WoW! I got banned from FTL

[Dylboz]

"The media and public fears of a direct causal relation between crack and other crimes do not seem to be confirmed by empirical data," the U.S. Sentencing Commission noted in 1995. "Studies report that neither powder nor crack cocaine excite users to commit criminal acts and that the stereotype of a drug-crazed addict committing heinous crimes is not true for either form of cocaine."

Above is a refutation of your foundational premise, from the very government you trust so much. The basis for your position is fallacious. All arguments following from that flawed premise are therefore invalid. You are, in a word, wrong.

Even CRACK does not destroy a person's moral compass, nor does it incite them to violence or criminal activity they would not otherwise commit. The theft they stereotypically engage in is a direct result of prohibition, in that a positive drug test removes them from the general employee pool, even though they are not impaired all the time (a crack high lasts 15-20 minutes, and a smoker may wait up to 24 hours before feeling an intense withdrawal craving... still, a cigarette break is comparable, in that they typically last 10-15 minutes), also prohibition artificially supports prices, forcing addicts to pay 300 - 1000% more than a free market price for their intoxicants, and lastly, the black market necessarily drives them into criminal associations in order to access their supply.

[Dylboz]

I have no idea why I continue to play along with this guy, who thinks that me and my friends are "scum" (to quote him).

Caleb, I wholehartedly apologize to you and everyone here for calling you and your friends "scum".

Usually when I debate with people about this issue, the "for" side is not composed of marijuana smokers, but people who are arguing on the "for" side from a purely academic and philosophical point of view, so in most debates, I am able to say "marijuana users are scum" without attacking any parties in the debate. I had momentarily forgotten that that is not the case in this situation.

Although I do not agree with what you all are doing, that does not make it acceptable for me to call names, and for that I am sorry.

This is akin to saying, "I forgot there were some black folks here, usually when I am arguing in favor of slavery, I can say 'put them uppity niggers in chains!' without calling for the forced labor of any parties to the debate."

While I appreciate the effort, I have to say it's a pretty half-hearted apology. You clearly still think pot smokes are scum, you're just sorry you said so to their faces.

[Dylboz]

5) Do you believe that a group of people, pooling resources and acting together, can acquire rights that none of them possess? For instance, I don't personally have the right to murder you. Can I get together with a million of my closest friends and somehow acquire this right?  If so, please explain the mechanism and process by which these extra rights are acquired.

No I don't believe that.

Everything else you posted, not just in that reply, but anywhere you refer to drug or immigration laws, suggests otherwise. I wont call you a liar, though a less charitable man might, I'll just suggest you have not thoroughly considered the implications of your positions. As Ayn Rand used to say (and ironically, she should have taken her own advice), CHECK YOU PREMISES!

PS - Sorry for the triple post! 

[feralfae]

This is a question for Luke:
Dear Luke,
Who owns your body?  Who holds title to your body?  Who has the right to manage your body, including the food you eat, the beverages you drink and the miles you walk?
Use to be, prior to our Constitution and its precurosr, the Declaration, kings announced that they owned the bodies of other humans.  This gave kings a remarkable amount of control over the actions of other humans.  
So, who owns your body, and do you own any other person's body?  If you do own another person's body, to what extent?
ff

[Luke S]

"The media and public fears of a direct causal relation between crack and other crimes do not seem to be confirmed by empirical data," the U.S. Sentencing Commission noted in 1995. "Studies report that neither powder nor crack cocaine excite users to commit criminal acts and that the stereotype of a drug-crazed addict committing heinous crimes is not true for either form of cocaine."

Above is a refutation of your foundational premise, from the very government you trust so much. The basis for your position is fallacious. All arguments following from that flawed premise are therefore invalid. You are, in a word, wrong.

Did the US Sentencing Commission really say this? If so, was this statement published, or was this just something they said at a press conference or something?

[Tom Sawyer]

I pity the "Just say no" generations.
Luke thinks he is being reasonable. Son you are just ignorant and the ignorance has been turned into bigotry.

