[Brandonb]

Sometimes I have a hard time understanding where the necessity for certain laws came from. People should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it does not impede the the rights of anyone else to do the same. A hierarchy of rights should be Life, then Property, then Liberty to do anything that does not restrict the first two rights for anyone. However, there are so many laws out there just just don't seem to have any basis other than to just restrict people from something. Are there some things that should just be restricted because they are considered bad, though they do not impede the rights of other people? Like drugs, or stem cells, or verbal prejudices? I don't support these things, but I also don't see why they should be outlawed. And then again sometimes there are things that restrict freedom which are lawful, like RFIDs and certain age restrictions. I dunno, is this way off base? Or is there just too much pointless regulation?

[Guest]

The idea is to keep the general public happy. If, in general, people don't want other killing other people, then it's made a law so that the general concensus is upheld. If most people are morally outraged by others performing research with stemcells, then it should be made a law that it's not allowed.

While it may not seem that many of the laws in existence protect the people, there is almost always a good reason for it. The problem here is that often laws get passed because of the really loud, whiny few that don't like the way things are.

I certainly won't disagree that we have our share of strange laws, but I will defend the fact that a good majority of them aren't unfounded. They are there to keep the people happy and to make them feel safe, in addition to those laws that actually keep people safe.

[Guest]

I don't think that breaking a law should be punishable in the form of financial payment. The equality of individual finance is not the same for everyone although monitored as so. 20mph over the speed limit will not be the same as someone who doesn't have it to pay and should be more in the form of community service in exchange for paying the fine.

Someone somewhere had to think.. "if we made people wear a seat belt and penalized those who didn't.. we'd be rich!"

[Guest]

If you take our (Americas) declaration and our constitution, you would find that both kind of contradict each other. The declaration state that we have the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"(interesting side note: It was originally supposed to be life liberty and property, which is what was written in the Leviathan. They cut out property as to not plagiarize). The constitution give us a bunch of laws that restrict our freedom. It's like America is an undecisive country (Which is true).

What laws we think are just may seen unjust in other countries, and visa versa.

[Brandonb]

The idea is to keep the general public happy. If, in general, people don't want other killing other people, then it's made a law so that the general concensus is upheld. If most people are morally outraged by others performing research with stemcells, then it should be made a law that it's not allowed.

While it may not seem that many of the laws in existence protect the people, there is almost always a good reason for it. The problem here is that often laws get passed because of the really loud, whiny few that don't like the way things are.

I certainly won't disagree that we have our share of strange laws, but I will defend the fact that a good majority of them aren't unfounded. They are there to keep the people happy and to make them feel safe, in addition to those laws that actually keep people safe.

The whole "people killing other people" is in direct contradiction with "Life, then Property, then Liberty." Obviously killing should be the first law in anything. But when it comes to stem cells, then as you stated, it's a conflict of morality. So who is to say that the "outraged" are right? If they get an illness that can be cured by the research then let them choose not to accept the cure, but don't force others to die "because of the really loud, whiny few."

-I just realized that I had written "I do not support these things" after the stem cells, sorry, I actually do support stem cell research, but not the other two.- Laws are not supposed to make people happy. They are supposed to protect people. And some laws do the exact opposite, they make people feel worse while at the same time making them less safe. i.e. personal fire arm restrictions.

If a majority is morally outraged by "others" who are not preventing them from "life, property, or liberty", and it's only a conflict of personal opinion, then F'em. Forget the majority, at that point they become corrupt through their desire to enforce their will and beliefs upon others, and they themselves are violating other people's rights to liberty.

[Guest]

Are there some things that should just be restricted because they are considered bad, though they do not impede the rights of other people? Like drugs, or stem cells, or verbal prejudices?

