should marijuana be legalized??

joefromchicago wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Correct. I can't have it both ways. I have to be wiling to accept the things you described if I am to have the level of personal freedom I think people should have.

No doubt. But I'm still wondering why, if you are such an advocate for personal freedom, you're willing to accept any amount of regulation.

Because there are times when personal freedoms are in conflict with other people's rights. Those are the cases in which restrictions must be agreed upon.

What is your position on all this?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Note: A person leaving a bar is not supposed to be falling down drunk. So a person leaving a crack bar or a heroin parlor must likewise be able to walk the public streets in a respectible fashion.

Says who? The state? Logic? Ethics? Good manners?

As far as I know, most states have some level of restriction on public drunkeness. Or have I been watching too many Mayberry RFD reruns?

joefromchicago wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
As it happens, Alcohol has a reasonably well understood level of inebriation which is considered acceptable in public. If heroin or crack intoxication were to be determined unacceptible in public, then it would seem reasonable to require home use only.

If society deems a certain level of drug intoxication unacceptable, why should that affect anyone's right to use that drug? Isn't your position something akin to the heckler's veto?

I thought I covered all this already. Restrictions are necessary in cases where one person's freedom's conflict with another person's rights. But in general, I tend to think that what you do in your own home, as long as you're not hurting someone else, is your business. And that included killing yourself if you want to kill yourself (with drugs, or any other way). As long as when you leave your house (or the bar you're getting intoxicated in) you don't bring your activities with you in such a way that undermines public safety and common decency.

0 Replies

What was the question again?

Oh, yeh. We used to kick this around in college and think about how cool it would be to buy it in neat packs, like cigarettes. But then we'd worry about taxes and so forth. Never could figure that one out.

Glad to see we're still thinking about this!

0 Replies

Me too.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
No doubt. But I'm still wondering why, if you are such an advocate for personal freedom, you're willing to accept any amount of regulation.

Because there are times when personal freedoms are in conflict with other people's rights. Those are the cases in which restrictions must be agreed upon.

What should be the basis for their agreement?

rosborne979 wrote:

What is your position on all this?

My position is outlined in this thread.

rosborne979 wrote:

As far as I know, most states have some level of restriction on public drunkeness. Or have I been watching too many Mayberry RFD reruns?

That may very well be true, but we are discussing what the laws should be, not what they are. Since you advocate more personal freedom, it seems odd that you would be so willing to accept public intoxication laws. What, after all, is the difference in the amount of harm (or, in your terms, the amount of infringement of others' rights) done by a drunk at home as opposed to a drunk in public? What, in your opinion, justifies regulating the latter activity but not the former?

rosborne979 wrote:

I thought I covered all this already. Restrictions are necessary in cases where one person's freedom's conflict with another person's rights. But in general, I tend to think that what you do in your own home, as long as you're not hurting someone else, is your business. And that included killing yourself if you want to kill yourself (with drugs, or any other way). As long as when you leave your house (or the bar you're getting intoxicated in) you don't bring your activities with you in such a way that undermines public safety and common decency.

You need to do a much better job than this to explain your stance on "personal freedom." If the state can only regulate a "private" activity if it undermines public safety or common decency, why does it matter that the activity in question occurs in public?

Let me offer a hypothetical: suppose Driver goes driving on a deserted highway with a blood-alcohol level well above the legal limit. There are no other people or cars around, not even any police cars. There is, however, a traffic camera that captures Driver's erratic driving. The police question Driver, who freely admits that he was drunk when he was driving on that deserted highway. On this evidence, the police issue Driver a ticket for drunk driving. Is the state entitled to enforce its drunk driving laws under these circumstances, where Driver's activities did not, in any way, endanger the public safety?

0 Replies

Joe:-

I would say-yes.If it is a public road and there is certain evidence the guy is over.If the court once admitted defence arguments on grounds of not endangering public safety you could get a whole raft of cases,great for lawyers,based on gradations of your extreme example.Extreme examples are all very well for thinking in but the practice might get confusing-again good for lawyers.
It seems cut and dried to me.He's bang to rights.He could kill himself and wreck an expensive vehicle and maybe some roadside kit.He could injure himself and be a liability to the budget for the whole of his life and to his wife and kids etc etc.