Francis Young Administative Law Judge for the DEA
"Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."

[Atlas]

Luke, suck it up and admit you're a freemarketeer. Quit beatin around the BUSH

[J’raxis 270145]

2) What should a person do if he believes a law to be unjust?  Is it possible for a law to be unjust? If so, please explain how a person should judge.

A law is unjust if it is in conflict with a higher law. For example, the puppet show law that Dave Ridley is going to break when he gets better from being sick is an unjust law, because puppet shows are protected by freedom of speech, just like movies are protected by freedom of speech. And the fact that he's getting paid for the puppet show doesn't take away his free speech protection, so the law is an unjust law.

The Michigan "no men seducing women" law that I was talking about earlier in another thread is an unjust law because it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, since it only makes it illegal for men to seduce women, and doesn't make it illegal for women to seduce men.

The Ohio "no killing flies within 160 feet of a church" law that I was talking about earlier on another thread is also an unjust law, since it violates the Establishment clause of the Constitution, because it only criminalizes killing flies next to churches. Not synagogues, not mosques, not anything else. That amounts to giving Christianity special protections that are not afforded to other religions, which violates the Establishment clause.

What if that law conflicts not with a higher law, but with morality? What if the First Amendment didn't exist: Would the puppeteering law suddenly no longer be something that one could legitimately resist? Would the law suddenly be just? Do we need to Establishment Clause to show us that "no killing flies within 160 feet of a church" is a bad law?

What would happen if the Constitution were amended (or just cleverly reinterpreted—this is, after all, how it's usually done nowadays) to permit statutes authorizing something like slavery or extermination camps? Are these now just, since there's no "higher law" that conflicts with them anymore?

*Note: Even if I were a NH citizen, I would not make a citizens' arrest on you or anyone else for doing this. I believe that a good rule of thumb for citizens' arrests is they should only be made if you are witnessing either a theft or a violent crime. Other arrests should be left up to the police.

Well, now. You seem to believe there's a distinction between crimes of aggression—the theft and violence, which you believe citizens may enforce—and other kinds of crimes, which should only be enforced by the police. What's the distinction here?

[Caleb]

Exactly. Your answer to #6 was particularly telling, because I asked for specific moral (not legal) justification for the action. You offered no moral answer, and only hinted at a legal justification.

These questions were designed to get you thinking about the moral foundation of laws. A law is meaningless. Hitler had laws that said Jews should be thrown in ovens. All a law is is a statement to this effect:  "If you do this, I will do this to you."  It has no moral significance. That's not to say that there is no moral justification behind it. The law could go like this, "If you murder someone else (a moral violation), I will put you in a cage for the rest of your life." Or it could just as easily read like this, "If you eat pop tarts (completely arbitrary), I will bop you on the nose."  A law, in and of itself, tells us nothing about morality. It only tells us about consequences to violations of social mores. And these mores could be moral imperatives, or they could be arbitrary.

That's why I wanted to dismiss the concept of laws, and speak about morality. I am interested in discerning whether your drug laws, (in particular) are moral or arbitrary. You acknowledge that you personally have no moral right to subject me to violence if I am smoking pot. You also acknowledge that a group of people cannot acquire rights that none of them possess.  Extrapolated properly, that would mean that in a society, no one would have such a right, and that is why you must appeal to the law and the legal foundation rather than any moral foundation to arrest me.  But any law that appeals to itself for its own legitimacy is by definition arbitrary.

[dalebert]

While I appreciate the effort, I have to say it's a pretty half-hearted apology. You clearly still think pot smokes are scum, you're just sorry you said so to their faces.

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. Thank you for expressing it so well.

[dalebert]

But any law that appeals to itself for its own legitimacy is by definition arbitrary.

There was an episode of the Plastic Man cartoon where he turns himself into a bowling ball, then picks himself up and bowls himself. Even as a kid and before I'd had any physics classes, I knew that was bullshit!

