Federation vs. US principles

[Rush Limborg]

Well...when you consider all the pot shops in California's metro area...and other examples of "Progressive" tolerance...I'd beg to differ on that. The federal government can only do so much on the War. The states have to do their part, too. And to be honest, California in particular has consistantly failed in that regard.


So...how do you explain Singapore?

 

[scotpens]

. . . I'm curious about what LSD is like, but I don't think I'd try it, I've read stories from a couple of people that tried it and they say it was unsettling.

Charlie Brooker:
. . . My most benign lysergic experience consisted of an hour-long stroll around an incredibly verdant, sun-drenched meadow, watching the names of famous sportsmen appear before me in gigantic 3D letters carved from fiery gold.

That does sound pretty cool, actually. Only I'd rather take a long, leisurely stroll around a sun-drenched meadow and watch the gigantic naked bodies of famous supermodels appear before me.

The federal government can only do so much on the War. The states have to do their part, too. And to be honest, California in particular has consistantly failed in that regard.

On the contrary, California is in the vanguard of leading the country to a saner, more realistic approach to drug laws.

At the very least, marijuana should be given the same legal status as alcohol. The reasons why that particular drug wound up on the wrong side of the law had everything to do with politics and economic interests and very little to do with legitimate public health and safety concerns.

 

[TheGodBen]

Well...when you consider all the pot shops in California's metro area...and other examples of "Progressive" tolerance...I'd beg to differ on that. The federal government can only do so much on the War. The states have to do their part, too. And to be honest, California in particular has consistantly failed in that regard.

California represents only 12% of the total US population, just how much pot are the people there smoking? I know that much of the content coming from Hollywood indicates that they're smoking a lot, but that's most likely down to idiocy.

So...how do you explain Singapore?

Simply: I don't believe that there is a correlation between criminal policy and drug use/abuse. A country that takes a hard line on drugs may have a low level of drug use, it may also have a large drug problem. Meanwhile, a country with a liberalised drug policy can may have high levels of drug use, or it may have low levels.

Drug use isn't a criminal problem, it is a social problem, if you want to have the greatest impact upon it then it needs to be addressed as a social problem. You can damage a tree by plucking off all its leaves, you might even be able to kill it that way depending upon the type of tree, but if you want to be most effective, the best bet is to go for the roots.

That does sound pretty cool, actually. Only I'd rather take a long, leisurely stroll around a sun-drenched meadow and watch the gigantic naked bodies of famous supermodels appear before me.

Hmm, I don't think you're going to find a show like that on BBC2, you're going to need to switch over to a cable station.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Well...when you consider all the pot shops in California's metro area...and other examples of "Progressive" tolerance...I'd beg to differ on that. The federal government can only do so much on the War. The states have to do their part, too. And to be honest, California in particular has consistantly failed in that regard.

California represents only 12% of the total US population, just how much pot are the people there smoking? I know that much of the content coming from Hollywood indicates that they're smoking a lot, but that's most likely down to idiocy.

Maybe they are smoking as much as the "content" says*. It sure as heck would explain a lot--like the current House Speaker....

Drug use isn't a criminal problem, it is a social problem.

It's both.

If you want to have the greatest impact upon it then it needs to be addressed as a social problem.
You can damage a tree by plucking off all its leaves, you might even be able to kill it that way depending upon the type of tree, but if you want to be most effective, the best bet is to go for the roots.

Ah! So you agree with my earlier point about the culture, then.

I...believe there's hope for you yet, GodBen.



*(BTW, folks, I'm not bashing all Californians as pot smokers. I'm bashing those who smoke enough pot for the whole lot o' ya....)

 

[TheGodBen]

Ah! So you agree with my earlier point about the culture, then.

I...believe there's hope for you yet, GodBen.

I agree, to an extent.

Right now, I'm having a drink, because sometimes I like to unwind at the end of a day with some alcohol. It's relaxing, it gets a bit of a buzz going, and I'd lose my Irish citizenship if I was a teetotaller. I don't need to drink more than one, I don't want to drink more than one, and I don't feel that there's anything wrong with me doing this.

Sometimes, on infrequent occasions, I drink to get drunk. I might have 6, 7 or 8 drinks, which isn't much compared to some people, but it's enough to get me doing silly things I wouldn't normally do, like dancing, or singing, or playing Scrabble (poorly). I don't get into trouble, I don't get into fights, I don't vomit or urinate in the streets, I get drunk in a reasonably civilised manner and try not to get in the way of the normal operation of society. I also don't let drinking get in the way of my "professional" or family life. Once again, I don't feel that there's anything wrong with me doing this, it's just a bit of fun that I'm well able to control.

