7 ms·

> And as long as we live in a democracy, they're entitled to structure their society as they see fit. I strongly disagree. There are certain human rights that

by qbit 11y ago

> And as long as we live in a democracy, they're entitled to structure their society as they see fit. I strongly disagree. There are certain human rights that should not be able to be voted away in a democracy. I believe that the right to modulate our own minds as we see fit belongs in this category.

rayiner 11y ago
People aren't "modulating their minds" in isolation. Drug use has an external impact on the families, friends, employers, and coworkers of those using drugs. Drug use affects the ability of drug users to abide by social norms imposed upon everyone. In a developed nation with a safety net, drug use might even implicate society's need to rescue those who can't work or fall ill from drug use.
- msandford 11y ago
  > Drug use has an external impact on the families, friends, employers, and coworkers of those using drugs. It's not illegal for me to be a sober (or drunk) asshole. Nor is it illegal for me to be sober (or drunk) and just decide not to go to work, consequences be damned. People are allowed to get drunk legally, despite the statistically increased propensity for violence, douchebaggery, etc. What makes alcohol "good" and drugs "bad"? Nothing more than tradition, as far as I can tell. You're not making a great argument for why drug use should continue to be illegal.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I'm not making any argument why drug use should be illegal. I'm making an argument for why the public should be entitled to decide whether drug use is legal or illegal. I also think, given your examples, the public should also be entitled to decide whether alcohol should be illegal.
    - mbrock 11y ago
      Such an argument should mention the likelihood of a ban actually being enforced in a functional and just way. "The public" may wish to eliminate all mind-altering substances, but the allure of altering the mind is strong, and the enormous contingent of people who desire to consume is going to have to be repressed. The argument about family and relations, for example, is not so straightforward. What's preferrable, a dad who smokes cannabis or a dad who's in prison?
      - michaelbuddy 11y ago
        I know some people who would have been better off if their dad smoking cannibis wans't there. Not saying prison, but they were a terrible influence.
        mbrock 11y ago
        That some people are bad parents doesn't seem to justify making cannabis consumption criminal.
    - MawNicker 11y ago
      The failure to obtain a college education has an external impact on the families, friends, employers, and coworkers of those failing to be college graduates. Failure to be a college graduate affects the ability to abide by social norms imposed upon everyone. In a developed nation with a safety net, failure to be a college graduate might even implicate society's need to rescue those who can't work or injure themselves during uneducated activities. You're making an argument for which anything could be illegal. The public could develop an irrational prejudice against people wearing purple. Then you could make all of those statements about that. Is it the public's right to ban purple clothing? Do we still have freedom simply because there is more than one other color? This may seem facetious but it's not that far from tattoos and piercings. You're almost suggesting that there shouldn't be inalienable rights. I understand that in "reality" there ultimately aren't but I hadn't realized our society was so ready to abandon the ideal.
      - 11y ago
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  Your argument easily applies to alcohol, prescription medications, and hell, even obesity. There's nothing here unique to drugs that are causing the problems you're decrying.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    If we ban drugs, I think it should also apply to jackasse or daredevils. People (including children) should not climb tall trees or scale the Brooklyn Bridge with no reason. Why should anyone get subsidized medical care (and it is subsidized even if they pay for it) for falling off a tree that they had no business climbing? In the same train of thought, maybe we ought to close down all amusement parks and only allow people to drive to work or to go buy groceries. People driving or riding the bus puts them at risk of accidents and society suffers from these accidents.
    - taneq 11y ago
      Not to mention healthy diets should be strictly enforced, along with mandatory exercise regimes to reduce the public burden of obesity and poor health.
  - mturmon 11y ago
    Just because we have not found an airtight reason to draw a line at a particular spot, does not mean that there should be no line.
    - bobwaycott 11y ago
      Sure, I can grant that. Now we just need to define the line itself—its expressed purposes and guiding principles. Once we agree on the principles of the line, we can start working on the contours of where the line is drawn. Unfortunately, we keep jumping into drawing [and erasing] lines without enough discourse regarding the principles of those lines. The drug war is only one such example.
- SilasX 11y ago
  Great, then I'm glad for all the exemptions that exist for drug use that is carefully controlled and monitored to prevent and isolate these kinds of effects, and it's not some heavy handed categorical ban.
Dr_tldr 11y ago
But most people would pick the will of the majority making some bad decisions than the absolute dictatorship that would be needed to enforce a highly subjective list of human rights.
- ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
  You understand that this is the very reason the US is a Republic not a Democracy, and has safe guards to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Maybe maybe not. Democracy must mean that society has some right to shape how people will behave within it, and sometimes that imposes an affirmative burden on people to behave a certain way (e.g. mandatory schooling). That's not all tyranny.
    - ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
      I understand the argument you are attempting to make, but you presuppose the masses are informed and always capable of making logical decisions which will not infringe upon the rights of the minority. Thankfully the Founders of Our Nation had the Foresight to protect its citizens from themselves they established a Republic. >“ It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” -James Madison Federalist Papers No 51 The Politicians of Our Nation Throw Around the Word Democracy to make the low information plebs feel as though the power rests with them, it is a charade. I don't mind the down votes if it means some of the users on the site have a better understanding of US civics. Edit: By the way your example of Mandatory Schooling could not be further from an example of a Democracy. Did you or the rest of the citizens of the US ever have a vote on that?
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
zo1 11y ago
You must be confusing "natural rights" with the perverse definition we currently have of "rights", which are "positive" rather than "negative". Something as simple as freedom from forced labour is still not fully adhered to even in the US. Have a look at the Wikipedia page for some more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

by qbit 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

People aren't "modulating their minds" in isolation. Drug use has an external impact on the families, friends, employers, and coworkers of those using drugs. Drug use affects the ability of drug users to abide by social norms imposed upon everyone. In a developed nation with a safety net, drug use might even implicate society's need to rescue those who can't work or fall ill from drug use.

