I haven't been in the presence of marijuana since
The Kinks did the Felt Forum, so I keep up with the horticultural advances by reading
stuff like this:
Many Americans of a certain age will remember that in the 1970s, seedy homegrown pot was reviled for its raw, throat-burning quality. Now dope-smoking locavores steer clear of cheap, low- and mid-grade weed in favor of organically grown boutique strains. They speak of "presentation" and varieties so agreeably complex that "you inhale one flavor and exhale another." Just as in the vineyards of the Napa Valley a few miles to the north, complexities come from the soil, from the fruits of labor, from careful breeding. Suddenly, pot has terroir....
Terroir.
[Ed Rosenthal, a horticultural instructor at Oaksterdam University] says the cannabis world is now seeing a fourth breeding wave whose intent is to produce plants that are "tweaked to produce connoisseur highs."
At Harborside, Ramsay hands me a list of all of the clones he has received in recent months. The list runs to 222, and includes such choice varieties as Casey Jones... a sativa-rich hybrid that is "up, trippy"; Blue Cheese, indica-dominant and "highly euphoric" but "very functional"; and the sativa-heavy Purps, "giggly, blissful."...
Experts such as Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, say the high potency has transformed marijuana for many users into a drug that can induce psychosis and paranoia and increase addiction....
Does this transformation of marijuana make you think more highly of legalization — now that you can be a connoisseur? Or are you worried, because you don't know what it is anymore?
Posts
65 comments:
I see the usual suspects have dusted off the "this isn't the harmless pot you Baby Boomers grew up with" canard again.
I would just think about it as progress.
Haven't partaken in a long time. Tell me, do these new varieties still induce the same craving for pepperoni pizza?
"Does this transformation of marijuana make you think more highly of legalization — now that you can be a connoisseur? Or are you worried, because you don't know what it is anymore? "
Not at all.
The folly and destructiveness of prohibition has always disgusted me.
"But when the government arbitrarily decides which drugs to outlaw, it transforms a personal tragedy into a national disaster and turns a medical problem into a moral crusade." Milton Friedman.
No doubt the snob appeal will seduce some, but the whole idea this stuff should be legal is idiotic.
It wasn't until the useless idiots started peddling the whole "tune in, turn on, drop out" nonsense to the most brain-dead, arrogant part of the Boomer generation that any significant part of the American people had any desire to partake of it.
Revenant, at the risk of boring you with my uneducated opinion: Apparently these experts, both pro and con pot, agree with me, that today's pot isn't the same as what was smoked in the 60s and 70s.
In fact, they're about as dissimilar as today's corn is from corn in the 70s. But instead of higher yields and pest resistance, it's bred for potency, bud size, THC content.
Corn has to go through a gamut of tests before pigs can consume it. We don't have any idea whether modern pot is more or less harmful than past strains. Based on my admittedly limited experience, I'd guess that it's more addictive than ever, and is more likely to turn people into lazy goddamned hippies.
I discovered on a recent visit to Amsterdam that today's weed definitely is not that of 40 years ago. I didn't have a chance to sample the dozen or so varieties at hand, but what I did sample was much more powerful and quicker to set up the buzz and longer for it to fade.
My understanding (possibly mistaken) is that the Dutch weed is all hydroponically grown and the result of serious cross breeding.
I've no complaint about that whatsoever. It just takes a little adjustment in consumption patterns.
Pastafarian: I'm still looking for a solid study that shows pot to more addictive than, say, Coke--Coca Cola, that is.
The Connoisseur abides.
I don't understand why it's illegal. Seems like a silly waste of time and money spent fighting its use.
No doubt the snob appeal will seduce some, but the whole idea this stuff should be legal is idiotic.
Oh, of course. I mean, it was legal for all of human history up through the mid-20th century. Then we wisely banned it. Our drug problems have gotten so much *smaller* since then. It should be obvious to anyone that prohibition works.
Revenant, at the risk of boring you with my uneducated opinion
Too late.
