things SHOULD be, not how they are.

Well lets look at some of the obvious:

1a.) Getting places: Today's busy world is built on the speed of the transportation systems in place. True we may have all just... walked everywhere. But that's not tenable now. People need packages delivered, sometimes thousands of miles. People lead busy lives, also. In many cities where people work, their homes are an hour or two away... BY CAR. Imagine if they had to walk! It'd take them all day just to get to work, lol.

1b.)Shooting up: Does Heroine use change the equation at all? Does being high alter the fact that packages still need to be delivered, that people need to commute long distances? And no, moving closer to work isn't an option either. People don't normally choose to live so far away, they have no choice because all the homes progressively closer to their jobs are already lived in.

In essence comparing driving and heroine falls under non sequitur. Their only link is the danger involved, but whereas one is almost completely recreational (hence, optional) the other is quite frankly required for today's society to function properly.

There is no meaningful distinction between the function of the two in the context of this discussion. Both serve a purpose and people want to do them. Both are dangerous.

Therefore, if your argument is: "heroin is dangerous, therefore we should violently force people to stop doing it", you must also conclude the same for driving, since driving satisfies your premise "dangerous" as well.

Now we both recognize that you cannot make the above argument. But you have failed to introduce a compelling additional premise that clearly separates the two. Merely pointing out that one is more dangerous and one is more beneficial isn't an argument, because you have to give a strict criterion for distinguishing them, not a vague one like "driving is frankly required for today's society".

You also mention, though less vehemently, caffeine, morphine, and fast food.

Caffeine: Here's an interesting article that for 90 percent of it would support your argument.

All until this part:



So yeah, it is true that caffeine shares quite a bit in common with coke and heroin. But unlike the illegal ones, caffeine is safer to ingest in large quantities. Note, I'm not saying it's without side effects. And of course there's still withdrawal. But it's not normally life threatening. Here's where a lawmaker would make their distinction, citing how many people die from Heroin OD vs Caffeine OD. This may lead you to an obvious question: well why do either one? Well... people want to stay awake longer, to increase productivity, and coffee allows them to do that. Coffee culture, as I've come to know it (being an employee of a massive-production coffee vendor) is one unto itself, not unlike other sub-cultures. Although a case may be made for the potential productivity level of a Heroin addict vs. a caffeine addict, the simple fact remains that caffeine is a safer alternative, medically.

Once again, merely pointing out that caffeine is safer is not enough. I can just say "well, you draw the line at heroin, I draw the line at caffeine. I'm sending you to jail for visiting Starbucks".

Heroin and cocaine are not normally life threatening either. Plus there's the fact that their illegality makes them way more dangerous since a user cannot know what exactly he is purchasing. This leads to ODs when people don't realize that they are getting a stronger variety of the drug.

Also, any thoughts on alcohol ODs, which happen all the time?

Morphine: this is a null example. Morphine, Heroine, Cocaine, all are technically viable as medical supplements/used in treatments. This is not in dispute.

Fast Food: actually this one I agree with. I think Fast Food should be illegal. It's purposefully unhealthy, for the benefit of addicting its eaters. It's bad for human consumption, and it is targeted at youth, who know no better. In essence, if I had my way, McDonald's, though I would miss them, would be shut down, or forced to change their menu to a not-so-fast alternative of food preparation.

I agree that fast food is unhealthy. But it still serves a purpose. The fact that some people are horribly unhealthy should not limit ME from eating fast food if I want to (especially because I think I can eat fast food responsibly).

Disclaimer: I never eat fast food

All of these examples aside, we haven't even touched on the trafficking aspect. It's simple geography that maintains that Heroin production take place in regions of the world not controlled by the United States. As such we have 2 options. Legal import/export agreement or Smuggling. Because the governments of the places where these things are produced have also deemed Heroin illegal (because they lack the proper resources to handle it any other way) it is literally impossible for our government to partake in legal importation of it. This means the only way for Americans to get their hands on Heroin is through illegal import. This means that BY DEFAULT, the product itself is also... illegal. And has no choice but to stay that way.

I don't really see how this is an issue - even if it is illegal elsewhere we can still make the trades to bring it here. Anyway, I suppose you could argue "legalization will hurt foreign relations" or something, but I think it's pretty obvious on balance that the "good" from legalization (reduced crime, healthier people, etc) will outweigh that.

Now in a future where the US starts growing its own fields, maybe... but then you have to look at what would happen to the population. Will citizens be forced to declare they are addicted to Heroin? If so, will they be able to get a job? What effects would this have on insurance premiums? On liability? Will I be able to sue a Heroin addicted doctor if he ****s up my surgery because he was high while trying to slice me open?

Just because the US grows the drug, everyone will get addicted? You know smoking has gone down in this country right?

