Ending the Failed War on Drugs

[Panther]

I agree to or disagree with something because of a feeling of right/wrong, acceptance/distastefulness in my heart and soul, some of which may be society’s conditioning, but most I feel is in my genes, or just the way I am.

That's reasonable enough. Now, what if someone else, with a different opinion on acceptance/distastefulness in their heart and soul, with a different set of societal conditioning, or a different genetic propensity, decides to live or act in a manner that is contradictory to the way you are... Given that the other person doesn't violate your freedoms, liberties, rights or the first set of "universally recognized" crimes mentioned above... Are you willing to leave them alone and let them live with their own freedoms, liberties and rights intact?

Each of your enumerations is of its own merit, or dismerit, and has no bearing on being left alone to practice the martial arts, which may or may not someday be another battle.

Not exactly. I am just as strongly against someone infringing on your freedom, liberty and right to be left alone and to practice the martial arts as I am against someone infringing on their freedom, liberty and right to have consentual adult sexual relations with whomever they wish, regardless of what deals are struck in the process... and I'm just as strongly against the infringement of others freedoms, liberties, and rights to engage in the other activities cobbled together in that list. IMNSHO, all of our freedoms, liberties and rights are intertwined. Your right to be left alone or practice the martial arts are sacred... and so are others rights to live as they wish. What if (as was the case in the not to distant past in the USA and still is in some other countries) the freedom, liberty and right that was being persecuted, regulated, controlled or banned was the ability to marry someone you love regardless of differences in race, nationality, or religious beliefs. What if (as has been the case in various parts of the world at various times in history) you were forbidden to marry a person because your offspring wouldn't be "pure" or because you may have different national loyalties or because you were jewish/christian/hindu/moslem and she was moslem/christian/jewish/hindu! Absurd? Would you fight for that love? Would you fight for your freedom, liberty, rights? I hope so... But the real question is: Would you stand up for that other person's freedom, liberty, and rights (even if you, personally, don't agree with their choices)?

there are a number of weird crimes on the books, and those are the types of crimes in which I was reffering. I did a study on such things a while back, and if anyone wishes for references they can do a Google search on "stupid laws" to for humor as well as to point out what I meant.

A great point. We can all agree that the law (IIRC in either TN or KY) that says "when two trains meet at a track crossing, both must stop and neither may proceed until the other is gone" are stupid laws. But what about other "laws" such as separation of "black" and "white" toilets/watercoolers/dining rooms/etc.? We can (hopefully) all agree that those were stupid laws... that we're "more enlightened now". But at one point, those were rigorously enforced! Just as rigorously as the current "illicit" drug or "illlicit" sex laws! Do we just need to become "more enlightened" in the future? Perhaps... Perhaps not.

In the meantime, as previously written, IMO, if you are willing to force your own tastes, beliefs, opinions on others, then you have opened the door to having others force their will on you. And it is simply insane to sacrifice your own freedoms, liberties, and rights merely for the ability to force someone else to do as you wish. But in the end, that's the trade-off. Today we outlaw/regulate certain items, behaviors, and practices with dubious cost::benefit ratios. Tomorrow, it may very well be the outlawing of martial arts or motorcycles or fast food or something else! Given the fact that any government that is powerful enough to give you what you want is also powerful enough to take it away, what is lost in the future may very well be what we've already gained. If the past century or so is any indication, we should all stop and remember the freedoms that we've already lost! Perhaps the next thing to be outlawed/regulated will be that everyone get genetic testing and any pregnancy which indicates genetic "flaws" be immediately terminated. With "modern medicine", look at all the costs that could be reduced or prevented. We wouldn't have to worry about birth defects, downs syndrome, deafness, blindness or a child being mentally retarded... and there wouldn't be the added medical, educational, or other expenses associated with those conditions. In fact, we could just have mandatory abortions for any pregnancy where the fetus has genes that show a propensity for heart disease or diabetes or alcoholism or... obesity! Think of the benefits to society! Think of the cost savings!

Far fetched? If the technology had been available, don't think for a second that certain world leaders and governments throughout history wouldn't have used it. Even without the technology, some tried. Can't happen here? Don't be so damn sure. When there's mob rule, those who aren't part of the mob get ruled... and then no one's freedoms, liberties, or rights are safe.

And that is the whole point.

[Deep Sea]

Others should join in to prevent this from being a dialogue where others can just opinionated.