There's several soft drugs that people use for the same purposes that I drink alcohol; they use them to relax, they enjoy the buzz, they have some fun... it's not really different to how I, and most of my society, use alcohol. I don't begrudge those people for doing that sort of thing; so long as they're not disrupting the peace, so long as it doesn't disrupt their lives in a damaging fashion, I don't care what they do with their time.

However, if that drug use becomes an addiction, something they can't live without, something that turns them into a nuisance to wider society, that's where I draw the line. And that doesn't just go for illegal drugs, that goes for alcohol too. Drugs can destroy people's lives, and they can have a detrimental impact upon communities, and I think that's something we should try to minimise. But I don't think that prohibition is an effective or acceptable way of doing that, at least not for soft drugs like cannabis.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Hmm.

I agree that Prohibition was a major mistake (a mistake of the "Progressive" Era, BTW)...but to be honest, alcohol and drugs--even "recreational" drugs--are two different matters.

I seem to recall that the current scientific consenses (I know...a critic of the "global warming" concept talking about "current scientific consensus"--shocking) is that true alcoholism--honest-to-goodness addiction to alcohol--requires a genetic element. Effectively, it's hereditary.

Now, while one could argue that the "addicitive effect" of rec-drugs are to a lesser extant than alcohol. Nonetheless...one doesn't require a "druggie gene" to become addicted to drugs.

But hey. Scientific consensus is often wrong. What say you?

 

[Admiral Shran]

California represents only 12% of the total US population, just how much pot are the people there smoking?

Trust me, they're smoking a lot out there.

Maybe they are smoking as much as the "content" says*. It sure as heck would explain a lot--like the current House Speaker....

Sometimes, on infrequent occasions, I drink to get drunk. I might have 6, 7 or 8 drinks, which isn't much compared to some people, but it's enough to get me doing silly things I wouldn't normally do, like dancing, or singing, or playing Scrabble (poorly).

Or reviewing Voyager?

 

[Vurok]

This thread is waaaaaaay off track...

Remember that the ends do not justify the means. Drugs are bad for you, taking them is utterly immoral and disgusting. However, neither I nor government have the right to stop you taking them if you want to.

 

[ReadyAndWilling]

shouldn't drug addiction be a medical issue and not a legal one?

if a person were to eat something poisonous like some rare poison, they'd be taken to a hospital for treatment, not to jail.

i just don't see the difference.

 

[ReadyAndWilling]

.

 

[Thor Damar]

This thread is waaaaaaay off track...

Remember that the ends do not justify the means. Drugs are bad for you, taking them is utterly immoral and disgusting. However, neither I nor government have the right to stop you taking them if you want to.

Is it though? This is a debate between the guiding principles of a fictional interstellar entity four hundred years into the future and the socio-political aspects of a major nation-state that exists in the here and now. So discussing the various ideologies, societal mores and current zeitgeists is very apt in my not so humble opinion.
(a wise man once wrote that there is not such thing as a humble opinion, a belief that I hearty ascribe to)

As to the second perspective held by the quoted corespondent with regards to that ever pressing subject of narcotics I naturally find myself in complete agreement with the last sentence with the proviso that the citizens health and general wellbeing should be taken into account. Obviously governments of whatever stripe cannot legislate on matters of personal morality (at least not successfully) but at the same time their duty as the collective servant of the human society will mean that unpopular decisions are made.
Alas, since we lack for a Havlock Vetinari, we'll have to muddle through...

For the first impassioned viewpoint I must say that I do not find drugs to be immoral but then it is very much a personal matter of taste and inclination so I will not seek an argument on that score. It is worth remembering that there are many medicinal drugs which aid in alleviating pain and that with careful testing and use some drugs can be useful.

Furthermore can I just thank everyone for such a simulating debate, very thought provoking and amusing at the same time.

(sorry about all the pomposity. I'm in a very good mood...)

 

[Vurok]

I naturally find myself in complete agreement with the last sentence with the proviso that the citizens health and general wellbeing should be taken into account.

Would you care to elaborate on this rather vague bromide?

However, I will pre-empt the expected response with the following question - why is the government unable to legislate on morality, yet can use force and steal the product of your labour?