For random questions like "will I be able to sue my heroin addicted doctor for malpractice" just think of how it is with alcohol. If your doctor is drunk and causes harm to you you can sue him.

Heroin is a way to harm yourself that's incredibly easy to fall into, hard to get out of, and destructive to your well-being. The other, legal activities that you speak of are less so. Since they're not as direly threatening as heroin, we leave it up to the people who do them.

So easy to fall into that everyone in the US is doing it ...

Once again, what if I draw the line at video games or fast food? Do I now have the right to force you to stop doing both of those?

Also we're talking about how it should be, not how it currently is.

Heroin is more unhealthy. The gamers can stop playing video games and become healthy with relative ease, and far fewer gamers end up screwed and unhappy than heroin addicts.

Hehehe. I don't know about this one. The population of gamers is much larger than the population of heroin addicts.

Once again though, weasel words like "relative ease" don't really help your argument. There are still some people who CAN'T do it with relative ease. What about them? And what about the people who are happy to use heroin?

I know a lot of people who'd do heroin if it was available at the parties they went to. I know a lot of people who'd bring heroin to parties if it wasn't so stigmatized, hard to get, expensive, and illegal (yes, some people are afraid of prison). Heroin is stigmatized, hard to get, and expensive BECAUSE it is illegal.

I maintain that it's because it's bad for you. Why is marijuana use so accepted, while heroin use is very uncommon?

But anyway, assuming you support the legality of alcohol, do you feel any cognitive dissonance here?

We're doing it for their own good. If you jailed me for gaming, I'd say that it was ridiculous because I wasn't doing any harm to myself. If you jailed me for heroin, I'd be like "ya OK I gotcha we have to have a method of punishment to discourage use of that horrible drug that I foolishly became addicted to."

Do you really think that's the reaction of most people who go to jail for heroin use? Projecting your preferences onto others FTW.

I can "explain exactly what separates the "OK" category from the "not-OK" category." A certain level of harm that the action causes. I don't have a scale for measuring harm, but I have a pretty good idea of where it lies and so do most people. We judge on a case-by-case basis, democratically.

I know it when I see it criterion, huh? What happens when I "know it" at video games, or reading harry potter since it's the work of the devil, or whatever? When you have such a vague policy conflict is sure to occur.

At the very least you should admit that we ought to lean very far on the side of freedom here. After all, forcibly preventing someone from legitimately exercising his freedom is much worse than allowing someone the freedom to make a mistake.

Yes, it would be OK with me. I know that people would vote no to both of those things. Of course, some limits- e.g. the US constitution- should be placed on democracy. it doesn't make sense just to have votes on everything. Still, the system is fundamentally democratic and, at a basic level, it all comes down to the will of the people.

lol if you think the US government comes down to the will of the people.

anyway, I wouldn't be so sure about those votes. Let's just imagine a hypothetical where those votes happen and your side loses. Are you content to go along with the "will of the people"?

Yup. Guess I'll have to trust in the goodwill and common sense of my fellow Americans.

What if the vote is to put a certain ethnicity in concentration camps? (actually happened, ya know)

See my earlier response. I believe that the ban on hard drugs makess people use them less. I think it's worth the money we put into it.

hahahahaha

We have laws preventing you from doing that. Morally, it probably makes sense for you to try that, depending on your religious views, but thankfully, the constitution guarantees me freedom of religion (because the founders weren't idiots). If I had hardcore evangelistic beliefs, I would try to force as many people as possible to follow my religion in whatever way I could.

So what's the relevant distinction between my religion which says you're going to hell and your "religion" which says I shouldn't do drugs? Just that one is a bit more proven to be harmful? But that's in the eye of the beholder - to me it's 100% proven that you're going to hell.

 

[Battlecow]

So easy to fall into that everyone in the US is doing it ...

Nope. Most people are smart enough not to do it. Some people are stupid, though.

Once again, what if I draw the line at video games or fast food? Do I now have the right to force you to stop doing both of those?

No. You don't have the right. If the American legislative system decided to draw the line there, they'd have the right. They wouldn't, though, because it's a bad place to draw the line. We're going in circles, so I'm going to try to simplify my argument even further:

Heroin has an overwhelmingly negative impact on people's lives

Video games have a net positive impact, or at least an impact that isn't negative enough to impact legislative action (freedom to choose is valuable, after all).

Therefore we try to prevent heroin use but not Video game use.

Hehehe. I don't know about this one. The population of gamers is much larger than the population of heroin addicts.

Once again though, weasel words like "relative ease" don't really help your argument. There are still some people who CAN'T do it with relative ease. What about them? And what about the people who are happy to use heroin?

Gaming: not bad enough to warrant a ban. Who decides? Everyone, using their common sense.

