[hohum]

All pot stuff aside, in a pure philosophical sense (and of course I understand that that doesn't match reality), here's a few questions.

If I do something that does no harm to anyone else, should you be able to prohibit me from doing that something just because you don't agree with that something?

If there exists some minority of people who engage in a certain activity who can't abide by the rules when engaging in that activity is it better to pre-emptively deny the entire population the right to engage in that activity or is it better to punish just those who don't abide by the rules?

[TheIglu]

So this would apply to E, Crack, heroin, etc.

Sure, but the problem is, it often times DOES hurt other people.

Originally posted by TheIglu
So this would apply to E, Crack, heroin, etc.

Sure, but the problem is, it often times DOES hurt other people.

lol, actually, I fully side with Clayton on this.

Funny thing is, I started getting into this concept within my last post within the pot/t-shirt thread....

However, I also fully side with hohum.

"If I do something that does no harm to anyone else, should you be able to prohibit me from doing that something just because you don't agree with that something?"

The answer is no. That, I agree with. FULLY.

Problem is, while we may be able to trust hohum, we can't trust someone else.... more to come, I actually have a BIT of work to do...

If there exists some minority of people who engage in a certain activity who can't abide by the rules when engaging in that activity is it better to pre-emptively deny the entire population the right to engage in that activity or is it better to punish just those who don't abide by the rules?

what this boils down to is how much of a price do you want to pay?

people generally tend to obey the law due to the consequences if they don't. Pre-emptively denying limits the activity, no doubt. However, when pre-emptively denying, you effectively pull an "out of site, out of mind" mechanism, which no dbout, is another factor that limits the activity.

This costs less.



now, turn it into a "punishment" regime... the difference here is that it is no longer out of sight, out of mind, you're allowed to participate. and participating, simply BECAUSE you're participating (as, obviously, opposed to out of sight out of mind, non-participation) has just bumped up the likelyhood that such activity will be acted upon, and exceeding boundries is inter-related.

this costs more.



Basically, you keep the pool closed, the only ones that are gonna drown are the ones who are willing to break the law to get in and go for a swim.

You open the pool to the public, and people are definitely going to drown.

[hohum]

Originally posted by TheIglu
So this would apply to E, Crack, heroin, etc.

Sure, but the problem is, it often times DOES hurt other people.

Not just in a drug sense, in a general sense... like speeding, passing on a double yellow, drugs, alcohol, whatever, so long as the context is 'harms noone else'.

ie, if I do drugs in my own home (lets say I produce whatever my drug of choice is there from ingredients I made myself to eliminate the black market harm aspect), AND I lead a productive life, paying taxes, going to work, paying my bills, voting, and in general being a respectable citizen, should the majority be able to prevent me from doing this.

OR

if I speed on the highway, yet I am a fully capable driver/rider on a fully capable machine, not intoxicated, should the majority be able to say I can't speed because a minority can't deal with driving at that speed?

[hohum]

MMMmmmm, cost benefit analysis. I can dig it

Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
what this boils down to is how much of a price do you want to pay?

people generally tend to obey the law due to the consequences if they don't. Pre-emptively denying limits the activity, no doubt. However, when pre-emptively denying, you effectively pull an "out of site, out of mind" mechanism, which no dbout, is another factor that limits the activity.

This costs less.



now, turn it into a "punishment" regime... the difference here is that it is no longer out of sight, out of mind, you're allowed to participate. and participating, simply BECAUSE you're participating (as, obviously, opposed to out of sight out of mind, non-participation) has just bumped up the likelyhood that such activity will be acted upon, and exceeding boundries is inter-related.

this costs more.



Basically, you keep the pool closed, the only ones that are gonna drown are the ones who are willing to break the law to get in and go for a swim.

You open the pool to the public, and people are definitely going to drown.

[TheIglu]

Originally posted by hohum
Not just in a drug sense, in a general sense... like speeding, passing on a double yellow, drugs, alcohol, whatever, so long as the context is 'harms noone else'.

ie, if I do drugs in my own home (lets say I produce whatever my drug of choice is there from ingredients I made myself to eliminate the black market harm aspect), AND I lead a productive life, paying taxes, going to work, paying my bills, voting, and in general being a respectable citizen, should the majority be able to prevent me from doing this.