There are no durable trends among the young. Rock music had more staying power than bell bottom trousers, but it is not the music of the current generation. The wish to become mellow and/or paranoic was a fad among the young people of a certain era, but there's no reason to believe that this kind of high will remain the preferred high among the youth of today. Indeed, I think fair minded people would agree that liquor and amphetamines are more closely attuned to the metabolism of young people. Rap goes with meth like bacon goes with eggs.....I think legalization plus its widespread use among pretentious douchebags will cause pot to fall out of favor with the young. And good riddance. Pot was to intoxicants as Ravi Shankur was to music.
You clowns that want to tell the rest of us what we can't grow in our gardens, kindly STFU.
I haven't been in the presence of marijuana since The Kinks did the Felt Forum
Reminds me of one of those hoary obligatory statements -- factually nebulous, yet categorically exculpatory -- you used to read in the autobiographies of those wishing to preserve their future political viability, while at the same time trying not to sound too square.
Sometimes when you know virtually nothing current about a subject it's best to just listen. I know, I know, it's hard.
I'd say it's more like Starbucks.
I'm not a boomer and I was never into weed as a young person, so this is all I really know, and yeah, it did make a difference in how I view it.
"This kind does this to your body, this kind does this to your mind, etc. etc." And it's all quality. And here's the area with the baked goods- just like Starbucks. I can feel like I'm having a heart attack after several espressos and no one seems to care.
Just think of the SSRI racket - how many people are on those who don't need them really, how many they have, and how many psychs keep monkeying and subtly adjusting the prescriptions. It's ridiculous. They don't even attempt therapy anymore.
Or as CR used to say, they don't want you to use your drugs, they want you to use *their* drugs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0V0Et2owbI
Pastafarian --
"Corn has to go through a gamut of tests before pigs can consume it."
Bullshit. You can go and buy corn feed at any feed store and then feed it to your pig. This feed can also be purchased from farmers growing seed their grandfather grew and never having been tested once along the way.
If, however, you are talking about genetically modified corn, you're being disingenuous by not mentioning that, as mj isn't being genetically modified.
So if California legalizes marijuana, then the terroirists have won?
Mr.Forward wrote:
ou clowns that want to tell the rest of us what we can't grow in our gardens, kindly STFU.
Funny you should mention that. I was watching a tv show today called The Hoarders, and it's about people who have an inability to thrown anything away, so have garbage literally piling up on the floor in all their rooms. In one case a woman was feeding cats in the neighborhood and became the cat lady. She had at least 30 cats in her house (she had been feeding strays and they came into her house to live) , and when they actually removed the cats it was closer to 70, and then they found about 30 carcasses of dead cats in the garage amidst all the refuse.
The reason it's an issue is because there is an ordinance in the city that you can only have 6 cats. You can apply for a permit to have up to 15 cats, or pets, but you need to show a reason why you should have so many. In this case, it got so bad neighbors had complained about it, and the city stepped in and was going to bring her up on animal cruelty charges if she didn't comply.
Now, is the city getting involved and telling her she can only have 6 cats and forcing her to clean up her mess (even though it was her house) an example of nanny statism or does the city have the right to tell her what she can do in her own house?
Should she be able to have 100 cats? Should she be able to have a pet alligator? Does the city have any right to tell you how many or what pets you can own, and justify it on the grounds of animal cruelty?
As far as growing stuff in my backyard, I want to grow anthrax. Any problems with that?
For the libertarians.
Mr.Forward wrote:
ou clowns that want to tell the rest of us what we can't grow in our gardens, kindly STFU.
Funny you should mention that. I was watching a tv show today called The Hoarders, and it's about people who have an inability to thrown anything away, so have garbage literally piling up on the floor in all their rooms. In one case a woman was feeding cats in the neighborhood and became the cat lady. She had at least 30 cats in her house (she had been feeding strays and they came into her house to live) , and when they actually removed the cats it was closer to 70, and then they found about 30 carcasses of dead cats in the garage amidst all the refuse.
The reason it's an issue is because there is an ordinance in the city that you can only have 6 cats. You can apply for a permit to have up to 15 cats, or pets, but you need to show a reason why you should have so many. In this case, it got so bad neighbors had complained about it, and the city stepped in and was going to bring her up on animal cruelty charges if she didn't comply.
Now, is the city getting involved and telling her she can only have 6 cats and forcing her to clean up her mess (even though it was her house) an example of nanny statism or does the city have the right to tell her what she can do in her own house?