Interesting questions, but there's another thing to consider: secondary effects of allowing individual rights. An obvious example is smoking in public. Society seems to accept that people should have the right to kill themselves by smoking, but lawmakers have gradually come to recognize that allowing smoking in public places infringes on the right of others. The same is true, however, in a more indirect manner for other laws. For example, why shouldn't I be able to choose to take drugs, just like people choose to smoke? In this case, the cost to society is measurably greater. There is a direct connection between drug use and other damaging behavior that negatively impacts the lives of others, such as stealing and violent crimes. There is the increased cost of law enforcement due to this resultant behavior, there is the increased medical cost associated with rehabilitation of those who have gone too far, and there is the more subtle costs resulting from damage to relationships and productivity. It would be seriously understating the effects of drug use to conclude that it does not impede the rights of other people. As for stem cells, if you believe that unborn children are in fact people with rights, then obtaining stem cells from aborted fetuses condones a practice which you feel impedes the right to life of the unborn. If prejudicial verbal insults are unchecked, a secondary effect can be the escalation of racial tensions, leading to the entrenchment of divisive thinking and resultant societal problems. That last example is kind of a stretch, but I think you get the principle of what I'm suggesting.

[itachi-san]

My 2 cents. I agree with Duh Puck for the most part. Everything should be fine as long as it doesn't infringe on others' happiness. Like how smoking cigarettes in public spaces is infringing on the happiness of non-smokers.

I think that the only speech that should be restricted is hate speech. I do not believe that any particular word should be outlawed. The presence of hate can be determined by our elected officials and judicial system.

Certain drugs like marijuana and hallucinogens have only really been made illegal for political purposes. They are highly regarded in a lot of past of present religions and philosophies. These drugs are not proven to have caused death or any respectable amount of personal injury, whereas the legal alcohol is proven to cause much more harm to the individual and society and can kill. Other drugs like crack, meth, coke, heroine, etc.. should be illegal because they are not only nothing but bad for the individual, but also have been proven to degrade society immensely. So, say acid is legal, and someone is caught making a scene in a bar or somewhere, what should happen then? Easy, charge them with public disturbance and intoxication just like a drunk, there is no need to come down so hard on drugs that are not lethal and pose little to no threat to society.

I'm also for stem cell research. Absolutely amazing breakthroughs have and will come from them. To not use them, to make their use illegal, is a crime in and of itself to me. If there is a possibility to save a person's life or make them normal again (regrow body parts) then why shouldn't we do this? I don't see how stem cell research infringes on anyone's happiness. It should be adding to it.

[Guest]

I'm also for stem cell research. Absolutely amazing breakthroughs have and will come from them. To not use them, to make their use illegal, is a crime in and of itself to me. If there is a possibility to save a person's life or make them normal again (regrow body parts) then why shouldn't we do this? I don't see how stem cell research infringes on anyone's happiness. It should be adding to it.

The argument against stemcell: because you are killing da wittle babies.

I am a thousand percent for stemcell reasearch, and my above statement is the argument that you hear the most. If you don't want the kid or it is doomed to die early, why not put its cells to good use. Mi dos pesos, not to get off topic here. I'm gonna start a topic on this idea.

[Guest]

My 2 cents. I agree with Duh Puck for the most part. Everything should be fine as long as it doesn't infringe on others' happiness. Like how smoking cigarettes in public spaces is infringing on the happiness of non-smokers.

I think that the only speech that should be restricted is hate speech. I do not believe that any particular word should be outlawed. The presence of hate can be determined by our elected officials and judicial system.

Certain drugs like marijuana and hallucinogens have only really been made illegal for political purposes. They are highly regarded in a lot of past of present religions and philosophies. These drugs are not proven to have caused death or any respectable amount of personal injury, whereas the legal alcohol is proven to cause much more harm to the individual and society and can kill. Other drugs like crack, meth, coke, heroine, etc.. should be illegal because they are not only nothing but bad for the individual, but also have been proven to degrade society immensely. So, say acid is legal, and someone is caught making a scene in a bar or somewhere, what should happen then? Easy, charge them with public disturbance and intoxication just like a drunk, there is no need to come down so hard on drugs that are not lethal and pose little to no threat to society.

