Yeah, in the same way that nobody "made" homosexuals into criminals in older times. They chose to engage in those activities so they deserve everything they got... right?
Printable View
Yeah, in the same way that nobody "made" homosexuals into criminals in older times. They chose to engage in those activities so they deserve everything they got... right?
Right! Exactly! Good point!Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Yeah, in the same way that nobody "made" homosexuals into criminals in older times. They chose to engage in those activities so they deserve everything they got... right?
I mean, I'm going to let Katie handle this one. Katie?
CM is right here.
You decide, you face the consequences.
Don't go shrugging off responsability because it suits you better.
You hold yourself the right to choose, you chose to ignore the law, you face the consequences.
As simple as that.
Homosexuality is not a life-choice. It is who you are. Smoking dope is a choice you make.
I am doing something. I'm helping to educate the masses.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
I've had it with salonrevolutionaries:
Well, that is my intent. I'm probably talking to a bunch of people who either agree with me or will refuse to agree with me, regardless of how right I may or may not be.
But by educating the voting public, I can hopefully get more votes towards parties that actually have some clue of how a government that values liberty, justice, and freedom works.
In America, the Republican party is so against freedom it isn't even funny. I like to think of the Republican party as Nazi-light, or Southern Baptist Extreme. The Democratic party, while slightly more aware, still finds itself voting on the wrong side of many issues.
While they may not be perfect, I can suggest looking into the Libertarian party, or sensible Democratic canidates.
Oh, and the other thing I was doing was shoping Arbiter how stupid the majority rule arguement is.
on the question of drugs - I don't know whether more people would take drugs if they were decriminalised. I don't know whether it would be more dangerous to walk down the street for fear of being mowed down by a driver under the influence. I would, however, be happier that the government was giving them away at the taxpayers expense than that they were funding gangs of gun-toting organised criminals.
I'd like to see them regulated more strongly. I'd like to see the government sanction drugs to certain areas of society. I'd like to see drug pushers taken off our streets. I'd like police to go easy on personal users in their own homes.
But it's not a perfect world, is it?
On a huge tangent...Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Homosexuality is not a life-choice. It is who you are. Smoking dope is a choice you make.
I'd be careful with this comment.
I personally don't see any indication that there is a genetic predisposition to sexual orientation. So no, I don't think being gay is something you are born to do.
By the same token, I don't think being abusive is a genetic trait. I don't think it is something you are born to do.
In both of these cases though, the subject doesn't choose to be abusive or gay. He is taught that, programmed with it, through his environment.
While it is possible to unlearn abusive behavoir, I imagine it is possible to unlearn homosexuality. Both of these procedures would be akin to brainwashing. And in both cases it would be possible to teach abusive behavour and unlearn heterosexuality.
To further complicate the issue. I do imagine there are genetic traits which will lend you to being more subsceptible to a certain lifestyle. For example, a person with a natrually short temper may react more dramaticly to an environment that teaches abuse.
Ofcourse, seperating the genetic predispositions toward certain tendancies from the environmental influence that instill certain behavours is probably a pretty impossible task.
This is just a tangent anyway.
Whoa!!! Hold on there a minute, Travis! This post is so incredibly riddle with arrogance I don't know where to begin. Although you know that I agree with you as far as the Rep v. Dem issue....that doesn't discount others opinions. The I'm right and you're wrong approach does nothing to educate the masses....it just pisses them off!Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
I am doing something. I'm helping to educate the masses.
Well, that is my intent. I'm probably talking to a bunch of people who either agree with me or will refuse to agree with me, regardless of how right I may or may not be.
But by educating the voting public, I can hopefully get more votes towards parties that actually have some clue of how a government that values liberty, justice, and freedom works.
In your opinion.
In America, the Republican party is so against freedom it isn't even funny. I like to think of the Republican party as Nazi-light, or Southern Baptist Extreme. The Democratic party, while slightly more aware, still finds itself voting on the wrong side of many issues.
in your opinion
While they may not be perfect, I can suggest looking into the Libertarian party, or sensible Democratic canidates.
Oh, and the other thing I was doing was shoping Arbiter how stupid the majority rule arguement is.
On a huge tangent...Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Homosexuality is not a life-choice. It is who you are. Smoking dope is a choice you make.