OR

if I speed on the highway, yet I am a fully capable driver/rider on a fully capable machine, not intoxicated, should the majority be able to say I can't speed because a minority can't deal with driving at that speed?

The problem with this is that we can't go through and say "This person will be responsible, this person won't" etc, etc.

I would be fully responsible with a machine gun, but I can't get one because some people can't handle having them legally around. The WILL abuse that privilidge.

[hohum]

Originally posted by TheIglu
The problem with this is that we can't go through and say "This person will be responsible, this person won't" etc, etc.

I would be fully responsible with a machine gun, but I can't get one because some people can't handle having them legally around. The WILL abuse that privilidge.

Right, its a question of where we draw the line. My personal philosophy dictates that we assume that people will be responsible, until they prove that they can't be. Its what we do with driving priveledges, no?

There will always be a few that will abuse a priviledge, so is the answer to deny the priviledge to many because of the few, or is the answer to allow the priviledge until proven that you can't be responsible with that priviledge?

I think we end up with a better system when we allow the privilege (and this covers alot of things, from machine guns to the right to drive as you wish, to drugs) and punish those that abuse the priviledge...

Lines in the sand... I guess this post is about what lines we draw and why, and what factors go into drawing that line.

Originally posted by hohum
Right, its a question of where we draw the line. My personal philosophy dictates that we assume that people will be responsible, until they prove that they can't be. Its what we do with driving priveledges, no?

There will always be a few that will abuse a priviledge, so is the answer to deny the priviledge to many because of the few, or is the answer to allow the priviledge until proven that you can't be responsible with that priviledge?

I think we end up with a better system when we allow the privilege (and this covers alot of things, from machine guns to the right to drive as you wish, to drugs) and punish those that abuse the priviledge...

Lines in the sand... I guess this post is about what lines we draw and why, and what factors go into drawing that line.

look, you need to see that intoxication is the independent variable that increases the already present risk within any of the previously mentioned activites.

Sure, we all drive, and there are definitely irresponsible drivers that cause others harm. FACT. Now, interject intoxication, and what have you?

What have you I say!

[hohum]

Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
look, you need to see that intoxication is the independent variable that increases the already present risk within any of the previously mentioned activites.

Sure, we all drive, and there are definitely irresponsible drivers that cause others harm. FACT. Now, interject intoxication, and what have you?

What have you I say!

You have an independent variable that needs to be considered independently

[MissTwisties]

The truth is...I believe "most" things we do affect someone else in some way. Unless you're an hermit and you never get out of your home and that you live alone.

The question about pot...my parents started with pot. Then gradually, they went up to stronger drugs, because I guess they were not getting their thrill on pot only. Did it affect someone's else life? You bet...

Cigarette smoke? If you live alone in your house, no it do not affect anyone else.(unless you want to go as far as saying that someone will have to endure your bad odor when you approach them?) If you have kids...think they're smoking that same bullshit as you do.

We could go on different subjects as the sex in the bedroom, eating habits, driving habits, etc...it never ends. We might find points to argue to the infinite. Let's just agree to disagree, it's simpler.

[TheIglu]

I am all for sex in the bedroom!

Originally posted by hohum
You have an independent variable that needs to be considered independently

Sorry, but, uggh, I hate to say this, but, you're wrong.

No way it can be considered independent when chosen to be added. And, of course, back to the core argument, society cannot trust you to keep the independent variable, independent.

Then again, this is a motorcycle community, and motorcyclists are generally liberals anway.

[hohum]

Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
Sorry, but, uggh, I hate to say this, but, you're wrong.

No way it can be considered independent when chosen to be added. And, of course, back to the core argument, society cannot trust you to keep the independent variable, independent.

And society can't trust anyone to be responsible, so whats the solution? Ban everything that might cause harm to other people?

As far as the independent variable argument goes, there's two variables in this equation as we are discussing it
A) intoxication
B) activities that are potentially dangerous when intoxicated

Obviously A + B is bad, but is the answer to legislate against A so that A + B can't happen? This seems to be your argument. Seems you could take the converse approach (legislate againts B) to acheive the same result.

My answer is that A + B can be considered seperately from either A or B, and thats its better to punish the A + B combo than to punish either A or B alone. (and yes, I know this is where our difference lies)

I really was more curious in this thread to see how people who value personal liberty when it comes to some aspects of the law (the right to go fast on public roads, or behave in a squidly manner) square those personal liberty values with other personal liberty questions (drugs, guns, etc)

[bentbryan]

Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
Then again, this is a motorcycle community, and motorcyclists are generally liberals anway.

