ParanoiA

Here's the Stossel article I was talking about titled "Keep Your Laws Off of My Body". And the data I mentioned earlier, addicts compared to responsible users, is apparently government provided. (I wish they would link this stuff though) Here's a link to Sullum's book on Amazon, which sounds interesting to me but I doubt I can get to it anytime soon.

Whew...for a minute there I wasn't sure if it was real or if it was the...herbs... Seriously, I am honored to be a pony freak.

Fine, then you should have no problem with prison sentences for floating stop signs. Hey, don't like prison? Then don't float stop signs, right? Prison for altering your consciousness with a drug that gives you the giggles and makes Benny Hill actually seem funny is utterly ridiculous. It's a punishment way beyond the scope of the crime - just like traffic violations. Even speeding twice the speed limit - a freaking WMD on the highway - won't get you prison. The argument works because it's something that shouldn't have been illegal in the first place since it caused no direct damage to anyone. That's why there's a huge black market for drugs and prostitution, but a relatively micro one for having people killed. Demand for drugs is high because people enjoy using them and they know it doesn't hurt others, thus the black market can flourish. Demand for hitmen is low because people usually don't enjoy murder by proxy and they know it hurts people so the black market cannot flourish. Sure it's there, but pales in comparison to the behemoth that is the drug trade. You create crime where you remove choice for a behavior in demand. Try outlawing food and see how quickly macaroni and cheese gangs patrol your block. This is a great point. To expand on that, as Stossell reported recently, this was pointed out in reference to police and hospital workers as well. The only examples of drugs they are going to see are horrible ones. Why would anyone get high and go the hospital to say they're ok? Police don't randomly stop at homes to see if anyone is getting high and not committing some other crime or killing themselves. The only exposure they're going to get are the problems - that's their job, problems. So of course they're going to come at this from a different kind of experience. Not worthy of dismissal mind you, of course, just worthy of gauging in context of the big picture. There are problems that I'm glossing over, so it's not like we're talking about Flinstones vitamins. They just pale in comparison to the poison that is alcohol and how it trumps marijuana in every category...except maybe short term memory. _____________________________________________________________________________ omgponies? Really? Who do I have to thank for such a cool forum title?

How does smoking pot ruin lives worse than imprisoning them? Ever tried to get a job after prison? How about after smoking pot? How do your wife and kids fare while you're in prison? I wonder how many single moms draining the welfare system have a pot dealing hubby in prison. Exactly how is smoking pot at home worse for your kids than you being in prison while they grow up? I don't think ruining people's lives with prison and other forms of incarceration remotely compare to the "damage" by smoking pot itself. The problems with drugs relate to their illegality - not problems themselves. Most of the violence, overwhemingly, is directly caused by it being illegal - fueling the black market. We have created drug dealers and pimps - they don't have a job if we don't create one for them. How many beer gangs do you see roaming the streets? How about the mafia wine gangs? See any drive-by shootings by cigarette dealers in your town? You have no right to regulate my consciousness. What's the problem with that? It's almost like there's a problem with everyone being satisfied. I thought that was part of the point of this country. Each of us can pursue happiness however we define it as long as it doesn't hurt others?

Hmm, I really don't know. On the one hand, I'd certainly fall into the category of people who wouldn't bother with the potentially blinding alcohol. But I know alpha males that would do it, rather obnoxiously I might add, to impress the party crowd. And I'd imagine price and image would have a lot to do with it. Here in Missouri (and probably everywhere for that matter) the grownups running the governments are just beside themselves about K2. They're shocked and disappointed they can't regulate our conciousness as K2 would effect it. But among pot users, K2 is just a legal version that isn't as potent as the real thing - which is true since it doesn't contain any THC, just synthetic cannabanoids (from what little I've read on it anyway). K2 would only replace the real thing if its potency trumped the real thing. And there's a spot for image building there. If people think the "safer" alternative isn't as potent or good as the more dangerous version of a given drug, then I don't think it's as attractive as we might wish it to be. I suspect it would be more important to produce safe versions that seriously give the dangerous ones a run for their money. Take "vaping" for instance. Vaporizing, ahem, herbs and stuff is much safer than burning them but I notice people are far more interested when they discover the intensity of "effects" when using this method. Being safer didn't really sell them as much as being "better". Anecdotal is all I got on this one. I'll bet there are some decent stats on this kind of thing in Holland. But I can't search for them here. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yeah I agree with this. I think the law really just nudges the mainstream overall opinion of a given thing because we, by and large, see the legal system and government as a legitimator. We interpret laws as "right" and "correct" behavior mandates. We're such sheeple. I don't believe people refrain from smoking pot because it's illegal. Rather, because it's illegal, society interprets this as pot is "wrong", and thus influences individuals to not want to smoke pot to begin with via society's label. So they poison themselves with alcochol and add to miserable stats that drug has to brag about, including death from overdose.

