Congress Cosiders Lesser Sentences For Crack Cocaine

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

preventing supposed adults from facing down their inner demons and dealing with them is not going to exorcise those demons.

Did you want to make a case for substance use/abuse as means for people dealing with their inner demons ?

Let's agree for a moment that exorcising those demons is a worthy pursuit. Is it valuable enough to jeopardize the lives of others who have no such interest in it?

Is it valuable enough to where you're wiling to pay taxes to cover the cost of ER and mortuary services for these folks and whoever they take with them?

I don't want to pay for it. Do you?

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

That approach might be fine for children and the immature, but preventing supposed adults from facing down their inner demons and dealing with them is not going to exorcise those demons.

So if my inner demon is telling me to kill a bunch of people, you should not intervene until I have?

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Nanny Statism, or protecting people from themselves, interferes with people becoming mature.

If they aren't mature by adulthood, there is little chance of them ever getting there. And that "nanny state" invocation is like that "slippery slope" invocation. That kind of timidity would prevent you from taking any action that you could not be absolutely sure of the results. We would end up with anarchy.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

There are already laws to protect people from the actions of others, so laws protecting adults from themselves are redundant and counterproductive--the pork barrel of law enforcement.

These are among those laws. Many drugs have beneficial uses. But used by the wrong person or for the wrong purpose, they can be very dangerous. We have laws against running stop signs, red lights, running over pedestrians or into other cars or objects. So why must we complicate things by having one about driving under the influence? It is because those under the influence don't have the judgement to know they no longer have the skills to drive. So society sets a standard, such as the arbitrary number ".08".

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vistor233

Did you want to make a case for substance use/abuse as means for people dealing with their inner demons ?

Let's agree for a moment that exorcising those demons is a worthy pursuit. Is it valuable enough to jeopardize the lives of others who have no such interest in it?

As I posted, there are already laws on the books to protect the lives of others, be it against those on drugs or those who are not on drugs:

Originally Posted by seattlegal

There are already laws to protect people from the actions of others, so laws protecting adults from themselves are redundant and counterproductive--the pork barrel of law enforcement.

Is it valuable enough to where you're wiling to pay taxes to cover the cost of ER and mortuary services for these folks and whoever they take with them?

I don't want to pay for it. Do you?

I don't think the costs would be greater than what we are currently spending to "protect people from themselves." Society will do that for free, rather than having to pay police to do it, if you give society a chance, imo.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by jtdc

So if my inner demon is telling me to kill a bunch of people, you should not intervene until I have?

If you need me to keep chanting it over and over until you understand: there are already laws on the books to protect people from the harmful actions of others. It's the Nanny State laws that are aimed to protect adults from themselves that prevents adults from maturing.

Originally Posted by seattlegal chanting the same thing again

There are already laws to protect people from the actions of others, so laws protecting adults from themselves are redundant and counterproductive--the pork barrel of law enforcement.

If they aren't mature by adulthood, there is little chance of them ever getting there. And that "nanny state" invocation is like that "slippery slope" invocation. That kind of timidity would prevent you from taking any action that you could not be absolutely sure of the results. We would end up with anarchy.

Anarchy? Making people take control of themselves? Since when is that anarchy? True anarchy would be when there are no provisions to protect citizens from the actions of others, not from actions of themselves. Invoking the 'anarchy' term to justify Nanny Statism is a resistance to cut the apron strings/and government provided purse strings.

These are among those laws. Many drugs have beneficial uses. But used by the wrong person or for the wrong purpose, they can be very dangerous. We have laws against running stop signs, red lights, running over pedestrians or into other cars or objects. So why must we complicate things by having one about driving under the influence? It is because those under the influence don't have the judgement to know they no longer have the skills to drive. So society sets a standard, such as the arbitrary number ".08".

All your examples are those of harm caused to others, which I believe are necessary. However, the laws protecting you from yourself are totally redundant and expensive.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

If you need me to keep chanting it over and over until you understand: there are already laws on the books to protect people from the harmful actions of others. It's the Nanny State laws that are aimed to protect adults from themselves that prevents adults from maturing.

Apparently you are so caught up in the rhythm of that diddy, it would be a waste for me to repeat myself.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Anarchy? Making people take control of themselves? Since when is that anarchy?

Laws exist because people do not take control of themselves. Or more correctly, they try to take control of others. Anarchy is when you have it "every man for himself".

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Invoking the 'anarchy' term to justify Nanny Statism is a resistance to cut the apron strings/and government provided purse strings.

I may exercise self control. But anarchy is the result when each of us act according to our own individual set of rules. If your rules allow you to get zonked and then drive a car, killing me or those I love, I have no power over you other than mob rule.

I have that where I live. We, in our neighborhood, are responsible for maintaining the dirt roads that lead to our tract. But if I go out and grade the roads, I have no authority to prevent some other idiot from doing wheelies in the freshly smoothed road. And I do not have the authority to charge them for the cost of repairing the damage they do. If the county maintains the road, the cops will take care of those abusers. The only option available to me would be an illegal one.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

However, the laws protecting you from yourself are totally redundant and expensive.

If it could be guaranteed that you would stay on your own property and be no threat to me while you are under the influence, I would consider that your right. But it doesn't stay there and you know it.

[dcannady]

If it could be guaranteed that you would stay on your own property and be no threat to me while you are under the influence, I would consider that your right. But it doesn't stay there and you know it.

That's a standard that could only be met by strapping GPS tracking devices on everyone with shock collars that are activated when a personal property line is crossed, but that would be less ignorant than the War on Drugs.