I'm also for stem cell research. Absolutely amazing breakthroughs have and will come from them. To not use them, to make their use illegal, is a crime in and of itself to me. If there is a possibility to save a person's life or make them normal again (regrow body parts) then why shouldn't we do this? I don't see how stem cell research infringes on anyone's happiness. It should be adding to it.

Everything is so onesided - what about the happiness about the smoker. They are a very abused and persecuted group of people, but nobody seems to care about their feelings. Oh, I get it. You only have the right to persue happiness if the rest aprove of it.

[akaslickster]

Many laws are not needed right now. Like being cited for spitting on the ground. Public scratching below the belt. Then there are abusers who always look for some way around laws. It is much worse in other places than the U.S.

[itachi-san]

Everything is so onesided - what about the happiness about the smoker. They are a very abused and persecuted group of people, but nobody seems to care about their feelings. Oh, I get it. You only have the right to persue happiness if the rest aprove of it.

What's wrong with stepping outside to smoke cigarettes really? I smoke occasionally and have never had a problem with stepping outside. Do you really feel persecuted by doing so? Picture a closed space with 1 smoker and 10 non-smokers. The smoker should just be allowed to fill the room with something that the ten other people don't like because it's fun for the smoker... No way. There are plenty of ways to have fun without infringing on the good time of others.

[Guest]

Full stop on the smoking.... It's no fun for non smokers anywhere, now the outside of buildings and shops you pass have staff standing outside and waves of smoke blowing everywhere. Prefered it when they did it in alittle room away from everyone - save time Sorry big NO big HATE!

Also what do non smokers get instead of a fag break????

[Guest]

Everything is so onesided - what about the happiness about the smoker. They are a very abused and persecuted group of people, but nobody seems to care about their feelings. Oh, I get it. You only have the right to persue happiness if the rest aprove of it.

A smoker smoking infringes on the well-being and health of the non-smoker.

A non-smoker not smoking does not infringe on the well-being and health of the smoker.

That's the rationale. Take it or ... well, you can't leave it, so TAKE IT!

[Brandonb]

What's wrong with stepping outside to smoke cigarettes really? I smoke occasionally and have never had a problem with stepping outside. Do you really feel persecuted by doing so? Picture a closed space with 1 smoker and 10 non-smokers. The smoker should just be allowed to fill the room with something that the ten other people don't like because it's fun for the smoker... No way. There are plenty of ways to have fun without infringing on the good time of others.

I agree with the anti-smoking-in-public side. It violates both the rights to property and liberty. My body is my property, and when you choose to smoke in my vicinity you are potentially damaging my property and at the same time taking a daring swipe at my liberty by telling me that I should be the one that needs to leave because of the actions of the smoker. It is the smoker that is doing the act, and therefore is the smoker who needs to honor the rights of others. I also smoke occasionally, and if I am uncomfortable leaving the area to smoke, then guess what? I don't smoke, I wait till later. If a smoker is craving a cigarette so badly that they cannot wait, then they can leave and everyone wins.

There is a direct connection between drug use and other damaging behavior that negatively impacts the lives of others, such as stealing and violent crimes. There is the increased cost of law enforcement due to this resultant behavior, there is the increased medical cost associated with rehabilitation of those who have gone too far, and there is the more subtle costs resulting from damage to relationships and productivity.

The only reason that drug use has a connection with that extreme behavior is because it is illegal. If they were legal, like in the early 20th century, use would note that there would hardly be any noticeable connection between drugs and violent crimes/stealing. The prices on the drugs are high because they are illegal, make them illegal and the price would drop like a rock. There would be no stealing to pay for them, nor violent crimes related to them. Unless of course someone ODs and freaks out, which legalizing will not make a difference. Even if it becomes easily accessible, people that would want to do them would do them whether they are legal or not. Would the overall number of users go up? A little probably, sure, but I guarantee that the overall number of drug related violence and stealing would drop drastically. Which in turn would decrease the costs of law enforcement.