Oh I hear ya. This happens to me almost daily. What I always get is "yeah, well the <other team> did blah blah blah" - as if that's a retort to my initial criticism of one or the other. I mean, without spending a second of silence, they counter with some 'yeah-well-the-other-team' argument without even thinking or even pausing to consider that I may not be on either team. And of course, this pisses them off because then they can't use their canned arguments and oversimplified association labels to marginalize me. Well they do anyway, and it puts me on the defensive - having to defend yourself against baseless assumptions, particularly due to intellectual laziness, is just annoying as hell. Why do I have to prove I'm not a conservative just because someone else assumed I was?

That's probably true, ultimately. I guess I see them tied together so much it's hard to distinguish which is doing the most damage. Let me ask you this, do you support the decriminalization of all drugs, or just some more "harmless" ones like marijuana? I used to be of the mind that certain drugs needed to remain illegal. But I have found it hard to maintain that position when you see how the black market exploits abusers and addicts. The private sector legally would exploit them too, but it would be limited to their wallet. Drug dealers don't stop with your wallet. Also, as an aside, I've always wanted to know if drugs like heroine, meth and so forth would be cheap to make if the chemicals and manufacturing process were legal. I'm curious if criminalization is driving up their costs absurdly. I think with marijuana it would be cheaper to make, and the average person could do it on their own - but I've also noticed it remains fairly high priced in California. Not sure about Colorado. I don't know. A handful of republicans supported mandated health care coverage until Obama and the democrats jumped on board - or at least that's what Maddow said last night (well she said all republicans after using the association fallacy to indict them all - there's that PhD at work she's always bragging about). And this is the classic republican/conservative double standard issue. This is where they scramble to come up with excuses to abandon their supposed principles on individual liberty and seemingly forgeting all those appeals they made to social engineering. It will be interesting to see how they choose a side and what rhetoric they adopt.

Really I would like to see marijuana and prostitution both decriminalized, at least, across the entire union. Prostitution is probably more important since it involves breaking the black market's hold and subjugation of women; re-empowering them with the strength of the law, the way the rest of us get to enjoy our trade/labor rights when we sell ourselves by the hour. Although among the pros could be the reassembly of some family units, previously destroyed by prison for mom or dad, or both. But hey, I ain't bitchin'. I'm still not convinced Beck is a libertarian, but hey, we're all free to lie to ourselves I guess.

So then liberals are made up of people who are too young to know anything yet or too old to remember any of it?

Well, through persuasion, you bet but I don't agree with using legal devices. What if a republican congress tries to tax homosexual behaviors? Or tax black folks more for pork than others since they have more inherent heart problems? I don't think it wise to argue for a subjective behavior modification model empowered by legislation, even if it's just taxation. I'd rather see us not judge each other, we've already got way, way too much of that, and accept the limitation of our authority that individual freedom affords. Otherwise, you're not actually helping people. You're ruling them, right down to the basics of individual happiness. You're defining "quality of life" for them - you have to in order to make the argument that something is "bad" for someone. To be "bad", it has to run counter to their objectives for happiness - and if you are the one defining what's "bad", then you are defining their objectives for them. Oh, and thanks for the offer. I could probably cover something like, cheeseburger college. Or maybe tire rotation school.

It does, but that's why I don't agree with inviting ourselves to help people, and then reasoning that it gives us the auto-magic authority to subsequently invite ourselves into regulating their life. If we're going to insist on inviting ourselves to help these people, then we should accept their choices that got them there. I don't believe that my offering to pay for your kid's college gives me a right to tell him what classes to take - unless that's part of the condition prior to the agreement. Conditional help would be an appropriate angle to tie behavior to cost - but then that would defeat the purpose as well. I don't see how we can insert ourselves as their billpayer and use that to insert ourselves as their regulator. That sure is a slivery way to give ourselves authority over civil choices. Remember, it isn't help that's "applied" for, or even only applies to people receiving this help - it's taxed on to everyone who tans. Everyone who behaves as X. That's how sloppy artificial forces are. Like using a shotgun to kill a fly (where have I heard that before?)