Heroin: bad enough to warrant a ban. Those people who heroin effects positively (if that's what you mean by "happy to use")? Few and far between. Who decides? Everyone, using their common sense.

Would you agree that the average heroin user is more negatively effected by their habit than the actual gamer?

I maintain that it's because it's bad for you. Why is marijuana use so accepted, while heroin use is very uncommon?

That's part of it, obviously. I maintain that illegality is also a part of it.

But anyway, assuming you support the legality of alcohol, do you feel any cognitive dissonance here?

Alcohol's easy to use in moderation. Heroin much less so. Basically, it's a matter of degree, just like video games.

Do you really think that's the reaction of most people who go to jail for heroin use? Projecting your preferences onto others FTW.

Obviously not. I said that it was what I would say.

I know it when I see it criterion, huh? What happens when I "know it" at video games, or reading harry potter since it's the work of the devil, or whatever? When you have such a vague policy conflict is sure to occur.

Under my system, it's true that people could ban video games or harry potter if they "knew it" there. But that would require a very great deal of public support for such bans. Said support won't come, because said bans would be stupid and people are smart enough to know that.

At the very least you should admit that we ought to lean very far on the side of freedom here. After all, forcibly preventing someone from legitimately exercising his freedom is much worse than allowing someone the freedom to make a mistake.

Yes, we should lean towards the side of freedom. I agree. But there are times when you have to choose against it, IMO- and heroin is one of those times.

lol if you think the US government comes down to the will of the people.

There are errors, and failures, and so on and so forth, but basically, on a fundamental level, it does.

anyway, I wouldn't be so sure about those votes. Let's just imagine a hypothetical where those votes happen and your side loses. Are you content to go along with the "will of the people"?

If they banned video games? Depending on enforcement, I'd probably break the law, lol. I can't imagine something that ridiculous happening, though.

What if the vote is to put a certain ethnicity in concentration camps? (actually happened, ya know)

A democracy is only as good as its voters. If its voters are cockholes, it's gonna make cockholish decisions. Under what political system would the Japanese NOT have been terribly abused there? If you have rule of law, the courts are gonna toss 'em in jail because they're scared and there's a war on and it's what the people want. If you don't have rule of law, I'm guessing lots of lynchings or something.

hahahahaha

lololololololol

So what's the relevant distinction between my religion which says you're going to hell and your "religion" which says I shouldn't do drugs? Just that one is a bit more proven to be harmful? But that's in the eye of the beholder - to me it's 100% proven that you're going to hell.

There's no distinction. In said instance, I should try to get you not to do drugs, and you should try to convert me. Because the people and government of the USA aren't stupid, however, your action will be repressed, and mine supported. This is because one of the actions is a good idea, and one of them is a bad idea, and the people, aided by the constitution, know, basically, which is which.

 

[1048576]

My argument is that some people are better off with heroin than they would be without it. In order to contest that, you need a definition of "well off," and the wealth of human knowledge is not equipped to provide you with one.

If I were dictator of the world, I'd provide rehab centers, but I wouldn't force anybody to check into one.

Edit: you talk like you know a lot, but you have no idea. I guess that could be said for most anyone though, myself included. Try to keep an open mind.

 

[Sucumbio]

Ironically, everything you say here actually is besides the point. Obviously the purpose of the law is to categorize heroin, and obviously something that is illegal comes with a penalty.

But the whole point of this argument is whether there should be such a law and such a penalty at all. I say they should be legal and have been explaining my reasons why. You then come in and say "you can't incur a penalty if it isn't illegal ... [t]hat's why it has to remain illegal". To which I reply: lolwut.

Let me explain then, I don't want you to misunderstand the importance of this point. By legalizing Heroin the category changes, we both agree to this. But what I disagree with is how that's a good thing. The government cannot mandate things that aren't "on the books" so to speak. By changing Heroin from a controlled substance to a commodity, you essentially remove any effective way for the government to force people to rehabilitate. Rehabilitation becomes optional in other words, and I have a huge problem with that. If we're going to both agree that jail time is a bad consequence, but that rehab is a good alternative, then you have to show how rehab would be a -viable- alternative without mandate, because we both agree it's a better choice. I just think that it's ONLY a good choice if it's as mandatory as jail time. Why? Well... because otherwise the only incentive to "clean up" is the personal choice to do so, and the only recourse is voluntary induction into a program, like the 12-step program, for example. Addicts aren't so inclined to do this on their own, it is why interventions are often required, and the 2nd step to a successful intervention is rehab (the first step being admitting that you have a problem).