Should she be able to have 100 cats? Should she be able to have a pet alligator? Does the city have any right to tell you how many or what pets you can own, and justify it on the grounds of animal cruelty?
As far as growing stuff in my backyard, I want to grow anthrax. Any problems with that?
Also, the garbage dump is too far away for me and I don't want to pay the city to pick up my garbage so I've started dumping all my garbage in my backyard. I go through a lot of waste, so the piles have gotten pretty big, but I have a big yard and it is my property so I think I have a right. Do I have said right?
For the libertarians.
Also, what is the stance on smoking pot in public? Should those who want to smoke force those who don't want to breathe in smoke to get a contact high or risk ashma?
Also, what is the stance on smoking pot in public? Should those who want to smoke force those who don't want to breathe in smoke to get a contact high or risk ashma?
There are already laws in place governing public smoking. Proposition 19 doesn't change them.
Reading some of these posts from people who think pot should remain illegal, I think the DARE program actually worked on some dull/normal impressionable minds. These same folks probably also believe, "duck and cover" will help them survive a nuclear attack.
I'm waiting for the fruit flavored shit at the 7-11 aimed at the 'tween market.
Then we'll know we are truly free...
Oligonicella said:
"Bullshit. You can go and buy corn feed at any feed store and then feed it to your pig."
and:
"mj isn't being genetically modified."
Of course, I wasn't referring to testing of each individual lot of feed. I meant that before Monsanto can release a new hybrid, it's had the shit tested out of it.
And yes, your mj has been genetically modified. Every time an organism is selectively bred, that's genetic modification. It might not be as sexy as what you see in the movies, but it results in things like dalmations and jumbo-size chicked eggs that didn't exist before that breeding was done.
So what's the result of all that selective breeding of pot for the last 40+ years? What new properties does it have?
Who knows; but it should certainly be legal. A bold position.
But what do I know. Oh, wait a minute -- the article links to genuine experts in the field, that agree that modern pot is not the same as pot of yesteryear.
The transformation of pot occurred when the U.S. Govt. sprayed the Mexican crop with Paraquat thus removing from the market a low grade, but quality, weed that made us laugh. And hungry. Upon the genius move by the Govt. the good people of Northern California and Hawaii went to work in their little green labs and emerged with a dope so strong, so expensive and so conversation stopping that the laughter stopped.
Revenant said: "Too late."
You know, in the last 200+ comment thread on this topic, the first 100 comments or so were all about no-knock raids, and how pot had to be legalized to stop those.
It was claimed that every single no-knock raid was a drug raid.
I linked to an article about a 7 year old girl who was killed in a no-knock raid to apprehend not a drug dealer, but a murderer. I pointed out that the only way to end no-knock raids was to, you know, end them, not just one of the things that precipitates them.
And that argument just went away, to be replaced with the next.
I suggested that modern pot was much stronger than pot in the past, and you derided me as ignorant, and boring, and that you wouldn't deign to respond to my drivel.
And here, we see actual experts in pot, confirming what I said.
The arguments just keep falling, but I guess it just bores you.
Ordinarily, Revenant, I consider you to be a great commenter. This topic reduces you to an economically conservative version of Ritzy Brassiere.
ndspinelli said: "...dull/normal impressionable minds."
Et tu, ndspinelli?
You know, guys, when you were reading all those comments from Ritzy and Jeremy, with their ad homs in place of rational argument...they weren't showing you how it should be done.
What is it about this topic that transforms ordinarily outstanding commenters into poo-flingers?
Hashish is hashish is hashish, and still so by any other name.
We as a society can only benefit from more psychosis and paranoia, right? Who wouldn't wish to see more of that among our fellow citizens? At least the state is out of the insane asylum business, so bedlam will now run the streets. Nothing can go wrong, right?
Well, since you mention me, let me just add this to the list of your uneducated opinions:
And yes, your mj has been genetically modified. Every time an organism is selectively bred, that's genetic modification.
No comment. Just wanted to point out another instance of you pulling something out of your ass in a weak attempt to make a point.
Hope the insults made you feel the lame (and apparently unsuccessful) attempt to reinforce a shallow camaraderie was worth it.