msandford 11y ago
> Drug use has an external impact on the families, friends, employers, and coworkers of those using drugs. It's not illegal for me to be a sober (or drunk) asshole. Nor is it illegal for me to be sober (or drunk) and just decide not to go to work, consequences be damned. People are allowed to get drunk legally, despite the statistically increased propensity for violence, douchebaggery, etc. What makes alcohol "good" and drugs "bad"? Nothing more than tradition, as far as I can tell. You're not making a great argument for why drug use should continue to be illegal.
- rayiner 11y ago
  I'm not making any argument why drug use should be illegal. I'm making an argument for why the public should be entitled to decide whether drug use is legal or illegal. I also think, given your examples, the public should also be entitled to decide whether alcohol should be illegal.
  - mbrock 11y ago
    Such an argument should mention the likelihood of a ban actually being enforced in a functional and just way. "The public" may wish to eliminate all mind-altering substances, but the allure of altering the mind is strong, and the enormous contingent of people who desire to consume is going to have to be repressed. The argument about family and relations, for example, is not so straightforward. What's preferrable, a dad who smokes cannabis or a dad who's in prison?
    - michaelbuddy 11y ago
      I know some people who would have been better off if their dad smoking cannibis wans't there. Not saying prison, but they were a terrible influence.
      - mbrock 11y ago
        That some people are bad parents doesn't seem to justify making cannabis consumption criminal.
  - MawNicker 11y ago
    The failure to obtain a college education has an external impact on the families, friends, employers, and coworkers of those failing to be college graduates. Failure to be a college graduate affects the ability to abide by social norms imposed upon everyone. In a developed nation with a safety net, failure to be a college graduate might even implicate society's need to rescue those who can't work or injure themselves during uneducated activities. You're making an argument for which anything could be illegal. The public could develop an irrational prejudice against people wearing purple. Then you could make all of those statements about that. Is it the public's right to ban purple clothing? Do we still have freedom simply because there is more than one other color? This may seem facetious but it's not that far from tattoos and piercings. You're almost suggesting that there shouldn't be inalienable rights. I understand that in "reality" there ultimately aren't but I hadn't realized our society was so ready to abandon the ideal.
    - 11y ago
bobwaycott 11y ago
Your argument easily applies to alcohol, prescription medications, and hell, even obesity. There's nothing here unique to drugs that are causing the problems you're decrying.
- newjersey 11y ago
  If we ban drugs, I think it should also apply to jackasse or daredevils. People (including children) should not climb tall trees or scale the Brooklyn Bridge with no reason. Why should anyone get subsidized medical care (and it is subsidized even if they pay for it) for falling off a tree that they had no business climbing? In the same train of thought, maybe we ought to close down all amusement parks and only allow people to drive to work or to go buy groceries. People driving or riding the bus puts them at risk of accidents and society suffers from these accidents.
  - taneq 11y ago
    Not to mention healthy diets should be strictly enforced, along with mandatory exercise regimes to reduce the public burden of obesity and poor health.
- mturmon 11y ago
  Just because we have not found an airtight reason to draw a line at a particular spot, does not mean that there should be no line.
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    Sure, I can grant that. Now we just need to define the line itself—its expressed purposes and guiding principles. Once we agree on the principles of the line, we can start working on the contours of where the line is drawn. Unfortunately, we keep jumping into drawing [and erasing] lines without enough discourse regarding the principles of those lines. The drug war is only one such example.
SilasX 11y ago
Great, then I'm glad for all the exemptions that exist for drug use that is carefully controlled and monitored to prevent and isolate these kinds of effects, and it's not some heavy handed categorical ban.

Dr_tldr 11y ago

But most people would pick the will of the majority making some bad decisions than the absolute dictatorship that would be needed to enforce a highly subjective list of human rights.

ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
You understand that this is the very reason the US is a Republic not a Democracy, and has safe guards to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Maybe maybe not. Democracy must mean that society has some right to shape how people will behave within it, and sometimes that imposes an affirmative burden on people to behave a certain way (e.g. mandatory schooling). That's not all tyranny.
  - ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
    I understand the argument you are attempting to make, but you presuppose the masses are informed and always capable of making logical decisions which will not infringe upon the rights of the minority. Thankfully the Founders of Our Nation had the Foresight to protect its citizens from themselves they established a Republic. >“ It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” -James Madison Federalist Papers No 51 The Politicians of Our Nation Throw Around the Word Democracy to make the low information plebs feel as though the power rests with them, it is a charade. I don't mind the down votes if it means some of the users on the site have a better understanding of US civics. Edit: By the way your example of Mandatory Schooling could not be further from an example of a Democracy. Did you or the rest of the citizens of the US ever have a vote on that?
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago

zo1 11y ago

You must be confusing "natural rights" with the perverse definition we currently have of "rights", which are "positive" rather than "negative". Something as simple as freedom from forced labour is still not fully adhered to even in the US. Have a look at the Wikipedia page for some more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law