Fear is the mindkiller.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by dcannady

That's a standard that could only be met by strapping GPS tracking devices on everyone with shock collars that are activated when a personal property line is crossed, but that would be less ignorant than the War on Drugs.

Fear is the mindkiller.

Or by putting all of the drug users in prison, as we see being attempted now...

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Anarchy? Making people take control of themselves?

How do you make people take control of themselves?

Your entire post suggest that substance use behavior can be considered in isolation, as though individidual actions don't have broader social impact as well as more immediate impact on families. The laws you say are designed to protect people from themselves actually serve to protect the community as a whole.

[dcannady]

How do you make people take control of themselves?

By not bailing them out when they screw up. Whether they are stupid, lazy or on drugs, allow them to fail.

Survival of the fittest is what made this country the richest and best country on earth. It is only when the government began attempting to subvert natural selection that the unviable members began to proliferate.

The law is intended to protect our physical selves and our property. Anticipatory laws, coupled with subsidies to screw-ups, has made a real mess of things. It's scaring poor jtdc. For his sake, stop it.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vistor233

How do you make people take control of themselves?

By holding them responsible for harm that they do to others, instead of shifting the blame to the drugs, guns, anger, passion, or whatever.

Your entire post suggest that substance use behavior can be considered in isolation, as though individidual actions don't have broader social impact as well as more immediate impact on families. The laws you say are designed to protect people from themselves actually serve to protect the community as a whole.

Society can take care of itself without any help from the government in this area. Family members, clergy members, and friends are more effective advisers and counselors to individuals than the government can ever be. However, if the government tries to take over this area, "society" will be less likely to act, and malignant governing and diminished societal participation results. Did you miss my Thomas Paine quotes?

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best stage, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."
--Thomas Paine
The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.
--Thomas Paine

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by dcannady

By not bailing them out when they screw up. Whether they are stupid, lazy or on drugs, allow them to fail.

Minor problem: when they fail, they take other people with them. Your'e saying it's more important to let these people fail that it is to protect those who will be impacted by those failures - including you and me as taxpayers who get to pay for their ER visits.

I don't want to pay for their misguided experimentation, thank you very much.

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

By holding them responsible for harm that they do to others .[/i]

But that's what are laws are for!

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vistor233

Minor problem: when they fail, they take other people with them. Your'e saying it's more important to let these people fail that it is to protect those who will be impacted by those failures - including you and me as taxpayers who get to pay for their ER visits.

I don't want to pay for their misguided experimentation, thank you very much.

Gee, would you rather continue paying for their incarceration and the bureaucracy behind it, as is the case now?

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Gee, would you rather continue paying for their incarceration and the bureaucracy behind it, as is the case now?

That's a different issue entirely. The only solution to the costs you're talking about is to to legalize all substances, which will never happen.

I'm opposed to ADDITIONAL expenses that are likely to arise from legalizing some substances.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Society can take care of itself without any help from the government in this area.

Let me get this straight. You have a day job but you're prepared to spend three evenings a week policing the shopping mall where drug cartels actively approach passerby's with various wares. And how would you stop them from doing their business?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vistor233

But that's what are laws are for!

Well, hey, we agree that laws are for holding people responsible for harm they do to others. :mrgreen: Notice the part about "others," which means "outside ones self." Outside control is appropriate, in this case.

If a laws protects a person from himself, how will he ever develop self-control? In the case of a mature person, the control must come from the inside, from the self. You can't blame the drugs, you must blame the person for the harm that he causes to others if he abuses drugs. (Or you can ban drugs, and keep people from developing self-control in this regard.) You can't blame the gun for shooting a person, you must put the blame on the person who committed the crime. (Or you can ban guns, and not expect people to learn to control their anger.) You can't blame a woman for getting raped because her head wasn't covered, you must blame those who did not have the maturity to employ self-control themselves and committed the rape. (Or you could ban women, and not expect men to learn to control their lust.)

[seattlegal]

Let me get this straight. You have a day job but you're prepared to spend three evenings a week policing the shopping mall where drug cartels actively approach passerby's with various wares. And how would you stop them from doing their business?

Nope. I'm prepared to help my family member/neighbor with a drug problem out with counseling and alternatives to drugs, though. I'm not afraid to tell them to get a grip on themselves, and to take care of their responsibilities, teaching them how to do so, if necessary.

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Well, hey, we agree that laws are for holding people responsible for harm they do to others. :mrgreen: Notice the part about "others," which means "outside ones self." Outside control is appropriate, in this case.

As a tax payer, to me prevention is the better way to go if it costs less than after the fact intervention. Like I said before, I don't want to pay for other people's ER visits. I also don't want to pay for social services for abused and neglected kids. I don't wan to pay for remedial education for kids raised by drugie parents. Etc, etc, etc.

The cost-effective solution is to limit availability if substances. Legalization is incompatible with that.

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Nope. I'm prepared to help my family member/neighbor with a drug problem out with counseling and alternatives to drugs, though. I'm not afraid to tell them to get a grip on themselves, and to take care of their responsibilities, teaching them how to do so, if necessary.

But you'll do nothing to prevent the problem from developing in the first place?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vistor233

But you'll do nothing to prevent the problem from developing in the first place?

Children, who are not yet mature, need protection. Mature people need to learn to control themselves.

[seattlegal]

The cost-effective solution is to limit availability if substances. Legalization is incompatible with that.

Even if these substances were taxed to cover these additional expenses? You really can't tax black markets, can you?