Sixty Grit prefers the state stay ass-deep in the prison construction and management service. With the highest population of incarcerated adults in the world, we can safely say that the "kinder, gentler" society envisioned by Bush and continued by Clinton never really panned out the way they led us to believe it would.
Ass deep is your dream, ritmo jungle boy.
I for one, prefer to build prisons and incarcerate criminals. That's a good thing, from my perspective.
So keep puffing and huffing, you will only improve your mind, right?
Ritzy said: "No comment."
Really? That's it? That's your comeback?
Withering.
Interesting that you'd take this opportunity to insult me and avoid the issue itself. You're actually demonstrating why I used you as an example of someone who uses this method of "argument". Maybe you're doing it on purpose.
Thanks for the support, Ritzy. You're OK.
For a pot-head.
Back to Hoarders. There was another episode with a guy who had junk in his yard that was so bad his neighbors complained. And he was faced with the decision of either cleaning up his yard or go to jail for 90 days.
In his yard he had like 19 cars, a school bus, washers and dryers tons of scrap metal. It was a big yard, obviously, but was jarring enough for people to make complaints about it and pass a littering ordinance.
Now, it's his stuff on his yard. Does that impact on anyone else? i.e. is the concept of a house being an eyesore an example of harming others, even though there is technically no harm. Or is bringing down property values of your neighbors property actually harm even if they have no say as to what you can put in your yard.
For the guy saying the state has no business telling you what to grow in your yard, could you see an instance where what you grow in your yard becomes so unruly that it impacts other peoples lives? Like it attracts flies or it smells. And would any attempt to regulate what you can put in your yard be an example of nanny statism?
Revenant wrote:
There are already laws in place governing public smoking. Proposition 19 doesn't change them.
Telling me that there is a law, doesn't address the point of whether you think there should be a law. There's also a law against pot being sold. So what?Is the law against smoking in public nanny statism? I know there are laws, but I also know you think that any attempt to curtail drug use is the state telling people what it can or can't do. ARe you on board with the nanny statism that says people can't smoke in public or is that similarly an example of the state overstepping it's bounds?
Are those people who do smoke pot in public violating the rights of others and should the state step in and pass a law protecting the rights of those who don't want to breathe in pot smoke? Where does your nanny statism begin and end?
I remember a bag of Guerrero I had in 1974. It was lemon yellow and bright green and it tasted liked apricots. Kind of speedy. It's been many years since I touched the stuff, but I can appreciate the qualities that attract the gourmet.
I for one, prefer to build prisons and incarcerate criminals. That's a good thing, from my perspective.
It sounds like we come from different perspectives, sixty old men. You must have closer contacts with more criminals than I do and hence, you look for ways to grow their numbers.
So, when do we melt the gold to make the crown you will wear as ruler of your prison-state?
You are all about seizing the wealth of others, jungle boy, I get that.
And yes, where I live there are many criminals and lots of crime. Unlike you, I like neither.
john said...
Tell me, do these new varieties still induce the same craving for pepperoni pizza?
I,too fell into the pizza-Cheetos-chili size school of munchies. Many others formed the Oreos-and-milk-crumb-donut-Froot Loops school. Anecdotally, I think the latter stayed liberal while the former wised up.
wv: dines-- weirdly appropriate
Telling me that there is a law, doesn't address the point of whether you think there should be a law.
Propose a law and I'll tell you if I support it.
Revenant wrote:
Telling me that there is a law, doesn't address the point of whether you think there should be a law.
Propose a law and I'll tell you if I support it
You said there was already a law. What about that law?
Or just the principle of the matter. Drug use is just a personal choice and any interference is govt intrusion, and nanny statism. Is govt overstepping it's bounds in passing laws that make smoking pot in public illegal?
You are all about seizing the wealth of others, jungle boy, I get that.
And you of course are all about bankrupting the nation. I get that, too.
And yes, where I live there are many criminals and lots of crime.
This explains a lot. For a guy who thinks he knows about wealth, you sure don't seem to have enough of it to vote with your feet. Unless you like living with so many criminals and so much crime.
Unlike you, I like neither.
I don't like you now, do I?
