“Very simple: in public, some acts can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.”
“some acts”? What might those be?
It is indeed the the argument that is false and deceptive as the argument for toleration or legality was privacy and the argument for not keeping private acts private was a right to recognition as a public right and legality.
“If two different people make those two different arguments, how is either of them “deceptive”?”
It's not two arguments but all one that tolerated private acts should become public rights and therefore protected by legality and finally acceptance as normal.
In practice it largely does. Medical marijuana becomes legal and suddenly thousands of people have a medical condition that only marijuana will relieve.
“Straw man. Who claims that ONLY marijuana relieves those conditions? That's not a requirement of any medical marijuana statute I know of.
And even those alleged “thousands” are a small fraction of the adult population, so legal medical marijuana falls far short of full adult legalization”
You have it backwards, I said after legalization claims of suffering some condition would abound not that any condition was referenced in statutes.
One can go on google and find testimony for marijuana's beneficial use for numerous conditions, fibromyalgia, loss of appetite, nausea, sleeplessness and on and on.
It's believable that marijuana might be beneficial in many of these conditions, what is not believable is that as soon as medical use legality was obtained thousands would suddenly become sufferers.
If virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer then full adult legalization is not so far away.
“Yes, the “right” to commit perverted acts in public is an invented “right”
Invented by whom? By those who claimed a “right” to perversion in private?
“... (like your invented “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight”)...”
That right to me and obligation to the employer was created by law as a matter of safety and liability in the work place both for the impaired worker and those around him.
“Do you think you're in some way contradicting me?”
You're doing that just fine without my help.
So you're OK with legality of private drug use?
I assume by “drug use” you're speaking of use outside medical need. And with that I am not O.K. with legal or not.
Your "legal or not" confuses me - my question was whether you're OK with legality of private drug use, not whether you're OK with private drug use itself.
I certainly don't want to be the source of confusion. It seems to me that only if I were a crass pragmatist would I favor legalization of something I obviously disapprove.
No, favoring legalization of something one disapproves requires only recognition of limits to governmental authority.
Are you now saying that what should be banned is the public or private commission of that which count-your-change disapproves?
Very simple: in public, some acts can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.
“some acts”? What might those be?
I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defacation and lovemaking.
It is indeed the the argument that is false and deceptive as the argument for toleration or legality was privacy and the argument for not keeping private acts private was a right to recognition as a public right and legality.
If two different people make those two different arguments, how is either of them “deceptive”?
It's not two arguments but all one that tolerated private acts should become public rights and therefore protected by legality and finally acceptance as normal.
That "all one" argument is not my argument - nor is one who argues for the right to do A in private thereby logically required to argue for the right to do A in public. If you want to argue against the "all one" argument, go find somebody who makes that argument - it ain't me.
One can go on google and find testimony for marijuana's beneficial use for numerous conditions, fibromyalgia, loss of appetite, nausea, sleeplessness and on and on.
It's believable that marijuana might be beneficial in many of these conditions,
I'm glad to see you say so. You may have noticed the anti-pot zealots on FR who strenuously deny the possibility of any medical benefit from marijuana.
what is not believable is that as soon as medical use legality was obtained thousands would suddenly become sufferers.
Where is the evidence that those thousands were not previously sufferers?
If virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer
Those alleged “thousands” are a small fraction of the adult population - so we're very far from having evidence that "virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer."
then full adult legalization is not so far away.
Yes, the “right” to commit perverted acts in public is an invented “right”
Invented by whom? By those who claimed a “right” to perversion in private?
No, by those who claimed a “right” to perversion in public. As I said, in public, some acts (such as defacation and lovemaking) can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.
(like your invented “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight”)
That right to me and obligation to the employer was created by law
BZZZT! As the Founders knew, the law does not create rights but simply recognizes natural rights (or fabricates nonexistent "rights").
as a matter of safety and liability in the work place both for the impaired worker and those around him.
As I said before, employers have a legal responsibility/obligation to make sure that workers doing jobs with the potential to injure are unimpaired - but that doesn't even come close to your fabricated “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight.”
Do you think you're in some way contradicting me?
You're doing that just fine without my help.
You have yet to demonstrate any self-contradiction in my position - instead you keep arguing against positions I've never taken.
the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.