Who ever does? ::shrugs:: Let's say we wanted to remove the ban on hard illicit drugs, coccaine since it's already been used. The first step would be decriminalization, where, while technically illegal, the police looks the other way if you're a casual non-violent drug user. For a while, both positives and negatives take effect. The burden of non-violent drug users upon law enforcement and the judicial system is eliminated, so more funds are around to crack down upon more serious crimes. The government enforced cap restrictions upon the drugs (prohibition) that created very profitable conditions for the black market are gone and local crime networks are dramatically crippled (less available contacts to the mainstream population, less income). However...you'll see more recorded instances of drug abuse and higher death rates because these instances are no longer swept under the rug. You'll have the Morality Brigade soapboxing that decriminalization has opened the gates...which is further validated by the recent stats. It doesn't matter if the majority of the public has already made up their minds even before the drugs were legal.... On a national level, the high political cost in our culture would make decriminalization an unsteady compromise, so you're left with going back to prohibition or legalization (government sanctioned) of these drugs. Legalization would have the benefits of the government watching over us and making sure not everyone messes up (drunk driving, age restrictions, etc...). It would add liability to whomever peddles these sins. Most of all, if the system doesn't work, the public has the option to get lawmakers to make it work.... No matter the government's best efforts (or no effort), there will still be people who mess up and abuse these drugs. Even when official numbers decrease, there will be drives to make the rehab system even better or the criminal system even more efficient. While we eliminate the black market peddlers, officially sanctioned markets will arise. If insuring against liability becomes too high risk, another black market will form just like the situation of hiring undocumented illegals below min wage. Furthermore, how many movies have their actors taking drags from a cigarrette...or actors playing under 18 characters who drink and smoke? It opens up another can of worms...creates another interest group to keep legalization of whatever's so bad legal while not addressing the consequences of its legality, plus the attached personal responsibilities. I don't know whether that answered your original point. I guess my point would be that in an era where Americans shift the burden of taking responsibility for their actions onto others, we have a long way to go towards decriminalizing most of the things on your list.
How much does it cost to incarcerate them? That's true. Have you? ...experienced it first hand? I'll admit that I have and I don't know what you're talking about. I kicked the habit. And I never got violent with anyone. It's probably true that some experience these effects, but you can't just paint everyone with the same brush. I'm sorry, did you just use "radical break-away sects" to make an argument? If you take that tactic, we could pretty much criminalize any behavior. You're right though, that in a closed society, strictly patriarchal polygamy would become problematic in no time. It's simple math. But, what if it included matriarchal polygamy? What if it wasn't restricted to a cultist, closed society? Look, killing babies = bad. We can agree on that. What I'm not sold on is that polygamy = killing babies.
I don't disagree with that. But, that's a whole other thread. EDIT: I have to correct myself... that's totally relevant to this thread. Freedom does come with responsibility. That's a big problem in our society -- not taking responsibility for your own choices.
Where do you start? If you allow people unlimited freedoms you have to expect ultimate responsibility. This is not possible in our society right now. Let's take Pedophilia - At what point in a child's development does he inherit the unlimited freedoms of the society? Who sets that age? when you state. . . Harm anyone else.. that is ambigous It would be a big ole mess. I think business would take the slack on control that the government would relinquish. Honestly. . . my mind is kind of all over right now. . i just see so much going wrong. . . and so little true good coming of it Rocket River
Look pedophilia, incest, polygamy, etc.. all can have negative impacts on individuals other than yourself. It's an act that can infringe on the freedoms of others and consequently can be banned by the government. As for drug use, that's a different issue. In order to justify legalizing drugs, you have to defend that everyone has equal access to information on costs/benefits of drugs. That is to say that every person is making an informed decision when using them. So you'd have to make sure there are massive public health campaigns akin to the surgeon general warning on smoking that give greater access to the harms of smoking. You'd be surprised how ignorant some people are when it comes to drugs and consequently that type of ignorance is what justifies bans on drugs. Libertarianism makes some questionable assumptions about knowledge of safety and harms that simply don't exist, so until you ensure that knowledge then there's no reason to legalize drugs. Otherwise, you create an unnecessary public health crisis.