We also have to look at this politically. It's not enough to say "I think _______." Or even why. You have to go one step further and demonstrate in which ways you think and why you think _______. A politician seeking election won't be able to get behind a bill that changes Heroin from illegal to legal if he isn't prepared to demonstrate in which ways addicts will be handled. Just leaving addicts to their own devices is terribly irresponsible as a public policy. Public policy on safety and safe methods are all about experts doing research for you so that you don't have to go in blindly into a decision. Should I use X septic system, or should I move closer to town so I can be on city water? Public Works outlines the key factors in this decisions so that we can make informed choices. It's too much to ask of the common man to do their own research. That's why we elect people, to do it for us. The same goes for Heroin legalization and the consequences for abusing it.

Uh, I agree lawmakers draw lines daily. I'm saying they shouldn't do this. We're arguing about how things SHOULD be, not how they are.

But that's their job. You seem to be suggesting that we should be drawing our own lines? That's perfectly fine for -some- things, but some things effect so many people that we cannot possibly expect them to remain unorganized or unregulated. Take... cigarette smoking in public, for example. Whose rights are infringed by banning smoking? Smokers. But on the flip side of this, do we not as a society have the right to decide in the best interest of public health and safety to have smoke-free areas? The post office, the city hall, the police station, the public library, these places are open to everyone, so doesn't this mean that it's only fair to ban smoking indoors at these places? Of course. A smoker chooses to smoke, to increase their risk of death by carcinogen. Someone else who does not smoke has just as much right to use that facility without jeopardizing their health! Because the smoker is the one causing harm (to themselves and anyone near them) they are the ones whose rights will be diminished in favor of everyone else. And only a lawmaker can ... draw this line.

Taking the smoker example... a Heroin user chooses to use the drug... to cause harm to themselves, or others by association. So too will their public rights be diminished, and it is up to lawmakers to draw this line.

There is no meaningful distinction between the function of the two in the context of this discussion. Both serve a purpose and people want to do them. Both are dangerous.

Therefore, if your argument is: "heroin is dangerous, therefore we should violently force people to stop doing it", you must also conclude the same for driving, since driving satisfies your premise "dangerous" as well.

Now we both recognize that you cannot make the above argument. But you have failed to introduce a compelling additional premise that clearly separates the two. Merely pointing out that one is more dangerous and one is more beneficial isn't an argument, because you have to give a strict criterion for distinguishing them, not a vague one like "driving is frankly required for today's society".

Though you may think the argument is vague it is actually not. Driving is categorically and empirically more important than Heroin use. If we take away Heroin from the equation, the world still functions. If we remove cars from the equation, the world ceases to function. Why? Because we do not have the infrastructure for public transportation to supplement the high demands of our populous. We lack the ability to transport large amounts of goods from point a to point b without the use of motor vehicles. Though dangerous, it is only dangerous in the respect that operating heavy machinery is dangerous (hence the label on medicines warning to not drive OR operate heavy machinery). In other words, it is no more dangerous than say.... crossing the street on foot. We have aids to help people cross the street... a crosswalk, lights... signals. We have ways to make driving safe: traffic laws, rules of the road, etc. Your comparison between the two is too far removed from the issue at hand to be useful to the discussion, that was my point. You may have well have said that Heroin use is dangerous like Living is dangerous. Instead I would suggest a comparison far closer to the truth. Heroin is dangerous like Sky-diving is dangerous. Both are recreational, unnecessary for the population on a whole, addicting in nature, can result in death, etc. Too different animals I'm afraid, and why I can't abide the comparison, regardless of how simplistic you try to make it.

Once again, merely pointing out that caffeine is safer is not enough. I can just say "well, you draw the line at heroin, I draw the line at caffeine. I'm sending you to jail for visiting Starbucks".

I'm glad you brought this up, because this actually spells out for us your error. YOU draw the line at Heroin. You see? Key word. You. A -personal- choice. We as a people draw the line at caffeine. BECAUSE it is safer. That is indeed enough of a contention to lay the comparison to rest. Mainly because it's not just marginally safer, it's a lot safer.

Heroin and cocaine are not normally life threatening either. Plus there's the fact that their illegality makes them way more dangerous since a user cannot know what exactly he is purchasing. This leads to ODs when people don't realize that they are getting a stronger variety of the drug.

You've brought up a new point here, so I will address this. The idea that hard drugs would be safer for consumption if they were suddenly legalized is a true possibility, in the sense that you mention. However, this point goes toward the assumption that deaths from Heroin OD are the reason why Heroin should be illegal, and it's not. See the first paragraph. The deaths from Heroin OD are incidental of Heroin use/abuse... it's unfortunate, sure. But it's not the basis for my argument to keep the drugs illegal. The only real reason to keep the drugs illegal, is to maintain the structural dynamic which would mandate rehabilitation for users, plain and simple.