I'd be careful with this comment.
I personally don't see any indication that there is a genetic predisposition to sexual orientation. So no, I don't think being gay is something you are born to do.
By the same token, I don't think being abusive is a genetic trait. I don't think it is something you are born to do.
In both of these cases though, the subject doesn't choose to be abusive or gay. He is taught that, programmed with it, through his environment.
While it is possible to unlearn abusive behavoir, I imagine it is possible to unlearn homosexuality. Both of these procedures would be akin to brainwashing. And in both cases it would be possible to teach abusive behavour and unlearn heterosexuality.
To further complicate the issue. I do imagine there are genetic traits which will lend you to being more subsceptible to a certain lifestyle. For example, a person with a natrually short temper may react more dramaticly to an environment that teaches abuse.
Ofcourse, seperating the genetic predispositions toward certain tendancies from the environmental influence that instill certain behavours is probably a pretty impossible task.
This is just a tangent anyway.
ME TOO! ME TOO! I'm not opinionated - I'm educating stupid people who don't see things my way!Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
I am doing something. I'm helping to educate the masses.
LOL@Cafeenman!
Travis you are wrong about homosexuals and predisposition...and it wasn't a tangent if you care to read the post above!:p
Majority Rule == Majority OpinionQuote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
ME TOO! ME TOO! I'm not opinionated - I'm educating stupid people who don't see things the logical way!
Liberty and Justice shouldn't care about your opinion.
I could be wrong. But if I am... if sexual orientation is a genetic trait... well...Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Travis you are wrong about homosexuals and predisposition.
A cancerous tumor is a result of a genetic abberation in the reproduction of a cell. The species gains no benefit from the existance of homosexuals. If homosexuality is caused by a genetic sequence, it is logical to conclude that that genetic sequence is an abberation. If homosexuality is genetically caused, it is the same as being albino.
But... to prove or disprove the point... if it is not a genetic abberation, then how does a recesive homosexual gene survive?
Sorry, I just don't see how it is genetic. It isn't a concious choice, but it isn't genetic.
Do you truly believe that your way is the only logical way on all issues? Is everything black and white? I wish I had as much faith that I'm always right as you do. Unfortunately, I do like to keep an open mind.
We like you in spite of your shortcomings, Katie. How's the therapy coming, by the way?Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Unfortunately, I do like to keep an open mind.
By the way, CT's logic is illogical. My logic is right and doesn't agree with his, therefore he must be wrong.
In spite of my therapist being a raving Republican, my therapy is failing miserably! I still think people should have a right to their opinions. To be honest with you I even enjoy hearing their viewpoints from time to time, but don't tell anyone. So as you can see, I have a long way to go before being cured.
I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong and I'm willing to change my mind.Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Do you truly believe that your way is the only logical way on all issues? Is everything black and white? I wish I had as much faith that I'm always right as you do. Unfortunately, I do like to keep an open mind.
But it is very hard to do so when the only counter I hear is that I must be concieted to have an opinion. I guess the only reason I haven't changed my mind is not because I refuse to believe I'm wrong, but because everyone else refuses to show me where I'm wrong (and that soundbite is an exaggeration, but works in this thread).
So... homosexuality is genetically determined? Where is the proof?
Yes, we are so far in a tangent it isn't even funny.
To prove that it is genetically determined, you must show that any homosexual shares the same gene, and that that gene does not express amoung the heterosexual population. You must also show that gene can remain part of a sexually reproductive species for as long as it has.
While it is possible that the first part is true and merely something we haven't been able to uncover, I think the second part will prove more interesting. If such a gene has existed, why? Even the genes that cause the potentially fatal conditions of sickle-cell anemia and hemophelia have an actual use in the population. I'm curious as to the use of the homosexual gene.
If it makes you feel even better, CiderThug, even though I think you're generally full of, especially when it comes to cats, I agree with you on this one. I don't think homosexuality is genetic either. I think it's environmental. I just got tired of arguing about it because there's no way to prove it one way or the other. And there's not a homosexual in the world who would admit that they became gay because they could never get over their fear of girls or whatever. I'm back in caveman mode now.