I never claimed that that was the proper solution. Might their be a middle ground? Yes. I'll leave it at that. Keep in mind the way that different currently legal substances have different usage patterns. Smokers need a cigarette every couple of hours, but hard-core blackout alcoholics will go days without touching a drink. Many people who've used cocaine haven't experienced usage patterns similar to tobacco due to fiducary constraints. If it were legalised and prices significantly normalised, there is a reasonable body of evidence that shows regular usage paterns would be closer to tobacco than alcohol. Imagine the "eight-ball a day" user. Have you experience as an "eight-ball a day" coke fiend? I use them because they are the only modern sample. You mentioned female polygamy. How many cultures in the history of the world have practiced female polygamy? I would argue that the only polygamy in any volume would be male polygamy
Ottomaton made a great point that drug freedom is oxymoron. Drugs are masters that make mankind their slaves. The human will is too fragile against drugs. Should free man has the freedom to end his freedom? I think not. If a free man has no choice to end his freedom, then he's still free. If a free man wants to go back to be a slave, then he's already discarded his freedom. A man who doesn't deserve freedom has no business using freedom as an excuse to go back to be a slave. The more a man likes drugs, the less productive he becomes. The more a man like drugs, the less humanity he has(heavy drugs addicts have no loved ones they only care about dope, they'd steal, rob, kidnap and do whatever it takes to get dope). The more a man like drugs, the easier he is to be controlled. Don't think so? Pimps are already using drugs to control whores. If the whole society become drug addicts, then say goodbye to democracy. The real master would be the drug suppliers, or their trade association. When many members of a society become drug addicts, mandated drug test would be required to take place everyday to ensure work performance. The ones who don't take drugs will then bear the hassle caused by the drugs addicts, or even wrongfully punished if a test went wrong. Why do the drug addicts think they have the right to make others pay for their pleasure? Also, it's wrong to assume parents have control over their kids. Leaving the choice of being an addict to the hands of children is plainly wrong and irresponsible.
the problem to an extent is After the Fact legalization a DR has an LSD flashback in the middle of my surgery and I die what is my recourse. . . LSD is not illegal . .. he did it months ago . . . so what did he do wrong? What did he do illegally? It definately affected me. .. but how do you quantify that An Architect is coked out when he finished his plans for a skyscraper he makes a mistake because of it. . . .the building falls and kills hundreds Cocain is not illegal . .. so that is not wrong and mistakes. ..well they happen . .you cannot blame someone for a mistake right? So what is the recourse here all of this is VERY GRAY I don't like Gray so much these are EXTREMES The phrase I use is this If someone pisses in the three feet . .. does it affect you diving in the deep end? YES IT DOES . .the Question is. .. HOW MUCH? Rocket River
I don't see that it would make much difference. If you're not going to regulate the # of spouses per person then you won't get equal distribution of "resources." Because not every person's going to marry an equal number of partners. For instance, Dan's a real loser who could only marry 2 women, but each of those women happen to marry 10 men, and those men may be married to 15 women each themselves. Once again, the math tells you Dan ain't gonna be gettin' an equal share of the proverbial "pie." So he's gonna be tryin' to marry one of Snoop's 15 wives. Now Snoop ain't gonna play that, cuz if his wives marry off to too many guys, he'll be losin' a piece of his own very prodigious pie. You see what I'm gettin' at? You end up with a chaotic free-for-all. Monogamy isn't necessarily about moral values - it's sensible sexual economics. It's about establishing a system whereby the nookie can be equally distributed - a freely polygamous society probably couldn't get that done. The effect would be something akin to a free market economy left to run amok - no antitrust laws, big monopolies, high concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, resentment among the sexually poor and disenfranchised, and sharp dichotomy between the haves and the have-nots. Now I'm not saying polygamy can't work ... but you'd have to regulate it to make it work. It'd probably work best (as in equitably) if you mandate or regulate that each person marry a set number of people (not permitting them to marry below or above that number) - which may not be too practical, wouldn't be truly free, and aside from the number peolple involved, not much different than the limit of monogamy. FYI, marrying multiple women = "polygyny". Marrying multiple men = "polyandry".
For the record, all polygamy is by definition patriarchal. THe practice of having multiple husbands, I believe, is called polyandry, and is/was practiced in some parts of the Himalayas and had somethign to do with land ownership. EDIT: sorry, I'm wrong, Polyandry is when two brothers marry one wife.
I don't understand this logic at all. We don't require people to have equal knowledge of the dangers of smoking, alcohol, cheeseburgers, cookie cakes, and a litany of other foods. Why does everyone have to have equal access? What's more, I don't see this as very problematic. You simply require anyone selling the product to present the information a la displaying health ratings. That wouldn't take much at all to get done. It certainly would require a lot less bureaucracy than the current drug war...