As for the increased medical costs and rehabilitation, why are those payment programs in place? If a crack head wants to be rehabilitated, they can afford it. They wouldn't be spending their money on drugs anymore, which means they would have the money to help themselves. It's not society's responsibility to pay for the rehab of a junkie. Let the person take responsibility for their own actions. And if their actions become dangerous to the public, lock them up! Nothing like a jail cell to make someone go cold-turkey. It's like a no-choice painful rehab, and deterrent. Just put'em in solitaire, because there's no reason to put the jailers through the sounds of agonizing screams of withdrawal. Everyone wins, the junkie gets a painful memory as a deterrent against future abuses, and the cost of rehab is put on the junkie. All for the cost of 3-9 meals in jail. (maybe more if you wanna break the $10 range)

Relationships? Productivity? Let the junkie do what they must. They ruin a relationship, let them deal with it. Like I said, "people that would want to do them would do them whether they are legal or not." So as is the case already, if someone shows up to work drunk, late, or not at all, they get fired, the end. It's simple, if they don't meet their responsibilities, they rot for it. Go to a temp agency and see how many of those people could pass a drug test... while drugs are illegal. They won't, none of them will, it's why they can't hold a real job. Legalizing drugs won't make a difference except that the (hundreds?) of Billions of dollars wasted on anti-drug law enforcement would dwindle. If it needed to be spent elsewhere it would be better off on rehab programs. Also, employers would be responsible for enforcing their own drug policies.

That's it, that's how it would -and used to- work. Drugs done privately and within reason do not violate the rights of anyone else, and if they do, THEN lock'em up. Because a "preemptive" lockup (ie our current system) is pointless.

[itachi-san]

Just to add another pro to making drugs legal: the drugs would be regulated by some agency like the FDA (I hate the FDA personally, but let's just assume that there is an agency that isn't completely corrupted for this idea). Since the drugs are regulated, there would be a much lower fatality rate, because people wouldn't be buying drugs that are cut improperly or poisoned in some way. It would be similar to buying mushrooms that you know are edible in a grocery store or taking your chances finding an edible one in the wild. If drugs were regulated like food and drinks (anything consumable) then they would be safer in this way.

I also agree that people who don't do drugs wouldn't just start because it's legal. People wouldn't say: "I never did heroine because it was illegal, but now that it's legal I'm gonna throw my life away and become a junkie." If that does happen, it will be an extreme minority of people I'm sure.

I also agree about the prison idea, but the thing is, I would prefer that all non-violent crimes (like tax evasion-Wesley Snipes for example) should be taken out of prison and given reasonable sentences (like severe fines and community service). This would free up a lot of space in prisons for junkies who have caused multiple public disturbances. And I think that prison would be an exceptional punishment for that kind of offense. Not only are they behind bars but they have to go through withdrawal there too? Sounds like a great life lesson to me.

And I also agree that most violence surrounding drugs would dissipate as well. The cartels, all the guns, the theft and murder would mostly disappear. I really see hardly any negative to drugs being legal as long as the law enforcement keeps up with it and there isn't a high rise in non-users becoming users.

Edit: typo

Edited May 9, 2008 by itachi-san

[Guest]

Lets just legalize everything and let idiots who do stupid things that laws in place do not permit get weeded out by "natural selection".

[akaslickster]

Lets just legalize everything and let idiots who do stupid things that laws in place do not permit get weeded out by "natural selection".

Whoa, that may be too extreme. If it endangers any lives or property it would be wrong. Already there are enough school shootings and some dopers go nuts with weapons.

[Guest]

I respect the reasoning behind your drug-legalization stance, Brandon and Itachi, but having personally observed many cases of the negative consequences of drug use, I completely disagree. Drugs destroy people's lives. It's that simple. That they are illegal has very little to do with that. You can talk all you want about actions that should be taken against the irresponsible people who fail to regulate their use and end up as junkies, but those junkies often started out as totally normal and intelligent individuals who fell victim to a highly addictive chemical addiction. That doesn't happen to everyone who uses drugs, of course, but there's soooo much evidence for how drugs like heroine, coke, and meth damage a person's health and mind, and even occasional users often suffer consequences later in life (e.g., my dad is pretty sure that he experiences nervous behavior as a side-effect of limited and carefully regulated LSD use in his college days).