I resent that comment.

[bemused]

Originally posted by hohum
And society can't trust anyone to be responsible, so whats the solution? Ban everything that might cause harm to other people?

As far as the independent variable argument goes, there's two variables in this equation as we are discussing it
A) intoxication
B) activities that are potentially dangerous when intoxicated

Obviously A + B is bad, but is the answer to legislate against A so that A + B can't happen? This seems to be your argument. Seems you could take the converse approach (legislate againts B) to acheive the same result.

My answer is that A + B can be considered seperately from either A or B, and thats its better to punish the A + B combo than to punish either A or B alone.

actually, there's a 3rd independent variable... one that can't be quantified, but one that certain *cough* members *cough* of this elite debating society casually toss about if it suits their arguments:

C= the propensity of peeps to engage in B once having achieved the state A.

after all... if it could be conclusively proven that 0% -- or 100% --of the populace actually would do the harmful thing once blitzed, then the point would be academic, n'est-ce pas? 'twould be a binary, go / no-go question.

Originally posted by bentbryan
I resent that comment.

I said "generally" you Ka-Putz!

lay off the hashish!

Originally posted by bemused
actually, there's a 3rd independent variable... one that can't be quantified, but one that certain *cough* members *cough* of this elite debating society casually toss about if it suits their arguments:

C= the propensity of peeps to engage in B once having achieved the state A.

after all... if it could be conclusively proven that 0% -- or 100% --of the populace actually would do the harmful thing once blitzed, then the point would be academic, n'est-ce pas? 'twould be a binary, go / no-go question.

bemus has a point, BUT, it's already kinda been proven to some degree (thus, by default, greater than "0", and obviously, less than 100%), for if that number were definitely 0, then there would be no such thing as DUI fatalities would there?

[hohum]

Originally posted by bemused
actually, there's a 3rd independent variable... one that can't be quantified, but one that certain *cough* members *cough* of this elite debating society casually toss about if it suits their arguments:

C= the propensity of peeps to engage in B once having achieved the state A.

after all... if it could be conclusively proven that 0% -- or 100% --of the populace actually would do the harmful thing once blitzed, then the point would be academic, n'est-ce pas? 'twould be a binary, go / no-go question.

Hehe! DING DING DING!

And this is the point I was trying to elicit in this thread. Its really C that determines where we draw that line in the sand. If C is low, then it makes sense to only litigate based upon the the A + B concurrence. If C is high, it makes sense to litigate based on A or B alone.

Originally posted by hohum
Hehe! DING DING DING!

And this is the point I was trying to elicit in this thread. Its really C that determines where we draw that line in the sand. If C is low, then it makes sense to only litigate based upon the the A + B concurrence. If C is high, it makes sense to litigate based on A or B alone.

it matters not if that number is high or low!

what matters is that it's there in the first place!

[hohum]

Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
it matters not if that number is high or low!

what matters is that it's there in the first place!

Hehe, there are no shades of grey, there is only black and white

[twrayinma]

Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
it matters not if that number is high or low!

what matters is that it's there in the first place!

there's a non-zero chance of me stabbing someone in the eye with a pencil.

should we outlaw pencils?
lock me up?
or outlaw stabbing people in the eye with pencils?

[Degsy]

I got a paper cut today. let's go all-electronic paperless society and burn all the trees. Yeeehaaaa!

d

[SEVENSGT]

Originally posted by hohum
Right, its a question of where we draw the line. My personal philosophy dictates that we assume that people will be responsible, until they prove that they can't be. Its what we do with driving priveledges, no?

I have to say you're right... Here's is my take, if we keep the punishment rules in effect, and we could take it case by case that would be a perfect world...


Hohum is smoking pot, while living a productive and none harmful lifestlye gets pulled over with his rather LARGE stash on his way to Mr. E Squids home. Officers look up his entire past, from the time he was 12 and stole a candy bar from the corner store, that being that last spot of trouble they say 'Hohum you're all clear, and when you smoke it up just remember to call a taxi or sleep it off'


Again that would be a perfect america



and I'd probaly be locked up for life