Loudmouth--Read me!

[yjacket]

And IMO one of the biggest issues is that instead of things being taken care of at local state levels, these issues are discussed at a national level with national laws.

For example, if one owns 300 acres of land in Wyoming, I would sure want Bushmaster or an AR-15 with me at all times. They are fairly light and I could easily sling it over my shoulder and go for a horse back ride in the mountains. If I meet some nasty creatures I'm good to go. No way I'd want some stupid law limiting my magazine clip to 10 rounds if I meet a grizzly on my path.

The application of one-size fits all policy across the states is a huge problem. And it was precisely this issue that the Founders wanted to avoid. I think they had more in mind a European Union (don't hate me conservatives :-) ) model rather than the current system we have.

Developing national laws for 300+ million people, spread over thousands of miles = disaster.

Edited December 18, 2013 by yjacket

[Vort]

There is so much wrong with what followed after that I'm not sure where to begin; especially when things jump the shark by mentioning ebola virus, etc. We go from guns to ebola to abortion. . . okay whatever floats your boat.

I take it you are unfamiliar with the idea of comparing things.

The big issue is that very, very few people understand what laws are supposed to do. Laws have gone from local societies and protecting life, liberty, property to I want a law that bans xyz because I think it's wrong and my way of life is better than your way of life.

Surprisingly, you wrote something I agree with.

And this speaks to my point above. The premise being I believe smoking marijuana to be wrong, therefore it must be criminalized.

No, the premise being that drug usage destroys society, and society must protect itself.

As far as prohibition goes, respectfully you do not know what you are talking about.

This is entirely probable. What convinces us that you do?

There are many documents of scholarly research done on the affects of prohibition.

http://www.johndclare.net/America5_Poholek.htm

Violence and the U.S. prohibitions of drugs and alcohol

Yes, but where are the "documents of scholarly research" you mention?

Oh, that's it? A non-peer-reviewed essay "published" on a defunct website?

Nice.

The whole border war exploding with Mexico right now is because of drug prohibition.

This statement is absurd enough on its face that I am not sure I even need to respond.

But I admit, you are right. If we simply did away with all laws, crime by definition would completely disappear. Possibly this is the anarchic Nirvana some envision. Others call it "savagery" and "hell on earth".

Edited December 18, 2013 by Vort
Sounded funny in my head, but looked more snarky than funny when I read it.

[LittleWyvern]

The issue becomes the following: who actually enforces all the laws to "prevent" bad things from happening? It means, larger, more obtrusive, more invasion, more costly government. It means more regulations, it means more regular citizens "policing" other citizens and then when they find out something is against a regulation filing a complaint to some bureaucratic entity.

The answer is... nobody. The law I'm talking about is a legal liability law, and any talk of having a person enforce such laws is completely nonsensical. This law has nothing to do with government programs, regulation, or even the nebulous concept of "gun control." The reason why I support it is that I hope it would be a strictly non-compulsory way of encouraging gun owners to consider the consequences of their actions and take more personal responsibility of storing their guns in a safe manner. Nobody would enforce it, there would be no invasion or intrusion, and there wouldn't be any more bureaucracy: it's just a way to encourage a certain way of thinking in the hopes of preventing a few gun accidents.

Now, of course I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea how such a law would be implemented, but I'm fully supportive of the theory. Perhaps this idea is just a desirable but unattainable pipe dream.

[pam]

They're my rules. I'm allowed to break them

Ahhh I get it. It's the old "Do as I say not as I do" kind of thing. Gotcha.

[yjacket]

Oh, that's it? A non-peer-reviewed essay "published" on a defunct website?

Did you even click the second link, or you just don't want to because it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe?

The American Law and Economics Review:

About us:

The rise of the field of law and economics has been extremely rapid over the last 25 years. Among important developments of the 1990s has been the founding of the American Law and Economics Association. The creation and rapid expansion of the ALEA and the creation of parallel associations in Europe, Latin America, and Canada attest to the growing acceptance of the economic perspective on law by judges, practitioners, and policy-makers.

The Review is a refereed journal, published twice a year. It maintains the highest scholarly standards, and at the same time endeavours to publish international work that is accessible to the full range of membership in the ALEA, which includes practising lawyers, consulting economics and academic lawyers, and academic economists from around the world. The Review differs from other journals in the field in that it features book reviews and review essays. It also differs from other scholarly economic journals in particular, in that the Editors endeavour to make the material more easily accessible to non-academics.

[Vort]

Did you even click the second link, or you just don't want to because it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe?

My bad. I didn't see that there were two links.

[NeuroTypical]

I think this is where judges and juries come into play.

And he-said/she-said cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute. "My gun was safely secured. Someone took it from it's place of safe security and used it to do X. Prove me wrong". That's all anyone will ever need to say in any trial ever. And the proof will almost never be available. I just don't see such a law as doing anything to help.

Please note that my suggestions did not outright ban said clips. I suggested prohibiting future sales. I know that's a small distinction, but whatever is already out there should remain legal.

Yes, I understood you. And I suppose it hasn't been tried on the national level, just various state levels.

Something to note - Colorado did indeed ban sale of high capacity magazines this year. Result:

* The vast majority of Colorado's sheriffs joined with dozens of companies and organizations to sue to get the law overturned.

