o
Stop being so hard on yourself, hehOriginally Posted by OldFatGuy
Unless you start disrupting the forum, trolling or flaming heavily, or spamming massively, you're safe. And I highly doubt you're going to do any of that, as the overwhelming majority of people don't.
I'm watching you.
παραλία
I'll not ignore you because I agree with the vast majority of what you say.
The reason that I got involved in the thread (if I can remember how every many months back) isn't because I believe in taking away people's freedoms or that 'drugs are bad'. I do see the hypocrisy in making marijuana illegal and pushing caffeine, nicotine, OTC drugs, etc. I, personally, choose not to use any of them.
It's simply because I don't believe that the issue is so black and white as "my actions only have an effect on me". I think that is an arrogant statement to make, that a person can claim to have such reasoning ability that they could see ALL the effects of a single action.
I like physics, and it reminds me of the claim that one could accurately predict the future simply by knowing the position and velocity of every particle in the universe.
It's not true. Too many variables.
E=I*R
Sure it's true. There's simply no way to acomplish such a feat.It's not true. Too many variables.
We do know quite well how to make (much) more limited predictions, and there's no evidence that such methodology doesn't scale.
More on point is this: You say that it's arrogant to assume that an individual's actions may only have an effect on that person. Can you back that up in any way?
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
παραλία
Can you back up that it doesn't? No.
If I walk to a corner and turn left instead of right i could:
walk in front of a bus
step on someone's toe
step into someone's photograph
meet an old friend
not meet a new friend I would have met had I turned right
step under a falling anvil
avoid walking under where a bird pooped
As a group we could come up with an infinite number of possibilities of things that could happen turning right instead of left. More than an individual could think of alone, which is my point, there are many more possible outcomes of an action than an individual will consider.
Yes, seemingly inconsequential actions have consequences.
παραλία
More on point, this is what I believe:
The U.S., the World, The Universe, The multiverse, however large a unit we want to define as the overseeing government body, needs to have minimal regulation.
Currently the US gov. needs to have less restrictive laws and do what was initially intended. Let communities decide their laws.
Hundreds of millions of people cannot agree on, let alone live by, specific sets of laws. Specific laws (ie. drinking age, legalization of drugs, gun ownership, etc) need to be set at smaller levels. This allows people to have input, which they crave more than outcome a lot of times, and a choice.
If certain communities allowed certain behaviors, and you want to engage in that behavior...go there (Prostitution in Nevada for example) . If certain communities don't want a behavior, and you don't want that behavior, go there (When DC had banned hand guns, for example). It's free market economics applied to government. It's what was intended. And it's really the only feasible solution for everyone to get along.
Registered User
I'll agree that there is no reason for all parts of the US to have the same drinking age. Different drinking ages does cause some problems but these can probably be overcome. However, I assume that you don't really want this extended into all behaviours. To extend your gun example, there are people that would consider gun ownership to be a fundamental right. If you allow cities to ban guns are you also willing to allow them to ban specific religions, or require observance of a specific religion? Or, limit the freedom of expression or association?
I agree that in principle, the federal government should define a set of minimum rights that apply everywhere and then let states and local governments create rules within that framework. But defining that minimum set isn't trival (though I would not include drinking ages).
Relax, I've seen worse.
I frankly don't care what ages any of this stuff are, including drinking, as long as they are somewhat reasonable numbers.
IMHO, the reason these sort of cyclical debates keep coming back around may be that the numbers can seem so arbitrary.
We've heard it before: I can get a license/permit to drive at any one of a few different ages, depending on the state, no? I can enlist in the military at 18, right? I can buy cigs at 18, yeah? I can vote at 18? Own a gun at 18? Damn, you can work in a bar at 18! I was tending bar at 19!
Yet there's the drinking age out there at 21. Why? Don't really care what the age is, as long is makes some sort of sense, and doesn't sound like it just got pulled out of a hat (like most everything else in the legislature).
"Baseball statistics are a lot like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything."-Toby Harrah
"It's hard to look pissed off eating Apple Jacks."-Sh*t my Dad Says
E=I*R
Every example that you've given here involves more than just the primary individual. They all require another party doing something.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
παραλία
Exactly! The primary individual. That's what we'd all like to think, that we are the 'primary individual'. We aren't. We're one of 6 billion individuals on this earth. And the 6 billion others are doing things. There is interaction. There is always interaction. You breathe, you're breathing in my breath.
We aren't one, we are one of many. And as such, our actions have an effect on others.
E=I*R
uh... OK. You just completely lost me, for the most part.
I don't see what that has to do with this topic.
*shrug*
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Unregistered User
I can see the point, as some sort of societal butterfly effect. But that's chaotic (as the name "Chaos Theory" suggests), and not related to any one action in any sort of practical sense; there's no real foresight or rhyme or reason to the ripple effects of me walking out the door and being out in the world.
παραλία
The point is everyone likes to say "my actions only effect me, so let me do what I want", but it's not true. Your actions do affect people.
Certifiable
EXACTLY !! It is an arrogant statement to make to think anyone knows all the effects of a single action. Yet making drug use in an of itself illegal makes that arrogant statement. The reasoning (just look at the pages of reasoning in this thread) that drugs should be illegal is because there use leads to X, Y and Z. And no one can know that for certain. No one.
Is there a relationship between drug use and other bad acts and consequences? Yes. There are also relationships between the use of alcohol and other bad acts and between religious zealotry and other bad acts. We don't make them all illegal because we don't presume that all who use alcohol abuses it, and all who "use" religion don't go off the deep end and commit other crimes in the name of religion. Yet we seem okay to presume that all who use drugs abuse them and allows them to ruin their lives.
Look at Rush Limbaugh. They really ruined his life, right? How many of his radio shows did he miss while he was using drugs? (Hint: none) In fact, it was so well hidden that his colleagues made comments about being shocked when they discovered he was using drugs. Where is the downward spiral and obvious abuse??? Isn't it possible he was using them recreationally, yet NOT abusing them and allowing them to ruin his life???
The arrogance and hypocrisy all over this issue just sickens me. One poster readily accepts the linkage between drug use and other actions (which are already illegal) while denying the linkage between religion and other actions. This is by definition hypocrisy.
I don't claim to know enough about another human being to be able to tell them how to lead their lives, and I'm not gonna try and tell them. And I'm not going to support government actions to try and tell them. Why do so many feel they can tell me how I should live mine? I'll NEVER understand it, and I'll NEVER accept it.
o
Nobody's said that.
In the context of this discussion, people are discussing simply the taking of drugs...which does only affect the person taking the drug. Actions taken while under the influence of the drug may harm or put others in danger, and those actions should be (and are) illegal.
Reply With Quote