[srqrebel]

While I appreciate the effort, I have to say it's a pretty half-hearted apology. You clearly still think pot smokes are scum, you're just sorry you said so to their faces.

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. Thank you for expressing it so well.

I'm gonna have to disagree on this one. There is never a rational need to apologize for an opinion -- only for expressing one's opinions in such a way as to personally offend.

I happen to have a not-so-nice opinion of Luke right now, because of some of the irrational ideology he has expressed here. There is no rational need for me to feel guilty about holding that opinion of him, thus no need to apologize. But if I express that opinion to him as a personal attack, then I had better apologize if I want to keep up the dialogue.

I fully accept Luke's apology.

[Dylboz]

Did the US Sentencing Commission really say this? If so, was this statement published, or was this just something they said at a press conference or something?

http://www.ussc.gov/crack/exec.htm

There's the executive summary of the report they gave to Congress on the matter of mandatory minimums and the crack/powder cocaine disparity. I'm not sure if that quote is in there, but there is a wealth of information about the drug's effects and relationship to crime. You'll find that they say the vast majority of crimes associated with crack are retail drug sales related, meaning, they wouldn't exist without the black market. They also say in chapter 2, that there are no psychopharmacological murders or assaults that can be directly attributed to cocaine, but the drug for which the greatest number can be counted is ALCOHOL.

[srqrebel]

5) Do you believe that a group of people, pooling resources and acting together, can acquire rights that none of them possess? For instance, I don't personally have the right to murder you. Can I get together with a million of my closest friends and somehow acquire this right?  If so, please explain the mechanism and process by which these extra rights are acquired.

No I don't believe that.

You know, Luke, it seems that you keep dodging the heart of the issue we keep calling you on. It is not clear whether that is intentional on your part... I just know that I would really like to see you address this issue head on.

If you do not believe a "collective" of individuals can have special rights that override the rights of the individual, whence does the "State" ultimately derive its authority to act upon an individual if said individual does not voluntarily grant consent?

Th American State has not been around forever. The US Constitution has not been around forever. You seem to attribute the authority of the government to the Constitution (correct me if I'm wrong). Then where does the Constitution derive its authority, that it passes along to the government?

If I get together with a handful of my friends and we draft a Constitution of our own... would our Constitution likewise grant us the authority to impose it on our fellow human beings regardless of their informed consent? If not, what sets the US Constitution apart in that regard?

Please tell us what you consider to be the root source of authority.

[Free libertarian]

Exactly. Your answer to #6 was particularly telling, because I asked for specific moral (not legal) justification for the action. You offered no moral answer, and only hinted at a legal justification.

These questions were designed to get you thinking about the moral foundation of laws. A law is meaningless. Hitler had laws that said Jews should be thrown in ovens. All a law is is a statement to this effect:  "If you do this, I will do this to you."  It has no moral significance. That's not to say that there is no moral justification behind it. The law could go like this, "If you murder someone else (a moral violation), I will put you in a cage for the rest of your life." Or it could just as easily read like this, "If you eat pop tarts (completely arbitrary), I will bop you on the nose."  A law, in and of itself, tells us nothing about morality. It only tells us about consequences to violations of social mores. And these mores could be moral imperatives, or they could be arbitrary.

That's why I wanted to dismiss the concept of laws, and speak about morality. I am interested in discerning whether your drug laws, (in particular) are moral or arbitrary. You acknowledge that you personally have no moral right to subject me to violence if I am smoking pot. You also acknowledge that a group of people cannot acquire rights that none of them possess.  Extrapolated properly, that would mean that in a society, no one would have such a right, and that is why you must appeal to the law and the legal foundation rather than any moral foundation to arrest me.  But any law that appeals to itself for its own legitimacy is by definition arbitrary.

   Nice job explaining this...mind if I steal this and use it now and then?  I will always think differently of Pop Tarts hereafter too.