Also, any thoughts on alcohol ODs, which happen all the time?

Not sure how this plays into what we're talking about... I find that alcohol use is dangerous, and a personal choice, and that deaths from OD are unfortunate, but we have plenty of laws on the books to keep public safety in mind. Alcohol is not illegal - fully. But it is illegal to sell it to a minor, it is illegal to be drunk in public, to drive while drunk, etc. And these are good laws, that protect the community, and go towards the much needed task of structuring a public response to public interferences (jail time, fines, etc.)

I agree that fast food is unhealthy. But it still serves a purpose. The fact that some people are horribly unhealthy should not limit ME from eating fast food if I want to (especially because I think I can eat fast food responsibly).

Disclaimer: I never eat fast food

Well the difficulty is that the purpose it serves which you mention is actually a diabolical one, and that is why it should be made illegal. It'd be different if the McDonald's hamburger wasn't engineered to be addicting, especially to youth, but that's not the case. These burgers are laced, making them more addictive. Then you got the Clown guy ... the advertising campaigns, targeting impressionable youth, so that they can become addicted early in life and continue the cycle well into adulthood. This plot against the American people is the stuff that legislation is made from, and I for one would fully support it.

I don't really see how this is an issue - even if it is illegal elsewhere we can still make the trades to bring it here. Anyway, I suppose you could argue "legalization will hurt foreign relations" or something, but I think it's pretty obvious on balance that the "good" from legalization (reduced crime, healthier people, etc) will outweigh that.

No, that's just it. Foreign relations are just the tip of the iceberg, really. And that in itself is nothing to look at lightly. We need our relations to be on good terms. With legal drugs, we'd be -supporting- the Mexican Cartels, for example, by importing Heroin, Coke, Pot, etc. as actual legal imports, legitimizing their claim to their territory, and circumventing the Mexican's government from their goal of eradicating the cartels.

Just because the US grows the drug, everyone will get addicted? You know smoking has gone down in this country right?

I'm not sure how you got this from what I said...

Will citizens be forced to declare they are addicted to Heroin? If so, will they be able to get a job? What effects would this have on insurance premiums?

This doesn't imply that everyone will suddenly decide they want to use drugs. What this asks is -of those that do- what will they be required to do as users. I for one would not hire a heroin addict, legal or not. If I ran an insurance program, I'd charge 10 times the normal premium, because they'd be 10 times more likely to die (fake number to make a general point). See? These are just 2 questions, I'm sure there's dozens, and no they all can't be answered like this one:

For random questions like "will I be able to sue my heroin addicted doctor for malpractice" just think of how it is with alcohol. If your doctor is drunk and causes harm to you you can sue him.

I'll grant that. But it still raises liability issues. One cannot make the same expectations of someone that is addicted to narcotics as someone who is not. They are unreliable as people, unable to perform their duties properly. For any profession this is true. And unlike alcohol or even pot, the destructive forces of Hard Drug addiction are such that it isn't possible to expect most people to be able to keep it just to after-work recreation. Meth... another one. They're all so strong and forcibly destructive on the human body and psyche that it's foolish to think you can just cook you up a hit after work and it'll be okay. That's why they're called Hard Drugs, and why they remain under strict regulation and law.

"Who am I to tell you you can't shoot up?"

A concerned citizen, who's looking out for the well being of all of us.

"Well I'd rather be left to my own devices, and left to make my own decisions."

Fine. Then stay the hell away from me, and don't expect to enjoy any of the liberties afforded you by being a member of society. You want to live a rogue existence, then I expect you to live isolated and alone, where your crack riddled body cannot infect me with its unclean self.

(not ad hominem, please don't take that personally, it's meant to be an illustration and summary of the ideas surrounding this discussion.)

 

[Battlecow]

My argument is that some people are better off with heroin than they would be without it. In order to contest that, you need a definition of "well off," and the wealth of human knowledge is not equipped to provide you with one.

If I were dictator of the world, I'd provide rehab centers, but I wouldn't force anybody to check into one.

Edit: you talk like you know a lot, but you have no idea. I guess that could be said for most anyone though, myself included. Try to keep an open mind.

- I'm saying that heroin causes a net negative effect in terms of overall happiness in the overwhelming majority of cases. I don't have units to quantify happiness with, but I know it when I see it, as do most people. We observe that heroin users usually end up really unhappy, and tend to make others unhappy as well.

- If you were dictator of the world, there'd be a lot more heroin use and a lot more lives would be ruined. Sucks.

- I don't know why you're saying that, but I don't think I've demonstrated any unusual ignorance in this discussion. If I have, please point it out. My mind is completely open to CONVINCING arguments, and if your argument doesn't convince me, it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm somehow narrow-minded.

