Discussion in 'Legal' started by mercedesrules, May 23, 2005.
Huh? Can't speak for the people you know who use drugs, but do you spend much time in the inner city? I'm originally from Detroit; I've seen what can happen to an entire city ... Perhaps the folks you know simply toke up on occasion when they break out their old Led Zeppelin LPs, but have you ever experienced being the family member of anyone addicted to crystal meth or crack? Ever spent any time cleaning up meth labs in a rural area where huge percentages of the area teens have been or will be in in-patient drug treatment programs resulting from meth addiction?
Seatbelts is a red herring only because you say so. I will continue to try to make a point by example.
I gather then that if trigger locks were mandatory on guns, failure to use them would bear no liability in spite of any law to the contrary. I think you are telling me that such would be unconstitutional, and any worry about that being the ultimate motive with trigger locks would be an unfounded fear.
Wearing seatbelts is, in fact, mandatory, last I heard. Unpopularity of enforcement is somewhat beside the point.
Gee, sorry if response is so stupid you cant think of anything to say, Justin. But one of my points all through this is that people are fixated on their rights to this and rights to that and I am asking where are these rights recorded and what is the source of these rights. The question requires that people actually think about these things rather than just give gut responses, which is most of what I've been getting here.
My position is that rights are not some god-given thing out of the air but constructs of society and subject to societal agreement. And societies leave clues to those rights in their legal literature and other places.
So, if my question is so painfully obvious, Justin, why dont you trouble yourself a minute or two and explain where children's rights come from, what evidence you have for them, and where can we go and look them up.
Yes, and alcohol.
No, I haven't. I thought prohibition would have prevented such outcomes. You mean it isn't working? Shocking.
Here's a clue from our society:
I'm glad you posted that because it pretty well proves my point. When that was written not only did slaves not have rights, nor did women have anything like equal rights, but people without either land or a certain level of freehold did not have the right to vote. Personally I think that is a great idea, for the reasons the Founders gave: those with no stake in the system would continue to vote themselves larger and larger entitlements. But I digress.
Obviously if adult women and people lacking property were not included in that statement then children were not included either. So what have you proven by posting that?
I would quote them, but since this thread is already 11 pages long, I’ll go from memory.
Libertarians oppose excessive taxes and regulation, but we would accept the taxation and regulation of a legal drug trade. Regulation would help mitigate public-health concerns, and taxation would fund education and treatment programs.
Welfare reform is another potential compromise. Addicts would lose welfare benefits as part of any decriminalization plan. Technically, this is not even necessary, as the savings to corrections and enforcement agencies would more than make up for any increased demand for public assistance.
A third compromise is to decriminalize only the more benign drugs. Some might be as readily available as alcohol and nicotine, while others would require a prescription. The most dangerous drugs might remain illegal.
These compromises may not represent the perfect libertarian ideal, but most libertarians would recognize them as steps in the right direction—not unlike going from no-issue CCW to shall-issue permits to Alaska-style carry.
Your point is well taken about to whom rights applied back then. Obviously, the definition of "all men" has been greatly expanded upon.
You didn't answer the other point I brought up by posting that, namely that most of the Founders, as well as many people today, thought that those rights came from where, exactly? Not the contract we make amongst ourselves and call a government. They predate the government, and cannot be taken away by it, except under the terms of our contract.
If you want another example of Libertarian compromise, here's one: I've posted many times in this thread, mostly referencing the Stewart and Raich cases and how gun control and prohibition are related. I haven't once mentioned (until now) that those are AS APPLIED challenges to the gun and drug laws. Raich won because California did everything it could to allow medical cannabis use, short of actual secession and revolt, but absent those circumstances, the ruling would not apply. In other words, if Raich wins, the drug laws mostly still stand.
Similarly, Stewart won because he designed and manufactured a machine gun from scratch, more or less. Read it yourself. Kozinski is saying that the homegrown nature of the machine gun, and the fact he didn't seem to be selling it, just owning it, removed it from the stream of commerce such that it had no substantial effect, and thus was not subject to federal regulation. In other words, Stewart could win, and federal gun laws mostly still stand.
It's a baby step forward, but taking it implies assent to the limits. A "real" libertarian probably wouldn't waste time on medical cannabis use or homegrown machine guns, believing that the issues themselves represent too much of a compromise.
I'm not real.
Yes, the Founders identified god as the source. In a way they had to because they were part of English society so they couldn't use the social compact theory. This is a dispute in the philosophers, one they were aware of.
The fact that most people believe it is irrelevant. But even if someone agreed that the rights came from god, what is the source, i.e. how do we know that? And where are those rights enumerated?
