Comments on: The real reason pot should be legalized

By: Fraser H.

Fraser H. — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 04:51:31 +0000

Note: I am pretty happy with the things the way they are. My concern is mostly with free-speech which I will defend to almost any limit.

By: Fraser H.

Fraser H. — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 04:39:42 +0000

We’re pretty free though.

I mean really.

Yea, I can’t own cluster bombs, and I can’t own roofies. But really there aren’t many cases where someone would want to own such things without criminal intent. The only things that are BS is that an individual can’t own drugs legally (which should be their choice) and I’m concerned over human rights tribunals.

Mostly though, things are great in the personal-freedoms front. So what if I can’t own heroin? I never really wanted to anyway. I’ve never heard of anyone getting more than a small fine for smoking pot.

By: Daniel Keyes » Redundantly outlawed on too many levels

Daniel Keyes » Redundantly outlawed on too many levels — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:05:14 +0000

[...] debate I had with Fraser H. in the comments section of my last post inspired this one. I considered writing an entire post on how banning [...]

By: Daniel Keyes

Daniel Keyes — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:00:45 +0000

@Fraser H.
I think there’s also something to be said for the idea of intent. If someone has a cluster-bomb or anthrax and it’s known that they intend to use it on others, society is fully within its right to step in. I’m okay with society restricting the freedoms of someone who intends to restrict the freedoms of others – I consider that self defence.

But why can’t everyone just get along? I think we might get along better if we were more free.
Edit: I think a lot of the most heinous acts of violence are a result of people lashing out because they feel oppressed. More freedom could help curb that. Of course, some people are just crazy. But are we going to let those few crazy people ruin freedom for the rest of us?

By: Fraser H.

Fraser H. — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:49:17 +0000

I look forward to the next post!

By: Fraser H.

Fraser H. — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:48:34 +0000

I find your argument logically sound, but you better be okay with someone owning weaponized anthrax. They can even publicly announce their intent to use the anthrax and you would be unable to stop them.

I agree the law should be simpler, and focus permissiveness until it impacts someone freedom, but someone owning a cluster-bomb is enough to make it okay for society to stop them.

By: Daniel Keyes

Daniel Keyes — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:29:02 +0000

@Fraser H.
Right, it’s not enough to simply educate the guy, which is why we outlaw the act of using the drug on someone else (who is not willing). And you don’t necessarily have to force him to go to a class – think about how effective the anti-smoking campaign has been. But anything you want to do to your own body is fair game. That’s not to say that people won’t break the law. But people break the law that prohibits possessing and distributing roofies, too.

This is much like the handgun ban debate. It’s already illegal to murder, but there are a lot of people calling for a ban on handguns. The thing is, murderers clearly don’t listen to laws. If they’re willing to murder someone, they’re willing to break the handgun ban. The old cliché is true: guns don’t kill people – people kill people. And someone willing to use a date rape drug on another person will find some way to achieve that, no matter if the substance is banned or not.

We have too many laws. Isn’t outlawing the act enough?

Maybe I’ve found a topic for my next post.

By: Fraser H.

Fraser H. — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:40:24 +0000

I think it’s okay to draw the line at date rape drugs. It’s not enough to give someone an education on why that it would be wrong to use the roofies. And really, what if the guy doesn’t want to hear the education? Are you going to force him into moral theory classes?

By: Daniel Keyes

Daniel Keyes — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:46:10 +0000

Fraser H. : I may be wrong on the drugs thing. But something about the addictive nature of meth makes me want to find a way to say it is okay for society to resist it with full force.

Maybe you can’t untangle free speech and free drug use. But what do you say to a guy who buys a bunch of roofies?

Society should (willingly) help to educate that guy (for his and society's own good) of the risks and (potential) immorality of roofies. They are often used casually, not always as a date rape drug. But ultimately, it would come down to that guy's choice. However, I don't advocate freedom in a case that it would inhibit the freedom of another person. Acts such as using roofies as a date rape would be illegal and dealt with accordingly. Just like murdering someone would be illegal because it inhibit's someone else's freedom to life. While society generally accepts murder is wrong, hardly anyone is considering outlawing knives. Where do we draw the line?

By: Fraser H.

Fraser H. — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:29:22 +0000

Yea I think it’s kinda weird too.

I keep re-thinking about it and get into weirder and weirder territory.

What if the government started mandating that a drug must be injested? Under my model, do we have the right to refuse? Refuse flu vaccinations, and hep A, floride in the water and condom use? Pasterized milk? If the government has the ability to prohibit heroin, can’t it use the same justification to force you to get vaccinated? “it’s good for you and society.”

I may be wrong on the drugs thing. But something about the addictive nature of meth makes me want to find a way to say it is okay for society to resist it with full force.

Maybe you can’t untangle free speech and free drug use. But what do you say to a guy who buys a bunch of roofies?