* Most Colorado sheriffs are refusing to enforce the law because, well, it's unenforceable. "I owned this magazine before the sale ban went into effect. Prove me wrong." Cops aren't bothering to enforce the law, because proving noncompliance is basically impossible.

* Two state senators were recalled before their terms expired, in the state's first senator recalls in history. A third resigned shortly after the recall petition was certified by the court. The state govt went from a comfortable democratic majority, to a hanging-on-by-the-skin-of-their-teeth one democratic senator majority. The practical impact here, is even if your idea to ban sales did work, you won't find an elected official anywhere in the US, who will come within a mile of trying to pass this law. Because he'll be turned on by his constituents and recalled.

[yjacket]

No, the premise being that drug usage destroys society, and society must protect itself.

Of course drug use harms individuals and society, but what is the best way to cure the disease, wave a magical wand and proclaim from henceforth there shall be no more of xyz!! Drug prohibition has done jack to prevent kids from getting access to it. I know that the only thing that will prevent my kids from getting into drugs, isn't going to be some idiotic law, it's going to be my parenting skills in teaching them that drugs are extremely harmful to them.

Gangs and gang violence are more of a problem then drugs are and gangs get their funding through selling drugs, they can sell drugs at a very high-price and make a lot of money at it. This isn't hard. If a bag of MJ cost a buck, the gangs couldn't make money off it and wouldn't push it because there would be no profit incentive for them to do so. Legalizing drugs would actually help a lot of societal problems rather than hurt society.

This is entirely probable. What convinces us that you do?

Because I've read many, many books on human action, behavior, psychology, economics, etc. I come at things from an economic bent, but all economics is really the study of human interaction. Everyone acts in what they perceive to be their own self-interest.

Yes, but where are the "documents of scholarly research" you mention?

Oh, that's it? A non-peer-reviewed essay "published" on a defunct website?

Oh I can come up with more, I've shown a couple, now please show me where is your information?

This statement is absurd enough on its face that I am not sure I even need to respond.

But I admit, you are right. If we simply did away with all laws, crime by definition would completely disappear. Possibly this is the anarchic Nirvana some envision. Others call it "savagery" and "hell on earth".

What the ??? again jumping the shark. You do realize you use a whole lot of logical fallacies.

Here is a list: http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A2.png

You should study it a bit. I'm sure I use logical fallacies too, but I do try and eliminate them.

[Dravin]

I think Dravin meant "attractive nuisance".

That is correct.

[yjacket]

Originally Posted by yjacket View Post

The whole border war exploding with Mexico right now is because of drug prohibition.

This statement is absurd enough on its face that I am not sure I even need to respond.

But I admit, you are right. If we simply did away with all laws, crime by definition would completely disappear. Possibly this is the anarchic Nirvana some envision. Others call it "savagery" and "hell on earth".

Please see:

Mexican Drug War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/28/opinion/drug-war-no-more.html?ref=drugtrafficking

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/us/tunnel-for-smuggling-found-under-border-tons-of-drugs-seized.html?ref=drugtrafficking

Please see inside the wiki article on Sources:

"Sources[edit]

Mexico, a major drug producing and transit country, is the main foreign supplier of cannabis and a major supplier of methamphetamine to the United States.[34] Almost half the cartels' revenues come from cannabis.[50] Although Mexico accounts for only a small share of worldwide heroin production, it supplies a large share of the heroin distributed in the United States.[34][51]

Drug cartels in Mexico control approximately 70% of the foreign narcotics that flow into the United States.[52] The US State Department estimates that 90% of cocaine entering the United States transits through Mexico, with Colombia being the main cocaine producer,[53] followed by Bolivia and Peru.[54] Mexican drug traffickers increasingly smuggle money back into Mexico inside cars and trucks, likely due to the effectiveness of U.S. efforts at monitoring electronic money transfers.[55]"

My premise stands, the US war on drugs and crimilization of drugs is causing a heck of a lot more problems than it solves. If drugs were legalized, the price of it would drop like a stone and the drug cartels would be out of a job. The violence would drop and we wouldn't have 60,000+ people killed in a drug war.

And please don't even get me started on how making cannibis illegal originally came about . . . . after reading the actual transcripts recorded during the extremely short Congressional debates it's pretty evident that a significant reason for the original law was racism . . .

Edited December 18, 2013 by yjacket

[Vort]

Of course drug use harms individuals and society, but what is the best way to cure the disease, wave a magical wand and proclaim from henceforth there shall be no more of xyz!!

Then we should do away with laws prohibiting rape, extortion, and jaywalking, because that is clearly not the best way of curing the disease.

Legalizing drugs would actually help a lot of societal problems rather than hurt society.

And we should believe you because...you say you have read a lot of books?

Oh I can come up with more, I've shown a couple, now please show me where is your information?

For example, here is a column by a Harvard professor of criminal justice published in the notoriously conservative New York Times. But as I said, I am basing my opinion on what a university professor shared with me. I claim no special knowledge.

What the ??? again jumping the shark. You do realize you use a whole lot of logical fallacies.