Really? What about people who don't get cancer when tanning? what about people who don't get cancer from smoking cigarettes? This behavioral tax is only perfect if everyone had the exact same model of body. That's why the free market is better, because only people who actually get cancer treatment are the ones who should be paying for cancer treatment - not a blanket assumption that is wrong a significant percentage of the time. If people managed their health care costs like they do their groceries, and if insurance companies were treated like insurance companies, then they will have to pay for their own self generated health complications. This is being introduced because they have created the anomaly that requires it. By pooling everyone together, we have undermined usage sensitive expenditures, so we recreate them artificially with tax law. Law and interference that begets more law and interference.

I remember this study. I think there was a thread on it. But I think the bolded part supports my point in civil oppression by conservatives - traditionalism applied to social issues, which would retain and insist on existing inequalities. I'm not sure you'd find that so much in the economic issues. Exactly, primed and ready to make exceptions to previous promises. There's not a principle they can't get around. I say this, because it implies a specious notion that "flexible" thinking is good. Flexible thinking got the 3/5ths compromise in the face of "all men are created equal". That does make sense too. Or, at least it compliments my personal, anecdotal observations.

Is it possible to agree with everyone here? iNow is exactly right, a supported opinion is certainly of greater value than an unsupported one, where applicable. And most of the exceptions I've seen posted here sound exactly right to me as well. In terms of politics, we're generally arguing preferences and pointing out inconsistencies even though some of us make believe we've found absolute, objective truth. Ridicule is a powerful tool, but I think it can even be used with some measure of respect. Venomous ridicule, not so much. I'll admit it, I left some time ago after an exchange with iNow that caused a thread edit, which I felt was instigated by his overly emotional and insulting attitude. Then I resented him for it as I struggled to find a new political forum home. But, I needed to accept my choices as my choices, and to stop pretending as if iNow did this to me. That's victim psychology, and I'm no victim. I think it's important to remember what we are communicating. When we ridicule people, we are playing to our "base"; to the private cheers of our like minded peers. A betrayal to the predicated sincere engagement between posters. It's like being promised company on deck, only to find yourself isolated on the plank. It's self serving ego bullshit that ought to be embarassing considering how utterly shallow and pretentious it generally is. So, yeah, I got to stop doing that. iNow, I think it would do some good to take responsibility for your choices. "That's how I am" is romanticizing yourself. I suspect a personal admiration for your own methods. They're great for high fives from the fans, but they're trasparently cheap in the company of intellectual equals. So ask yourself, which is more important to you? Rock star or respected peer? Please don't take this as a judgement, as I'm guilty of all of the above. But I'm trying to break the illusion that there's merit to it. "I'm an asshole" was my copout all through my twenties - my wife remembers my I'm-an-asshole speech when we first met and we laugh about it. It was a sorry defense. It was a lie.

It's a plague... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/27/republicans-dispute-charges-stalling-judicial-nominees/ I have to ask...how does it feel to sound just like Fox news?

I don't think that's an even generally accurate description of the conservative ideology, at least not at present. Very generally speaking, conservatives tend to favor economic liberty while opposing the same scope of civil liberty, using flimsy, traditional appeals to work around the principles they used to justify their economic position. Contrast this to liberals who tend to favor civil liberty while opposing the same scope of economic liberty, also using flimsy, desparate logic to work around the principles they used to justify their civil position. Both ideologies make excuses to manufacture exceptions that neither side accepts from the other. Libertarians and statists don't respect the civil/economic partition that distinguish the conservative and liberal ideologies. Conservatism does change and evolve like anything else. Today's conservative is quite a bit different than say, the Taft era conservative. Neither ideology will lead to a collapse, in my opinion. They've been around in one form or another, codified in various philosophies in one degree or another for centuries. It's all about preference, which speaks to quality of life. It also depends on where you apply the ideology. I know people that believe in a libertarian federal government, while prefering a mixed local government. The conservative and liberal ideology (and statist) applied at the federal level destroys most state government diversity. This is why the states tend to be all the same these days; the US becoming more of a unitary state every year. Incidentally, a libertarian federal government allows for most ideologies to exist throughout the states, so each of us can live in the kind of society we want instead of beating each other about the head to do things 1 way, but the same is not true for conservative or liberal federal governments. I know you asked about conservative, but I thought it important to do so in context with the others. There is nothing inherently superior about any of them - well, other than libertarian of course

What the hell is that all about? Don't tell me the right wing forecasters that predicted subsequent behavior modification following the major government interjection into health care were right. Granted, we've had behavior modification through taxation since the founding, disgusting as it is, but this appears to be directly associated with the health care initiative - exactly as they've been saying will happen. The publicly paid health care system is ready to be used as the excuse to tax and legislate behaviors, which will lead to an even greater politicized mess of subjective judgment. Just wait until the neocons get power again. They'll claim a lack of belief in god causes medical issues, and raise your taxes for being an atheist...