A) This is pure babble. You still haven't responded to my point that there are plenty of other things that people are just as addicted to: sports, television, ice cream, cigarettes, gambling, sex (don't tell me most men are slaves to that), and a whole host of other activities. These things can be just as limiting in ones personal freedom. B) There's no way that some one can voluntarily give up their freedom and have that not be a free act. If I choose to live a certain lifestyle, that lifestyle is my choice, even if it prevents me from doing other things. There's no way that you can call that slavery when it was my choice to be there. C) When I look at it, your second paragraph is a giant contradiction served in a turd sandwhich of sophistry. If I can't choose to do something then I am not free. If I choose to do something, e.g. do drugs, knowing that it may prevent me from doing other things, that's called accepting an opportunity cost, not slavery. Learn the difference. See above. The more a person likes anything, the less productive they become. Wow, it sounds like the only experience you've ever had with drugs is the DARE program in 6th grade. Have you ever actually known someone who uses drugs? The truth is, most people who use drugs use the recreationally. Moreover, the vast majority of problems you point out are actually do to the fact that drugs are criminalized. If there were treatment programs instead of jails, and regulation instead of a criminal market, the isolated problems with junkies wouldn't be half as bad. Finally, at best you might have a point about heroin or meth, but the vast majority of people who use lighter drugs such as mar1juana, mushrooms, etc. don't even come close to the crap you're spewing. Wow, and they seem to be doing this while drugs are ILLEGAL. If you legalized prostitution, then people would be able to work for legitimate business and not scum bags. What's more, this entire argument is just a crappy assertion. Pretty much every drug that is illegal now was legal at some point in the US. mar1juana was legal until the 30s. Opiates were available at the local pharmacy until the turn of the century. Coca-cola actually had trace amounts of cocaine in it when it was first introduced. There were not these mindless drug zombies running around then that you claim we would have. You have not offered any evidence why people would become addicts. Do you honestly think its a good idea to form your political opinions based on warrantless assertions rather than facts? The truth is, there are very few people who are waiting for these drugs to be legal in order to try them. Please show me a person who says: "gee, i'd like to do heroin, but it's illegal." The number of people who use drugs might rise some, but any negative cost associated with that wouldn't be half as much as what we're currently playing in the drug war. This last bit sums up your entire position. The vast vast vast majority of people who use drugs are not addicts. They are normal people who decide to spend their recreational time in a different manner than you do. However, rather than respect those difference, you react out of a DARE-driven parental fear of the horrrors of drugs. Please read about the issue before forming sweeping and ignorant opinions about drugs, drug users, and drug policy.
Wigman, that's a very interesting scenario you paint, but I highly doubt polygamy would run amok if it were legalized. I suspect most people would not have any interest in participating in that practice (me included). Also, for you and SamFisher... you're both wrong. While polyandry may be exclusively matriarchal, polygamy is not exclusively patriarchal. A quick hit on dictionary.com provides 5 definitions, all of which refer to it as simply multiple spouses. One even states, "marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time". Not that it matters really. Bullard, thanks for carrying the drug argument. You're doing a very good andymoon impersonation. I have nothing to add. Rocket River, you make a good point about residual effects. I would think a compromise could be found on this though. There are certain jobs where a clear mind are critical to the safety of others. The doctor is a good example, an airline pilot is another. For jobs like these, I think it's reasonable to have restrictions. Don't like the restriction -- get a different job. Want to be a doctor -- don't do dope. Choices. However, residual effects will really not have a negative effect (it may actually help) on many occupations. Why should we care if an artist or a secretary is having flashbacks. The architect is a bit of a stretch, but I get the point.
Oh, and Panda ("Leaving the choice of being an addict to the hands of children is plainly wrong and irresponsible") and whoever mentioned pedophelia... I clearly said NO CHILDREN. That is not something I'm arguing for.
I'm trying to understand how society's expectation that an individual be "productive" has anything to do with freedom. If I want to shoot up all day and live in a dumpster, isn't that my right as a free man? Or is it my obligation to work in a job I hate and be a consumer to keep the economy humming along?
1. If you want to roll a J, marry 3 women, or commit suicide, good for you, but that's not what I call freedom. And it's not what the Fouding Fathers were talking about in the Constitution. 2. Are people really happier doing these things? It's debatable. So let's debate it instead of calling each other anal retentive or fascist. 3. Calling that oppression is a bit much. What black people went through in slavery and Jim Crow laws is oppression. 4. If hamburgers were outlawed, I wouldn't like it. It would seem quite ridiculous to me because it would be a law based on a religion I don't believe in, and we are a multi- religious country. But it wouldn't be oppression. As far as my "moral framework" and "normative ideologies" that sounds like a fancy theory you came up with to justify your own beliefs and attack the beliefs of others. Your basically just arguing for your own ordering of society. I will argue for my own ordering of society. I don't believe legalizing crack and heroin, prostitution, and polygamy are good things for our society, and it's perfectly acceptable to want to keep them illegal. Further we have a huge sphere of personal freedom and legal rights under the law. To lump polygamy and crack use as freedoms that are just as important is wrong.