My biggest beef with the "war on drugs" is not so much with the laws but their source. Setting all Libertarian doctrines aside, the Federal Government has absolutely no business passing sweeping criminal codes. The only way they were ever allowed to do so is because of an out-of-control interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The federalist system was set up so that the federal government would have very limited police powers, leaving those matters to the states. The feds were seen as arbiters of disputes BETWEEN states, and Congress was given power to regulate interstate commerce in order to avoid internal trade wars that could destroy the nation's economy. But the sale and use of drugs has nothing to do with these matters, and the feds should have nothing to do with them either. It should be left to the states. If Alaska wants to legalize pot but make meth illegal, that should be the end of the matter.
Since Prohibition and WWII, we've seen the results of runaway federal law enforcement. An alphabet soup of jackboots now have to find reasons to justify their paychecks--and we pay the price both as their victims and as taxpayers.
We're here, and we have free will. That's proof enough for some. I guess that what was meant by self evident.
Whoa, Nelly! Whatever harms one member of society harms everyone? Why? Because "society" is one big collective living thing?
You mean you never realized this? Trust me, resources are limited so if resources are spent in one area, e.g. taking care of the brain dead, they wont be available for other areas, e.g. buying jet fighters. The days of people living independent lives on the frontier are pretty well over.
I live in East Texas. How big is my "society"?
Is it the county? State? USA? Western Hemisphere? World? Seriously.
If Bill Gates takes care of an injured relative, I am harmed?
Some things even I cant help.
WOW! Eleven pages!
I go into town for one day (it was necessary...my mate there has a drill/mill and the Ruger#1 project benefitted) and this thread has just galloped along.
Lots of interesting links and discussion.
While I was in town, I was treated to the sight of petrol/solvent-intoxicated children and drunken adults and their typically anti-social behavior.
It occurred to me that perhaps the "free-the-drugs" libertarians have no real-world experience with community-wide unregulated drug use/abuse.
I would agree with Old Dog that to see entire communities of people whacked-out is a sobering sight, no pun intended.
In the case of numbers of central desert Aborigines, they are using unregulated substances (and alcohol, which is subject to minimal regulation). Parents often introduce their children to use at an early age, often administering petrol/solvents to keep unruly babies quiet.
It seems to me that this is an excellent example of unregulated intoxicants available to "free agents" who are using these substances to destroy themselves and their children, and ultimately their society.
I state again that publius' and the others' focus on the Fed's inappropriate use of the Commerce Clause to regulate drugs and guns is absolutely correct.
This is, IMHO, the ONLY valid link between RKBA and drugs.
There is no valid comparsion between the "freedom" to use drugs and RKBA.
The "It's my body and I can do whatever I want with it" argument, is, of course STRICTLY limited by the necessity of avoiding harm to others.
Isn't it obvious that by abdicating reason, however temporarily, when using recreational drugs, one establishes probability or at least possibility of harm to others?
publius, you were slipping a bit here:
********************************************************* "This is getting a bit like trying to convince a gungrabber that 50 cal rifles are OK for ordinary citizens like my brother to own. "Oh, but they're so dangerous!" So list the crimes committed using one. "Oh, but they can shoot so far, stray rounds will be raining down around us!" When and where has that ever happened? "I don't care, they're really, really dangerous, even if most people are like your brother and just blow up the occasional malfunctioning appliance or watermelon!" How is that dangerous? "Well, any fool can see that the gun is really dangerous, and can shoot really far!" Well, yes, it is, and yes, it can, but that doesn't mean that people will abuse those capabilities. "Oh, but they could, and it's just really dangerous, and we've just got to protect the cheeruns!"
See, the .50 cal does NOT reduce the reason or responsibility of its user.....
Recreational drugs do this, some to a VERY substantial degree.
In the case of our central desert intoxicated indigenes, the overwhelming initiator of homicide, domestic assault, robbery, rape (including children and with attendant STD's), property damage and burglary is the use by the perpetrator (and victims, in many cases) of "recreational" substances.
Now, of course, IMHO the correct moral assessment to make in these cases is that the perpetrator CHOSE to use the intoxicating substance, and should bear full responsibility for his/her actions subsequently.
In a society of abusers this outcome is actually quite rare.
A society which openly tolerates/encourages the use of responsibility-diminishing substances cannot long remain self-governing.
This is the clue to Soros' advocacy of Open Society drug legalization.
Compare with the simple possession of a weapon...any weapon.
This is a tool. It has no effect upon the morality or reason of its possessor.
Should the use of this tool be necessary, the judgement of the 'user' will remain unaffected by the instrument.
Such use may or may not be morally or legally appropriate, but the reason of the user is not influenced by the tool.
Not so with recreational substances.
