Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Drugs in the FSP  (Read 45502 times)

The Plano Texan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #75 on: October 09, 2003, 01:35:54 pm »

Quote
If they kill themself?  That's suicide.  

Unless your pulling the trigger how is that your fault?  
Wouldn't have happened if I hadn't caused it.
Logged

Aleuicius

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #76 on: October 09, 2003, 02:15:12 pm »

quote: It's OK to walk down the street firing off a machine gun as long as no one has been hit?

    This is seriously reckless behavior - and obviously so - and intervention is definitely called for.

quote: It's OK to walk down the street juggling a couple of vials of smallpox and as long as you don't drop one and it breaks open?

    While this can be quite serious, the vials may contain nothing at all. What has happened to justify intervention - other than stepping up and asking what's in the vials? Then things may change.
 
   A driver weaving all over the road presents an obvious danger that justifies intervention regardless of the reason (cell phone, stereo, kids, dogs, dope,...). If another driver has imbibed, but weaves not at all, where is the justification? Can we allow intervention without cause - just unfounded suspicions? I surely hope not.
  When a driver is stopped for cause (weaving, holding down a stop sign, driving in the ditch, etc), there are laws to deal with it already, such as reckless endangerment. There are also laws for more serious results that will prove sufficient.
  Before any of this, though, something has to happen and many of us are not willing to accept this.
Logged

Reaper

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
  • Atheism cures religious terrorism!
    • The Reaper's Den
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #77 on: October 09, 2003, 03:02:00 pm »

Quote
If they kill themself?  That's suicide.  

Unless your pulling the trigger how is that your fault?  
Wouldn't have happened if I hadn't caused it.

Actually, this happens a lot.  It's usually some priest or soap box prophet who instills guilt and shame in an unstable person until they end up committing suicide.  Shall we prosecute them all?

On another note, it wouldn't have happened if someone hadn't sold them the gun/knife/poison, etc.  Shall we prosecute them too?

The law should not concern itself with hurt feelings.  Only force or fraud.

If people are weak or stupid enough to be moved to suicide by someones oratory what can I say?  Darwin Award time!
Logged
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!

"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be?  Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."

BradKeyes

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
  • Why?
    • Active Mind Thoughts
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #78 on: October 09, 2003, 03:27:31 pm »

quote: It's OK to walk down the street firing off a machine gun as long as no one has been hit?

    This is seriously reckless behavior - and obviously so - and intervention is definitely called for.

quote: It's OK to walk down the street juggling a couple of vials of smallpox and as long as you don't drop one and it breaks open?

    While this can be quite serious, the vials may contain nothing at all. What has happened to justify intervention - other than stepping up and asking what's in the vials? Then things may change.
 
   A driver weaving all over the road presents an obvious danger that justifies intervention regardless of the reason (cell phone, stereo, kids, dogs, dope,...). If another driver has imbibed, but weaves not at all, where is the justification? Can we allow intervention without cause - just unfounded suspicions? I surely hope not.
  When a driver is stopped for cause (weaving, holding down a stop sign, driving in the ditch, etc), there are laws to deal with it already, such as reckless endangerment. There are also laws for more serious results that will prove sufficient.
  Before any of this, though, something has to happen and many of us are not willing to accept this.


Aleuicius,

Very good points.

If I can sum up your point it's basically that there should be laws against reckless driving, no matter the cause. Correct?

Overall I think I may be able to agree with that. But it brings up a few more questions in my mind.

First, Would there be extenuating cirsumtances, like a bee flew in my eye, that would allow the police to use some judgement on weaving or driving in the ditch 'offenses'?

Second, supposed someone staggered out of a bar in front of an officer, started to get into a car to drive, the officer warned them it would not be a good idea to drive, and the person refused to listen. Does the officer have to follow the 'suspect' and wait for reckless driving to occur or is the staggering out of the bar enough indication that it will happen?
Logged
Knowledge becomes wisdom only after it has been put to practical use. Knowledge must be gained by ourselves. Mankind may supply us with the facts; but the results, even if they agree with previous ones, must be the work of our mind. - Benjamin Disraeli

Aleuicius

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #79 on: October 10, 2003, 08:17:42 am »

BradKeyes,

  Yes, there are always circumstances, but there needs to be cause before intervention is initiated. A Peace Officer (aka Police) should indeed be able, and use, judgement determining the amount of intervention - from ensuring the bee is gone and the driver is able to continue to arrest, if necessary, on criminal charges.

