Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, if we let people do what they want--with very few exceptions (cocaine, heroin, etc) ---they will suffer their own consequences. How is that bad. Remember: this conversation is about adults.
Unless and until we end welfare handouts, this argument is moot. The government spends a lot on healthcare. Encouraging situations (such as incest and even prostitution) where more people will require medical attention is extremely irrepsonsible.
As far as the incest, fathers could groom their daughters while they are children to become their personal sexual partners as adults. Some would grow up and be able to break free, others would be too brainwashed to be able to think rationally and leave. Adults start out as children - none of us were suddenly born again after growing up. Like it or not, the way we were raised in most cases (not every case, but most) has a significant impact on our adult lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley
The reason that some drugs should be illegal is that they are so addictive, many people don't have the opportunity to change their minds and stop doing the behavior--kind of like cigarettes. Wheras, with prostitution, gambling, etc people are able to change their minds and their behavior.
Cigarettes do not alter the mind. They may be addictive but they do not affect your ability to think rationally nor do they impede your judgment. Illegal drugs can cause a person to engage in behavior that affects others, not just themselves. Drugs should be illegal, but cigs should not.
There are many people on this forum that seem to think that all drugs should be legal, btw. I cannot and will not ever be able to agree.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 03-27-2009 at 12:26 PM..
Unless and until we end welfare handouts, this argument is moot.
I have to agree with you there.
Quote:
As far as the incest, fathers could groom their daughters while they are children to become their personal sexual partners as adults.
You could say the same about grooming children to be anything...gypsies, thieves, abusers, soldiers, physicians.... Because a parent COULD do such a henious thing is no reason to outlaw sex between consenting adults.
Quote:
Cigarettes do not alter the mind. They may be addictive
Any addition is mind altering regardless of the substance. That's actually part of the definition of what additiction is...
Quote:
but they do not affect your ability to think rationally nor do they impede your judgment.
Ever hear of someone dying of emphysema (spelling) who refuses to quit....that is neither rational nor using "non-impeded" judgement
Quote:
Illegal drugs can cause a person to engage in behavior that affects others, not just themselves. Drugs should be illegal, but cigs should not.
If they don't affect anyone else directly all of it should be legal. The arguement that cigarettes and alcohol, and cafeene for that matter, is ok whereas some other drugs are not ok, is just duplicitious.
Why have ANY laws were the actions of a person does not cause direct harm to another person? You can't legislate morality...all you end up doing is driving up the costs of enforcement. We have better things to do with our limited tax money than enforce laws where the only one possibly hurt is the actor himself.
Quote:
There are many people on this forum that seem to think that all drugs should be legal, btw. I cannot and will not ever be able to agree.
I never said ALL drugs should be legal....I was talking about crimes for which the only person who may be directly harmed is the person "commiting the crime" ie "victimless" crimes.
Why have ANY laws were the actions of a person does not cause direct harm to another person? You can't legislate morality...all you end up doing is driving up the costs of enforcement. We have better things to do with our limited tax money than enforce laws where the only one possibly hurt is the actor himself.
Not this again , please see the majority thread to see how dumb the bold statement is.
Your proposal regarding sterlization being required as a condition of enganging in incestuous relationships would be nearly impossible to enforce.
Do I want to regulate people's lives using disgust as a grounds? No. But, at the same time, I see the complexity of family relationships as something that could make true "consent" far more difficult and make coercion far easier.
I also question whether all crimes that some people feel are "victimless" should be eliminated. There is something to be said for the benefits of having a society based on order and imposing limited restrictions on behavior. Courts have ruled incest laws constitutional. If the Constitution says it's OK to ban something, I don't have a problem with it.
The first part, I agree that it would be difficult to enforce. I simply proposed it as some type of compromise dealing with individual rights and protection. If I have to make a call I would still respect the right of individuals. If the law allowed it, what would be the statistics of that happening?
Also, if the law is not a deterrent, how different is a law a deterrent today that incest is illegal? It is happening out there. So why make it illegal then? To assuade disgust?
On the second comment about consent, provide an example. Reading what you wrote I can apply to numerous situations today. Your concern about consent is not enough for me. However, as I requested, give me en example. Remember, we are talking adults here. I would like for you to expand on that one.