I have not used a single logical fallacy that I am aware of. If I have, you can certainly identify them and describe why they are fallacious. When you do, I will respond. Until then, I will assume you are simply avoiding the obvious implications I am pointing out.

You should study it a bit. I'm sure I use logical fallacies too, but I do try and eliminate them.

Not sure if you are really this ignorant, but assuming you are, let me enlighten you: Comparing Thing X to Thing Y is not a logical fallacy.

[Guest]

Originally Posted by yjacket View Post

The whole border war exploding with Mexico right now is because of drug prohibition.

Please see:

Mexican Drug War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/28/opinion/drug-war-no-more.html?ref=drugtrafficking

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/us/tunnel-for-smuggling-found-under-border-tons-of-drugs-seized.html?ref=drugtrafficking

Please see inside the wiki article on Sources:

"Sources[edit]

Mexico, a major drug producing and transit country, is the main foreign supplier of cannabis and a major supplier of methamphetamine to the United States.[34] Almost half the cartels' revenues come from cannabis.[50] Although Mexico accounts for only a small share of worldwide heroin production, it supplies a large share of the heroin distributed in the United States.[34][51]

Drug cartels in Mexico control approximately 70% of the foreign narcotics that flow into the United States.[52] The US State Department estimates that 90% of cocaine entering the United States transits through Mexico, with Colombia being the main cocaine producer,[53] followed by Bolivia and Peru.[54] Mexican drug traffickers increasingly smuggle money back into Mexico inside cars and trucks, likely due to the effectiveness of U.S. efforts at monitoring electronic money transfers.[55]"

My premise stands, the US war on drugs and crimilization of drugs is causing a heck of a lot more problems than it solves. If drugs were legalized, the price of it would drop like a stone and the drug cartels would be out of a job. The violence would drop and we wouldn't have 60,000+ people killed in a drug war.

And please don't even get me started on how making cannibis illegal originally came about . . . . after reading the actual transcripts recorded during the extremely short Congressional debates it's pretty evident that a significant reason for the original law was racism . . .

This doesn't make sense. It's like saying... to solve illegal immigration, let's just do away with immigration laws and open the borders. Or, to solve gun crimes let's make murder by guns legal.

I'm confused.

[yjacket]

Then we should do away with laws prohibiting rape, extortion, and jaywalking, because that is clearly not the best way of curing the disease.

This is an example of a logical fallacy and extremely poor actual debating. Because I said we shouldn't have prohibition= I said we shouldn't have laws prohibiting the above.

And we should believe you because...you say you have read a lot of books?

And we should believe you because . . . .

For example, here is a column by a Harvard professor of criminal justice published in the notoriously conservative New York Times. But as I said, I am basing my opinion on what a university professor shared with me. I claim no special knowledge.

Another poor tactic. You dismiss my link to an article that wasn't peer-reviewed off the cuff (I assume you didn't read it), but yet you can share an article that is an opinion piece not-peer reviewed. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander? I produced a peer-reviewed article, I expect you to do the same now.

Until then, I will assume you are simply avoiding the obvious implications I am pointing out.

What obvious implications? I've produced several links about the Mexican Drug War raging on the border (which you claimed was absurdly false).

Not sure if you are really this ignorant, but assuming you are, let me enlighten you: Comparing Thing X to Thing Y is not a logical fallacy.

Another poor debate tactic and logical fallacy, i.e. name-calling or implied name-calling. Umm, ever heard the term comparing apples to oranges?

I'm sorry, I realize I had a bad link and I was wrong in saying logical fallacies, it's logical fallacies and rhetorical fallacies. A better link:

http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png

I can easily target an appeal to fear by a brief glance.

[kapikui]

How many school, mall, or theater, or otherwise public shootings have been carried out by gang members. The gangs are using these weapons in their street wars. The people that do these mass public shootings were law abiding citizens until they opened fire.

So would gangs see an increase in semi automatics in their stocks? In the short term, yes. I doubt that would last, however, because with no commercial market for them, gun manufacturers aren't going to produce as many of them, and so over time their availability to gangs and black market purchase will decrease as well.

I guess you missed the 20 or so cargo containers full of ak-47's caught just after 9/11 entering the U.S. Bound for Mexico. It isn't going to solve anything, they'll just import just like they import drugs. And since you can make an ak-47 out of a shovel, you aren't going to stop it by a law.

[kapikui]

From my standpoint, that's the best solution I can seem to get that balances public safety and personal ownership rights; and balances short term realities with long term goals.

What are your thoughts on those? (other may join in, but I'm not responding to crazy talk)

Just curious what long term goals would those be?

[kapikui]

Yjacket, stay off my side. There is a vast difference between the problem of drug running and gun running. If a bad person has and uses heroin (let's say), my best defense isn't to have heroin myself. My best defense is a gun. On the other hand if a bad person has a gun, my best defense is a gun.

Most recreational drugs have rather little potential for use in self defense or defense against a totalitarian state (the real reason the Founding Fathers added the 2nd Amendment).

[Vort]

This is an example of a logical fallacy and extremely poor actual debating. Because I said we shouldn't have prohibition= I said we shouldn't have laws prohibiting the above.

yjacket -- In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

When you say "X is the case because A implies B", you are stating a causal relationship at the foundation of your assertion: A implies B. That is the logic upon which you are basing your statement for X. If your logical relationship "A implies B" is shown to be wrong, then your support for X vanishes. (Note that that doesn't mean that X is not the case, only that your supporting logic for it fails.)

