ashw_justin

Partly to defend myself from JayB's attack, let me say that I have read Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government," in which he puts forth the idea that law itself is an agent of mind control. I argue that this is true, but that law is a necessary evil as long as people are deficient at knowing and doing what he refers to as "right." Emphasis mine.

You really take the cake for personal attacks JayB. You've continually insulted me personally from the minute that I took the other side, as if belittling my own character somehow nullifies any argument I put forth. Is that what they teach you in your profession? I appreciate your intended irony, but if you could put Friedman down for a second, you might realize that idea of mind control is most certainly not the sole intellectual property of Noam Chomsky, nor does one need to crack a book to come up with the idea. Just turn on the TV.

Congratulations, I haven't responded to any of the several misquided personal insults yet. Please explain to me what 'credentials' I am claim to have here on cc.com? I'm willing to hear your argument that it is possible to ensure that every human being responsibly exercises rational free will. Trust me, I believe in that ideal, but it assumes that the average human being is capable or even interested in being critically rational. It is easier to believe than to actually think; religion and ignorant love of political parties proves this. Well, you don't know that. You do know that that the more unskilled people climb Mt. Hood, the more accidents will occur that are expensive, threaten the lives of rescue personnel, and give climbing a bad name. There is a problem: people are doing stupid things, and it is negatively impacting you. Should you do nothing, and ignore the drain on society that a rescue represents? I won't answer T or F to that statement because it is meaningless and defeatist. How about this: 90% of people could improve their lives by being smarter and more responsible for themselves. Many of you are arguing 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.

Only if it is taught and exercised.

This is exactly my point too. Apparently people do not. Is it right to allow people with a lack of personal responsibility and judgment to become a burden on society, based on the principle that they should be allowed to do anything they want to? Do you let your kids do anything they want to?

Ok, I should have said "the naive can and should be protected by laws that deter extraordinary risks to themselves and thereby to society as a whole." It's not my right to say that someone shouldn't do whatever drugs they want, as long as it doesn't affect me either directly or through negative impacts on the society in which I live. But I am of the opinion that broad legalization of highly potent drugs would lead to mass consumption and addiction, which in turn would negatively effect this society. It's possible that after some tough times, society would eventually learn how to deal with legal drugs. It's also possible that it might be forever changed for the worse. The third and scariest possibility is that those given the legal power and resources to capitalize on the sale of addictive drugs would engineer a whole new population of slave consumers. But hopefully since we learned that lesson with cigarettes, we could figure out a way to legalize drugs while severely restricting their marketability. The overeating phenomenon... proves that some of the most profitable drugs on the market today are high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils. Who is to blame for the fast food epidemic? Either careless corporations are to blame for pushing incredibly unhealthy food, or people are just unwilling or unable to think about what goes in their mouths. Or both. What can be done? How about banning the use of public airwaves for food advertizing, for a start. If the information age has taught us anything it's that mind control is easier than it ever has been. If you have the money, people will eat whatever you tell them to. To keep getting the money, you sell them the cheapest shit you can pass off as food (such as highly decorated corn syrup and converted veggie oil). And if you end up as grotesque disease-bag from eating our food 24/7? Whatever, not our fault. We only brainwashed you, and that's legal.

Yeah sure. If hypothetically climbing resulted in as many destroyed lives as hard drug use today (thousands? millions?) then I would appreciate the logic in such laws. But I don't think that will ever be the case. As a concrete example, requiring MLU's on Hood may not be philosophically satisfying, but considering the clowns that throw themselves at it, they may not be such a bad idea. (ducking)

Yeah you'd think that devastating drug addiction would be punishment enough. A testament to just how strong of a hold this stuff can get on people. The 'punishment' in that example though is more of a wakeup call, like "next we're going to call your rich parents and tell them you're getting kicked out for selling dope."

I'm not sure which weak argument you're referring to. Personal freedom is absolute; laws are merely deterrents. I stand by my assertion that the naive can and should be protected by laws that deter extraordinary risks to themselves. For example, we have a seatbelt law not because we want to crush free will, but because we're pretty sure it makes you safer.

Well drugs aren't 'legal' at Reed College. But the honor code there is that you're not doing anything wrong until you're a threat to yourself or to the community, as deemed by a group of your peers, without reference to official policy. It was nice to live in such an organic society, where the concept of what is 'right' is infinitely malleable by its members. Unfortunately this isn't efficient enough for a society of 300 million people (and you can't punish your average self-destructing crackhead by putting them on academic probation).

You're right, people should be smart enough to figure out on their own that a hard drug habit is a bad idea. They shouldn't have to be protected from their own bad judgment. Otherwise we are doomed. But as you say, people are already experimenting with whatever they want. So the philosophical principle is not in danger. The real danger of official legalization that I see is that this would almost certainly lead to hard drugs going big business. If you thought the tobacco industry was evil for the way it promoted and peddled nicotine, just wait until Phillip-Morris gets its hands on cocaine. That could be bad. But at least they won't have to kill any judges.