Expressing your opinion is fine but if you can't see the arrogance of your original post then I'm afraid we'll never be able to debate the issues.
I really can't google homosexuality at work so I can't provide you with any facts right now. I have business after work until Friday but I will get back to you. I'm not trying to avoid this issue. I just don't have the tools right now.
Thanks, Cafeen. Though at this point, what is most important is not whether you agree, but whether I make sense. Whether the rationale in my post is really rational.
Speaking of my cat... he has feline lukemia (kitty HIV) and toxoplasmosis, aswell as some blood parasite. I suspect he has had the lukemia since birth, but we will get a better idea this Friday when we do more blood work.
In any case, he is now, and forever more, an indoor cat.
Katie, fair enough. I probably won't be able to check on Friday, so it may be Monday before I get back to you. I suspect though that you will find several studies that support your claim, but they will all be inconclusive. I could find studies that support my claim, but they wouldn't necessarily be any more conclusive.
Whether or not it is genetic, it should be kept quiet. If the right wing finds out that it is a genetic condition, then they will classify it with any number of genetic illnesses. Homosexuals are better off if it truely isn't genetic. This isn't the reason why I think it isn't genetic, it is just the reason why I brought up the fine point in the first place.
Oh, also, arrogance in which original post?
Sorry to hear about your cat.
If you don't mind me getting back to the last tangent we went on...
Engaging in 'homosexual acts', or whatever you want to call them, certainly is a choice you make. That's what I was referring to.Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Homosexuality is not a life-choice. It is who you are. Smoking dope is a choice you make.
Engaging in sexual acts regardless of orientation is a choice you make, smoking dope is a choice you make too!
I think that trying to legislate morality is not only wrong, it's impossible. But I am prepared to accept the responsibility of my actions if I'm caught doing something "immoral" and will continue to fight legislation or change the laws when I can.
There is some headway toward making marijuana not quite so heavy a crime. If we continue to raise the issue, the laws will eventually be changed.
Sorry about your cat man. I lost two cats to feline leukemia. The first cat got it and died shortly after. The second cat hung in there and was quite healthy for about 3 more years. Then he just couldn't fight any more and went from being really healthy to me having to put him to sleep in about a week. It really sucks losing pets. I feel for you.Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Thanks, Cafeen. Though at this point, what is most important is not whether you agree, but whether I make sense. Whether the rationale in my post is really rational.
Speaking of my cat... he has feline lukemia (kitty HIV) and toxoplasmosis, aswell as some blood parasite. I suspect he has had the lukemia since birth, but we will get a better idea this Friday when we do more blood work.
That is a law that clearly needed to be removed from the books and as far as I know it was. Drug laws may at some point be removed as well. But for now, enough people don't want them changed because they don't want to be around people who use drugs or suffer from their behavior.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
If you don't mind me getting back to the last tangent we went on...
Engaging in 'homosexual acts', or whatever you want to call them, certainly is a choice you make. That's what I was referring to.
In the mean time, drug users have to suck it up just as homosexuals had to.
Um, not in exactly the same way I hope....
I agree with you Katie. It used to be a lot better when the community could take care of immoral people without the hassle of lawmakers getting involved. There's nothing like being burned at a stake or having stones tied to your ankles and then getting thrown in the river to set a good example for everyone. :)Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
I think that trying to legislate morality is not only wrong, it's impossible.
sorry... I just couldn't keep myself from posting that.
I completely agree. I'm (or was) a very successful professional... raised two successful boys (ones still in college), in all respects, I'm an up standing citizen. I smoke, I smoke almost daily... and have for quite awhile. I can assure you, its not for everyone, but it is for me.Quote:
There is some headway toward making marijuana not quite so heavy a crime. If we continue to raise the issue, the laws will eventually be changed
I don't want to get on my soap box, but... have any of you ever "deal" with someone really drunk? How about someone REALLY, REALLY stoned. Now, I don't think drinking is immoral, or wrong.. Cause I have a cocktail every now, and again. :) But good lord! If your going to make something illegal, booze would be before marijuana in my world.
Anyone been to Amsterdam? There is quite a difference from a bar, than a cafe... Was quite an interesting difference. Aww memories!