Your statement is, "Drugs should be legal because making something illegal creates a dangerous black market for it." My response was, "We make all sorts of things illegal that might create dangerous black markets for them -- prostitution, murder, extortion -- yet we do not do away with those laws simply because black markets are created." This attacks the foundation of your argument: That creating a dangerous black market for something by making it illegal therefore implies that we should not make that thing illegal.

There are many ways you could reasonably respond. You could admit that your argument was poorly based and choose another argument. You could argue that a black market for drugs is somehow fundamentally different from a black market for those other things. You could argue that drugs simply are not harmful enough to merit generating a black market for them, while those other things are sufficiently harmful to risk a black market. There may be other valid ways you can argue.

But you cannot simply say, "That's illogical!", and hope that stands as a response. It doesn't. It's a cop-out. Worse, it marks you either as dishonest (because you're arguing that something is illogical when you know full well it is not illogical) or as blowing smoke (because you're using words like "illogical" when you clearly have no idea what they mean or how they apply).

And we should believe you because . . . .

Unlike you, I did not pretend to be authoritative. My evidence is anecdotal, as I said up front.

Another poor tactic. You dismiss my link to an article that wasn't peer-reviewed off the cuff (I assume you didn't read it),

Bad practice. You should not make such assumptions.

but yet you can share an article that is an opinion piece not-peer reviewed. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander? I produced a peer-reviewed article, I expect you to do the same now.

You may expect whatever you wish. Your expectation and $5 might buy you a cup of hot chocolate at Starbucks. But unlike you, I did not present myself as an expert. You claim to have opinions that matter, and you claim your extensive reading has given you great insights. So back it up.

What obvious implications? I've produced several links about the Mexican Drug War raging on the border (which you claimed was absurdly false).

The obvious implications were that your logic -- "You should not illegalize drugs because that creates a harmful black market for them" -- was faulty. You never did respond to that, choosing instead to claim (wrongly) that what I wrote was "illogical", when the opposite was the case.

As for your take on what you call the "Mexican Drug War", you might as well be claiming that World War I was caused by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. (Before you go calling out "illogical!" again, please review what I wrote above.)

I can easily target an appeal to fear by a brief glance.

Naming a particular fallacy is of no use. You must show how your claim applies to what you're targeting. You may call me a "scumbag racist", but until you actually demonstrate my racism (and my scumbaggery), it's just blowing smoke.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Vort
Unnecessarily harsh criticism

[yjacket]

This doesn't make sense. It's like saying... to solve illegal immigration, let's just do away with immigration laws and open the borders. Or, to solve gun crimes let's make murder by guns legal.

I'm confused.

No, what I'm getting at is what is law and what should be law? The Founder's and many of the great philosophical thinkers believed in discovering law. I find that a very interesting phrase to discover law.

Basically what it means is that there is Natural Law, things that just are, neither man nor God can change them. Their belief was that written law was to codify and discover the intricacies of Natural Law. In other words, what behaviors are naturally wrong. Not wrong because one group of people didn't like something, but wrong because they are universally wrong.

This is where the idea of life, liberty, and property comes from and more particularly the non-aggression principle. Government is force. Government legalizes the use and threat of violence against individuals if they do not do what the government wants.

So then the question becomes, at what point is the government justified in depriving an individual of their life (death, jail), their liberty (they can't do something they want to), or their property (fines, taxes, etc)?

My premise is that it is just and right for Government to deprive someone of their life, liberty, property when that individual has deprived another individual of their life, liberty, property. The only way those things can be deprived on an individual level are through theft, violence, deceit, etc. Rape is theft and violence, therefore laws should be made against rape. Far from anarchy, it is a much simpler society with very strict bounds. Someone leaves a loaded gun unattended on the table, a child grabs it and kills them self, through negligence that individual has deprived the child of their life. This is a different level than directly shooting a child, but in some way that individual has deprived and is responsible for the loss of another's life, liberty, etc.

There is no need for a law that stipulates guns specifying the type of gun safe, etc. A firm understanding of natural law and property rights will clear it up. I leave it up to the bedrock of the justice system, the jury of peers to be able to determine the individual cases and to determine the appropriate course of action in these circumstances.

With that said, is it morally just and right to put me in jail if on my own property, I make a voluntary exchange (i.e. no force involved) and I give someone a hammer in exchange for a nail? What if I again make a voluntary exchange but this time cash for alcohol? cash for drugs? I'm not talking about any surrounding circumstances. I'm just asking if I make a voluntary exchange in what situation is it justified for me to go to jail? I go to jail for exchanging cash for drugs because someone said I do, not because it I have harmed anyone else.

The argument comes back, well you'll harm yourself. But who owns me? Do I own myself or does someone else own me? Many people drink soda and ingest all sorts of harmful things, they don't go to jail. If someone else owns me then they have the right to prevent me from harming myself. If I own myself, then I can do as much damage to my body as I please.