You said there was already a law. What about that law?
I think that it is a flagrant violation of property rights, but as flagrant violations of property rights go it is one of the more pleasant ones.
Is govt overstepping it's bounds in passing laws that make smoking pot in public illegal?
Define "in public". Do you mean "on government property", or do you mean "around other people"?
Revenant wrote
You said there was already a law. What about that law?
I think that it is a flagrant violation of property rights, but as flagrant violations of property rights go it is one of the more pleasant ones.
Is govt overstepping it's bounds in passing laws that make smoking pot in public illegal?
Define "in public". Do you mean "on government property", or do you mean "around other people"?
Around other people, but I'm assuming it would also apply to goverment property.
Around other people, but I'm assuming it would also apply to goverment property.
Then yes, government is overstepping its bounds; it has forbidden people from allowing smoking on their own property.
How about in a public place where it's shared property, or how about if you are smoking at a club?
Or for example at a concert where there are no rules posted about not smoking but where those who don't smoke aren't told that smoking may occur?
How about in a public place where it's shared property, or how about if you are smoking at a club?
I already answered that question.
Revenant wrote:
There are already laws in place governing public smoking. Proposition 19 doesn't change them.
Ok, in public places, is govt or society overstepping it's bounds.
Also, leave aside smoking. How about anything done in your house. How about an ordinance that limits the number of cats you can have in your house, or an ordinance that says you can't have a pet alligator.
I don't see the justification for restrictions on animal ownership, provided the owner is liable for whatever harm the animals might do.
Revenant wrote:
I don't see the justification for restrictions on animal ownership, provided the owner is liable for whatever harm the animals might do.
How about a dog fighting ring? Or how about if you have so many animals that, like the cat lad in Hoarders they literally find 30 carcasses amidst the debris of dead animals because she has no idea how many cats are in her house. So it's not what they to do anybody but the damage that gets inflicted on them because of your living conditions. Or how about if I take in stray dogs so I can eat them?
Or suppose you have a lion living in your backyard tied to a tree and it does get out and mauls somebody. Sure you're liable, but shoulnd't you have not had a lion in your backyard to begin with?
Was there some part of "I don't see the justification for restrictions on animal ownership, provided the owner is liable for whatever harm the animals might do" that wasn't clear?
Ok, then define "harm". Is excessive noise emanating from your house harm? Is noxious smells harm? Do bugs coming from the piles of garbage on your lawn constitute harm? Does lowering property values constitute harm?
Also in regards to the animals? what about the harm that the owner might do to the animals? Can cops step in for that or only when the animals rip a neighbors face off?
Ok, then define "harm".
Physical or mental damage.
Is excessive noise emanating from your house harm? Is noxious smells harm? Do bugs coming from the piles of garbage on your lawn constitute harm?
Sometimes. That's what civil court is for. My neighbor, for example, has bird feeders, which has the side effect of birds crapping all over my deck. Harm? Eh, maybe.
Does lowering property values constitute harm?
No. Property values are set by the market. I can't lower your property values and you can't demonstrate that I did.
Also in regards to the animals?
Animals have no rights.
Now, I think seven consecutive posts of you grilling me without any apparent purpose or end in mind is sufficient. Your turn to answer a few questions:
Is there any aspect of your life that isn't the government's business to regulate? Why or why not? If it is permissible to jail people for harm they haven't done yet, who among us doesn't deserve prison time? Is there such a thing as a problem that cannot be solved by the government? Is there such a thing as a a problem that *should* not be solved by the government?
Revenant wrote:
Animals have no rights.
Now, I think seven consecutive posts of you grilling me without any apparent purpose or end in mind is sufficient. Your turn to answer a few questions:
Is there any aspect of your life that isn't the government's business to regulate? Why or why not? If it is permissible to jail people for harm they haven't done yet, who among us doesn't deserve prison time? Is there such a thing as a problem that cannot be solved by the government? Is there such a thing as a a problem that *should* not be solved by the government?
Sure there are, but you're arguing that government apparently can't regulate your business or home in any way. Has america ever been like this?
I'd just as simply ask you is that such a problem that should be solved by govt.
