3 ms·

I think the point was that seatbelt laws are relatively unoffensive and yet they still restrict rights, not necessarily that they're unjustified. They started

by delecti 12y ago

I think the point was that seatbelt laws are relatively unoffensive and yet they still restrict rights, not necessarily that they're unjustified. They started with "The burden of proof should be on the people who want to restrict rights", and I think it's safe to say that the burden of proof has been met with regards to seatbelt laws, for exactly the reasons you specified.

Swizec 12y ago
I just wanted to point it out because I know too many people who have problems with seatbelts. But more in point with weed, I wonder whether we're going to find out if we need those laws or not. The question, in my opinion, isn't so much whether banning weed is bad, but how life damaging is the punishment vs. the thing you're preventing. Being arrested and put in jail for a few years can damage someone's life a lot more than smoking a joint every day for a few years. But at the same time, I have friends who have smoked almost every day for ten years and they have gotten noticeably dumber. Most of them ended up quitting when they realised just how damaging inhaling burning plant matter was for them. So maybe what we need isn't the end of prohibition, but milder prohibition? shrug
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  What we need to do is treat drug addiction as a health problem, not a crime. That way, people get accurate information about the risks and can seek help if they want to change their behavior without the risk of being thrown in a box for a few years and not given any help at all. That way, people can get access to cleanly made and refined substances, which mitigates many of the health impacts which stem from chemicals left from processing or extraneous substances in the drugs (eg, plant matter in your weed). We've already tried what we're trying with weed with alcohol - and it was a completely and total failure. People who like altered states of consciousness aren't going to listen to being told no, and what we get instead of legal providers and healthcare professionals is gangsters and incarceration. Prohibition is a failed policy every time we've tried it. Repurpose the funds to cover the health impact of the legalization, and we're all better off.
  - girvo 12y ago
    Despite how backward Queensland is when it comes to our laws, the support offered for heroin addicts is quite amazing. Suboxone treatment costing $40 a fortnight instead of thousands per month, a 24 hour free needles exchange (next to the police headquarters funnily enough, but they leave you alone), amazing counselling services. Hell, they've just started distributing Narcan to regular people, so you can stop an overdose instantly. I've always found it quite amazing how much they do to support addicts, and it's an excellent thing.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> "I think the point was that seatbelt laws are relatively unoffensive and yet they still restrict rights, not necessarily that they're unjustified." Is this an American thing? How can anyone think a law requiring seatbelts is restricting your rights. I also get the impression from comments in this thread that there are people who don't want to wear them. Why?
- epmatsw 12y ago
  Me: "I don't want to do this." Government: "Do it, or get punished." A lot of people are uncomfortable with that interaction, especially when there's no perceived benefit. In the case of seatbelts, a lot of people (particularly women due to different body shapes) find them very uncomfortable. Which is a dumb reason to not wear one, but eh.

by delecti 12y ago

Swizec 12y ago

I just wanted to point it out because I know too many people who have problems with seatbelts. But more in point with weed, I wonder whether we're going to find out if we need those laws or not. The question, in my opinion, isn't so much whether banning weed is bad, but how life damaging is the punishment vs. the thing you're preventing. Being arrested and put in jail for a few years can damage someone's life a lot more than smoking a joint every day for a few years. But at the same time, I have friends who have smoked almost every day for ten years and they have gotten noticeably dumber. Most of them ended up quitting when they realised just how damaging inhaling burning plant matter was for them. So maybe what we need isn't the end of prohibition, but milder prohibition? shrug

ObviousScience 12y ago
What we need to do is treat drug addiction as a health problem, not a crime. That way, people get accurate information about the risks and can seek help if they want to change their behavior without the risk of being thrown in a box for a few years and not given any help at all. That way, people can get access to cleanly made and refined substances, which mitigates many of the health impacts which stem from chemicals left from processing or extraneous substances in the drugs (eg, plant matter in your weed). We've already tried what we're trying with weed with alcohol - and it was a completely and total failure. People who like altered states of consciousness aren't going to listen to being told no, and what we get instead of legal providers and healthcare professionals is gangsters and incarceration. Prohibition is a failed policy every time we've tried it. Repurpose the funds to cover the health impact of the legalization, and we're all better off.
- girvo 12y ago
  Despite how backward Queensland is when it comes to our laws, the support offered for heroin addicts is quite amazing. Suboxone treatment costing $40 a fortnight instead of thousands per month, a 24 hour free needles exchange (next to the police headquarters funnily enough, but they leave you alone), amazing counselling services. Hell, they've just started distributing Narcan to regular people, so you can stop an overdose instantly. I've always found it quite amazing how much they do to support addicts, and it's an excellent thing.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

>> "I think the point was that seatbelt laws are relatively unoffensive and yet they still restrict rights, not necessarily that they're unjustified." Is this an American thing? How can anyone think a law requiring seatbelts is restricting your rights. I also get the impression from comments in this thread that there are people who don't want to wear them. Why?

epmatsw 12y ago
Me: "I don't want to do this." Government: "Do it, or get punished." A lot of people are uncomfortable with that interaction, especially when there's no perceived benefit. In the case of seatbelts, a lot of people (particularly women due to different body shapes) find them very uncomfortable. Which is a dumb reason to not wear one, but eh.