The way to prevent people from harming themselves is through education. Take a look at smoking. The smoking rates in this country have dropped dramatically.

One in Five U.S. Adults Smoke, Tied for All-Time Low

From the article:"Smoking has long been inversely correlated with education, meaning smoking rates are highest among those with the least formal education and lowest among those with higher education levels"

There is no need to ban smoking. People stop smoking because they realize over the long-term it does a lot of damage.

In 200 years we have come a long way from Natural Rights and Natural laws, i.e. on laws based on life, liberty, property to positivism- laws based upon trying to shape and mold society into what the majority feel best.

Ultimately positivism leads to absurdly stupid regulations and laws like the gas can spout rules:

How Government Wrecked the Gas Can | Laissez-Faire Bookstore

If you have ever tried to use a new gas can, you know what I'm talking about, or how about no more incandescent light bulbs starting next year.

[yjacket]

Yjacket, stay off my side. There is a vast difference between the problem of drug running and gun running. If a bad person has and uses heroin (let's say), my best defense isn't to have heroin myself. My best defense is a gun. On the other hand if a bad person has a gun, my best defense is a gun.

Most recreational drugs have rather little potential for use in self defense or defense against a totalitarian state (the real reason the Founding Fathers added the 2nd Amendment).

??

I don't understand what you mean, but drug running and gun running are most definitely interlinked. You'll get no argument that drugs have little potential use in self-defense and I 100% agree that the defense against a totalitarian state was the reason for the 2nd amendment.

Cartels can make a lot of money shipping drugs into the US to sell in the US markets at high prices, i.e. it's very profitable for cartels because of drug prohibition. The US and Mexico put a lot of resources into stopping those cartels. The cartels put a lot of resources into continuing their operation. Those resources include a way to protect their goods, i.e. they need guns.

If you have a prohibition on weapons, who are going to be the most likely groups of individuals that will develop a black market for them? The ones willing to take the risk moving the goods from point A to point B sure isn't going to be your local gun shop owner. It will be the drug cartels who already have an established methodology for getting contraband merchandise from point A to point B.

[Guest]

No, what I'm getting at is what is law and what should be law? The Founder's and many of the great philosophical thinkers believed in discovering law. I find that a very interesting phrase to discover law.

Basically what it means is that there is Natural Law, things that just are, neither man nor God can change them. Their belief was that written law was to codify and discover the intricacies of Natural Law. In other words, what behaviors are naturally wrong. Not wrong because one group of people didn't like something, but wrong because they are universally wrong.

This is where the idea of life, liberty, and property comes from and more particularly the non-aggression principle. Government is force. Government legalizes the use and threat of violence against individuals if they do not do what the government wants.

So then the question becomes, at what point is the government justified in depriving an individual of their life (death, jail), their liberty (they can't do something they want to), or their property (fines, taxes, etc)?

My premise is that it is just and right for Government to deprive someone of their life, liberty, property when that individual has deprived another individual of their life, liberty, property. The only way those things can be deprived on an individual level are through theft, violence, deceit, etc. Rape is theft and violence, therefore laws should be made against rape. Far from anarchy, it is a much simpler society with very strict bounds. Someone leaves a loaded gun unattended on the table, a child grabs it and kills them self, through negligence that individual has deprived the child of their life. This is a different level than directly shooting a child, but in some way that individual has deprived and is responsible for the loss of another's life, liberty, etc.

There is no need for a law that stipulates guns specifying the type of gun safe, etc. A firm understanding of natural law and property rights will clear it up. I leave it up to the bedrock of the justice system, the jury of peers to be able to determine the individual cases and to determine the appropriate course of action in these circumstances.

With that said, is it morally just and right to put me in jail if on my own property, I make a voluntary exchange (i.e. no force involved) and I give someone a hammer in exchange for a nail? What if I again make a voluntary exchange but this time cash for alcohol? cash for drugs? I'm not talking about any surrounding circumstances. I'm just asking if I make a voluntary exchange in what situation is it justified for me to go to jail? I go to jail for exchanging cash for drugs because someone said I do, not because it I have harmed anyone else.

The argument comes back, well you'll harm yourself. But who owns me? Do I own myself or does someone else own me? Many people drink soda and ingest all sorts of harmful things, they don't go to jail. If someone else owns me then they have the right to prevent me from harming myself. If I own myself, then I can do as much damage to my body as I please.

The way to prevent people from harming themselves is through education. Take a look at smoking. The smoking rates in this country have dropped dramatically.

One in Five U.S. Adults Smoke, Tied for All-Time Low

From the article:"Smoking has long been inversely correlated with education, meaning smoking rates are highest among those with the least formal education and lowest among those with higher education levels"

There is no need to ban smoking. People stop smoking because they realize over the long-term it does a lot of damage.

In 200 years we have come a long way from Natural Rights and Natural laws, i.e. on laws based on life, liberty, property to positivism- laws based upon trying to shape and mold society into what the majority feel best.

Ultimately positivism leads to absurdly stupid regulations and laws like the gas can spout rules:

How Government Wrecked the Gas Can | Laissez-Faire Bookstore

If you have ever tried to use a new gas can, you know what I'm talking about, or how about no more incandescent light bulbs starting next year.