0 Replies

Spendius: I suspect that most people would agree with you. But then most people also don't support the establishment of crack bars or heroin parlors in their neighborhoods. Rosborne, in contrast, does. That is why I eagerly await his response to my hypothetical.

0 Replies

Joe:-

I think you misunderstand me.You asked were the state entitled.I don't give a damn personally what your driver does or what crack and heroin users do.
I just represented what I thought the "state" would do from my experience of what they usually do.

0 Replies

Statutory law over here Old Boy's

'Driving without due care and attention'

It would be no issue if the driver simply stated he was drunk at the time, no issue at all without a valid blood test to prove either way. Its similar to the oddballs who admit to every murder they read about. If cause of death is not public, first question the police ask is the opposite of fact. eg What did you shoot him for. Confessor will give his version and the police sod him off, or charge him with wasting police time. The John Doe had 57 knife wounds.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

You need to do a much better job than this to explain your stance on "personal freedom."

I think you need to do a much better job of understanding what I've already explained. Several of your followup questions are either innacurate summarions of my answers, or can be answered by the same answers I've already given.

joefromchicago wrote:

Let me offer a hypothetical: suppose Driver goes driving on a deserted highway with a blood-alcohol level well above the legal limit. There are no other people or cars around, not even any police cars. There is, however, a traffic camera that captures Driver's erratic driving. The police question Driver, who freely admits that he was drunk when he was driving on that deserted highway. On this evidence, the police issue Driver a ticket for drunk driving. Is the state entitled to enforce its drunk driving laws under these circumstances, where Driver's activities did not, in any way, endanger the public safety?

I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic, but I'll play along...

Yes, in the case of your hypothetical, in my opinion, the state is entitled to enforce it's drunk driving laws because the driver's *did* in fact endanger the public safety. Just because there was nobody there *at the time* he was driving is irrelevant. There just as well *could* have been someone there. Also, the law doesn't say, "you shall not drive intoxicated when nobody else is around", it says, [to paraphrase the general rule] "you shall not drive intoxicated at all".

I'm sorry if I'm missing your point here, but what does this hypothetical have to do with anything?

0 Replies

A timely article: Report: Colombia drug war failing

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I think you need to do a much better job of understanding what I've already explained. Several of your followup questions are either innacurate summarions of my answers, or can be answered by the same answers I've already given.

Please identify which questions innacurately summarized your answers. I want to be as accurate as possible, and I am perfectly willing to revise my questions, but without more information I cannot know what parts of your position I got right and which parts I got wrong.

rosborne979 wrote:

I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic, but I'll play along...

I'm trying to discern your basis for differentiating between "private" actions (which, according to you, cannot be regulated by the state) and "public" actions (which can).

rosborne979 wrote:

Yes, in the case of your hypothetical, in my opinion, the state is entitled to enforce it's drunk driving laws because the driver's *did* in fact endanger the public safety. Just because there was nobody there *at the time* he was driving is irrelevant. There just as well *could* have been someone there.

OK

rosborne979 wrote:

Also, the law doesn't say, "you shall not drive intoxicated when nobody else is around", it says, [to paraphrase the general rule] "you shall not drive intoxicated at all".

Again, I must remind you that we are dealing with what the law should say, not what it does say. What the laws on drunk driving currently say is of no relevance to our present discussion.

rosborne979 wrote:

I'm sorry if I'm missing your point here, but what does this hypothetical have to do with anything?

It is directly relevant to your distinction between "private" and "public" activities. If, as you say, the state has no business regulating the private usage of drugs, then my response is: why? You've suggested that the reason why the state is not entitled to regulate such private drug usage is because the private drug user does not violate or endanger anyone else's rights. As you put it: "Restrictions are necessary in cases where one person's freedom's conflict with another person's rights."