On the third paragraph, there are many legal behaviors that have victims. What we call victimless crimes to me is a misnomer from a legal standpoint. The spirit of the Constitution is for the Government to protect its citizens and to provide justice to victims by taking care of the perpetrators. In this case a father and a daughter, adults, decide to copulate. They may go on about their lives with no problem. When the law interferes in their private lives by giving them a fine, jailing them, etc. who becomes the victim? Them. Who becomes the perpetrator? The government. That goes against the principles of the Constitution. The father did not present a complain, correct? So is he a victim? No. If the daughter does the same. Is she a victim? No. So in order for the government to interfere is for a victim to go to the legal system and demand justice against a perpetrator.
In a sense there are victims here. The problem is that the government is the perpetrator.
The same principle applies to drug use and other behaviors made illegal because of disgust or some religious or moral views and the government is not there to enforce religious or moral standards.
As far as the Constitution saying it is OK, it does not. We must keep in mind that Supreme Court justices are human and have their own biases. The Supreme Court may have upheld laws against incest. That is what we have now. However, I do not think it is right but I will not miss any sleep because of it either. All I can say is that such law goes against the spirit behind the freedoms we are suppose to have.
Years ago Supreme Court decisions went along with slavery, against women rights, etc. Does that mean that is what the Consitution said? No, humans made those decisions.
However, if we let people do what they want--with very few exceptions (cocaine, heroin, etc) ---they will suffer their own consequences. How is that bad. Remember: this conversation is about adults.
The reason that some drugs should be illegal is that they are so addictive, many people don't have the opportunity to change their minds and stop doing the behavior--kind of like cigarettes. Wheras, with prostitution, gambling, etc people are able to change their minds and their behavior.
So addictive?
In the book I read before the different drugs are covered.
Part of the addiction people have to percieve about drugs is the media.
People have used drugs for a variety of reasons. Some for fun, some due to depression, a low in their lives, sadness, stressful situations, etc. In some cases it can be addictive. There are people that their propensity to drug use is there. Even then, they could use it and still perform. There are many responsinble drinkers out there and so with drug use even though both may be addicted to their prefered drug.
It would be good if you read that book I recommende before. I will just cite one example. In Vietnam pretty much all types of drugs were used. Many of the users never had used them before. A test was done on thousands of GIs after they came back from the war. They were tested for drug in their bodies and were re-tested if I remember about three years in a row. They provided urine samples.
The great majority did not remain drug users. They used drugs due to the stresses of battle. Once that stress was not there, many of them did not used them anymore and did not become addict. Actually it was the majority of them.
However, alcohol is known to be very addictive also. Look at all the data due to alcohol. Do you want to give it a secon try at prohibition? The same with many of the drug today apply to alcohol as far as addiction. It is best to legalizing them and deal with those that use it just as there are programs dealing with alcohol addicts. To me that is more compasionate then just jailing them because it is illegal.
The first part, I agree that it would be difficult to enforce. I simply proposed it as some type of compromise dealing with individual rights and protection. If I have to make a call I would still respect the right of individuals. If the law allowed it, what would be the statistics of that happening?
Also, if the law is not a deterrent, how different is a law a deterrent today that incest is illegal? It is happening out there. So why make it illegal then? To assuade disgust?
No the reason you make something illegal is to deter. In most cases, it probably does to an extent and does not to an extent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
On the second comment about consent, provide an example. Reading what you wrote I can apply to numerous situations today. Your concern about consent is not enough for me. However, as I requested, give me en example. Remember, we are talking adults here. I would like for you to expand on that one.
Look at polygamy for example. Many kids grow up on polygamist compounds and girls are forced into marriages at young ages. They are brainwashed into believing that this is the best way of life and are unable to break free once they are adults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
On the third paragraph, there are many legal behaviors that have victims. What we call victimless crimes to me is a misnomer from a legal standpoint. The spirit of the Constitution is for the Government to protect its citizens and to provide justice to victims by taking care of the perpetrators. In this case a father and a daughter, adults, decide to copulate. They may go on about their lives with no problem. When the law interferes in their private lives by giving them a fine, jailing them, etc. who becomes the victim? Them. Who becomes the perpetrator? The government. That goes against the principles of the Constitution. The father did not present a complain, correct? So is he a victim? No. If the daughter does the same. Is she a victim? No. So in order for the government to interfere is for a victim to go to the legal system and demand justice against a perpetrator.
