War on drugs - is it really 'right'?

Newsday ^ | February 12, 2006 | Ellis Henican

[Mojave]

I wonder what a burning joint looks like in an infrared scope?

[robertpaulsen]

"We shouldn't have."

According to ...? Was it wrong? Unconstitutional? Bad? Evil? What?

Why do you say we "shouldn't" have passed laws against behavior that neither violated nor endagered others' rights?

[winston2]

cannabis users being tracked like witches(winston2)

Who's tracking them?

These guys - Do you ever watch "Cops" or even more sick "Texas SWAT" ?

[winston2]

Of course you can. And wouldn't it be great if smoking dope were socially acceptable, like drinking? Then you could engage in your selfish, immoral, and hedonistic drug use out in the open. Then you could say to everyone, "It's legal. I can do it. And don't you dare pass moral judgment or impose your standards on me!".

So your problem with cannabis use is the moral harm it might do the user?

So the U.S. federal government should be in the business of preventing citizens from sin?

I am not so sure that is - in a couple of words - appropriate or possible.

[Mojave]

These guys

Nope.

[robertpaulsen]

"So your problem with cannabis use is the moral harm it might do the user?"

I believe our society is better off without legal marijuana than with legal marijuana.

"So the U.S. federal government should be in the business of preventing citizens from sin?"

Most of our laws are based on morality -- laws against murder, theft, assault, etc. What's the problem with that?

[Mojave]

Robert Bork:

This results in what may be seen as moral relativism or the privatisation of morality. One person's morality being as good as another's, the community may not adopt moral standards in legislation. This viewpoint is often expressed by the common and wholly fallacious remark that "You can't legislate morality." Indeed . . . we legislate little else.

[getsoutalive]

Most of our laws are based on morality -- laws against murder, theft, assault, etc.

These laws are not just immoral, they are infringing upon the rights of others, in other words these acts create victims.

[robertpaulsen]

T"hese laws are not just immoral, they are infringing upon the rights of others, in other words these acts create victims."

The laws against those acts do, yep. We have other laws that don't.

Hey, thanks for playing. We have some wonderful parting gifts for you backstage.

[Know your rights]

Actually, it was your position that overturning laws against marijuana reduces violation of liberty -- I merely extended your reasoning to rape and burglary

Your "extension" was without foundation and demonstrated only your incomprehension of rights.

[Know your rights]

We shouldn't have [passed laws against behavior that neither violated nor endagered others' rights].

According to ...?

Natural law.

[Know your rights]

Then you wouldn't object to combining both principles in the extreme if my neighbors and I use the 2nd Amendment to protect our families from dopers?

If a doper, or drinker, or teetotaler, acts so as to pose a clear and present danger to you, fire away. A guy sitting on his couch drinking beer or smoking marijuana poses you no such risk.

[Know your rights]

I don't believe for a minute that there weren't individuals that objected to said laws being passed.

I don't recall people like Soros, Lewis, and Sperling, and groups like NORML, DPA, MPP, and the like campaigning for the legalization of gambling, or prostitution or pornography is my point.

What's the point of your point? Why bring it up?

[Know your rights]

I believe our society is better off without legal marijuana than with legal marijuana.

The hive mind at work.

[robertpaulsen]

As opposed to what? Your selfish, individualistic, hedonistic mind?

[Know your rights]

Your selfish, individualistic, hedonistic mind?

Individualistic, of course ... natural law demands it. How am I "selfish" or "hedonistic"?

[robertpaulsen]

"What's the point of your point? Why bring it up?"

Too complicated for you?

I said we've had laws on the books for decades against acts that neither violated nor endagered others' rights. It wasn't until the drug laws came into being, however, that there's been an organized effort to overturn not only the drug laws, but all laws against acts that neither violated nor endagered others' rights.

You are part of this objectivist movement.

[robertpaulsen]

"Individualistic, of course ... natural law demands it. How am I "selfish" or "hedonistic"?"

You proudly claim to be individualistic, yet you cannot fathom how that makes you either selfish or hedonistic? As a self-described individualist, isn't your primary motivation self-interest?

[Know your rights]

I said we've had laws on the books for decades against acts that neither violated nor endagered others' rights. It wasn't until the drug laws came into being, however, that there's been an organized effort to overturn not only the drug laws, but all laws against acts that neither violated nor endagered others' rights.

What of it?

[Know your rights]

As a self-described individualist, isn't your primary motivation self-interest?

As a husband and father, certainly not ... but my sacrificing for others must be my choice not government edict.