 

[1048576]

I mean your overall tone. You act like you have all the facts when nobody has all the facts. It's annoying.

Rational people think at the margin. It's not like you can compare a heroin user to a non-heroin user. They're different people. Happy people have no reason to use drugs. The question is: would this individual be happi[er] with or without heroin? I think a lot of these people would be driven to suicide without it, (and with withdrawal) whereas with it they're "only" miserable.

Using "I know it when I see it" as a real argument for taking people's freedom away makes me shake my head. I can confidently say I don't know if they're better off or not. Let's trust their judgment.

One last thing: banning a drug does not decrease it's prevalence. Please try to keep up with the few things you actually do know. I'd be more forgiving if you didn't act like the smartest person in the room, but you come across as dishonest, not mistaken, and I will not tolerate that.

 

[ballin4life]

Nope. Most people are smart enough not to do it. Some people are stupid, though.

According to your opinion.

No. You don't have the right. If the American legislative system decided to draw the line there, they'd have the right. They wouldn't, though, because it's a bad place to draw the line. We're going in circles, so I'm going to try to simplify my argument even further:

Too much faith in the American people. Some large percentage of them don't believe in evolution. Should they be able to get intelligent design taught in schools?

Heroin has an overwhelmingly negative impact on people's lives

Video games have a net positive impact, or at least an impact that isn't negative enough to impact legislative action (freedom to choose is valuable, after all).

These are just random opinions that can't be backed up by evidence.

Heroin: bad enough to warrant a ban. Those people who heroin effects positively (if that's what you mean by "happy to use")? Few and far between. Who decides? Everyone, using their common sense.

I'm a bit confused then about how people start doing heroin in the first place. Obviously they must have been happy to use it at some point.

Alcohol's easy to use in moderation. Heroin much less so. Basically, it's a matter of degree, just like video games.

Whoa whoa whoa. Maybe for some people, but DEFINITELY not for others. I'd say alcohol causes far more problems for society today than heroin does.

Under my system, it's true that people could ban video games or harry potter if they "knew it" there. But that would require a very great deal of public support for such bans. Said support won't come, because said bans would be stupid and people are smart enough to know that.

It's way closer to happening than you acknowledge. Australia, for example, straight up BANS certain games, so that NO ONE there gets to play them.

There are errors, and failures, and so on and so forth, but basically, on a fundamental level, it does.

When you make a statement that broad it's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

If they banned video games? Depending on enforcement, I'd probably break the law, lol. I can't imagine something that ridiculous happening, though.

Ok, so you basically admit here that it all comes down to what YOU want.

A democracy is only as good as its voters. If its voters are cockholes, it's gonna make cockholish decisions. Under what political system would the Japanese NOT have been terribly abused there? If you have rule of law, the courts are gonna toss 'em in jail because they're scared and there's a war on and it's what the people want. If you don't have rule of law, I'm guessing lots of lynchings or something.

I'm sure you agree they would have been better off not getting thrown into camps, right?

lololololololol


There's no distinction. In said instance, I should try to get you not to do drugs, and you should try to convert me. Because the people and government of the USA aren't stupid, however, your action will be repressed, and mine supported. This is because one of the actions is a good idea, and one of them is a bad idea, and the people, aided by the constitution, know, basically, which is which.

Well, your idea is still a terrible one when we head back into the REAL WORLD.

Also, democracy for everything still doesn't make sense. What if there is some issue that is 51% against 49% (e.g., all the things political parties today fight about)? Should the 51% be able to force the 49% to do whatever they want? Or do things become right at some other threshold, like 60%, or 90%? How do you determine this?


Succumbio - will respond later, but have to point out right now that legalization of drugs would put the Mexican cartels all out of business. Criminals make money because illegality leads to extremely high prices and low competition.

 

[Battlecow]

I mean your overall tone. You act like you have all the facts when nobody has all the facts. It's annoying.

Rational people think at the margin. It's not like you can compare a heroin user to a non-heroin user. They're different people. Happy people have no reason to use drugs. The question is: would this individual be happi[er] with or without heroin? I think a lot of these people would be driven to suicide without it, (and with withdrawal) whereas with it they're "only" miserable.

Using "I know it when I see it" as a real argument for taking people's freedom away makes me shake my head. I can confidently say I don't know if they're better off or not. Let's trust their judgment.

One last thing: banning a drug does not decrease it's prevalence. Please try to keep up with the few things you actually do know. I'd be more forgiving if you didn't act like the smartest person in the room, but you come across as dishonest, not mistaken, and I will not tolerate that.

I'm not being dishonest, and I'm really confused as to why you're so angry. If you wanna debate we can debate, and if you wanna pitch hissy fits at each other we can do that. I'm not gonna try both at the same time.