Okay then the issue is that you are incorrect about your conclusion that illegal drugs are not found to deprive people of life, liberty, or property.

I'll give you a case in point: My aunt married a cocaine addict. Property: They lost most of everything they own plus her family's resources after he sold them off to pay for his cocaine habit. Liberty: My aunt tried to fly the coop and go to a woman's shelter, my uncle ended up locking her in her own bedroom. Life: My uncle ended up killing her and then committed suicide.

Now, I am fairly certain this is not unique to my aunt/uncle.

So no, I don't see how your long explanation of Natural Laws can get around the harmful effects of illegal drugs on society, something that is not as prevalent in smoking but is present in alcohol which the Constitution battled a while back but lost. And that's with me not liking the DEA.

[kapikui]

??

I don't understand what you mean, but drug running and gun running are most definitely interlinked. You'll get no argument that drugs have little potential use in self-defense and I 100% agree that the defense against a totalitarian state was the reason for the 2nd amendment.

Cartels can make a lot of money shipping drugs into the US to sell in the US markets at high prices, i.e. it's very profitable for cartels because of drug prohibition. The US and Mexico put a lot of resources into stopping those cartels. The cartels put a lot of resources into continuing their operation. Those resources include a way to protect their goods, i.e. they need guns.

If you have a prohibition on weapons, who are going to be the most likely groups of individuals that will develop a black market for them? The ones willing to take the risk moving the goods from point A to point B sure isn't going to be your local gun shop owner. It will be the drug cartels who already have an established methodology for getting contraband merchandise from point A to point B.

Exactly, though I don't care so much about how they get moved, only that they do. My problem is with who gets them.

My point is that a ban on drugs isn't the same a a ban on guns. If there is a black market on drugs and only law breakers get them (like now), I'm not in as much danger as if there's a ban on guns and only law breakers get them. Comparing the two is at best fallacious.

At the same time, the argument that lifting the ban on drugs would eliminate the problems with them is problematic. Alcohol is perfectly legal, yet there are all sorts of societal ills due to its use.

[yjacket]

yjacket -- I see exactly two possibilities here: (1) You are not being honest, or (2) you are blowing smoke. Since I consider (1) to be a much more repugnant possibility, I will assume that (2) is the case. Let me explain to you why, in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Obviously we have a failure to communicate here . . .

Your statement is, "Drugs should be legal because making something illegal creates a dangerous black market for it."

No that was not my premise. You claimed "No, the premise being that drug usage destroys society, and society must protect itself." I said I agree that drug usage destroys individuals but that prohibition rather than helping cure the problem makes the problem worse and I've given plenty of articles as to why in this particular problem drug prohibition does not work and it makes things much, much worse.

My response was, "We make all sorts of things illegal that might create dangerous black markets for them -- prostitution, murder, extortion -- yet we do not do away with those laws simply because black markets are created." This attacks the foundation of your argument: That creating a dangerous black market for something by making it illegal therefore implies that we should not make that thing illegal.

Please see my response above as to why you have continually jumped the shark on this one, i.e. I never said or claimed that murder should be legal nor should extortion. And I never said that having a black market for something is a reason for something to not exist.

There is an underlying theme that basically laws are what make people civilized and without xyz law what would we ever do it would descend into chaos and that is total crap. People are civilized because they realize it is better to peaceable interact with one another rather than kill each other. Totalitarian regimes have plenty of laws, but they are hardly civilized.

There are many ways you could reasonably respond. You could admit that your argument was poorly based and choose another argument. You could argue that a black market for drugs is somehow fundamentally different from a black market for those other things. You could argue that drugs simply are not harmful enough to merit generating a black market for them, while those other things are sufficiently harmful to risk a black market. There may be other valid ways you can argue.

Again, ?? I really do not follow.

This is the line:

You:

No, the premise being that drug usage destroys society, and society must protect itself.

Me:

Of course drug use harms individuals and society, but what is the best way to cure the disease, wave a magical wand and proclaim from henceforth there shall be no more of xyz!!

You:

Then we should do away with laws prohibiting rape, extortion, and jaywalking, because that is clearly not the best way of curing the disease.

Me:

This is an example of a logical fallacy and extremely poor actual debating. Because I said we shouldn't have prohibition= I said we shouldn't have laws prohibiting the above.

Rape laws and murder laws don't protect or prevent rape and murder, just like drug laws can't prevent or protect from drug usage. In cases of rape and murder those are acts of violence and a deprivation of life, liberty, property, in the other case of drug usage it is not an act of violence, i.e. it is illogical to compare acts of violence to acts that are not violent.

But you cannot simply say, "That's illogical!", and hope that stands as a response. It doesn't. It's a cop-out. Worse, it marks you either as dishonest (because you're arguing that something is illogical when you know full well it is not illogical) or as blowing smoke (because you're using words like "illogical" when you clearly have no idea what they mean or how they apply).

See above, apples to oranges.

Unlike you, I did not pretend to be authoritative. My evidence is anecdotal, as I said up front.

Anecdotal evidence can sometimes be good, but a lot of times leads to incorrect assumptions and results.

Bad practice. You should not make such assumptions.

You are right, my bad.