 

[I am Surak]

Do American star trek fans represent the more leftish, liberal facet of the nation,

Not specifically. I, and Nerys and Shran, are living proof of that.

Count - me - SURAK - in this statement too. Personal freedom, the freedom to fail and to succeed, is expression of the explorative gene.
Brave explorers founded America and the space program.
I have never encountered a leftist that is blessed with this gene. Maybe in talk but not in the harsh reality of life.

 

[Vurok]

Do American star trek fans represent the more leftish, liberal facet of the nation,

Not specifically. I, and Nerys and Shran, are living proof of that.

Count - me - SURAK - in this statement too.

You can certainly count me in that list as well. Leftism is simply not logical.

 

[Mr Darcy]

Oh boy...

 

[T'Girl]

shouldn't drug addiction be a medical issue and not a legal one?

if a person were to eat something poisonous like some rare poison, they'd be taken to a hospital for treatment, not to jail.

It's a medical issue if you self-identify as someone who has a personal problem and seek therapy. If OTOH you engage illegal activity and have no intention to stop, AND are arrested, then it's definitely a legal issue.

If you took a rare poison in order to commit suicide, you might be locked up in a hospital. If you took a poison or a toxin in order to become intoxicated you might go to jail, depends on what you ingested. It not uncommon for drug users to first be taken to hospital, then to jail.

why is the government unable to legislate on morality, yet can use force and steal the product of your labour?

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes ..."

 

[DevilEyes]

shouldn't drug addiction be a medical issue and not a legal one?

if a person were to eat something poisonous like some rare poison, they'd be taken to a hospital for treatment, not to jail.

i just don't see the difference.

And if you sell someone that rare poison that they can kill themselves with, should you be arrested or not?

Because that's the issue here.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Brave explorers founded America and the space program.
I have never encountered a leftist that is blessed with this gene. Maybe in talk but not in the harsh reality of life.

Sorry to break it for you - SURAK - but America's Founding Fathers were leftists in their time. Maybe you logic is uncertain when your political ideology is concerned.

You can certainly count me in that list as well. Leftism is simply not logical.

I would love to see a robust formal proof of that. In symbolic logic, possibly. Or maybe you should admit that your claim is just an opinion and not a mathematical fact.

 

[iguana_tonante]

The cuture war goes on and on. It was fought 1,000 years ago. It will continue to be fought 1,000 years from now. The "good" side has had its share of victories--and then, a bunch of "intellectuals" speak of "Progressing" beyond those "rigid and inflexible" morals.

Sorry, maybe my reading skills are failing me. Are you saying that nothing changed in the last 3000 years? That there were no social, moral, or ethical advances in human history? Two thousand years ago people though it was ok to raze conquered cities to the ground. Five hundred years ago, people though it was ok to burn suspected witches at the stake. One hundred years ago, people thought it was ok to deny women's rights. I don't know about you, but having that times behind us is definitely a "Progress" in my book.

We don't mean that it hasn't happened before--simply that the problems of society are due to a breakdown. To say otherwise is absurd and most illogical indeed.

Vague platitudes and longing for a time that never was. Your "moral upstanding times" were actually the times of racism and discriminations, the times of brutal oppression and endemic violence against women.

Well...when you consider all the pot shops in California's metro area...and other examples of "Progressive" tolerance...I'd beg to differ on that. The federal government can only do so much on the War. The states have to do their part, too. And to be honest, California in particular has consistantly failed in that regard.

The "horrors of marijuana smoking" actually amount to a few potheads that spend all their time playing guitar and eating cheerios. I can live with that.

So...how do you explain Singapore?

Singapore is an authoritarian, almost-fascist state, ruled by what is a de fact one-party government. It is ranked "partly free" by the Freedom in the World report, and classified as a "hybrid regime" in The Economist's Democracy Index. Sure, it may not have drug problems, but it has much bigger ones. Again, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trade.

 

[TheGodBen]

Hmm.

I agree that Prohibition was a major mistake (a mistake of the "Progressive" Era, BTW)...but to be honest, alcohol and drugs--even "recreational" drugs--are two different matters.

Only because we label them differently. In reality, alcohol is a drug, and it's more dangerous than many of the softer drugs that are illegal.

I seem to recall that the current scientific consenses (I know...a critic of the "global warming" concept talking about "current scientific consensus"--shocking) is that true alcoholism--honest-to-goodness addiction to alcohol--requires a genetic element. Effectively, it's hereditary.