However, libertarians are not living on an island but in a community with other people. As such the community makes the rules. Yes, you have personal property rights, but not if you have elephants in your back yard or are growing things that are harmful, especially to the neighborhood. There are rules in place for how high people can build their houses and whether the tree in their yard can go over into the neighbors yards, because it isn't simply an issue of person rights but competing rights. Your right to do something, even in your house is not an absolute right if it competes with my rights. Even if you can't immediately see where the competition is.
Now, SHOULD the county or state or city or federal govt restrict or allow a particular thing is another question. And here I might agree or disagree. For example, Bloomberg should not be telling restaurants they need to cook with non trans fats. But govt should be involved in making sure that meat is inspected so that people don't get sick using it. The absolute you believe in has never been the case here, and as such we've always been a nanny state.
IF the fight is over a particular govt encroachment then you could or could not agree on the encroachment. But the idea that govt cannot encroach when we live in states which have govts and in communities with neighbors and shared rules is ludicrous.
And if you think animals don't have rights set up a dog fighting ring in your backyard and see what happens, even if it's on your personal property. Tell the judge that you have the absolute right to do whatever you want in your house no matter how outlandish and that animals have no rights and see how far that gets you.
I asked you questions. Take your time, but I expect you to answer them if you want to be taken seriously. Any fool can mock another man's philosophy, but a willingness to defend his own shows courage of convictions.
1. Is there any aspect of your life that isn't the government's business to regulate? Why or why not?
2. If it is permissible to jail people for harm they haven't done yet, who among us doesn't deserve prison time?
3. Is there such a thing as a problem that cannot be solved by the government?
4. Is there such a thing as a a problem that *should* not be solved by the government?
Take your time, and save the self-righteous speeches for someone who hasn't heard it all before.
you're arguing that government apparently can't regulate your business or home in any way.
No, I'm not. If you're going to pepper me with questions you could at least pay attention when I answer.
The government has millions of armed men working for it. Obviously it CAN do whatever it wants to me. I'm discussing what it is right for it to do -- namely, to punish those who harm others and force them to make restitution. You, and people like you, favor punishing those who have done no harm to anyone else, and justify this by assuring us that it was only a matter of time before your victims hurt someone. I'm asking you to explain what limits you're placing on this strategy. For example, if a man has one alcoholic drink, can we take his children away? Alcohol consumption is more strongly correlated with child abuse than any other factor, after all.
Bloomberg should not be telling restaurants they need to cook with non trans fats.
Why not? The same logic that applies to banning drugs applies to banning trans-fats; both inflict harm on "society" for the sake of individual pleasure. Trans-fats don't even have the medical uses that, e.g., marijuana or MDMA have.
And if you think animals don't have rights set up a dog fighting ring in your backyard and see what happens, even if it's on your personal property.
I see your argument has devolved to "might makes right". It usually does with your sort.
Revenant wrote:
Animals have no rights.
Now, I think seven consecutive posts of you grilling me without any apparent purpose or end in mind is sufficient. Your turn to answer a few questions:
Is there any aspect of your life that isn't the government's business to regulate? Why or why not? If it is permissible to jail people for harm they haven't done yet, who among us doesn't deserve prison time? Is there such a thing as a problem that cannot be solved by the government? Is there such a thing as a a problem that *should* not be solved by the government?
Well right off the bat I could make an argument that dog fighting hurts dogs, so there's harm. Now you say that animals have no rights, but does that mean you can torture your dogs whenever you want? So the question is harm. And harm is not simply or always physical harm. Harm is legislated. If there is no stop sign at an intersection and someone drives through it and people get killed they are harmed. Therefore someone steps forward and says we need a stop sign here. This is legislated in govt. and if people agree with it then a stop sign is put there.
Not everyone agrees with the stop sign, but that's how stuff is legislated.
As to someone losing their kids if they're alcoholics. If they have one drink obviously not. But if a social worker is called to their house, it's probable that there is a problem that has to be addressed and the child MAY be in an unsafe environment which can or does produce harm to that child. If for example the social worker comes to the house because there are allegations that the mother is unfit and sees the kid with cigarette burns on his arm or sees the kid lying in feces with the mother totally knocked out drunk, there is harm there. So the social worker would probably take the kid out of the home. Are you ok with that?