You may expect whatever you wish. Your expectation and $5 might buy you a cup of hot chocolate at Starbucks. But unlike you, I did not present myself as an expert. You claim to have opinions that matter, and you claim your extensive reading has given you great insights. So back it up.

Okay, books I've read or reading:

Man, Economy, State with Power and the State

Human Action

Road to Serfdom

Conceived in Liberty

Ethics of Liberty

The Law

Foundation of Morality

Economic Thought before Adam Smith

The Merchants of Death

Vampire Economy

The Costs of War Americas Pyrrhic Victories,

Principle of Economics

Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls

As We Go Marching

None Dare Call it Treason

The Creature from Jekyll Island

When Money Dies

Fiat Money Inflation in France

That's just what I can find in 5 mins. of pdfs on my computer; that doesn't include the litany of books on tapes I've listened to on topics ranging from Roman Emperors, to The Constitution to Psychology, etc and the litany of books on my shelves (we are unpacking . . . ). I don't have a degree in law or anything like that, I have a Master's in engineering and I'm working on a PhD; but I don't need a PhD in philosophy to read and learn it.

The obvious implications were that your logic -- "You should not illegalize drugs because that creates a harmful black market for them" -- was faulty. You never did respond to that, choosing instead to claim (wrongly) that what I wrote was "illogical", when the opposite was the case.

Again that wasn't my logic, my logic is that you are trying to solve the problem of drugs by making them illegal, my logic is that making them illegal does very little to actually solve the problem and compounds the problem by introducing a whole new host of side-problems. If we start at the basic idea that both you and I want to solve the drug problem that is a good starting point. My premise is that your solution doesn't work! What works is understanding the why? Why do individuals use drugs and then solving that issue.

As for your take on what you call the "Mexican Drug War", you might as well be claiming that World War I was caused by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. (Before you go calling out "illogical!" again, please review what I wrote above.)

I'm not sure what you going at here, but the assassination was the flash-point that set of the chain-reaction for WWI to occur:

Wiki:

"The assassination led directly to the First World War when Austria-Hungary subsequently issued an ultimatum against Serbia, which was partially rejected. Austria-Hungary then declared war, marking the outbreak of the war."

Naming a particular fallacy is of no use. You must show how your claim applies to what you're targeting. You may call me a "scumbag racist", but until you actually demonstrate my racism (and my scumbaggery), it's just blowing smoke.

Your appeal to fear, is to state several times that I believe (which I don't) that if we legalize drugs we've got to legalize everything and we'll live in a chaotic failed society.

[yjacket]

Okay then the issue is that you are incorrect about your conclusion that illegal drugs are not found to deprive people of life, liberty, or property.

I'll give you a case in point: My aunt married a cocaine addict. Property: They lost most of everything they own plus her family's resources after he sold them off to pay for his cocaine habit. Liberty: My aunt tried to fly the coop and go to a woman's shelter, my uncle ended up locking her in her own bedroom. Life: My uncle ended up killing her and then committed suicide.

Now, I am fairly certain this is not unique to my aunt/uncle.

So no, I don't see how your long explanation of Natural Laws can get around the harmful effects of illegal drugs on society, something that is not as prevalent in smoking but is present in alcohol which the Constitution battled a while back but lost. And that's with me not liking the DEA.

That is horrible, however, you are conflating multiple issues. 1st off, since they were married it's a little difficult to fully understand who was stealing what, and I won't presume to understand everything. Of course, I can make an extremely valid case that had cocaine been legal he wouldn't have had to sell off everything because it would have been cheap.

There are shared resources in a marriage. This issue is no different than a spend-thrift wife who blows through thousands of dollars a month. The act of spending the money, the theft is the act which is prosecutable. The act of killing someone can be prosecuted. The act of abusing is violence and is prosecutable. Did the drugs "make" him do it, or was he already a severely damaged individual who needed a lot of help and used drugs as an escape.

Natural Laws are extremely relevant because there are a litany of personal behaviors and personal decisions that can cause harmful effects. Natural Law states that you can only prosecute and have laws for those things that actually cause harm. You can't put someone in jail because you think they "might" kill someone, you put them in jail because they killed someone. This goes back to innocent until proven guilty. The basis of our system assumes that guilty people will go free, but it is better than some guilty go free rather than the innocent be prosecuted. The basis is that it is only when a behavior violates someone life, liberty, property should it be prosecuted. We shouldn't put people in jail for what they might do.

I'll relate my own ancedote. I home taught a family who's husband had recently been busted 3rd time for MJ. 3 strikes your out the guy received 5 years in jail. He had early teen children. Wife was completely devastated. Not only was she upset about her husband doing drugs, but she was now a single mom raising 3 kids as they were going through their formative years. Her husband sits in jail with individuals who'd committed violent acts. For the rest of his life, he is labeled a felon and his ability to provide is severely hampered. The moment in my life I realized I'd been very wrong about drugs. The guy needed help not jail time.

[Vort]

Obviously we have a failure to communicate here . . .

Indeed. I am beginning to fear the gap may be unbridgeable. It is at least encouraging that we both recognize a communications problem.