For instance, typical scenario: a friend of mine, who is a hard working husband and father, was going through a particularly hard time last year, and as a result of the pressure caved in and went back to doing heroine, which he had quit many years before. He ended up on the edge of a bridge, inches from throwing himself off. He went into rehab and pulled through, but it's totally screwed up his life. Your argument is that all such cases have nothing to do with the legality of the drugs, that these same people would have had the exact same problem if the drugs were legal (except that they would have had more money!), and that's true, but that's totally missing the point of how serious the damaging effects of the drugs are in the first place, and the danger that they pose to individuals and society. You both seem quite content to think that a little recreational use here in there is a fine thing, and it's the junkie's fault for being stupid ('a painful withdrawal experience in a jail cell ought to teach 'em to better regulate his recreational use!'). I think that's absurd, and totally trivializes the addictive power of the chemicals over completely rational people. Legalizing the drugs may reduce the cost of enforcement, but there's no question it would increase the general use among society, and lower costs just means that those who are addicted can buy larger quantities and screw themselves up faster. Real good solution.

Granted, I understand that there are obviously differences in the addictive nature of some drugs, but all the major ones that are illegal have clearly been identified to cause health problems (and yes, that includes MJ), and they are all addictive to varying degrees. However, rather than defending any particular drug, you seem to believe that full-on legalization is the route to go, so that's what I'm arguing against.

Edited May 10, 2008 by Duh Puck

[Guest]

This is getting wayyyy off topic. I think I will Make an legalize drugs topic because of these essteemed arguments. Try to get back on topic with this one.

[itachi-san]

This is getting wayyyy off topic. I think I will Make an legalize drugs topic because of these essteemed arguments. Try to get back on topic with this one.

Actually, this is right on topic. The OP mentions a lot of things and there is no rule that everything that is mentioned in the OP has to be mentioned in every subsequent post. Here is an excerpt from the OP that directly speaks to what we are discussing:

Are there some things that should just be restricted because they are considered bad, though they do not impede the rights of other people? Like drugs, or stem cells, or verbal prejudices? I don't support these things, but I also don't see why they should be outlawed.

[Brandonb]

I respect the reasoning behind your drug-legalization stance, Brandon and Itachi, but having personally observed many cases of the negative consequences of drug use, I completely disagree. Drugs destroy people's lives. It's that simple. That they are illegal has very little to do with that.... Your argument is that all such cases have nothing to do with the legality of the drugs, that these same people would have had the exact same problem if the drugs were legal (except that they would have had more money!), and that's true, but that's totally missing the point of how serious the damaging effects of the drugs are in the first place, and the danger that they pose to individuals and society. You both seem quite content to think that a little recreational use here in there is a fine thing, and it's the junkie's fault for being stupid ('a painful withdrawal experience in a jail cell ought to teach 'em to better regulate his recreational use!'). I think that's absurd, and totally trivializes the addictive power of the chemicals over completely rational people.... However, rather than defending any particular drug, you seem to believe that full-on legalization is the route to go, so that's what I'm arguing against.

Someone very close to me has gone through an addiction. And a few weeks ago, someone else I know totaled her car in a catastrophic car accident that resulted from a drug influence (thank god she survived). I am all too familiar with the kind of results that drugs can cause. They are sold by the cockroaches of society. The dealers that are willing to "cut" drugs with poisonous substances in order to make a higher profit. They sell uncertain garbage drugs to the masses when all that was wanted was a little escape from reality, not a death sentence, or a game of Russian Roulette.

"Drugs [CAN] destroy people's lives." No kidding, and you are correct that "they are illegal has very little to do with that." No matter what kind of drug, and what form it comes in, it will have a negative effect on the life of the user. There's no doubt about that. But the repercussions, the consequences that can occur from the use of the drugs could be different if they were legal.