As to trans fats, it's dumb because everyone has to eat and cooking involves using fats and oils. Replacing one oil with another will only produce moderate benefits and may reduce the quality of the taste. And someone eating one big mac is not going to go from skinny to fat overnight. Big Macs are not addictive and you can always not eat a big mac.
But in certain cases govt should be involved. You have the absolute view that govt can never be involved. Aren't you for the states over the federal govt? Do states not make rules that the states have to live by? Somebody has to. So then if those rules are not ones you like it's nanny statism and intrusion by the govt. I would say I'm for some state intrusion and against some state intrusion and those I'm against , I'm against. But not a blanket, the state or federal govt can never intrude on our lives in any way unless we harm someone (well, harm can be interepreted in many ways, civil disorder could be harm, therefore the state can arrest you if you're creating civil disorder, drunk and disorderly is a law so states can arrest you if you're a drunk), so if the state determines that what you're doing is harmful then the state steps in.
Let me know when you plan to answer those questions. After you're done with that I'll be happy to explain why banning harm to non-humans is logically inconsistent.
1. Is there any aspect of your life that isn't the government's business to regulate? Why or why not?
You'd have to give me some examples of ways the govt regulates your life and then see if I agree with them. I'd say you should have the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, but within those I can already see ways in which govt can restrict behavior.
2. If it is permissible to jail people for harm they haven't done yet, who among us doesn't deserve prison time?
Who is being jailed for harm they haven't done yet? And how are you defining that harm? Is what you are being jailed for against the law? If not, then noone should be putting you in jail, but if so, then the issue is with the specific law.
3. Is there such a thing as a problem that cannot be solved by the government?
There are things that govt is better and worse at solving and somethings that should be resolved by govt. There are also things that can't be solved, but which still have to be addressed by somebody, even though they aren't solveable.
4. Is there such a thing as a a problem that *should* not be solved by the government?
Everything is tied into govt. If you say govt are you talking about things against the law? The courts are govt. Building codes are govt. Taxes on transactions involves govt. Again, it boils down to individual laws and are those right or wrong. I can't make a blanket statement that a problem could never be addressed by govt, because for all I know govt is involved in it somehow.
Revenant wrote:
Obviously it CAN do whatever it wants to me. I'm discussing what it is right for it to do -- namely, to punish those who harm others and force them to make restitution. You, and people like you, favor punishing those who have done no harm to anyone else, and justify this by assuring us that it was only a matter of time before your victims hurt someone.
Except you seem to think that you can define harm and that as long as you don't think it's harmful no one is affected. Can't govt define harm? All you're arguing is that the thing for which the govt views as harmful is not in fact harmful. But you don't think killing dogs is harmful, so were anyone to prevent you from doing so is obviously a nanny stater preventing you from your freedoms. Govt is not some entity removed from people. We're governed by the people. So people have a say as to laws they want passed in their communities. Which you may agree or disagree with.
I agree with permits for example. Yes you have a right to own property, but if you live in a community of small houses you may not have the right to build a 30 story skyscraper. You say no harm is caused by it, but plenty of people might say it blocks their view, is an eyesore etc. And the state will determine whether such a building can be built. It's a restriction on absolute freedom but a necessary one. Now, perhaps the county is overzealous with what they allow or don't allow and that can be addressed by dealing with the county. But I reject the idea that the county can't make such determinations or that it's nanny statism.
Suppose I wanted to make a meth lab in my house. Right off the bat it's a fire hazard. Two the fumes will probably get out of my house and affect other people down the block. So I already have the potential to harm others if I'm the least bit careless. aware of the harm that is being done to others if you're in one place and they're somewhere else?
Think of actions as causing a ripple. You're not even going to possibly recognize the potential harm that could be caused by your actions and others may be harmed and not realize that you did it. for example, spreading of diseases. It doesn't mean no harm was commited, only that harm is not necessarily a one to one correspondence. If you have an affair, you can harm the spouse and family of the person you're having an affair with. It doesn't mean that it should be made llegal, but it also doesn't mean that no harm was done. Harm is relative and can be defined in many ways, some of which you haven't thought of when commiting an act.
Post a Comment