Funny how the very first example on that list makes my earlier point for me, beautifully. So here, the lesson the author is taking, and bascule and others have presumably taken, is that republicans are worse and blah blah blah. Nowhere is it considered that maybe both are screwing the american people with "deem and pass" political cover. It's a chickenshit procedure, but when you're invested in this "game" of red and blue, all you can see is "well that red shirted guy did it even more!!" What a joke. I tried to read more, but they're just so stupid. They'll point to a republican, and then associate all republicans in their charge - the same crap this forum will shoot down in a heartbeat and run someone out on a rail for such carelessness. But TPM ragging on republicans doing it? Just fine. Even has standing. Whatever.

Those are just ridiculous. Well, except the zombie or cyborg Hitler one, we must be forward thinking here. But I don't understand this: I guess I don't get that. You can't vote Yea for an amendment and still pass the HC bill? Can't they vote Nay on banning smelling your own farts and Yea to deny child molesters access to Viagra and pass the HC Bill? I did find it kind of humorous watching CSPAN Sunday night as all this went down. I think I saw a republican argue with Jesse Jackson Jr on parliamentary procedure over a 10 second slot of time for about 15 minutes...fascinating.

Yeah, all that is a very fair analysis. I do get the compromise / objectionist dilemma and what you stand to lose and gain by it. I think in this case that the vote was close enough that neither party could have been said to blow it with a lack of compromise tactic. It's a calculated decision, and the democrats edged them out. And it's not over. Texas attorney general Greg Abbott, among many reported to be preparing for a judicial fight, has an interesting take since the Commerce Clause covers commerce already in existence - it does not give congress the power to "instigate a business transaction" - to forcibly initiate commerce. He is challenging the constitutionality of the bill on those grounds. Regardless of anyone's personal position on that point, it is possible he or someone else could win and therefore cancel the bill altogether. But had republicans compromised, the mandated insurance coverage possibly could have been a point for democrats to sacrifice - leaving us without the potential for an even more favorable Supreme Court ruling. Of course, they still could have compromised and possibly maneuvered around that mandate so that it still carried a possible unconstitutional mechanism for the SC to rule on - but of course, that would be even more irresponsible, and an insult to the office and their charge if not outright illegal. (Incidentally, Bush junior had no problem signing law that he thought very well could be unconstitutional as he counted on the court to make that decision. That's a disingenuous approach to the office - all branches have a duty to the constitution. If you want a reference, I'll get you one tomorrow. I forgot my book today.) So yeah, you're absolutely right. Had they compromised, they could have made it a better bill for all of us. But me, I'm playing for all the marbles and I'm happy they didn't compromise and I'm hoping the judiciary does the right thing.

Of course, you're right. I do agree with that. And I do not believe the credit/financial crisis was an example of people using credit as you describe. It's using it like money. And that's what our government is doing. The other elephant in the room to me, is how we can expect to have a period of "no need for credit" so that it gets paid back. I realize it doesn't work exactly like that, like it does in our private lives, but we can't keep borrowing money like that. So, are we really, seriously, under the impression that we're not going to rationalize even more spending in the coming years? We're suddenly just going to snap out of it, and stop it with the exploding spending, that no one is going to insist that we meet the demand of some crisis, using drama to circumvent responsibility? That's the question I have for those that use credit like this. What makes you think that today's exigencies, that you used to rationalize an exploding credit line, are limited to today only? In terms of government, since when does the congress just stay home for a few years while we pay things off? It's extremely childish to disregard the future like that. That's what immature, debt ridden poor folks do everyday.

