Posted on 09/16/2003 7:09:14 AM PDT by Wolfie
Prove that sleepiness clearly applies.
Self-evident to anyone who's ever been sleepy.
I've been sleepy, and I've been high. Based on my own experience, being high impairs your judgment much more severely.
So you agree that your criteria do apply to sleepiness.
As to your claim that being high impairs your judgment much more severely than sleepiness: my personal experiences contradict yours. The ball is back in your court.
I do not view being able to demonstrate as immoral.
Don't dodge the issue: is participation in a Klan demonstration immoral?
Racism IS immoral (and certain expressions of it are against the law).
I do not agree that my criteria apply to sleepiness, since the level of impairment (in my experience) is no where near the impairment experienced when high.
Since our experiences are different, and you've offered no evidence to support any claim that your experience is the more frequent, I think we should just leave the drug laws as they are so there is no more negative impact to society.
Now the ball is in YOUR court to prove how legalizing drugs would benefit society.
Is a personal immoral for supporting the right to engage in a white supremacy demonstration?
As soon as you start discussing the DEGREE to which they apply, you have agreed that they DO apply.
Since our experiences are different, and you've offered no evidence to support any claim that your experience is the more frequent
I don't have to prove that; in order to support YOUR position that drugs should be illegal but sleepiness should not, YOU must prove that drugs are much more impairing in the SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY of cases. This you are far from having done.
Okay, I can agree to that. But even listening to the radio while driving impairs the judgment. The degree DOES matter if one wishes to debate in a logical fashion.
"I don't have to prove that; in order to support YOUR position that drugs should be illegal but sleepiness should not."
LOL I'm not trying to get drugs made illegal - they already are. It's you that is on the 'hot seat' so to speak if you want something to be changed.
A person who supports the right to demonstrate (regardless of the group) is moral. A person who ONLY supports the right of white supremicists to demonstrate would be immmoral. Racism is immoral.
Racism is harmful to society.
Restricting free speech is harmful to society.
Taking drugs is harmful to society.
LOL I'm not trying to get drugs made illegal - they already are.
And it is your position that they should be.
It's you that is on the 'hot seat' so to speak if you want something to be changed.
From a purely practical short-term standpoint you're right. But in the forum of reasoned debate the one who makes the claim bears the burden of supporting it---and in the long term, if the only argument you can make for your position is 'that's the way it is now and I support that' then change is likely to come.
A person who supports the right to demonstrate (regardless of the group) is moral. A person who ONLY supports the right of white supremicists to demonstrate would be immmoral.
Cool; jmc813 and I don't support ONLY the right to ingest currently illegal drugs, we support the right to ingest anything one pleases. Ergo, we are not immoral.
Racism is harmful to society.
Restricting free speech is harmful to society.
Taking drugs is harmful to society.
Restricting the right to ingest anything one pleases is harmful to society.
LOL Well, you may view yourselves immoral if you wish. You are still left with the problem of convincing people (not just me) that legalizing currently illicit drugs is a good idea. So far, on one has presented any evidence that doing so would be a good idea for society.
We'll see. :)
LOL Well, you may view yourselves immoral if you wish.
Why did you delete my statement, "we are not immoral," and follow with the claim that we wish to view ourselves as immoral?
You are still left with the problem of convincing people (not just me) that legalizing currently illicit drugs is a good idea. So far, on one has presented any evidence that doing so would be a good idea for society.
Relegalization would reduce the following effects of the War On Some Drugs: deaths of innocents in drug-turf wars; deaths of users due to impurities or unexpectedly high potencies; enrichment of criminals; corruption of the justice system by enriched criminals; and lessened respect for the law in general.
Not to mention upholding the principle that adults should be free to make their own non-rights-violating choices (even if the choices they make are stupid).
No, the hyperbole is in your implication that I would even want to. But in case you weren't aware, I'm not into vigilante justice. The role of government is to enforce law. While we have a government by the people and for the people, I personally am not the government.
"The law may NOT extend beyond the legitimate limits of what INDIVIDUALS may properly do for themselves."
Are you saying you would be in favor of someone shooting a murderer rather than reporting what is known to the police so that individual can be arrested and tried by a jury of his peers?
"If you want to go next door and beat the neighbor because he smokes pot, you are subject to whatever your neighbor wants done to you for such egregious violations of his rights."
I DON'T want to do that, but I would call the cops if a neighbor of mine were violating the law and I was aware of it.
"The Law may legitimately do NOTHING that we as individuals may not do on our own. Not in a Constitutional Republic."
Perhaps this will clarify for you. If there were not a system of police, courts, prisons, I would have no problem imprisoning someone in my basement for breaking the law. But since there is, I shall leave to them the job that has been delegated to them.
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.