:)
I know you're just joking but does engaging in sexual activity outside the norm...or anything society deems as immoral really make you a bad person? Is it likely to stop you? Are you harming anyone? If we ban abortion do you think it will stop people from getting them? If we make smoking illegal do you think that would stop people from buying cigarettes? Somethings just aren't anyone's business but your own and deeming it illegal isn't going to stop it. It is illegal for kids under 18 to have sex...do you think that all teenagers abide by that? Of course not! You cannot legislate morality. It has to be taught by parents. Do you think that the proposal of our illustrious leader has mentioned to pay fathers for marrying the mothers of their children will really make fathers out of them. No. You cannot force morality on people. Besides, one persons morality may not be anothers. Iran just raised the legal age of consent for marriage to 13 for girls. Our society thinks 18 is better. Does that mean that we are more moral than them. No!
This thread has covered a lot of ground. Personally, I don't worry about the law too much. I just do what I think is right and obey laws that I don't want to get into trouble for breaking. My mode of operation is "don't hurt anyone." A lot of times I screw myself to do "the right thing."
For example, I've had several instances where I under-quoted a photography job. I could have tried to get more money out of the client, but the fact was it was my mistake and I wouldn't feel right about doing that so I cut my losses.
I also like to argue. I even argue against things I agree with if the person I'm arguing with is using BS arguments. I tend to agree with Simon's original post that if a law is immoral than we shouldn't be obligated to obey it and in certain cases are duty bound to disobey it. But I strongly disagree with any notion that laws against drugs are "evil and immoral." There is enough evidence to convince me that people need to be protected from the dangers of drugs.
Many drugs are safer than they are made out to be and for a person with some self-control then I have no problem with them using drugs. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who abuse their privileges which I have seen time and again from people who use a legal substance - alcohol.
So basically I like it the way it is. Most people with a little common sense can get stoned, stay out of trouble and not get arrested. And I'm cool with that. People who do get in trouble usually did something they shouldn't have to bring attention to themselves or just lacked common sense. For example, in the military we had a urinalysis about every month. If you just had a urinalysis, then it was probably safe to get high for the next week. But then there were the people who came up hot because they got stoned the night before. Not a lot of sense in that and they blame the system.
I'm a strong advocate of people being responsible for their behavior. Even if something is totally wrong - a law for instance, if you know you're going to suffer heavy consequences and you do it anyway, then you can blame the system all you want, but ultimately it was your choice to take the chance.
I've done a lot of things that weren't entirely legal and have been fine. I don't think it's luck. I think it's my decision when to do things and when not to plus not doing a lot of it keeps my chances down more than someone who takes more risks.
Anyway, I was heading somewhere with this and got totally lost and forgot what my point was or if I even had one.
And I don't think the sexual activities you take part in with a consenting adult partner are even a moral issue. I think they're a personal choice and quakers can screw off. They can keep a board in between them at night if they want and nobody is going to stop them. If you want to go diving with your partner every night, that's your business as well. Those are the kinds of laws that no one has ever obeyed and breaking or abiding, no one else was affected. Drug and alcohol laws affect everyone - even people who don't use them.
Actually its more like a month if your referring to getting high as using marijuana. It can be longer, or shorter depending how high your metabolism is.Quote:
If you just had a urinalysis, then it was probably safe to get high for the next week.
Creatine & B12, with lots & LOTS of water will handle the "last night" tests though.
And that is my point exactly.. Alcohol is in everyway is horrible, horrible drug. Alcohol destroys so many families, and lives.... but I would not make it illegal, nor do I think many people would even consider such an extreme standpoint. Though because of misinformation, and ignorance of the subject the would declare other substances taboo, bad, and ultimately illegal.Quote:
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who abuse their privileges which I have seen time and again from people who use a legal substance - alcohol.
WHY test them? Was there an accident? Is their job performance poor? Simply to test to test is a waste of money, and an invasion into personal privacy.Quote:
But then there were the people who came up hot because they got stoned the night before. Not a lot of sense in that and they blame the system.
Joan, we get tested about every month in the military. It's supposed to be totally random unless there is a clear suspicion of someone. Usually they pick a couple numbers and people with that as the last number in their SSN get tested that month.
The problem is that drugs and military service don't mix. I knew some of the people who were using them and they were usually the ones who skated by while others did the work.