 In your second question, a staggering drunk getting in a car fulfills the need for cause and intervention - the officer KNOWS the person is impaired - but the question becomes what kind of intervention? Since nothing criminal has happened, now what? Whatever happened to giving them a cot to sleep it off, then letting them find there way home afterward? Here again, the judgement of the intervening Peace Officer is needed. Now, we arrest them before they've done anything harmful.
 
 
Logged

Mokuri

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #80 on: October 10, 2003, 09:09:18 am »

I'd suggest an empirical approach to the issue of public use of drugs.

Anybody familiar with the situation in The Netherlands, where I believe all/most drugs are legal, and public use is common?

Debating the merits of public use is all fine & well, but skims the broader issue.  We all pay for drug & alcohol abuse in state taxes for de-tox programs, rehab & counseling. . .or step over addicts in the streets, as is the case in Holland.
Logged

atr

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
Why "Harm" is Useful
« Reply #81 on: October 10, 2003, 09:09:25 am »

From Brad Keyes:
Quote
On a separate note, one of my pet peeves is people using the word harm in place of violation of rights. I know it's much quicker to say 'harming someone is wrong' and 'the role of government is to prevent people from harm.' Unfortanately the term leads to muddy thinking and miscommunication, especially when trying to educate other's about libertarianism.

There are many acts that are/should be legal and are even ethical that can 'harm' someone.

A few examples are:

Say someone invents a cheap device that creates power from static electricity in the air. This will put a lot of people out of business. These people will have been harmed.

If someone's boyfriend/girlfriend breaks up with them. They have perhaps been harmed.

If I fire an employee they are harmed.

When the Free State Project is successful, a lot of parasites will have been harmed.

Harm is not an issue, only Violations of Rights

I used the term harm quite a bit in this thread, and let me explain why it's useful and relevant.

I agree with you that violations of rights are the issue. However, I think it's generally easier to recognize when someone has been harmed than when someone has had their rights infringed.

As you imply, (and I agree), violations of liberty are a subset of harm.

In other words, all violations of someone's liberty are harmful to that person.
Not all things that harm someone violate that person's liberty. (Your examples illustrate this nicely.)

In other words (again):

If I have violated your liberty, I have harmed you.

And we can conclude this:

If I haven't harmed you, I haven't violated your liberty.

And this is exactly the way I've been using the term "harm", or at least the way I should've been. It's a quick test to see whether a particular exercise of liberty is okay--if it causes no harm to another person, then we know that it does not violate their liberty, and thus it is okay (i.e. it should not be prohibited).
« Last Edit: October 10, 2003, 09:11:57 am by atr »
Logged

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #82 on: October 10, 2003, 09:12:15 am »



 In your second question, a staggering drunk getting in a car fulfills the need for cause and intervention - the officer KNOWS the person is impaired - but the question becomes what kind of intervention? Since nothing criminal has happened, now what? Whatever happened to giving them a cot to sleep it off, then letting them find there way home afterward? Here again, the judgement of the intervening Peace Officer is needed. Now, we arrest them before they've done anything harmful.
 

And in the case of someone asking about a hitman to murder his wife... why not tell him we're keeping an eye on you, and you better make sure nothing happens to her, you're the first guy we'll come looking for.  That will warn him off and stop the danger right away.  Now, though, we set up a sting and (eventually) chuck him in prison.  While the sting is being set up, he could go ahead and murder his wife; the focus is not on Prevention.

Logged

atr

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #83 on: October 10, 2003, 09:13:34 am »

quote: It's OK to walk down the street firing off a machine gun as long as no one has been hit?

    This is seriously reckless behavior - and obviously so - and intervention is definitely called for.

We don't need a standard of "recklessness" in order to intervene. The would be a clear case of destruction of property and littering (which is really just another type of destruction of property.
Logged

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #84 on: October 10, 2003, 09:20:12 am »



Anybody familiar with the situation in The Netherlands, where I believe all/most drugs are legal, and public use is common?


Actually, I saw an article last month that said drugs, including marijuana, are still illegal there, but it is unenforced in the case of Marijuana.  Same with Euthanasia - there are countries where it is legal, but Holland isn't one of them.  Again, though, it is unenforced.
A friend of mine was walking down the street in Amsterdam with some hash.  Cop comes up to him and says, "Is that a SpaceCake?"  "Yes."  "Can I have some?" "No - it's mine!"  Smile and end of story.

I do know that everyone (including me) thought for many years that Prostitution was legal in Holland.  When they did finally legalize it in 1999, we realized that it had not been legal after all!  Only tolerated and never enforced.