There is a hereditary element to addiction, but you don't have to have the addiction gene to develop a chemical dependency. A normal person may have a 10% chance of becoming an alcoholic, whereas a person with the addiction gene may have a 30% chance. Anyone can develop an addiction to any drug if their body becomes accustomed to it, you don't need the gene. If you drink 12 beers every day for a year and then stop, you will get sick because your body will become accustomed to having that much alcohol in your bloodstream.

I'm addicted to caffeine. I don't mean that in a cute "I can't live without coffee" kind of way, I mean that if I don't drink my regular dose of caffeine a day, I get sick. I've been drinking tea for as long as I can remember, and I usually drink around 6-8 mugs of tea a day. On days where I'm unable to drink tea as normal, by around 18:00 my muscles tense up and I start to get an almighty headache. If I drink some tea of coffee at that point, my body begins to return to normal and the pain subsides. I don't consider this a problem in my life, it's very rare for me to be in a situation where tea of coffee isn't available, and the stimulant effect doesn't impact on my life. But if society collapses and tea imports stop, I'm in for a painful couple of days until my body adjusts.

Now, while one could argue that the "addicitive effect" of rec-drugs are to a lesser extant than alcohol. Nonetheless...one doesn't require a "druggie gene" to become addicted to drugs.

It's not an "alcohol gene" or a "heroin gene" or a "caffeine gene", it's a straight up "addiction gene". If someone is liable to become an alcoholic then they're liable to become an addict of all sorts of drugs, that's why a lot of drug addicts have also been alcoholics at some point.

But hey. Scientific consensus is often wrong. What say you?

I say you have a poor understanding of science.


Ignoring the alcohol dependency side of things for a moment, the biggest problem associated with alcohol isn't alcohol dependence, but alcohol abuse. I'm not sure how big a problem it is in the US, but in Ireland and the UK alcohol abuse is a big problem within society. It's not that people are addicted to alcohol, it's that people drink too much an act in an unruly manner, so people get into fights, or vomit in the street, or cause criminal damage to store-fronts. Most of those people don't have a problem with alcohol dependency, they can go weeks with drinking a sip of alcohol, but when they decide to go out on the town they drink too much, lose control and become a nuisance.

Meanwhile, alcoholics tend not to cause trouble, they generally prefer to drink alone and not draw attention to the fact that they have a problem. They'll destroy their personal lives, they may lose their jobs and their families, but they're usually not the people that cause trouble for others while drunk.

Or reviewing Voyager?

It wasn't alcohol that made me do that, it was my meth addiction. Luckily, I'm clean now.

Sooooo... does anyone happen to have any meth I could borrow?

Remember that the ends do not justify the means. Drugs are bad for you, taking them is utterly immoral and disgusting.

An absurd statement, but one that I would have agreed with 6 or 7 years ago, back when I thought that cigarettes and alcohol should be banned.

However, neither I nor government have the right to stop you taking them if you want to.

That, I agree with.

shouldn't drug addiction be a medical issue and not a legal one?

if a person were to eat something poisonous like some rare poison, they'd be taken to a hospital for treatment, not to jail.

i just don't see the difference.

Once again, I agree, but you should remember that it wasn't that long ago that some countries (and states in the US) considered suicide, or attempted suicide, a criminal act.

And the issue gets more complicated when you include the issue of who sold the poison. Who is to blame, the person that bought and ingested the poison, or the person that sold it to them?

Alas, since we lack for a Havlock Vetinari, we'll have to muddle through...

We do have a Vetinari, but he is currently the Prime Minister of Russia.

why is the government unable to legislate on morality, yet can use force and steal the product of your labour?

Because if you put me in a room with 19 other people, I'm statistically most likely to be the smartest guy there, and I wanted to go to college rather than be forced to drop out of secondary eduction like my parents.

Count - me - SURAK - in this statement too.

So, the puritanical guy that expelled millions of his people from their home because they didn't see anything wrong with laughing every now and again, is a conservative? Interesting.

Personal freedom, the freedom to fail and to succeed, is expression of the explorative gene.
Brave explorers founded America and the space program.
I have never encountered a leftist that is blessed with this gene. Maybe in talk but not in the harsh reality of life.

I've pretty much been arguing that point about "freedom to fail" for the last few days, but I'm a leftist, so where does that leave me?

The "horrors of marijuana smoking" actually amount to a few potheads that spend all their time playing guitar and eating cheerios. I can live with that.

I don't know. How loud do they play those guitars? If they sing too then marijuana should definitely be banned.