Not to mention that there are a lot duties a soldier has to do that require him/her to be mentally alert. The military just doesn't want people who do drugs. Even if they were legal for civilians, it would still be against military regulations.
personally, I wouldn't want to be in a foxhole with someone who was stoned or someone who got stoned on a regular basis. There's a time and a place for it but not when you can be called to battle at any time.
Like I said in an earlier post, I don't have a problem with people getting stoned and I used to enjoy it myself. But I really think the military has all the right in the world to make a no-drug policy. It's their company and they don't make it a secret.
I think you would say the same thing for someone who was drunk in that foxhole of yours. In fact, even drunk the night before would be tough to do "battle". Correct?Quote:
personally, I wouldn't want to be in a foxhole with someone who was stoned.
So someone who smokes is less intelligent, or less capable? I don't think so.Quote:
or someone who got stoned on a regular basis
If you were to ask a doctor.. "Doctor, I want to be the BEST soldier I can be. Though I want one vice out of these three. Alcohol, cigarettes, or marijuana..." Now an informed person about health, and the effects of all the above vices.. its an obvious answer... Especially to a Physician.
So maybe the millitary should rethink their stance :)
Joan, you should go back and read my posts from earlier. I don't think you have. I am not blanketly against drug use. I think alcohol is the most dangerous drug there is. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
I never meant to imply that people who use drugs are dumb. People I have known, including me, who have used marijuana regularly have been lethargic almost without exception. They don't think they are, but others can see it easily. Not true of everyone, but often enough to categorically make that statement.
Drugs and alcohol are mind-altering substances. So no, I don't want to be in a foxhole with someone using either. Cigarettes are not healthy by any means, but they are not mind-altering either. At least not to the extent of other drugs.
In any case, I wasn't referring to the health aspects. That's the business of the person using them and the business of whoever pays for their health care. I'm talking about my life depending on someone watching my back.
In daily life for entertainment, I think getting stoned is as good as going to a movie and I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to do it as long as they can behave decently. Obviously our societal values of the use of drugs is irrational since alcohol is legal and less dangerous substances aren't.
Im sorry, I thought we dissagreed a bit.Quote:
I think getting stoned is as good as going to a movie
oops. That sentence should say "I am NOT blanketly against drug use." Typo - has an entirely different meaning. :)
All this talk of pot is making me want to see a movie.Quote:
I am NOT blanketly against drug use." Typo
That is precisely what I mean Katie. You fight legislation or change the laws in the way that you can i.e. bring it to the law making body and demand to have the law changed.Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Engaging in sexual acts regardless of orientation is a choice you make, smoking dope is a choice you make too!
I think that trying to legislate morality is not only wrong, it's impossible. But I am prepared to accept the responsibility of my actions if I'm caught doing something "immoral" and will continue to fight legislation or change the laws when I can.
There is some headway toward making marijuana not quite so heavy a crime. If we continue to raise the issue, the laws will eventually be changed.
The trouble is here what CM said : who decides which law can be broken.
Laws are not pick-and-choose, it's a total package. You choose on moral grounds to break the drug law, I decide on moral grounds that I should kill my neighbour. There is a difference but in principle, there's no difference at all. Period. You both break the law. Most of those ultrafreedom advocates are unwilling to accept the consequences or responsabilities that come with it.
In case of the drug law : they break it and then complain that they are arrested and jailed. If you fear jail or are not willing to accept responsability then don't do it.
You know what society ought to do when drugs were legalised ? Deny the pleas for help and money of those who couldn't cope with the drugs, who underestimated it, who need society's help to get their life back on track. Tell them to sort it out themselves. It was their adult choice after all. Maybe then they will understand why we have/had drug laws in the first place.
Why should I pay for another's habit ? Why should some of my money be used for people who can't keep their hands of addictives ?
Therefore I agree with CM. I like it the way it is. But it is ultimately a life's choice and if that choice goes horribly wrong, then it is you who should clean up your own mess, not the society. Society laid out rules and if you can't abide it, face the consequences, take the responsability instead of shrugging it off to others.