In my hypothetical involving the driver on the deserted highway, however, we have a case where the person is not in conflict with anyone else's rights. Driving drunk on a deserted highway is just as much a victimless crime as smoking crack in one's own home. The only person who is at risk is the person engaged in the potentially harmful activity. Yet you would allow the state to regulate the former activity but not the latter. Thus you must explain what justifies the disparate legal treatment of these two apparently similar actions.

Now, in the case of the drunk driver on the deserted highway, you state that, although no one was there at the time, "[t]here just as well *could* have been someone there." If I understand you correctly, then, you would assert that the state is justified in regulating an activity that either infringes on someone else's freedom or that has the potential to infringe on someone else's freedom. Is that a fair inference?

0 Replies

Joe, one may feel justified in considering your smoking far too much of the plant. They put the seeds in bird food, hence budgies sing so much!
Rosborne979, :- Of course the drug wars are failing. They cannot possibly allow the production and sales to drop. 60% of the worlds police would be redundant without the game! Considering they verge on the finer point between law and lawlessness, we cannot possibly allow them to be un-employed. Imagine that lot going bent ! Full time!

0 Replies

Mathos wrote:

Joe, one may feel justified in considering your smoking far too much of the plant. They put the seeds in bird food, hence budgies sing so much!

One of the dangers of participating in a thread regarding drug usage is that some of the participants may be doing their own independent research on the topic when they post.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

[Why not just prohibit alcohol and tobacco instead?

Hello Joe :- It simply appears to me that you are jumping about like a flea on a dogs back ! Hypothetical assertions which have little if anything what so ever to do with the original them are as much use as a castrated Adonis in a seraglio. Nothing is of benefit. The Windy City is famous for its characters of ill repute and I rather think you would benefit the forum with a thread in that historical range of interest. Pray tell us, what can you stir up of interest regarding Frank Netti for instance?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Now, in the case of the drunk driver on the deserted highway, you state that, although no one was there at the time, "[t]here just as well *could* have been someone there." If I understand you correctly, then, you would assert that the state is justified in regulating an activity that either infringes on someone else's freedom or that has the potential to infringe on someone else's freedom. Is that a fair inference?

That's pretty close, but I would add the word "reasonable" to your summary, for example: "the state is justified in regulating an activity that either infringes on someone else's freedom or that has the reasonable potential to infringe on someone else's freedom. Is that a fair inference?"

I realize that introduction of the word "reasonable" implies a grey area in the law which will always be debatable, but I don't see it as much different than the idea of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

To me, it's reasonable to restrict a person from being intoxicated and driving a vehicle on a public road (whether anyone happens to be there or not), but it's not reasonable to restrict a person's actions in his own home because he might be so intoxicated that he might fall asleep and burn down his condo and the complex and a whole section of Chicago (like that cow did Wink

Based on your questioning, is seems like you're trying to nail down my view on personal freedom versus public responsibility to some clearcut fine line. But I think the best I can do for you is to say that I lean strongly in the favor of personal freedom's until those freedoms (under reasonable circumstances) begin to conflict with another person's rights. As with all things in the law, there will always be particular circumstances which straddle the fence of any general value system, but I think those must be dealt with as they occur.

My general opinion on the war on drugs is that it's a fundamentally flawed activity. Not only do I feel that people are entitled to do drugs if they want to (see previous restrictions), but that attempts

My general feeling on the "war on drugs" is that it is a fundamentally flawed approach to solving a problem which would barely exist if we weren't trying to restrict it in the first place. Not only are we undermining personal freedom by restricting drugs, but the restrictions themselves are fueling the value of drugs which gives economic power to the cartels who produce them. Either of those two conditions is sufficient to argue to curtail drug restriction.