Frankly, the only threat I can see to society is when and if people who have abused drugs, leave the sanctuary of their own homes and enter society, or the roads in which society inhabits. In that case, FRY'EM. They deserve the harshest punishments that the law allows. The endangerment of others is not to be tolerated. The endangerment of other individuals is his/her (junkie's) own decision, whether the junkie is under the influence or not. Whether or not "they are illegal has very little to do with that..." People will attain them either way, and whether they become either non-influencing users that stay at home, or negative impacts to society, is entirely up to the user. "the addictive power of the chemicals over completely rational people" is a misstatement. Completely rational people do not use these sort of "hardcore" drugs, plain and simple. Deeply disturbed people do, and they should be punished if they carry their addiction to a place that influences the public, but if they stay in their own home, of out sight and influence, then who are we to dictate that the method in which they have chosen to "self medicate" or "entertain" themselves is wrong or unacceptable?

The whole "war against drugs" has only made the world a more dangerous place to live. If there were no "war against drugs" then the life changing negative impacts would fall upon a self-conscious individual user, not some innocent bystander in some drug dealer related drive-by shooting. In the world that we live in now, many of the side effects fall upon the individual who actually said "no" and got harmed in the end anyway. What kind of justice is that?

[Guest]

Drugs - Have met a few druggies in European capital cities hustling for cash and attempting to sell stolen goods, can't say which substance they were abusing or that they are harmful other than the way they make money to keep their habit going. Suffice to say it's annoying at the very least.

Netherlands have legalised pot for a long time, which takes it off the crime list, regulates it and keeps it in the open for monitoring otherwise it would be underground and leave you guessing as to what's really happening and how to deal with it.

It can be harder to rehabilitate those that are pushed onto it and loose control usually way past the time when it would be easier, more efficient and therefore cost effective too. If you don't rehabilitate abusers then the problem increases so it's not an option to leave them to fall by the way side, sweep them up and bury them.

Looks like the Dutch have a grip on it, less crime from it and less OVER abuse, and it being easy and safe to use soft drugs which are less harmful than alcohol means that people much less likely to take larger risks! There have been the odd moments of needles that have been found in the street where children may be able to touch them but it's much less than places where it is not tolerated.

Prostitution is not illegal too and has the similar regulation, health checks etc. Works for all in that respect.

If alcohol was banned/made illegal as it too, it would be underground drinking wells and abused by suppliers which will add further to gang warfare/criminal abuse of unhealthy profiteering.

The less it is a crime and the more it is supervised then the less problems and related issues there are - is it that simple????

[Brandonb]

So what about laws relating to the privilege to vote? If some people aren't members/employees of a certain company, should they be allowed to go to the company picnic? If you don't own stock in a certain company, should you be at their stockholders meeting? Should everyone be allowed to vote in national elections? If someone is denied the privilege to vote, is it a restriction of their rights? Obviously it doesn't violate the rights to Life or Property, but what about Liberty? Or does allowing someone that is not a member/citizen violate the Liberty rights of the country/company/entity that should be able to set its own rules/laws for who votes?

[Guest]

So what about laws relating to the privilege to vote? If some people aren't members/employees of a certain company, should they be allowed to go to the company picnic? If you don't own stock in a certain company, should you be at their stockholders meeting? Should everyone be allowed to vote in national elections? If someone is denied the privilege to vote, is it a restriction of their rights? Obviously it doesn't violate the rights to Life or Property, but what about Liberty? Or does allowing someone that is not a member/citizen violate the Liberty rights of the country/company/entity that should be able to set its own rules/laws for who votes?

What's a privilege to vote - surely it's a right that can be rescinded in some circumstances!

No! or can you only vote by buying / selling shares (confident/not confident)

Every good citizen should/must vote no restriction other than that they must qualify/be fit to vote mentally and responsibly(criminals and the like no!) Non members if temporary (not citizens) or not qualified (liable tax tax payers are - not those who don't qualify - need to establish who can, who will or who will not comply with taxation - subsidising the government, which can be means tested).

FanQ for reading!

Edit typos

Edited May 13, 2008 by Lost in space