Cafeenman
OK, this guy should have known better but think about it for a minute. What is the government (and the legal system) actually trying to achieve here?Quote:
Laws aren't just made to punish those who break them. The penalties are there to provide a certain amount of discouragement from breaking them. In any case, crime is a risky business. I don't feel sorry for the guy. I'd feel sorry for me if it happened to me, but I care enough about what happens to me that I'm not going to put myself in that situation. Apparently he didn't.
They want to stop people using drugs. Why? Because they (supposedly) ruin lives and so they come down hard on people like this an effective ruin their life, much more than the drugs would ever have done, as a deterant to stop people ruining their life. Doesn't that logic seem a little warped to you?
And think about the effects it has on a lot of people. This guy was lucky. He has subsequantly got his life back to together and things are on the mend. But for a lot of people, they're truly screwed. For some people, the easiest way out of the situation that the legal system has left them in is to turn to a life of crime. Most likely to get more involved in the drug scene (to take their mind off of what has happened to them) and get addicted to much worse drugs than he was originally chraged for having.
This guy was forced into a mandatory drug rehabilitation program for several months even though he only ever very occaisionally smoked dope. He cannot leave the state (I can't remember which) and is registered as a drug offender until 2008.
Yes, this guy maybe should have known better but the only harm that's been done is by the legal system to this man's life. He didn't do any harm to nobody.
This is a travesty of civil liberty and justice and it must be stopped.
Okay simon ...
Suppose we legalise all, what will be your next whine ? That the state doesn't provide enough institutions to help people with responsible drug use ?
Why should a government care about that ? You made the choice and if you make a mess, clean it up yourself. Don't come asking for money or institutions to do it for you because you can't do it for yourself. Then it'll be your own bloody fault.
Why should I pay for institutions that are designed to care for people that couldn't cope with the effects of drug use ? Why can't you take your own responsability ? Why don't you deal with your own consequences of your actions ?
I'm willing to be social and pay for those who can't make it on their own, for those who haven't got the luck to be left out by the advancing economy, I'm willing to pay for medical insurance, for unemployment benefits but I'm not willing to pay for some fool who had the brilliant idea to go and use drugs and is now a wreck.
In other words : I'm willing to keep a system running that cares and provides for victims of circumstances but I'm not willing to provide money for people who deliberately chose the path to stick chemical junk in their bodies.
Wally Pipp
Can I assume from this that you want to stop paying for the health care of people who smoke (tobacco), drink alcohol and pursue "danger" sports? While we're at it, what about those who don't eat sufficiently healthy diets?Quote:
I'm willing to keep a system running that cares and provides for victims of circumstances but I'm not willing to provide money for people who deliberately chose the path to stick chemical junk in their bodies.
However, that asside, consider what I'm actually expecting to achieve with legalisation. Not only am I wanting to stop people losing their liberty, I'm actually trying to make drugs safer. With proper and appropriate regulation, there is no reason why they can't be made safer. So, from that point of view, we are decreasing the cost to society.
Have you ever looked at the amount of money governments spend on prohibition? Billions are spent on enforcement (far outshadowing the amounts currently spent on rehabilitation). Most of this money would be saved that is currently being wasted.
What do you think the cost to society is of drug related crime? People who steal to fund their habit cost untold amounts of money to society generally. This cost would disappear if the users of addictive drugs could get their fix for free.
In addition, and most importantly, my plans should be self financing. The soft drugs would be available for retail from licesenced establishments (like alcohol) and taxed. This tax revenue would pay for the costs of administering drug rehab programs for the casulaties of the more harmful drugs. In addition, this money would fund inmproved education programs to ensure that those who want to use drugs safely (the vast majority) can do. This in turn will reduce the cost to society as there will be fewer drug casualties.
All in all, and while I don't have actual figures to support my case, I think the cost to society would be greatly reduced. And I'm talking about both a moral and financial cost.
Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Wally Pipp
Can I assume from this that you want to stop paying for the health care of people who smoke (tobacco), drink alcohol and pursue "danger" sports? While we're at it, what about those who don't eat sufficiently healthy diets?