Too much faith in the American people. Some large percentage of them don't believe in evolution. Should they be able to get intelligent design taught in schools?

Separation of church and state. It's constitutional. If they get enough backing to make an amendment allowing them to do so, then yes, because they'll simply be teaching the kids what is correct in the eyes of most Americans. It'd be tragic if people were that misinformed, but that's how these things go.

These are just random opinions that can't be backed up by evidence.

No, I can't "prove" that heroin is worse than video games. I can't "Prove" that a poke in the eye with a rusty poker is worse than a delicious vanilla cake, either, but everyone knows it's true.

I'm a bit confused then about how people start doing heroin in the first place. Obviously they must have been happy to use it at some point.

Of course. It's short-term gratification followed by long-term misery. I've never denied the first part.

Whoa whoa whoa. Maybe for some people, but DEFINITELY not for others. I'd say alcohol causes far more problems for society today than heroin does.

Because Alcohol's more widely used, because alcohol's legal.

It's way closer to happening than you acknowledge. Australia, for example, straight up BANS certain games, so that NO ONE there gets to play them.

Sucks. Luckily, we believe in freedom of speech in America.

When you make a statement that broad it's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

It is what it is.

Ok, so you basically admit here that it all comes down to what YOU want.

My job is to make myself and others happy. Democratic processes are good in general, but the system will make mistakes, naturally. I'll disobey unjust laws happily, even if I believe in the system that passed them.

I'm sure you agree they would have been better off not getting thrown into camps, right?

Yes. But what system would have protected them?

Well, your idea is still a terrible one when we head back into the REAL WORLD.

I don't see why.

Also, democracy for everything still doesn't make sense. What if there is some issue that is 51% against 49% (e.g., all the things political parties today fight about)? Should the 51% be able to force the 49% to do whatever they want? Or do things become right at some other threshold, like 60%, or 90%? How do you determine this?

Like I said- the worst system of governance there is, except for all the others. How would you do it?

 

[MG9]

I do not think that the US is in any superior position to be the world police. I don't like that the US acts like the world police like stepping into the Middle East, as though the American cultural standards are the correct ones to live by. The US already has enough problems of their own, like the current state of the economy, so they should instead work on their own problems.

 

[ballin4life]

My job is to make myself and others happy. Democratic processes are good in general, but the system will make mistakes, naturally. I'll disobey unjust laws happily, even if I believe in the system that passed them.

No idea how this can mesh with your stance. You're saying that we should have the law, but that drug users should just disobey it? This is the situation we are in right now, but it seems like a big waste of time and money to have the law at all then. Not to mention making things unsafe for the drug users and making tons of money for criminals (have I mentioned this yet?)

Yes. But what system would have protected them?

Uh, protecting people's rights? Following the Constitution?

Like I said- the worst system of governance there is, except for all the others. How would you do it?

Only vote on things that absolutely must be voted on.

 

[blazedaces]

I mean your overall tone. You act like you have all the facts when nobody has all the facts. It's annoying.

Rational people think at the margin. It's not like you can compare a heroin user to a non-heroin user. They're different people. Happy people have no reason to use drugs. The question is: would this individual be happi[er] with or without heroin? I think a lot of these people would be driven to suicide without it, (and with withdrawal) whereas with it they're "only" miserable.

Using "I know it when I see it" as a real argument for taking people's freedom away makes me shake my head. I can confidently say I don't know if they're better off or not. Let's trust their judgment.

One last thing: banning a drug does not decrease it's prevalence. Please try to keep up with the few things you actually do know. I'd be more forgiving if you didn't act like the smartest person in the room, but you come across as dishonest, not mistaken, and I will not tolerate that.

I'm not being dishonest, and I'm really confused as to why you're so angry. If you wanna debate we can debate, and if you wanna pitch hissy fits at each other we can do that. I'm not gonna try both at the same time.

I wouldn't waste your time on battlecow. People have criticized him on his childish behavior before and he always responds with an insult instead of ever changing his ways. Don't worry though, every mature person knows you are correct.

Battlecow will in all probability be banned soon from the PG entirely if he doesn't shape up. That's what happens to trolls, so ignoring him is probably the best route to take.

-blazed

 

[Battlecow]

No idea how this can mesh with your stance. You're saying that we should have the law, but that drug users should just disobey it? This is the situation we are in right now, but it seems like a big waste of time and money to have the law at all then. Not to mention making things unsafe for the drug users and making tons of money for criminals (have I mentioned this yet?)

Well, I consider it my personal responsibility to do what's right, and my right do what's best for myself if I'm not hurting anyone else (there are exceptions, but basically). One reason there are laws is to make it difficult for people who don't do what's right or don't act in their own best interests to hurt themselves or others by applying penalties to the practice of actions that are judged to be harmful. I think that the law is fulfilling its duty in this case, albeit somewhat imperfectly.

