Posted on 12/20/2002 9:37:03 PM PST by Sparta
Isn't that the siren song of all humanist ideologues?
Conservatism is big on justice, which would be thwarted when the liber-statist law mandates the toleration of evil, or dictates that no one may intervene or help anyone who is engaged in the abrogation of inalienable rights.
That's an interesting observation. Which nations are you talking about? When has this happened?
Is the U.S. smarter now than it was when basically all drugs were legal?
Gee, thanks. I am sure we at FR are all weeping with gratitude for your foresight -- protecting families, schools, protecting us from ourselves.
"The only low-risk choice when it comes to illegal drugs is abstinence."
Same with sex. Are we going to ban that too?
Countries where small amounts of marijuana or other drugs are legal face social service costs seven to eight times higher than those in the United States, Prosser responds.
So it doesn't cost us anything to arrest, prosecute and lock people up? hmmmm...
"To bring mind-altering drugs that are deeply interconnected with organized crime and street gang violence onto a public market would be a disaster."
Because you could cop a dime bag from the state-licensed store, rather than courtesy of your local street gang? Yeah, what a disaster that would be!
Yep. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
Liberty bad, government good.
Basically, opiates. Marijuana is not a narcotic, and its so-called addictive or habit-forming properties can in no way be compared to those of narcotics, or even tobacco, in terms of severity, duration or recidivism rate.
Is this just about legal marijuana?
It should be. Other 'drugs', legal and illegal, need to be debated on their own terms, imo.
Do you favor legal heroin, crack, methedrine etc.?
Take it easy, this is not about turning Main Street into a shooting gallery. It's about whether the known properties (both dangers and benefits) of marijuana justify its continued demonization and persecution. Will legalization result in more or less crime, make law enforcement easier or more difficult? I don't buy blanket pro-drug legalization arguments (Libertarian-style), but on practical grounds, marijuana ought to be treated more like aspirin and less like heroin. Everyday, kids in America are faced with a thousand temptations more serious than legalized marijuana would pose.
Humanism as a concept or philosophy dates back to the Renaissance. It was an attempt to reconcile the Bible (the religious foundation of the societies in question) with the newly-rediscovered writings of classical civilization. In an attempt to justify the investigation, appreciation, and study of ancient Greek and Roman thought (which, because the ancient writers were not Christian, presented religious difficulties to the more orthodox Renaissance mind), the Renaissance philosophers attempted to "distill" those ideas that both the Bible and the classics had in common. This was done to show that good Christians could study the ancients and appreciate their work without imperilling their soul.
The result of this work was a recognition that the both the Bible and the classics priviledged human freedom and virtue, as defined by Renaissance philosophers. The humanists argued that the classical attempts to encourage virtue were right in method, but wrong in direction (since the ancients didn't know Jesus). Likewise, they asserted that in order to do "good" (to be virtuous), a person must have the opportunity to choose (what they considered "freedom"). In a sense, their argument was that a person forced to tithe at gunpoint was not "virtuous," in that he was not making the choice to do good; rather he was just being forced to simulate the actions of the virtuous. This is what the early humanists meant by "freedom."
Our own founding ideals owe a great debt to the humanists, as their philosophy served as a starting point for the Enlightenment concepts of freedom and Natural Law. But recognize that the early humanists saw the principle goal of their work the reconciliation of the classics with Christianity, so as not to have to jettison the ancients in order to remain Christian (the Bible retained its privileged position.
Over time, the philosophy of humanism underwent sizable changes (many of them the result of Enlightenment philosophies). What is called "secular humanism" developed as an attempt to remove the Bible from its privileged position in humanistic philosophy. Instead of using the common concepts found in the Bible and other philosophies as a way of justifying the continued study of those philosophies, the more modern humanist moves the derived concepts of freedom and virtue to the privileged position, and asserts that all other ideas flow from them. In the secular humanist's conception, the Bible is another example of human virtue because it extolls (in part) human freedom and virtue, rather than, as was the case for the Renaissance humanists when the Bible was the assumed good that humanistic values were judged against. The modern secular humanist would reject those parts of the Bible that did not seem to meet the criteria of humanism (whereas the Renaissance humanist would have been horrified at the very idea).
Simply put, modern humanism is an attept to define the "good" based on universal principles that exist independant of any religious traditions. It's primary focus is on the "here-and-now" (i.e. human concerns), as opposed to spiritual or religious concerns. This was not the goal of the original philosophy, but it is what modern secular humanism has evolved into.
They do not harm anyone through force or fraud, therefore they are not guilty of anything that can be called a crime.
It's always easy to lie to save your job.
Yes, I know there are a few quacks out there who claim it does, but fortunately for the public we actually have a process whereby the medicinal virtues of various substances are put through rigorous testing.
That actually precludes the drug induced fantasies of such quacks.
Remember: "You don't do ANYTHING better on marijuana. You just THINK you do better."
Bwahahahah.
And in Africa there are more black people than here. Thus black people cause poverty.
But such logic will never be questioned here, with the WOD jackboots - that will eventually show up on thread.
Indeed. Many times I've seen arguments that essentially reduce to arguing that pot should remain illegal by pointing out that, other than the handful in government research projects, everyone who uses it is a criminal.
I'm very anti WOD. Having said that, this statement is not only true, but hilarious. Say Ill, was that the voice of experience?
That's an interesting observation. Which nations are you talking about? When has this happened?
Holland. It also allows Islamics to invade it. When you legalize drugs a lot of other things stop mattering too.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Most examples of the rise of socialism and statism, tyrannies and dictatorships expressly FORBID drugs of all types, except booze, under the penalty of DEATH.
nice try.
What are narcotics?
Basically, opiates. Marijuana is not a narcotic, and its so-called addictive or habit-forming properties can in no way be compared to those of narcotics, or even tobacco, in terms of severity, duration or recidivism rate.
ME:
Yes, marijuana is a soft drug that makes your brain soft. It's a bad idea to legalize it. It and hashish are worse than alcohol, the traditional intoxicant for Europeans
Is this just about legal marijuana?
It should be. Other 'drugs', legal and illegal, need to be debated on their own terms, imo.
ME:
That's what YOU say. Hard core libertarians here such as Leroy and tpaine want all drugs legal. Obviously including crack, meth and heroin
Do you favor legal heroin, crack, methedrine etc.?
Take it easy, this is not about turning Main Street into a shooting gallery.
ME:
Oh yes it is. You cannot deny that some want to legalize all drugs and that if marijuana becomes legal than so will all drugs a few years down the road. BTW> How does Holland treat heroin use these days? Do you know that Netherlands is a major drug distribution center these days?
It's about whether the known properties (both dangers and benefits) of marijuana justify its continued demonization and persecution.
ME:
Marijuana does not exist alone. Legalize it and other drugs will become legal. Maybe it's just me but I couldn't stand living next to door to some degenerate heroin, coke or meth user. Bad for your children too.
Will legalization result in more or less crime, make law enforcement easier or more difficult?
ME:
Nope. You will exchange one set of social problems for another. You really want to live in a nation where people puff joints and pull on their hash pipes as they stroll down main street or 5th Avenue? You can do this in some 3rd world nations.
I don't buy blanket pro-drug legalization arguments (Libertarian-style), but on practical grounds, marijuana ought to be treated more like aspirin and less like heroin. Everyday, kids in America are faced with a thousand temptations more serious than legalized marijuana would pose.
ME:
You really feel comfortable seeing your teenager with crowds of teenagers lighting up joints and hashish pipes as they leave high school for the day?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.