Quote

Debating the merits of public use is all fine & well, but skims the broader issue.  We all pay for drug & alcohol abuse in state taxes for de-tox programs, rehab & counseling


Easy solution:  Stop paying for that Crapp.

Logged

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #85 on: October 10, 2003, 11:08:01 am »

If I pose a clear and present danger to those around me, the government--via the police--has the obligation to take action.  Just blowing a 0.08 BAC1 at a random stop does not fit that condition, though the argument could be made that the State owns the road (i.e. not "the public") and as such can pass rules resticting its usage.


1  As a test of the 0.08 BAC law, some friends and I got ahold of a BAC tester, the results: a girl who blew a 0.07 couldn't stand up if she tried;  a 300 lb Samoan dude, drank everone under the table, blowing a 0.09, and passed any field sobriety test we could throw at him.  *shrug*

Obviously, BAC is not a reliable indication of impairment, as different brains have different abilities to tolerate BAC levels.  This does not mean that an effective test for impairment cannot be developed.  It may mean that a different protocol than the one currently used should be employed, or at least the laws changed to make BAC only a portion of the impairment assessment.    

BTW, to answer the question of what a different protocol might be, one that comes to mind would be the ability of the accused to contest their impairment by paying to undergo a voluntary test in a driving simulator.   First, they would ingest enough booze and drugs under controlled conditions to match their numbers at the time of citation (or arrest).  Then, they would climb into the simulator and their response times and ability to judge unexpected driving scenarios could be tallied.

Of course, failing such a test would not prove that they would have harmed anyone, but it would prove that they were driving in a reckless manner.   The punishment should be a citation for reckless driving, perhaps with an extra penalty for reckless driving due to intoxication.   Passing the test would mean that the charges are dimissed and PERHAPS that the cost is covered by insurance.

One nice side-effect of this sort of system is that well-intentioned folks would then have incontrovertible proof that they cannot drive well when stoned.   This might go further towards changing their behavior than punishment alone.

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

BradKeyes

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
  • Why?
    • Active Mind Thoughts
Re:Why "Harm" is Useful
« Reply #86 on: October 10, 2003, 11:24:22 am »


If I haven't harmed you, I haven't violated your liberty.

And this is exactly the way I've been using the term "harm", or at least the way I should've been. It's a quick test to see whether a particular exercise of liberty is okay--if it causes no harm to another person, then we know that it does not violate their liberty, and thus it is okay (i.e. it should not be prohibited).

atr,

You're absolutely right with your statement above and that is how you've used the term 'harm' in your postings.

My point many people will take your statement above and make the illogically leap to:

If you harm me you've violated my rights. And therefore the government must do something.

This concept leads to many harmful :) laws and it makes debating with non-libertarians more difficult.

Although is harder to keep saying 'violates rights' it keeps the focus where it needs to be, on rights, not on harm.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2003, 11:33:50 am by BradKeyes »
Logged
Knowledge becomes wisdom only after it has been put to practical use. Knowledge must be gained by ourselves. Mankind may supply us with the facts; but the results, even if they agree with previous ones, must be the work of our mind. - Benjamin Disraeli

atr

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
Re:Why "Harm" is Useful
« Reply #87 on: October 10, 2003, 01:12:18 pm »

My point many people will take your statement above and make the illogically leap to:

If you harm me you've violated my rights. And therefore the government must do something.

You're exactly right. Ultimately the question comes back to liberty.

If we know that something does not harm another person, then we know it doesn't infringe their liberty. But, if we know that something does[/] harm another person, we must still ask, "Does it infringe his/her liberty?"

Unfortunately, the definition of liberty itself gets lost, too. IMO, the benefit of asking the harm question first is that if the answer is "no, it doesn't harm anyone else," then we don't even need to define what liberty is exactly. It's not especally easy to come up with an agreeable definition of harm, but agreeing on a definition of liberty can be even tougher.
Logged

MrVoluntarist

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
  • I'm a non-socialist royal libertarian!
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #88 on: October 10, 2003, 06:49:37 pm »

Hey!  Look at me!  I can play word games with "harm" to act like I'm smarter than libertarians!  I'm so clever!
Logged

atr

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #89 on: October 10, 2003, 09:35:08 pm »

Hey!  Look at me!  I can play word games with "harm" to act like I'm smarter than libertarians!  I'm so clever!

I am a libertarian.

I think you must have misunderstood me.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 ... 13   Go Up