Is it obvious how a compelling moral argument can be made against allowing unrestricted access to mind-altering substances and politically 'dangerous'
tools such as weapons to a populace?
"Go blotto, citizens - big brother will attend to everything."
-The WoD isn't working. Agreed!
-The Feds have long ago overstepped their authority to regulate. Agreed!
-Guns and recreational drugs are alike in their desireability and service to society and should be subjected to similar possession/use by right.
Potentially fatal, one-way error for a free society!
Since this misbegotten comparison has been made about half a dozen times on this thread …
News flash! Many, many firearms prohibitionists believe that guns make people more violent.
Are we clear yet?
Uh, Gordon - does shouting nonsense make you feel better?
Or do you just like to type big?
"Since this misbegotten comparison has been made about half a dozen times on this thread …"
Since rather extensive biomedical research has, in fact, established that use of psychotropic drugs is certainly capable of releasing violent and anti-social behavior in otherwise "normal" people...
And since there remains no credible scientific evidence that mere objects are capable of inducing similar mood and behavior shifts.....
for the purpose of this discussion.....
how is suggesting what "many firearms prohibitionists believe" relevant?
I'm interested in observable facts.
The IMHO misguided libertarian advocacy of unregulated recreational drug distribution seems to me to be certainly counterproductive to existence of actual liberty, if not ultimately fatal to a free society.
If anything is a 'misbegotten comparison', it is the one you seem to be making between RKBA and some nonsensical "right" to recreational drugs.
Citations to back up your assertion?
My opinion is that psychtropic drugs can release what is already present in a individual.
O.K. Sindawe.....I edited that statement.....
I'm a bit short of time to dig through all the research on recreational drug use and behavioral modification.
Now that's out of the way......
do you agree that use of objects has not been demonstrated to produce a similar effect?
Another one is emerging.
I don't think someone who has a couple of drinks when he gets home is "abdicating reason" by doing that. I don't see the probability or possibility of harm, really. Maybe it's 40 years of watching my parents do that, without ever seeing them become unreasonable or seeing them harm anyone as a result, but I just don't see the danger. I don't see it if someone comes home and smokes a joint, either.
Sure, the drug warriors believe that the joint smoker has abdicated all responsibility, that he'll go on to use other drugs, that he'll wind up on welfare, etc. I think he's not much different from my parents and their evening drink.
Similarly, gun grabbers believe stuff that most of us think is not true: that guns make people violent. I think there's about as much proof of that as there is proof that my hypothetical joint smoker is "abdicating reason" or "creating a threat to others" any more than my parents. That would be zero proof.
Some guys wrote once:
The right to life encompasses a lot. It includes the right to defend that life, hence the right to keep and bear arms, and it includes the right to imbibe anything you please, as long as you do not directly infringe on somebody else's rights. Eleven pages of discussion about a simple thing like this? Amazing.
By the way, marijuana tends to make people less likely to be hazardous. Yes, they'll get the munchies and fall asleep on the couch, but I fail to see the threat in that. I've even read studies that, though their reaction times are slightly decreased, people drive better while stoned, because they concentrate more on their driving and less on distractions.
Alcohol, of course, is just the opposite. Somebody explain to me again why alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't. Oh, yeah, it was all about Hearst's forests and du Pont's chemicals.
Why do you assume that since one is going to use a particular drug that they will necessarily become a burden to others? Granted, I know people that will become a disruption after drinking a half of a case of legal swill like Bud Light yet I also know people that still have their reason and control over themselves after a few lines of illegal coke, so why are you setting an arbitrary line of distinction between various drugs, and I assume that you don't want to go back to the prohibition day?
The fact is that a black market for drugs causes violence that is then blamed on guns. Here is one link.
Another is the fact that antis on both sides want to ban something because of it's potential harm.
Since rather extensive biomedical research has, in fact, established that use of psychotropic drugs is certainly capable of releasing violent and anti-social behavior in otherwise "normal" people
I have worked at bars for years and have seen how people can get when they drink, being drunk usually just lowers one's inhibitions to release whatever emotions are under the surface being repressed. The girlfriend will lash out at her boyfriend because she thought he was cheating on her 6 months ago when he was on that trip with his friends, one guy might get violent with another because he's cutting into his kool aid. People will get voilent, people will get amorous, and others will get violent because they cannot get amorous
Despite all the problems related to alcohol I would shudder to think of what things might be like with a war on alcohol like we have with other drugs.
If anything is a 'misbegotten comparison', it is the one you seem to be making between RKBA and some nonsensical "right" to recreational drugs
Do I not own my body? If I, in the privacy of my own home, choose to ingest drug X, and do not cause harm to others in the process, what right do you have to burst down my door with guns blazing and haul me off to jail?
Separate names with a comma.