No that was not my premise. You claimed "No, the premise being that drug usage destroys society, and society must protect itself." I said I agree that drug usage destroys individuals but that prohibition rather than helping cure the problem makes the problem worse

You have not considered the claim that prohibition is a part of curing the problem, much as fixing the hole in the dike is a part of reclaiming the farmland.

Please see my response above as to why you have continually jumped the shark on this one, i.e. I never said or claimed that murder should be legal nor should extortion.

That you would even say this is evidence that you continue not to understand what I wrote.

And I never said that having a black market for something is a reason for something to not exist.

In fact, you did, as you go on to say in this very post:

my logic is that you are trying to solve the problem of drugs by making them illegal, my logic is that making them illegal does very little to actually solve the problem and compounds the problem by introducing a whole new host of side-problems.

Exactly. In other words, your logic is as follows:

Making a thing illegal does not solve the problems that thing causes, but instead introduces a whole new host of new side-problems. Therefore, we ought not to make that thing illegal.

My refutation is to bring up examples, such as rape and murder, that invalidate your logic. No reasonable person will argue that rape and murder ought not to be illegal, even if we concede that making those things illegal will not completely prevent them.

Now, you may argue that drug usage is fundamentally different from rape and murder, or that the black markets created are fundamentally different, or other such things. But that is not what you are arguing. Rather, you are arguing that we should not make a thing illegal because making it illegal causes more side-problems than it solves.

There is an underlying theme that basically laws are what make people civilized and without xyz law what would we ever do it would descend into chaos and that is total crap. People are civilized because they realize it is better to peaceable interact with one another rather than kill each other. Totalitarian regimes have plenty of laws, but they are hardly civilized.

While I disagree with your characterization of that thinking as "total crap" -- it surely is not, and we have many actual, real-life examples of the effects of lawlessness and the preferability of even a totalitarian regime to anarchy (see, for example, Liberia) -- I actually agree with what I understand to be the thrust of your paragraph above.

Anecdotal evidence can sometimes be good, but a lot of times leads to incorrect assumptions and results.

Agreed. This is one reason I openly acknowledged my non-authority and offered my insights as opinions.

Okay, books I've read or reading:

Man, Economy, State with Power and the State

Human Action

Road to Serfdom

Conceived in Liberty

Ethics of Liberty

The Law

Foundation of Morality

Economic Thought before Adam Smith

The Merchants of Death

Vampire Economy

The Costs of War Americas Pyrrhic Victories,

Principle of Economics

Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls

As We Go Marching

None Dare Call it Treason

The Creature from Jekyll Island

When Money Dies

Fiat Money Inflation in France

Books you may have read are of no moment. I can list out lots of book titles, too. Doesn't really mean anything.

If we start at the basic idea that both you and I want to solve the drug problem that is a good starting point. My premise is that your solution doesn't work!

Very interesting. Exactly what do you believe I proposed as "my solution"? Because I don't remember proposing any solutions, but maybe I did and just forgot about it.

What works is understanding the why? Why do individuals use drugs and then solving that issue.

How is this different from saying, "What works is understanding why individuals rape other people and then solving that issue" or "What works is understanding why individuals murder people and then solving that issue"?

Are not laws prohibiting such society-destroying behaviors an integral part of said solution?

I'm not sure what you going at here, but the assassination was the flash-point that set of the chain-reaction for WWI to occur:

I am saying that it is naive at best to lay the blame for a highly complex situation at the proximal trigger.

Your appeal to fear, is to state several times that I believe (which I don't) that if we legalize drugs we've got to legalize everything and we'll live in a chaotic failed society.

Again, I despair at communicating with you. This is so totally and so obviously NOT what I said that I am not sure there exists any real way to talk with you in a productive manner.

If there are any others who have understood what I wrote as yjacket did, let me know. If there are very many of you, I will realize that it's my failure to write clearly. Otherwise, I must assume that you (yjacket) simply cannot read either my words or their intent correctly.

[yjacket]

Exactly, though I don't care so much about how they get moved, only that they do. My problem is with who gets them.

My point is that a ban on drugs isn't the same a a ban on guns. If there is a black market on drugs and only law breakers get them (like now), I'm not in as much danger as if there's a ban on guns and only law breakers get them. Comparing the two is at best fallacious.

At the same time, the argument that lifting the ban on drugs would eliminate the problems with them is problematic. Alcohol is perfectly legal, yet there are all sorts of societal ills due to its use.

Roger. I did not originally bring drugs into the conversation. I mentioned the economics of prohibition and someone else piped in about drugs.

I completely agree that on a sliding scale, prohibition on drugs is 4-5, prohibition on guns is a 10. The economics behind them are the exact same, level of importance is completely different.

Oh, I don't claim (and if someone got the impression that I did, I apologize) that lifting the ban would eliminate all the problems with drugs, just like alcohol there are a whole host of problems with its use. My premise is that specifically with drugs it causes way, way more problems that it solves, from over-crowding jails, to the massive amount of local, state, federal money spent at the problem, to gangs, to gang-violence, to border violence, to the cartels, etc. Drug usage is in general more prevalent at the lower incomes and lower education demographics. Or I should say those who are penalized and caught are more likely in those demographics. And most of it has to do with cost and the high price of drugs that makes it very profitable for cartels.

And most silly bans that try to protect people from themselves work this way.