That's reasonable enough. Now, what if someone else, with a different opinion on acceptance/distastefulness in their heart and soul, with a different set of societal conditioning, or a different genetic propensity, decides to live or act in a manner that is contradictory to the way you are... Given that the other person doesn't violate your freedoms, liberties, rights or the first set of "universally recognized" crimes mentioned above... Are you willing to leave them alone and let them live with their own freedoms, liberties and rights intact?

A person doesn’t have to violate any of your list to be not willing to do as your last sentence asks. Behavior such as abrasivenes and obnoxiousnes, and deceptiveness are only a few of the descriptive nouns I care to write about.

Not exactly. I am just as strongly against someone infringing on your freedom, liberty and right to be left alone and to practice the martial arts as I am against someone infringing on their freedom, liberty and right to have consentual adult sexual relations with whomever they wish, regardless of what deals are struck in the process... and I'm just as strongly against the infringement of others freedoms, liberties, and rights to engage in the other activities cobbled together in that list. IMNSHO, all of our freedoms, liberties and rights are intertwined.

I already know you have strong feelings on this issue, Panther.

Your right to be left alone or practice the martial arts are sacred... and so are others rights to live as they wish. What if (as was the case in the not to distant past in the USA and still is in some other countries) the freedom, liberty and right that was being persecuted, regulated, controlled or banned was the ability to marry someone you love regardless of differences in race, nationality, or religious beliefs.

Don’t kid yourself that the US is so full of freedoms because it is not. We are all restricted, regulated, and some are monitored as well.

What if (as has been the case in various parts of the world at various times in history) you were forbidden to marry a person because your offspring wouldn't be "pure" or because you may have different national loyalties or because you were jewish/christian/hindu/moslem and she was moslem/christian/jewish/hindu! Absurd?

Those issues stem right from family values as well. Would you stymie those peoples family values? If so then you would be removing THEIR freedoms. If you consider re-educating them thoughts of Mao’s labor exchange policy of perhaps up to 20 or so years ago comes to mind.

Do you think there’ll ever be a melding of Christians and Muslems? Here's today's little Jew-el for you. Somewhere along the line there is a religion whose theme is bent on destroying all others who are not them. Ok, so this goes against someone leaving you alone, but I think it falls into the spirit od what’s going on. When Jews and Xtians intermarry there is hell to be paid, but they are the laws of family not of country that I think about.

Would you fight for that love? Would you fight for your freedom, liberty, rights? I hope so... But the real question is: Would you stand up for that other person's freedom, liberty, and rights even if you, personally, don't agree with their choices)?

Cross-race marriages are frowned upon, and there is a societal stigma that exists although there are no laws aganst it.

But at one point, those were rigorously enforced! Just as rigorously as the current "illicit" drug or "illlicit" sex laws! Do we just need to become "more enlightened" in the future? Perhaps... Perhaps not.

Like gun laws. Don’t need more of them, just enforce the ones that exist. If they don’t make sense repeal them. Simple?

In the meantime, as previously written, IMO, if you are willing to force your own tastes, beliefs, opinions on others, then you have opened the door to having others force their will on you.

Aha! Does this mean that you consider activists subject to receive what they dish out?

And it is simply insane to sacrifice your own freedoms, liberties, and rights merely for the ability to force someone else to do as you wish. But in the end, that's the trade-off. Today we outlaw/regulate certain items, behaviors, and practices with dubious cost::benefit ratios.

Much has to do with the almighty dollar.

Tomorrow, it may very well be the outlawing of martial arts or motorcycles or fast food or something else!

Outlaw fast food and people will starve to death. Maybe it's a good thing to kill the burger.

Given the fact that any government that is powerful enough to give you what you want is also powerful enough to take it away, what is lost in the future may very well be what we've already gained. If the past century or so is any indication, we should all stop and remember the freedoms that we've already lost! Perhaps the next thing to be outlawed/regulated will be that everyone get genetic testing and any pregnancy which indicates genetic "flaws" be immediately terminated.

The first step will be to be disallow insurance coverage.

With "modern medicine", look at all the costs that could be reduced or prevented.

Outlaw smoking and cancer rates will drop astoundingly.

We wouldn't have to worry about birth defects, downs syndrome, deafness, blindness or a child being mentally retarded...

They already tried that one. Hitler tried it too.

and there wouldn't be the added medical, educational, or other expenses associated with those conditions. In fact, we could just have mandatory abortions for any pregnancy where the fetus has genes that show a propensity for heart disease or diabetes or alcoholism or... obesity! Think of the benefits to society! Think of the cost savings!

The almighty buck rules.

