War On Drugs

[John Dibble]

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"

That's my opinion on the matter.

[John Dibble]

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"

That's my opinion on the matter.

The only problem with that is that most child abuse is caused by drug abuse.  Many others besides the drug addict suffer from that addict's addiction.

Not to mention the fact that most hard-core drug users are being supported by the taxpayers.

It is not that simple.

I support legalizing drugs - not legalizing child abuse. It is my opinion that anyone who commits a criminal act under the influence of any intoxicating substance should be held just as accountable for their actions as they would be if they were not intoxicated. Abuse, negligence, DUI, ect would all still be illegal, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[John Dibble]

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"

That's my opinion on the matter.

The only problem with that is that most child abuse is caused by drug abuse.  Many others besides the drug addict suffer from that addict's addiction.

Not to mention the fact that most hard-core drug users are being supported by the taxpayers.

It is not that simple.

I support legalizing drugs - not legalizing child abuse. It is my opinion that anyone who commits a criminal act under the influence of any intoxicating substance should be held just as accountable for their actions as they would be if they were not intoxicated. Abuse, negligence, DUI, ect would all still be illegal, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But don't you understand, these are caused by "diseases" and therefore the person committing these terrible acts is not responsible.  Drug abuse is defined as a disease, and one for which a person has no responsibility to seek treatment.

Using drugs is a choice - and like any choice you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. If I choose to put a mind altering drug in my body, how is it not my fault that I did something in that state?

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Solution: Stop supporting them.

I agree, but do you think the liberals would ever allow that?  Get serious.

Liberals don't all think exactly the same - they key is to get enough of them on your side for this issue in order for you to have a majority. So, if you said "Those on drugs shouldn't receive welfare" then you are not outright damning welfare - you're just saying a particular group shouldn't receive it because they are wasting the money they are being given. There would be those among the liberal population who would agree with you.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Solution: Stop supporting them.

I agree, but do you think the liberals would ever allow that?  Get serious.

Liberals don't all think exactly the same - they key is to get enough of them on your side for this issue in order for you to have a majority. So, if you said "Those on drugs shouldn't receive welfare" then you are not outright damning welfare - you're just saying a particular group shouldn't receive it because they are wasting the money they are being given. There would be those among the liberal population who would agree with you.

I doubt it.  There is a remarkable group-think among liberals on certain issues.  It's as if they're afraid to think even a little bit, or their whole philosophy will come crashing down.

And it's talk like this that makes them this way - insulting the other side isn't a good way to get them to respect and possibly even change to your way of thinking. Or perhaps you didn't know - I used to be a left-liberal.

[John Dibble]

It always amazes me when there are anti-smoking zealots who have a lackadaisical attitude toward drug abuse.  I hate smoking, but it never caused violent murder, never caused parents to abandon their children.

The reason for that is that they perceive a direct affect on them. Crack's not a big deal for them until their kid starts doing it.

[John Dibble]

I guess, but drug abuse has a terrible effect on society.

Not arguing against that, I just don't see the 'cure'(prohibition) doing much good to stop the problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really? I wouldn't  have guessed that most drug abuse is tied to drug abuse.

Jokes aside, I'll pull out the libertarian point of view - it's the fact that drugs are illegal that causes lots of drug related crime. Not possession - that's another matter(overcrowds prisons, doesn't help in my opinion) - but the crime that results from any form of black market. If drugs were legal, regulated, and more affordable, then the black market couldn't thrive as it does now - when alcohol was prohibited, the resulting black market brought us organized crime and a doubled murder rate, and when prohibition ended the crime rate went back to it's original level. Even if full legalization of all drugs isn't possible or desireable, the system needs a major overhaul.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah. But there's a whole butload of other factors that screw it up as well. I think poor parenting is the primary detriment in that department.

[John Dibble]

All actions effect the society at large.  All laws enforce morality.  To pretend otehrwise is foolish.

The only way anyone can credibly claim that either of these statements is untrue is that some effects on society are indirect, and can be obscured or denied, and some laws enforce a morality that is so commonly accepted that it does need seem to be an imposition at all to most.  But both claims remain true nonetheless.

I don't think anybody has ever denied this, but you know what is meant when it is said. If you don't, let me clue you in - there are essentially two types of laws. 1. What you can't do by yourself or with consenting individuals. 2. What you can't do to others.

Take a guess which one 'imposing morality' is meant to refer to.

[John Dibble]

All actions effect the society at large.  All laws enforce morality.  To pretend otehrwise is foolish.

The only way anyone can credibly claim that either of these statements is untrue is that some effects on society are indirect, and can be obscured or denied, and some laws enforce a morality that is so commonly accepted that it does need seem to be an imposition at all to most.  But both claims remain true nonetheless.

I don't think anybody has ever denied this, but you know what is meant when it is said. If you don't, let me clue you in - there are essentially two types of laws. 1. What you can't do by yourself or with consenting individuals. 2. What you can't do to others.

Take a guess which one 'imposing morality' is meant to refer to.

So you do deny the first tenet, that no action can be isolated to those individuals that participate in it?

I think this belief is self evidently false.

A guy masturbates before going to sleep - prove how this affects others.

EDIT - And the real point is that though some actions do affect others, the effects are extremely negligible in many cases. If I decide to pick up the last piece of cake from the dining hall, the fact that there's no cake left for others doesn't really harm them in any way.

[John Dibble]

Do you really want to spend this thread having me prove that in some way all actions affect others?  How about I simply give a blanket answer to anything you give me- substituted effects.  Any time I do one thing, I am not doing another.  Therefore even the most private, hermit like behavior has an effect simply by my absence from society at that time.  Even if you could show me an action that had no effect on others, I could simply say that by dong this action, the person has affected society by withdrawing from it.  This is so easy its not even funny, look, there is nothing you do that isn't connected to what's around you, even if this inconvenient fact does invalidate everything you believe.

Hey, you're the one that brought up the notion. Don't blame it on me. Why do you care? You KNOW what is meant when people say it doesn't affect or more importantly harm others - why do you insist on nitpicking?

EDIT - my opinion on substituted effects: There are virtually infinite actions that a person could possibly take in a given day. Outside of the cases where someone is supposed to be doing something and instead they do something else(say, they are being paid to gaurd a house and they do go clubbing istead), the substituted actions are of no real relevance since they are virtually infinite.

[John Dibble]

Actually, my point was relevant.  Diblle's argument is that you should have the liberty to do anything that only affects you, regardless of moral judgements of whether the behavior is right or wrong.

If I can establish that all actions affect someone else, even in a small way, then I have defeated his argument.  Hence, my comment was relevant.

Actually, the key word in the libertarian philosophy is 'harm', not affect, if you haven't noticed. And applying some common sense to it doesn't hurt either, Ford - you are the one that is taking it to it's utmost extreme.