4 ms·

The point is that (as I understand it, which may not be that well) folks on that side tend to frame this fundamentally differently than you do. They don't view

by Steuard 12y ago

The point is that (as I understand it, which may not be that well) folks on that side tend to frame this fundamentally differently than you do. They don't view a system of laws as an evolving structure to balance rights and harms, they view the legal code as a formal statement of society's shared moral standards. So if drug use is considered immoral (which, keep in mind, has been the standard mainstream message since before almost all of us were born), that philosophy would imply that society has a moral duty to declare that publicly and to punish those who practice or promote immorality. (And naturally, to address your last point, violence done by the societally approved defenders of morality (i.e. the police) is more acceptable than violence done by people actively breaking the rules and thus the common moral code.) I won't swear that I have any of that exactly right, but it's the sense that I've gotten from many conversations and articles about this sort of thing. I pretty strongly disagree with their premise about the purpose of laws, but within their framework I think their behavior is reasonably sensible.

kristofferR 12y ago
You're forgetting alcohol. You can't argue that society considers drug use immoral when the drug alcohol is legal and widely used. Sure, it's a legal drug, but it's certainly a drug. If it's the illegality of the other drugs that makes society consider it immoral then that's a completely irrational circular argument. "Illegal drugs are bad because they are illegal, therefore they are immoral and that's why they should be illegal" is basically what they think, without realizing it. It's not "reasonably sensible within their framework" at all, it's insane.
- rrhyne 12y ago
  Many states try to heavily regulate alcohol. Where and when you can buy it is often frustration and varies from state to state.
- Natsu 12y ago
  > You're forgetting alcohol. You can't argue that society considers drug use immoral when the drug alcohol is legal and widely used. And you're forgetting that they did, in fact, try to ban it for those very reasons...
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    Good ole' 18th amendment.
  - beedogs 12y ago
    ...and that they learned absolutely nothing from that stupid little adventure.
    - greeneggs 12y ago
      People aren't stupid. They learned from Prohibition that it is hard to ban a drug once it is legal and established. Hence the reluctance now to legalize marijuana. If it turns out to be a mistake, it will be hard to roll it back. That seems like an honest and fair argument to me, even if one might disagree.
      - biehl 12y ago
        But it is not the argument one usually hears from probihitionists...
        TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
        Let's not forget that jails and security are a business, and the War on Drugs has been extremely good for that business. The possibility exists that the moral posturing around drugs has sometimes been a cover for less noble aims. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
        Natsu 12y ago
        That came after, not before. Given that I've heard no one defend those heinous crimes, I find that as lacking an explanation as the silly notions that scientists are advocating climate change because they expect to get grant money.
- ubiquit 12y ago
  When you subscribe to the framework that the laws should reflect moral values, inevitably your law reflects your religion. The law's stance that alcohol is okay is silly to an empiricist, but not surprising.
- thomasfl 12y ago
  ...and coffee! Coffee is the elephant in the room. Caffeine is the worlds the world's most widely consumed psychoactive drug. It doesn't cause much harm because it's normally used in low doses. I admit I am addicted to the stuff, and find it hard to quit.
- Steuard 12y ago
  Again, you're basing this on a rational assessment of the different drugs in question. That's just not the mindset that we're talking about here. When you grow up hearing your parents and your preachers and your teachers all telling you that alcohol is okay in moderation (for adults) but that using other drugs is wrong (and thus illegal), that can have a real impact in establishing your moral compass for those issues. Those influences are pretty much the defining source of your community's norms and traditions. So if you're the sort of person whose inclination or upbringing leads you to strongly honor your elders and their ideals, it's not a matter of "irrational circular argument". It's not even a matter of "argument" at all: proper morals and laws aren't based on reason, but on received wisdom. In this view, Moses wasn't supposed to ask, "Why not covet my neighbor's house?" It's enough to simply be told what is wrong and what's not. Once again, I personally do not think that way, and I'm sure that I'm misrepresenting the perspective of folks who do in multiple ways. But my point here is simply to explain why arguing about these issues based on rational consistency or benefit/harm calculations is so often unproductive.
  - kristofferR 12y ago
    I agree with you that many people think that way. Or more accurately = don't think. > But my point here is simply to explain why arguing about these issues based on rational consistency or benefit/harm calculations is so often unproductive. What else can the proponents of change do? How can you change the thinking of people with a framework based on not thinking? Are you suggesting that irrational arguments would be more effective?
whiddershins 12y ago
This idea was well articulated by Hobbes, and in some senses, Legal Positivism. The thing is, there are some great refutations out there, Rousseau and Locke and a bunch of people since then. The US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence all draw from these refutations - in essence asserting that humans have certain inalienable rights which legislation should not infringe upon. What weirds me out is that so few people seem to reference those ideas at all ... they merely articulate the position you detailed above, or some variant of it ... it is to my mind a fairly primitive world view and even otherwise intelligent and educated people seem to have no awareness of why it might not be a good idea to base government on positivist principle.