0 Replies

And while the discussion is at its loudest we sneak quietly out the back and do whatever we want anyway. No one notices because we're too busy arguing wether its ok or not. I like it just the way it is Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Mathos wrote:

Joe, one may feel justified in considering your smoking far too much of the plant. They put the seeds in bird food, hence budgies sing so much!
Rosborne979, :- Of course the drug wars are failing. They cannot possibly allow the production and sales to drop. 60% of the worlds police would be redundant without the game! Considering they verge on the finer point between law and lawlessness, we cannot possibly allow them to be un-employed. Imagine that lot going bent ! Full time!

Speaking as one of them I can reassure you there's plenty to do without bothering harmless users of recreational drugs - no need for layoffs at all - we can be gainfully employed dealing with the crime that emanates from irresponsible use of alcohol Twisted Evil

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

That's pretty close, but I would add the word "reasonable" to your summary, for example: "the state is justified in regulating an activity that either infringes on someone else's freedom or that has the reasonable potential to infringe on someone else's freedom. Is that a fair inference?"

Whether the potential for a particular right-infringement is "reasonable" or not is something for legislators to ponder. Since we are engaged in a more intellectual pursuit, I don't think we need to concern ourselves with the degree of potential risk as long as we understand that, at its foundation, we are justifying state regulation of an activity based upon the mere fact that there is some potential (and unacceptable) risk. If it makes you more comfortable, however, I have no problem with adding "reasonable."

But once you've crossed that threshold, from justifying state regulation of conduct that causes harm to justifying state regulation of conduct that has the potential to cause harm, you need to explain why you seemingly want that regulation to end at a person's front door. If the drunk driver on the deserted road presents a potential risk, what are those risks? Certainly he doesn't pose a risk to others, since there's no one else around. Does he pose a risk to himself? If so, does the state have any legitimate interest in keeping him from harming himself? Does his example pose a potential risk that others will emulate his example, or that others will hold the drunk driving laws in lower regard? If so, is it the state's job to prevent him from being a bad example?

Another hypothetical: suppose Buyer is approached on the street by a stranger who offers to sell him a genuine Rolex watch for $50. Buyer happens to be an expert on Rolex watches, and, after examining the watch thoroughly, he determines that it is a genuine Rolex, with a retail value of $7,000. Buyer asks the stranger why he is selling the watch at such a low price, and the stranger replies: "I stole this watch and I need the money." Buyer then purchases the watch. Later, he is arrested and charged with receiving stolen goods. Buyer argues that the law is unjust. He notes that he has not infringed on anyone's rights: it was, after all, the stranger, and not Buyer, that stole the watch in the first place. As between the thief and Buyer, it was a simple and fair commercial transaction and no one's rights were affected. The state responds that the law is intended to inhibit thefts by dissuading others from emulating Buyer's conduct. Who is right?

rosborne979 wrote:

Based on your questioning, is seems like you're trying to nail down my view on personal freedom versus public responsibility to some clearcut fine line. But I think the best I can do for you is to say that I lean strongly in the favor of personal freedom's until those freedoms (under reasonable circumstances) begin to conflict with another person's rights. As with all things in the law, there will always be particular circumstances which straddle the fence of any general value system, but I think those must be dealt with as they occur.

If you are offering a purely ad hoc rationale for state regulation of private conduct, then I must conclude, regrettably, that we have nothing left to discuss.

rosborne979 wrote:

My general opinion on the war on drugs is that it's a fundamentally flawed activity. Not only do I feel that people are entitled to do drugs if they want to (see previous restrictions), but that attempts

My general feeling on the "war on drugs" is that it is a fundamentally flawed approach to solving a problem which would barely exist if we weren't trying to restrict it in the first place. Not only are we undermining personal freedom by restricting drugs, but the restrictions themselves are fueling the value of drugs which gives economic power to the cartels who produce them. Either of those two conditions is sufficient to argue to curtail drug restriction.

I have no interest in discussing the war on drugs. That is a policy issue. I'm interested in the philosophical and theoretical aspects of state regulation, not on its practical applications.

0 Replies

But the whole topic is about application of policy - we can hardly discuss whether or not marijuana should be legalised without considering the potential actions which might flow from the policy change.

0 Replies

should marijuana be legalized??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know