ashw_justin

What I am curious about is who snuck through the reckoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_general_elections,_2006#Federal_results

Or they knew that in the end we would all just blame Bush anyway.

pshh. They were obviously failing in their duties to execute the "tyranny of the majority." Or wait... what did we think about the war back then anyway?

But Congress can't use ignorance as an excuse! That's why they make the 'big bucks.'

What about this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution "it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23"

I'm not sure this analogy is appropriate since the purposes of an intersection and a ski jump are different. Jumps are built precisely to increase the risk (=fun) of otherwise boring terrain, and there is always a less risky way down the run. That said I would be a much happier customer if I knew that management was at least paying attention.

Taken independently, each of the accidents was (obviously) caused by an irresponsible lack of judgment on the skiers' part--no case, and the judge said as much in reducing the settlement. But it seems this case, whether it should have been or not, was really about condemning the ski area for ignoring the strong correlation between the broken backs, paralysis, and even death as a possible indicator of poor engineering. Even if paralysis or death is an inevitable characteristic of a good terrain park these days , a ski area ought to at least investigate serious accidents in case there is something they can fix. Or did they? I guess we haven't really heard the other side of the story.

I'm glad you like my autosig It's spray time

I'm also not very impressed by the heavy-handedness of the ban; it's implementation ought to be more sophisticated, although granting variances brings up issues of fairness. Every bar in Seattle might claim to be a 'cigar bar.' But I still maintain that this ban was a necessary evil, as would be any other version of it that imposed restrictions on the activities of private businesses. Evil for banning a voluntary legal activity, but necessary because nonsmoking bars were not even considered a possibility, for all intents and purposes. I'd actually like to see the ban lifted, to see how many bars would voluntarily continue to be non-smoking now that certain misconceptions have been eliminated.

I'm not claiming to be an expert in the field of brain chemistry. By having taken classes I meant that I am capable of understanding and discussing the biological phenomenon of addiction. I thought that by explicitly saying that my opinion was amateur, I could save you the trouble of cutting me down for it. I guessed wrong. (Then again, I guess I was asking for it, given my tone.) I just think it's incredibly simplistic to discount social and 'nuture' factors that relate to addiction, in favor of a simple neurochemical theory of individual "predilection."

Yeah I guess I didn't need to repeat myself. That only works for commercials anyway. Can we talk about smoking in bars and restaurants? I'm against it. But only because EVERY bar and most restaurants allowed smoking, even though only a pollutive minority of patrons smoked, while the majority of those who didn't, hated it. If half of the bars had been non-smoking before the ban, I wouldn't be saying this. I argue that the system of choice was broken, because even though most people were against smokey bars, there were no non-smoking bars to choose from. The main reason that every bar allowed indoor smoking was because it was considered crucial to drawing business--a notion that was immediately dispelled following the ban. Again I can't help but point out the influence of economics. But on the issue of rights: was it fair to the rest of us to breathe smoke in every bar (a health rights issue), in order to respect owners' rights to run an air-polluted establishment? (Just to avoid any undue hate here, I exercised my choice to stay home when I couldn't deal.)

Nice. Maybe someday another clever word beginning with neo will be used to describe the folly embarked upon by the current period's contrarians. Don't make me get even more tool on you.

I just realized that I am addicted to this thread. I blame you all for not passing laws to stop me from posting here.

I thought it was only a conspiracy if it wasn't totally obvious? Better postpone those long road trips until a couple of months before the elections!

You could stand to update yourself on the dynamics and physiological causes of addictive behavior. Only a percentage of human beings have a predeliction for addiction, not all. I've taken courses and studied primary research in psychobiology, psychopharmacology, biochemistry, and animal physiology to name a few. I will assume you must be in pharmtech or something, since you extoll the virtues of a pill for fixing a fundamental social problem. I suggest you go back and read your notes, which if they exist, will include primary research on the addictive activity of cocaine that unambiguously shows that most if not all test subjects will choose the refined drug over food and water, to the point of death. How presumptuous of you to assume that just because you don't know many cocaine addicts, that most brains are immune to addiction. It's my amateur psychological opinion that the reasons that people choose not to do coke are far more complicated than simple physiology. This might be an effective way to treat drug addiction, but it doesn't really address the issue of the original drug abuse. Is greater education, awareness, and mentorship to prevent people from losing control in the first place "impossible to implement?" Or is the regulation of consumer markets for decriminalized drugs "impossible to implement?" Or should they sell not only cocaine, but also the antidote? Sounds lucrative. You are free to express that belief, but I think it ignores the potency that mass marketing campaigns and media saturation can have on influencing consumption in this country.

Again, this is a false comparison because alcohol is legal, aggressively marketed, and widely consumed. If we should expect similar results assuming cocaine and heroin are legalized, then I am completely justified in raising the concerns that I have. No argument here. I just got done saying that decriminalization is a good idea in theory, and this is definitely a major reason. Again, this is neither the main point nor representative of the values of our society. We do not live under the 'tyranny of the majority'; that's why we have a Bill of Rights to protect us from exactly that. My point was not to tout a tyranny of the majority. My point was that simply by living under any society with other human beings, your freedoms and rights become limited to those which will not interfere with the freedoms and rights of others. Exactly which freedoms are limited and how is up that society to decide for itself. Living in the U.S. means you sacrifice certain freedoms; at this point one of those is the freedom to use certain drugs legally. However luckily for those who disagree, that is subject to change, precisely because we live in a society where freedom and rights are up for debate. This 'island man' statement is so ludicrous it requires no reply. Good. It wasn't meant for you and is taken out of context. It was meant for JayB and others, who have vilified me for suggesting that I should care about what others do to themselves. In fact it constitutes the crux of the arguments against mine: that what someone does to themselves is their business, and their business alone. My response is that even if I'm supposed to mind my own business, it becomes my business once it begins to negatively affect my society. Yeah, but I'm not sure that more 'good' drugs are the answer. I think the bottom line is that human beings are socially and psychologically susceptible to using addictive drugs, and that this problem won't be solved until we as a society learn better. I'll concede (already have) that decriminalization in favor of personal responsibility is the ultimate solution. At this point I'm just questioning how we can get to that point without things getting very ugly. Simply assuming that freedom of choice will solve all problems, a sentiment that underlies many such arguments against government control, may be a critical underestimation of the potential risks. Yes, I agree that this is how it should work, although it presents a serious risk should the downward spiral take hold of too many people at once, and/or if it becomes a market phenomenon that makes the alcohol industry seem like the Red Cross.