And do you notice how childish it is? I know credit happy people like that - we have a country full of them - and their charge-anything-and-everything psychology appears to have spilled over into our government. It's as if the government is being run by the poor in our country - the people that rationalize short term gains with ever more long term consequences. And this SAME behavior is the theme we saw in the financial "crisis". It started when loans defaulted - when people couldn't keep up with their promises they made when extended credit by people that wanted to loan them multipe times their responsible value. This ridiculous amount of credit and debt is just so terribly immature. I'm beginning to wonder if credit isn't the devil. Lord knows, I have zero outstanding loans right now. My goal is to never borrow another dime. I have more money than I've ever had. My account hasn't gone negative ever since I paid off my last loan. I just don't have the persistent money problems that I've experienced my entire life. I have serious money in savings now - I've never had that. I grew up. And it's been terrific for our family. We have 3 old cars, all paid for. No, we don't have the latest and greatest laptops, and we don't have brand new autos in the garage, and we haven't fooled ourselves into believing we need credit cards - spending money to spend money in a different way - but we do have thousands in savings, and a checking account that we don't even need to monitor anymore, there's always plenty leftover. In my 38 years of life, I've never done so well. And not one dime in credit. I'm no longer poor. I had to ditch credit to get here.

But it's those specific changes that are extremely suspicious. Insurance? Seriously? We, the weirdo right, keep pointing out this terrible broken down product of insurance and most don't even attempt to defend but rather just point to some anecdotal example of a cancer patient being denied coverage after paying in for 15 years. That's not the level of fear the republicans have been using, but it's still fear created by a single example. When republicans do this, they are accused of ignoring rigorous data in favor of their personal experience and bias. Why is it ok for Obama to do this in a speech and get a standing ovation? Health Insurance isn't insurance anymore. It's that simple. There is no measured risk here. They cover everything. No one seems willing to face and deal with that problem. This is pooling, not insurance. And we don't need insurance companies to provide a pooling service - the profit is way to high for managing a freaking pooled monetary account. They are going to enjoy a lot of money, for the short term, and then could get choked out of existence competing against a government that doesn't need to turn a profit - depending on the mood of that government. And none of this cuts any costs, particularly when considering the rise in demand once people get covered by this joke of a fix. So these specific changes are better for people who aren't covered - and that's absolutely it. Nothing else. That's what we had to have ramrodded through the congress? That's why we need to go into even so much more debt, at such a hideous economic time, and risk the same exploding cost miscalculation that happened when medicare was passed? No, grown men and women are pretending like they're cutting costs and fixing something with mandated insurance coverage, and I find that extremely suspicious because it's so extremely stupid.

No, there is nothing new about this low you're seeing with the TV friendly salesmen that make up congress. The only thing new I'm seeing is this sudden expectation from yourself and a select few others that republicans should be democrats. Hypocrisy charges notwithstanding, the libertarians and conservatives are pleased with the republican performance. I hope they keep being the blockade for the socialistic ideas generated on the democrat side. It's not a good bill. It is an atrocity. Most of the factors that actually spike costs are not addressed at all, and would be far less contentious and far more effective, and the one really bad idea that spikes costs, middlemen, is invested in indefinitely. The scope of absolute stupidity is astounding. The democrats have been using fear to fool people into thinking we need massive government control over the health industry. This has rubbed me wrong from day one. Not that it's totally ok to have people running around sick without funds to manage it, but it's also not the crisis we want to make believe it is. Americans have a high standard of living, so much so that I think we've lost touch and perspective. I had a hunch, so I followed it. Preliminarily, I find this enlightening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt I know that's difficult to read, so maybe following the link would be best. Notice how the US tops the list. The great united states. The superpower of the world. The symbol of economic freedom and success. The "richest" (?) country in the world with arguably the highest standard of living - and yet we have borrowed more money to fix our "crises" than anyone else. Why do the people of the superpower of the world need to borrow so much damn money? For crying out loud, how much do these people need? Of course, I'm not blind. I'm actually impressed with the percentage of GDP - but only as compared to other countries. There are countries doing much worse, and countries doing much better. So why does the US top the list of external debt? Well that's a can of worms discussion right there that would never be resovled, I'm sure. But I believe it ultimately leads back to our spoiled nature. We see crisis where most other countries see status quo. I suspect that we've been so rich and doing so well for so long, we now have an unrealistic expectation on our standard of living, which isn't actually bad in my opinion, except that it's to the point now where it's unhealthy. We're borrowing and borrowing to deal with perceived crises, using the drama of the crises to justify irresponsible debt creation. This is the fear we've bought into, from both parties. The democrats are just the ones in charge at the moment. There are opportunities to cut costs in healthcare and therefore expand accessibility - but neither party was interested in dealing with them. And the democrats have bought wholesale into the middle man solution - even dope smokers know that middle men drive up costs.