Nanny State

Page 5 of 5 [ 77 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Sep 2010, 6:11 am

Sand wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

Sand wrote:

It is an unsolved problem and ignoring it does nothing to help anybody.

Given the current track record of government's "paying attention", ignoring what people do to themselves does in fact seem to be the more helpful option.

Your obvious distrust of any joint social efforts is basically a step towards chaos. I am not satisfied with many government programs which are admittedly subject to waste and corruption and oppression but if humans are determined to live in a social context then these problems must be solved socially in some way.

There are many kinds of "joint social efforts". I object to the kind that are backed up by guns, chains, and dungeons. Voluntary joint social efforts are fine. One can join up with them or ignore them as one chooses.

ruveyn

BigK
Velociraptor

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

01 Sep 2010, 6:12 am

Dox47 wrote:

My own state had several ballot initiatives this year not quite make it that would have not only legalized marijuana but would have had the state selling it out of their liquor store monopoly.

That is an outrage! How dare the state meddle in such private affairs as drug and liquor supply!

Dang state monopolies freezing out the little guy. :evil:

_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

01 Sep 2010, 6:17 am

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

Sand wrote:

It is an unsolved problem and ignoring it does nothing to help anybody.

Given the current track record of government's "paying attention", ignoring what people do to themselves does in fact seem to be the more helpful option.

When rapists and child molesters and people who shoot randomly or even to merely rob a cash register overwhelmingly and voluntarily surrender for adjudication I will most willingly agree with you.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

01 Sep 2010, 6:20 am

Dox47 wrote:

Sand wrote:

Since drug use of any kind and especially for recreational purposes inevitably leads to excesses and great personal tragedies that are taken advantage of by rather vicious organizations. If there is not some sort of oversight and assuredly social and medical support for afflicted individuals, antisocial behavior and crime can be a huge problem.

So the hands off policy employed by many EU countries has absolutely nothing to do with their generally low crime rates?

Or how about Portugal, which eliminated all criminal penalties for drug possession and use back in 2001, care to comment?

Here's a few articles on that, in case you hadn't heard:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... nalization

The Scientific American wrote:

In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 46,00.html

Time Magazine wrote:

The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, "that is the central concession that will transform the debate."

Bold is mine.

Sand wrote:

I agree that the present operations are probably more detrimental socially and financially than legalization of drugs. The prison system is overflowing with people caught with a few grains of some narcotic to a totally insane result. But I doubt a total hands off policy would work either. But even the legalization of the rather innocent marijuana is proving almost impossible while the harder drugs look totally unlikely to be legalized.

See the articles on Portugal above about total legalization.

The situation in the US is changing rapidly as far as the perception of drug legalization goes, we may not be quite there yet but the political sands are shifting in that direction, as much because the states are out of money as for any other reason. My own state had several ballot initiatives this year not quite make it that would have not only legalized marijuana but would have had the state selling it out of their liquor store monopoly. We even had it come up in our state congress, so someone from one of the mainstream parties has to have endorsed the idea. The greater point though, is that regardless of the political reality legalization or at least decriminalizing is the right thing to do, and hopefully happens sooner than later.

As I have indicated I have nothing against the legalization of drugs but twelve year olds might be best supervised in using heroin and cocaine.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Sep 2010, 6:22 am

Sand wrote:

When rapists and child molesters and people who shoot randomly or even to merely rob a cash register overwhelmingly and voluntarily surrender for adjudication I will most willingly agree with you.

Crime Prevention/Punishment is not a "joint social effort" It is one of the main reasons we have governments in the first place. The primary purpose of a government is to protect the lives and property of the folks who ordained it and support it with their taxes against aggressors and enemies. Government is force and it should be directed against those who initiate aggression (or threaten to do so) against our lives and property.

Government does not exist to make us better or even to make us Good. It exists to deter or punish those who threaten our bodies and property by force, fraud or intimidation.

ruveyn

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

01 Sep 2010, 6:26 am

Sand wrote:

When rapists and child molesters and people who shoot randomly or even to merely rob a cash register overwhelmingly and voluntarily surrender for adjudication I will most willingly agree with you.

Here in the States, and even up there in Lapland, upstanding citizens have access to a simple, easy to use device to protect ourselves from such people without any need for government intervention; I believe there's even an Amendment about it...

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

01 Sep 2010, 6:28 am

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

When rapists and child molesters and people who shoot randomly or even to merely rob a cash register overwhelmingly and voluntarily surrender for adjudication I will most willingly agree with you.

And thereby lies the problem. Who is to determine what is a crime? Some people seem to feel threatened by peaceful coexistent homosexuals.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Sep 2010, 6:29 am

Dox47 wrote:

Sand wrote:

When rapists and child molesters and people who shoot randomly or even to merely rob a cash register overwhelmingly and voluntarily surrender for adjudication I will most willingly agree with you.

You are referring to .30 caliber joint social effort? Or some such?

ruveyn

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

01 Sep 2010, 6:34 am

BigK wrote:

That is an outrage! How dare the state meddle in such private affairs as drug and liquor supply!

Dang state monopolies freezing out the little guy. :evil:

Well, since you mention it, Washington State has 2 separate voter initiatives on the ballot this November that would kick the state out of the liquor business. It' about time too, we pay nearly double what Californians pay for the same liquor because we have no other source, and they don't drink any more than we do. This is significant because the state simultaneously argues that it needs the liquor profits to stay solvent AND that the high prices keep consumption down, but data from other states directly contradicts the later.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

01 Sep 2010, 6:36 am

ruveyn wrote:

You are referring to .30 caliber joint social effort? Or some such?

ruveyn

I prefer a .45 and I roll my own, but yeah pretty much.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Sep 2010, 6:39 am

Dox47 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

You are referring to .30 caliber joint social effort? Or some such?

ruveyn

I prefer a .45 and I roll my own, but yeah pretty much.

Then you are aware that some other folks have similar instruments of "joint social effort" and they may very well be aimed at you. One of the reasons we have governments is to keep society from being transformed into a shooting gallery. Or at least that is the theory. Read -Leviathan- by Thomas Hobbes. He has presented the only believable argument for having governments at all.

ruveyn

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

01 Sep 2010, 6:52 am

Dox47 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

You are referring to .30 caliber joint social effort? Or some such?

ruveyn

I prefer a .45 and I roll my own, but yeah pretty much.

Since I qualified with the 45 many years ago and, at my age employment is somewhat rare, I would welcome the invitation to join the local anti Mafia groups and pop a few bullets into a few eyeballs in the name of law and order. Sounds like great fun for us guys over 70 or so. As in any semi-military operation there is bound to be a bit of collateral damage but that's the price of individualism.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

01 Sep 2010, 8:27 am

Sand wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

You are referring to .30 caliber joint social effort? Or some such?

ruveyn

I prefer a .45 and I roll my own, but yeah pretty much.

Well said.

Page 5 of 5 [ 77 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Jump to:

Nanny State Post Reply New Topic

Nanny State