They are in conflict only if you assume that no manner of treating one's body can cause harm to another individual or collection of individuals. Hypothetically, if half of the population succumbed to heroin addiction, then the rest of us would be fucked because society would collapse. You argue that this is impossible. I argue that it is merely unlikely. I'll be the first to agree that public opinion is held in contempt by many in power, and sometimes even rightly. But it is the opportunity to participate in ones own government that keeps a 'democratic' society running. Our code of laws are maleable, and as long as we live in a representative government, subject to public opinion at the very least to the extent that we vote for our lawmakers. We are not governed completely by the commandments of an original and unchanging US Constitution; if that were true, swap the Bible for the Constitution and that's a theocracy. However, if you want to view things in terms of constitutional rights, I argue that at which point the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" of enough people are threatened by a particular behavior (such as hardcore drug addiction), then the society (defined by its citizens) can, will, and should take steps to protect itself. And you really have been arguing against a truism: that a society will govern itself by what it decides to be in its best interests. So far, we have decided that what's best for us is to stick as much as possible to the US Constitution. If however, hypothetically, the US Constitution were used as an excuse for "free" behaviors that destroyed the very society upholding it, then the Constitution would have dramatically failed us. You could argue that our constitutional rights should protect against that possibility though, and that is in fact exactly what I am saying: that as long as the behavior of others doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, then there is no threat to society. You're right that would be wrong. But I never said that drug use is unique in that respect, rather that since the public consequences of certain drug use seem to be far more potent, that these drugs are justifiably outlawed. There is also an issue of scale involved; we don't know how many people would be using potent addictive drugs if they were legal, and we don't know what the effects on society would be if as many people were doing these drugs as are participating in the other activities you mention. A threat to society has been inferred, based upon a small number of users demonstrating a burden on society due at least in part to their drug use. Don't ask me to defend that inferrence though, since it is obviously shakey. Finally, in case I haven't essentially said as much already, I would have no problem with the idea of trying to decriminalize all drugs without, in my apparently ominous words, adversely 'harming society.' Perhaps it is worth a shot but that should be a careful experiment. How do you manage the market for them? I think that people have a hard enough time figuring out what chemicals to put in their bodies, even without ravenous salespeople doing their best to coax them into buying their drugs. (Such as has been seen for alcohol, cigarettes, and of course many other kinds of less threatening consumables.)

Oh stop. You must be getting this from one of JayB's posts. Just because he conjures this scary scenario doesn't mean that I proposed it. I mean, I'm not blaming him for corporate crime, am I?

No, it does not pertain to those things, until the damage done to society outweighs the philosophical (and administrative) appeal of freedom. You are free to do whatever you want, until it fucks too much with the rest of us. And yes, becoming a drug addict fucks with the rest of us enough that we have laws to discourage that behavior. The hallmark of a respresentative government is that we collectively decide what is okay and what isn't. Excuse me if I misjudge you, but you seem outraged at my suggestion that simply by chosing to live in a society and accept the benefits of its government, you are voluntarily forfeiting your personal freedoms to the will of collective opinion. No, "harm to the rest of society," consists of injury to or infringement of the rights of specific individuals. Otherwise, how is there any harm? That's a good argument but it's a strawman. I've already said that if there is no harm to others, then I have no right to object: I am not the enemy that you find convenient to imagine.

I hope so.

But you don't 'cure' a toothache by becoming addicted to a local anesthetic. You go to the dentist.

Admittedly, I think the only way my fears will turn into reality is if they start letting things like this happen again. Legalization could be tantamount to marketization, which could have bad consequences given what can be done with something as benign as sugar. a

Comparing but not equating, but mostly because that was the example that Muffy gave. Yes they are vastly different and it's a stretch. I also think it's funny that this thread started about an amphetamine-containing plant that clearly poses no apparent threat to our society. And pot is even more benign. I've never seen a pot whore.

that is the part we do not agree on. the government can not stop us form making mistakes. it is law enforcements obligation to help us find our way to certain consequence. Well I didn't say 'stop,' I said forbid, and by that I meant strongly discourage, through laws that deter choices that may have inarguably negative consequences. Like shooting someone, per your example. The government can't stop someone from pulling the trigger, but it can deter that by promising harsh consequences through law (except in special situations like self-defense). Do laws against shooting people result in less people being shot? I think they do, but I might as well expect some here to disagree.

We're not in disagreement. I never said that shooting someone was recoverable. I said that "the path to responsibility is through complete freedom to make mistakes, and thereby learn from them. I tend to agree with that, but only as long as the mistakes are recoverable, and that people are in control of their own decisions." We definitely can learn to be more responsible by making mistakes. The question is which mistakes the government should have a right to forbid us from making.