Uh, protecting people's rights? Following the Constitution?

Yes, but if everyone in the US is out to get them, the constitution is going to be interpreted in such a way as to get them. I agree, it was the wrong thing, but I fail to see how this proves that democracy is inferior to whatever system you're advocating. People should have acted better- it's not the system's fault.

Only vote on things that absolutely must be voted on.

OK, this is where we fundamentally disagree.

This would lead to tremendous legislative inaction. I kind of like a lot of things the government's done. 99% of what we as a country do is to some degree controversial, and you've got to take the bad with the good.

I don't expect you to agree with that, of course.

I wouldn't waste your time on battlecow. People have criticized him on his childish behavior before and he always responds with an insult instead of ever changing his ways. Don't worry though, every mature person knows you are correct.

Battlecow will in all probability be banned soon from the PG entirely if he doesn't shape up. That's what happens to trolls, so ignoring him is probably the best route to take.

-blazed

You're a fool, and everyone here- including the people you're siding with- knows it, whether they admit it or not

:/

 

[eschemat]

I LOVE BATTLECOW BOYS! Since he's come, PG's been the most active it has in half a year.

 

[Dre89]

I LOVE BATTLECOW BOYS! Since he's come, PG's been the most active it has in half a year.

That's because most PGers actually get admitted to the DH at same point.

Smashes him.

 

[ballin4life]

Well, I consider it my personal responsibility to do what's right, and my right do what's best for myself if I'm not hurting anyone else (there are exceptions, but basically). One reason there are laws is to make it difficult for people who don't do what's right or don't act in their own best interests to hurt themselves or others by applying penalties to the practice of actions that are judged to be harmful. I think that the law is fulfilling its duty in this case, albeit somewhat imperfectly.





Yes, but if everyone in the US is out to get them, the constitution is going to be interpreted in such a way as to get them. I agree, it was the wrong thing, but I fail to see how this proves that democracy is inferior to whatever system you're advocating. People should have acted better- it's not the system's fault.




OK, this is where we fundamentally disagree.

This would lead to tremendous legislative inaction. I kind of like a lot of things the government's done. 99% of what we as a country do is to some degree controversial, and you've got to take the bad with the good.

I don't expect you to agree with that, of course.



You're a fool, and everyone here- including the people you're siding with- knows it, whether they admit it or not

:/

So basically your positions is "Democracy when I want it, and not when I don't" + "status quo is God".

Got it.

 

[Battlecow]

No, it's not. I operate under the same guidelines as everyone else; that's why people drive faster than the speed limit. Democracy isn't divine or omnipotent, nor are laws perfectly tailored to fit me. I support democracy in every way it's meant to be supported- it's not like I'm picking and choosing how it should apply in a way that subverts or perverts it.

The status quo's pretty good. We have it pretty good in America. There are improvements to be made, of course, and potential policy changes that could have a massive impact for good or ill (I'm still not sure that you're wrong about the drug thing, for example). I don't think the status quo's god; I'm simply observing it in an unbiased way and noticing that it wouldn't be greatly improved by anarchy or any of its close relatives.

 

[ballin4life]

No, it's not. I operate under the same guidelines as everyone else; that's why people drive faster than the speed limit. Democracy isn't divine or omnipotent, nor are laws perfectly tailored to fit me. I support democracy in every way it's meant to be supported- it's not like I'm picking and choosing how it should apply in a way that subverts or perverts it.

You said you would not follow a law that bans video games. Picking and choosing. And we know for a fact that democracy CAN produce bad outcomes, like Hitler getting elected or Japanese internment or the Vietnam/Iraq Wars or whatever.

I don't support something where YOU can tell ME what to do even if I'm not harming anyone else just because you have 51% of people on your side. That just seems like a basic principle of freedom. And it's not something you can just violate here and there, because the important part is the principle. Once you say "Well, a vote can overrule your freedom" you lose it all.

The status quo's pretty good. We have it pretty good in America. There are improvements to be made, of course, and potential policy changes that could have a massive impact for good or ill (I'm still not sure that you're wrong about the drug thing, for example). I don't think the status quo's god; I'm simply observing it in an unbiased way and noticing that it wouldn't be greatly improved by anarchy or any of its close relatives.

What does pretty good mean? If you look at someone from the 1960s, they had it "pretty good" compared to all the people that came before. But we would hate to go back to those times. Just because things are "pretty good" now does not mean we should stop trying to make things better.

As for you last claim, how do you know? Just wondering.

 

[blazedaces]

Just thought I'd add an actual source to the discussion:

Drug experts say alcohol worse than crack, heroin

Carry on...

-blazed