You assumed right there. Aside from taxation on tobacco and alcohol, I don't want to pay for institutions of rehabilitations. You made a choice, deal with it. There are many people that kicked the habit of smoking and drinking without government aid. In my family and friends circle I can already give you 3 to 4 people who stopped smoking/drinking all on their own. As for danger sports : you either end up dead or injured in case of accident. Which means you go to a regular hospital or to a mortuary. I see no problem there. As for unhealthy diets, yes I don't want to pay for people who don't care what they eat and then expect government run institutions to help them.
Is it my fault they do this ? Why should I cough up the dosh for something they could've easily prevented on their own.
I'm willing to pay for the rest of the social system though with one notable exception : those who leech off it without doing any effort to change their situation.
However, that asside, consider what I'm actually expecting to achieve with legalisation. Not only am I wanting to stop people losing their liberty, I'm actually trying to make drugs safer. With proper and appropriate regulation, there is no reason why they can't be made safer. So, from that point of view, we are decreasing the cost to society.
Have you ever looked at the amount of money governments spend on prohibition? Billions are spent on enforcement (far outshadowing the amounts currently spent on rehabilitation). Most of this money would be saved that is currently being wasted.
What do you think the cost to society is of drug related crime? People who steal to fund their habit cost untold amounts of money to society generally. This cost would disappear if the users of addictive drugs could get their fix for free.
In addition, and most importantly, my plans should be self financing. The soft drugs would be available for retail from licesenced establishments (like alcohol) and taxed. This tax revenue would pay for the costs of administering drug rehab programs for the casulaties of the more harmful drugs. In addition, this money would fund inmproved education programs to ensure that those who want to use drugs safely (the vast majority) can do. This in turn will reduce the cost to society as there will be fewer drug casualties.
All fine and dandy, Simon. Sounds like a plan. Why not submit it to legislative authorities ? Why whine about it here ? Why break the current law ?
You don't know the ways ? You don't know the groups concerned ? Write them, join them and then go forth from there.
What you're doing now is breaking the current law and then whine on about injustices. If you don't want to suffer the injustices then don't do it. Change the law through legal ways. No-one is going to jail you for speaking your mind but you can be jailed for breaking the law, any law.
All in all, and while I don't have actual figures to support my case, I think the cost to society would be greatly reduced. And I'm talking about both a moral and financial cost.
Possibly. But as long as that system isn't in place, you're breaking the law and no moral argument is going to change that.
Why don't you use that moral argument to get the law changed in your favour ?
Wally
OK, I'm breaking the law but at least you have to accept that my plans for legalisation (if done properly) would reduce and not increase the cost to society.
To be honest, I hardly ever break the law these days (as far as taking illegal drugs are concerned) so it's not really an issue that affects me personally anymore.
Wally
Actually, it urks me somewhat how you keep refering to it as "whining". We are debating a topic and I am no more whining about the injustice of our drug prohibition laws than you are whining about people who break them. We are discussing.
And what makes you so sure that I don't take other measures to try to push for the legalisation of drugs?
To be honest, the hardest part of the battle is challenging the misconceptions and myths that many poeple in society have about drugs. Once the majority of society wake up to what's going on and the injustice of it all (as they are beginning to), change will start to happen).
I meet people like Arbiter every day and hear the same old arguments that are not borne out by either logic or evidence time and time again. These misconceptions die hard but I have every confidence that we'll get there eventually.
This thread is supposed to be about whether it's ever morally justifiable to break the law. So, Wally, what you are saying with regard to getting the law changed sounds reasonable, if that's what you want to do, but do you still think it's immoral to do something purely because it's illegal?
Let's say I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
How can I accept something that isn't yet ? I haven't seen your plans in effect, have I ? And if it works, if they are in effect and the law is adapted accordingly, I will concur with the new laws.
You want change ? Submit it to your government. Chances are that your government then says bog off. Should you then break the active law ? I don't think so.
The whole idea is that the law is there to ensure protection and safety, to prevent tragedies from happening, to regulate society for the greater good of that society as a whole. Should you decide to break the law on your own risk then you're on your own. Face the consequences and responsabilities.
As long as there isn't a personalised social security system I'm paying for the rehabilitation or upkeep of drug habits around the country (if it is made legal) and I choose not to.
Still, I think (in general) that laws should focus on prevention rather than regulation afterwards. F.I. it should be made so to favour prevention of car accidents, not the arrangements and regulations afterwards.