In a sense there are victims here. The problem is that the government is the perpetrator.
The same principle applies to drug use and other behaviors made illegal because of disgust or some religious or moral views and the government is not there to enforce religious or moral standards.
As far as the Constitution saying it is OK, it does not. We must keep in mind that Supreme Court justices are human and have their own biases. The Supreme Court may have upheld laws against incest. That is what we have now. However, I do not think it is right but I will not miss any sleep because of it either. All I can say is that such law goes against the spirit behind the freedoms we are suppose to have.
Years ago Supreme Court decisions went along with slavery, against women rights, etc. Does that mean that is what the Consitution said? No, humans made those decisions.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
The Constitution does not explicitly provide anyone with the freedom to engage in sexual activity with whoever they please. It simply doesn't. It's not one of the basic freedoms provided.
Years ago, it was commonplace for a man to have multiple wives. Now, only a few countries recognize it. My question is why? Why should governments become involved in how many wives a man has - OR for that matter, how many husbands a wife has.
In the book I read before the different drugs are covered.
Part of the addiction people have to percieve about drugs is the media.
People have used drugs for a variety of reasons. Some for fun, some due to depression, a low in their lives, sadness, stressful situations, etc. In some cases it can be addictive. There are people that their propensity to drug use is there. Even then, they could use it and still perform. There are many responsinble drinkers out there and so with drug use even though both may be addicted to their prefered drug.
It would be good if you read that book I recommende before. I will just cite one example. In Vietnam pretty much all types of drugs were used. Many of the users never had used them before. A test was done on thousands of GIs after they came back from the war. They were tested for drug in their bodies and were re-tested if I remember about three years in a row. They provided urine samples.
The great majority did not remain drug users. They used drugs due to the stresses of battle. Once that stress was not there, many of them did not used them anymore and did not become addict. Actually it was the majority of them.
However, alcohol is known to be very addictive also. Look at all the data due to alcohol. Do you want to give it a secon try at prohibition? The same with many of the drug today apply to alcohol as far as addiction. It is best to legalizing them and deal with those that use it just as there are programs dealing with alcohol addicts. To me that is more compasionate then just jailing them because it is illegal.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
More compassionate? Sure. I would argue for more rehabilitation as a part of punishment for drug offenses.
The government should NOT condone conduct IF it will cost the government money to fix problems caused by the conduct. I'm assuming that a large part of the cost of these programs would be picked up by taxpayers. It is not fair to the rest of us. The conduct needs to be illegal. It's one thing if the cost is picked up while they are being penalized. It's quite another for the government to say "it's OK" and then pick up the tab.
In the book I read before the different drugs are covered.
Part of the addiction people have to percieve about drugs is the media.
People have used drugs for a variety of reasons. Some for fun, some due to depression, a low in their lives, sadness, stressful situations, etc. In some cases it can be addictive. There are people that their propensity to drug use is there. Even then, they could use it and still perform. There are many responsinble drinkers out there and so with drug use even though both may be addicted to their prefered drug.
It would be good if you read that book I recommende before. I will just cite one example. In Vietnam pretty much all types of drugs were used. Many of the users never had used them before. A test was done on thousands of GIs after they came back from the war. They were tested for drug in their bodies and were re-tested if I remember about three years in a row. They provided urine samples.
The great majority did not remain drug users. They used drugs due to the stresses of battle. Once that stress was not there, many of them did not used them anymore and did not become addict. Actually it was the majority of them.
However, alcohol is known to be very addictive also. Look at all the data due to alcohol. Do you want to give it a secon try at prohibition? The same with many of the drug today apply to alcohol as far as addiction. It is best to legalizing them and deal with those that use it just as there are programs dealing with alcohol addicts. To me that is more compasionate then just jailing them because it is illegal.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
Is this the same book as about prostitution? if so, I ordered a copy from Amazon. It has not arrived yet.
The government should NOT condone conduct IF it will cost the government money to fix problems caused by the conduct.
Like driving? Or ...what's another good example: Reading...can you imagine how much money the government would save if it didn't teach people to read:
Reading teachers,
Classrooms
Books,
Signs,
Ballots
Web Sites
on an on...it would be a big money saver.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, please see the majority thread to see how dumb the bold statement is.