Put the bong down man. I haven't had TV for over 8 years. Give yourself a couple of squirts of visine and re-read my posts--I said that people were the problem, not the drugs.

Get real wheels. http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html#howmany

Apples and oranges. The negative effects of widespread addiction vs. criminal trafficking are different phenomena, the relative potential magnitudes of which neither of us can claim to know. Where I simply seek to highlight the potential danger for widespread use of hard drugs, you attempt to do explicit mathematics with abstract principles. Take a breath man. I don't want people buying crack at the store because I'm afraid that it will turn our country into a drug-enslaved shithole. And I already said that I'm sympathetic to the idea of natural selection--just that the real manifestation of it is never pretty, especially if it occurs on a massive scale. Here's some conceit for you: why do the lab rats keep hitting the cocaine until it kills them? Clearly they wanted to live?

Let me apologize in advance for this twist in logic, but if this is what the youth are thinking, then legalizing hard drugs would be an invitation to use them. They will equate 'legal' with 'okay.' Yes sadly enough, the masses are willing to let the system do their thinking for them. Perhaps all they need are a few overdoses to set them straight... but that could get ugly.

You might try heading there, might broaden your horizons and change yer tune. Well thanks for meaninglessly condescending. Would you mind telling me a little about your experiences in the Netherlands, as they relate to the idea that the United States is capable of adopting its social policies?

Actually I haven't been to the Netherlands. I just assumed that since they have their drug situation mostly under control, they must be a smarter people.

The United States are not the Netherlands. That's like comparing a spoiled 13-year-old to a college professor. Would you tell your 13-year-old daughter that it's okay to do heroin? (It's okay, she'll just use her judgment.) Intentional oversimplification? First, greater availability would lead to greater consumption. Second, 'legal' equals profitable and marketable. If McDonalds' sexy ad convinces you to try a Big Mac and it sucks, you don't have to buy another one. It's not that simple with hard drugs. Honestly, I want to believe in the ideal of free will and personal judgment. But in practice that ideal is defeated in a society where many if not most people are too stupid to take care of themselves (such as the US). Should we let them kill themselves? Perhaps. Is that going to suck for the rest of us? Yes. But how many will self-destruct? That's the key question--how many addicts does it take to ruin a society? Is that a storm that you want to try to weather? And for what? 'Freedom' to get wasted on hard drugs?

Let's not play stupid--alcoholism is a major factor (notice I am not saying cause here) in major health problems, fatal car accidents, domestic abuse, violence, unwanted pregnancies, birth defects, etc. You're right, I've been pretty hard on corporate america lately. But I applaud your faith in the common unitedstatesian. If only we just made all vices legal and available (for the right price), then we could all live in a free, happy utopia with trademarked needles sticking out of our veins. Widespread drug abuse would transform our country into a bastion of freedom and choice... for about 20 years until complete societal collapse. But let me peel back the layers of facetiousness lest I be misunderstood. I think it would be a good lesson for our species to learn if all of the highly addictive were allowed to destroy themselves. Think of it as a behavioral cleansing. Just do it.

Our country is the principal market for refined alkaloids, rich bored druggies begging to pour money into a lucrative and often violent third-world drug trade. The majority of the population of this country would never survive legalization. Shit, we can't even stop overeating. Furthermore if you legalized things, what makes you think that corporations wouldn't behave just as badly as the cartels? The source countries would still be getting fucked, and there would be more junkies than ever.

I'll take a (properly used) GPS over a compass in a white out any day. What is this, the 15th century?

These guys got themselves off the mountain on the same day. Good enough for me. Again, this isn't even newsworthy, but I guess that doesn't stop many of you from dropping your latent baggage from the infamous winter incident.

Big deal. Don't let the media whip you into a frenzy over this people. You have been misled by the media hype.

If the money's going directly back into Mt. St. Helens then I might have less of a problem with it. I'm not in favor of completely deregulating St. Helens. The 100/day limit is probably for the best, and you need a ranger to enforce that. Bottom line for me is that the $7 service charge is ridiculous. If most of it's going to MSHI or MSHNVM, they should just be up front and charge a little more for a permit. If all of that's going to active.com, then that is completely unacceptable. They need to drop active.com. Internet vending is not rocket science anymore--they do not need to make us pay for a private middleman to do this for them.

Don't get me wrong, it sounds like PMR and anyone else involved did (and will continue to do) a great and vital job. I just despise the media hype/exaggeration, and feel misled. "5 climbers missing, rescued" is not a fair description events. Sounds more like "5 climbers disoriented, walk down with verbal assistance." Honestly, this wouldn't even have made the news, except that reporters knew that Hood rescue stories are media gold after what happened last winter. Or is the following correct? There are inconsistencies, yes, but then there are completely erroneous key facts, and then there is flat out dishonest reporting for the sake of greater attention. Which is the case here? (note: just ignore me if I'm wasting your time. I just hate the media--either they are incompetent, or they are dishonest, or both.)