Far fetched? If the technology had been available, en there's mob rule, those who aren't part of the mob get ruled... and then no one's freedoms, liberties, or rights are safe.

Once mob mentality begins, it’s the end. Mobs have no brains. Here's a recent mob, like broke the news today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3196666.stm

And that is the whole point.

Why does Waco and ruby ridge suddenly come to mind, Panther?

[Panther]

A person doesn’t have to violate any of your list to be not willing to do as your last sentence asks. Behavior such as abrasivenes and obnoxiousnes, and deceptiveness are only a few of the descriptive nouns I care to write about.

I know what you're thinking about. We don't really disagree on that.

I already know you have strong feelings on this issue, Panther.

Shhhhh... Don't tell everyone else or they'll quit debating and posting!

Don’t kid yourself that the US is so full of freedoms because it is not. We are all restricted, regulated, and some are monitored as well.

I don't. Like I wrote before: Remember the freedoms you've already lost!

Unfortunately, too many people read/hear that and go "huh?"

Those issues stem right from family values as well. Would you stymie those peoples family values?

I won't respond to the "if so", because the answer is unequivocally NO. I am a firm believer in family and moral values. And I also believe that those things have been lost precisely because of too much over regulation, statutes, and government intervention.

Do you think there’ll ever be a melding of Christians and Muslems?

I dunno... Lots of things that we've witnessed in our lifetimes were things that people claimed would never happen.

[quoteOk, so this goes against someone leaving you alone, but I think it falls into the spirit od what’s going on. When Jews and Xtians intermarry there is hell to be paid, but they are the laws of family not of country that I think about.[/quote]

Yep.

Cross-race marriages are frowned upon, and there is a societal stigma that exists although there are no laws aganst it.

But the question is, would you be one of those people who would frown upon it or just let it be? I say that regardless of personal beliefs, this is one of those things that is best left alone for the individuals to chose.

Like gun laws. Don’t need more of them, just enforce the ones that exist. If they don’t make sense repeal them. Simple?

Yep.

Aha! Does this mean that you consider activists subject to receive what they dish out?

It means that activists can "dish out" to those who are trying to infringe on their freedoms, liberties and rights! However, "activists" who's purpose is infringing on someone else's freedoms, liberties, and rights are violating everyone's freedoms, liberties, and rights... and as such have placed themselves in the position of forcing their will on others which means they have voluntarily opened themselves up to the sacrifice of their own freedoms, liberties, and rights.

The first step will be to be disallow insurance coverage.

It is already happening...

Outlaw smoking and cancer rates will drop astoundingly.

yep... and if someone is out in the woods, chain-smoking, miles from anyone else, who am I hurting but myself? Because that smoker pays more in insurance (if they can get it and afford it) and statistically will die long before they collect much if any SS benefits. By dying sooner, even though it may cost more in medical dollars, that smoker will actually save the system money overall.

They already tried that one. Hitler tried it too.

Exactly. And there are too many good contributing people who would never have been if those positions were allowed to be forced upon us all. (As for me, I really like B.B. King regardless of diabetes, I like Mozart regardless of syphillus, and the list goes on and on...)

Once mob mentality begins, it’s the end. Mobs have no brains.

Why does Waco and ruby ridge suddenly come to mind, Panther?

Because sometimes we get glimpses that "the mob" is already in power...

[IJ]

"Cross-race marriages are frowned upon, and there is a societal stigma that exists although there are no laws aganst it."

Well, at least there WAS, as it is vanishing. I happen to think mixed kids are beautiful. And as was pointed out in Bulworth, one way to stop all the fighting is to keep on f--king until everyone is the same color. I think this prejudice is nothing more than plain old racism, which we've made good strides against and should continue to fight.

Outlaw smoking, and you will only make smokers outlaws... they'll continue smoking, maybe fewer people will start since a wretched habit is difficult enough to begin when it's legal.

Legislation to forbid discrimination on the basics of genetics, I believe, was recently based. I'll look for it should a free moment come my busy way.

Oh, people can and will use genetics to design their kids. They do it in sexist cultures by killing off the female fetuses. They do it in OUR culture by killing off the ones with overt genetic defects (what do you think that "triple screen" at the OB's office is for, anyway??) and they will do it whenever more ability comes their way. Ever notice that while the 60s Star Trek had women, blacks, and russians and aliens on the bridge, the 90's Star Trek had not only failed to assimilate the same-sexers into their culture, but apparently managed to cure them? Where'd they go? You'd think they'd all be out by star date 2300 something. Not sure, but people are looking for / tentatively identifying candidate genes for homosexuality....