But if you choose it, deal with it. Don't expect sympathy from me if you screw up.
Wally Pipp
The form of legalisation that I am in favour of are preventative (as opposed to reactionary). The regulation and education will be to ensure that the use of drugs does not result in adverse side effects. It is an attempt to prevent the abuse of drugs.Quote:
Still, I think (in general) that laws should focus on prevention rather than regulation afterwards. F.I. it should be made so to favour prevention of car accidents, not the arrangements and regulations afterwards.
I agree with your summary of the purpose of law but I do not believe (and will never accept) that it is the business of government to legislate over the morals of individuals or the behaviour of individuals if it does not affect others.Quote:
The whole idea is that the law is there to ensure protection and safety, to prevent tragedies from happening, to regulate society for the greater good of that society as a whole. Should you decide to break the law on your own risk then you're on your own. Face the consequences and responsabilities.
Such laws are, in my opinion, grossly unjust and we should not humour them by obeying.
Simon, you should not be breaking them either. You should be busy trying to get it revoked if you think it is unjust.
If they catch you, you'll be punished and quite rightly so. Don't moan afterwards about injustice. You knew you were breaking the laws and you knew the risks. There are some laws I don't like either but I don't go around breaking them, no matter how silly they may seem.
Don't like it, work on change legally or put up with it. There is no excuse for breaking the law, any law.
Dura lex, sed lex.
Wally Pipp
Yes, I know the risk of breaking laws and I will have to accept the consequences if I get caught but I will never accept it as just.Quote:
If they catch you, you'll be punished and quite rightly so. Don't moan afterwards about injustice. You knew you were breaking the laws and you knew the risks. There are some laws I don't like either but I don't go around breaking them, no matter how silly they may seem.
I simply will not comply with laws that are morally unjust. End of story.
If it violates standing law then you're a criminal. End of story.
Wally
The problem with complying with unjust laws is that it condones them. That is why they must not be tolerated.
Uhh... no sh*t... This is about morality, not criminality.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
If it violates standing law then you're a criminal. End of story.
That's right harry but if your morality drives you to ignore or violate standing law, you're still a criminal.
Change of laws comes from legal opposition and actions, not illegal actions no matter how morally just it may seem.
What do you mean by "legal opposition and actions"?Quote:
Change of laws comes from legal opposition and actions, not illegal actions no matter how morally just it may seem.
I disagree with you because I think that if large numbers of people choose to disregard them and that the wider public sympathise with the moral reasons for this non-complyance, change will be innevitable.
And let's face it. It is outright defiance and protest that draws attention from the public at large. Not legal proceedings.
True, but not really worth pointing out once, let alone twice in a row.Quote:
That's right harry but if your morality drives you to ignore or violate standing law, you're still a criminal.
This is just not true. Ultimately the law itself is changed through legal processes because that is why they're called 'legal processes'. You cannot reasonably deny, though, that large-scale refusal to comply with a law will have a significant influence.Quote:
Change of laws comes from legal opposition and actions, not illegal actions no matter how morally just it may seem.
Protest is legal simon. Taking the streets with 10.000 men and women to demand change is not illegal.
Ignoring and breaking the law isn't.
They go hand in hand.Quote:
Protest is legal simon. Taking the streets with 10.000 men and women to demand change is not illegal.
Ignoring and breaking the law isn't.
Really ...
Then why do I see gun clubs protesting against harsh gun laws (not to be worn outside the club) and no-one carrying a hand gun in the streets ?
Do you really think they go hand in hand ? What about the anti-globalisation protests. Do you think they have the right to destroy property because they deem it unjust for big corporations to have all the money ?
You can protest through official channels, let your voice be heard in a rally, file official complaints but as soon as you disregard the law you're doing things the wrong way.
I disagree. Particulary with the issue of drugs. One of the major reasons why governments areound the world are being forced to re-address the issue is because of the sheer number of people who are not complying with the law. If everyone just complied with the law, the government never look at the issue again.Quote:
You can protest through official channels, let your voice be heard in a rally, file official complaints but as soon as you disregard the law you're doing things the wrong way.
Fine, then you disagree. But you remain a criminal. Period.