by Steuard 12y ago

kristofferR 12y ago

You're forgetting alcohol. You can't argue that society considers drug use immoral when the drug alcohol is legal and widely used. Sure, it's a legal drug, but it's certainly a drug. If it's the illegality of the other drugs that makes society consider it immoral then that's a completely irrational circular argument. "Illegal drugs are bad because they are illegal, therefore they are immoral and that's why they should be illegal" is basically what they think, without realizing it. It's not "reasonably sensible within their framework" at all, it's insane.

rrhyne 12y ago
Many states try to heavily regulate alcohol. Where and when you can buy it is often frustration and varies from state to state.
Natsu 12y ago
> You're forgetting alcohol. You can't argue that society considers drug use immoral when the drug alcohol is legal and widely used. And you're forgetting that they did, in fact, try to ban it for those very reasons...
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  Good ole' 18th amendment.
- beedogs 12y ago
  ...and that they learned absolutely nothing from that stupid little adventure.
  - greeneggs 12y ago
    People aren't stupid. They learned from Prohibition that it is hard to ban a drug once it is legal and established. Hence the reluctance now to legalize marijuana. If it turns out to be a mistake, it will be hard to roll it back. That seems like an honest and fair argument to me, even if one might disagree.
    - biehl 12y ago
      But it is not the argument one usually hears from probihitionists...
      - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
        Let's not forget that jails and security are a business, and the War on Drugs has been extremely good for that business. The possibility exists that the moral posturing around drugs has sometimes been a cover for less noble aims. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
        Natsu 12y ago
        That came after, not before. Given that I've heard no one defend those heinous crimes, I find that as lacking an explanation as the silly notions that scientists are advocating climate change because they expect to get grant money.
ubiquit 12y ago
When you subscribe to the framework that the laws should reflect moral values, inevitably your law reflects your religion. The law's stance that alcohol is okay is silly to an empiricist, but not surprising.
thomasfl 12y ago
...and coffee! Coffee is the elephant in the room. Caffeine is the worlds the world's most widely consumed psychoactive drug. It doesn't cause much harm because it's normally used in low doses. I admit I am addicted to the stuff, and find it hard to quit.
Steuard 12y ago
Again, you're basing this on a rational assessment of the different drugs in question. That's just not the mindset that we're talking about here. When you grow up hearing your parents and your preachers and your teachers all telling you that alcohol is okay in moderation (for adults) but that using other drugs is wrong (and thus illegal), that can have a real impact in establishing your moral compass for those issues. Those influences are pretty much the defining source of your community's norms and traditions. So if you're the sort of person whose inclination or upbringing leads you to strongly honor your elders and their ideals, it's not a matter of "irrational circular argument". It's not even a matter of "argument" at all: proper morals and laws aren't based on reason, but on received wisdom. In this view, Moses wasn't supposed to ask, "Why not covet my neighbor's house?" It's enough to simply be told what is wrong and what's not. Once again, I personally do not think that way, and I'm sure that I'm misrepresenting the perspective of folks who do in multiple ways. But my point here is simply to explain why arguing about these issues based on rational consistency or benefit/harm calculations is so often unproductive.
- kristofferR 12y ago
  I agree with you that many people think that way. Or more accurately = don't think. > But my point here is simply to explain why arguing about these issues based on rational consistency or benefit/harm calculations is so often unproductive. What else can the proponents of change do? How can you change the thinking of people with a framework based on not thinking? Are you suggesting that irrational arguments would be more effective?

whiddershins 12y ago

This idea was well articulated by Hobbes, and in some senses, Legal Positivism. The thing is, there are some great refutations out there, Rousseau and Locke and a bunch of people since then. The US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence all draw from these refutations - in essence asserting that humans have certain inalienable rights which legislation should not infringe upon. What weirds me out is that so few people seem to reference those ideas at all ... they merely articulate the position you detailed above, or some variant of it ... it is to my mind a fairly primitive world view and even otherwise intelligent and educated people seem to have no awareness of why it might not be a good idea to base government on positivist principle.