« The killer in you is the killer in me | Main | Had to give us something to go and slip into our coffees »

comments (60)

I'm surprised that WorldNetDaily even bothered to mention the guy's less religious reasons for turning himself in.

by Adam L. at June 3, 2004 9:08 AM

---

I believe the punishment should fit the crime. If you rape someone, then you should be raped in return. If you behead someone, then you should be decapitated. We live in such a politically correct society that those methods of punishment are deemed inhumane. What about the terror the victims had to endure? I say fuck them, an eye for an eye. I bet people would think twice before commiting a random act of violence if they knew the same thing would happen to them if they were caught.

by Ezy at June 3, 2004 10:06 AM

---

so who would mete out the punishment? would you have a prison rapist to handle those cases, or create a machine to take care of business? and out of curiosity, if a disgruntled wife cuts off her husband's unit, what would you do to her? if some hannibal lecter wannabe cuts off the top of some dude's head and starts munching away, who are you going to get to do the same to him? seems like the people responsible for punishing some of the offenders would have to be some pretty sick fucks...

by JC at June 3, 2004 12:08 PM

---

Some famous, peacenick person said this once: “If we lived by ‘an eye for an eye’ we’d all be blind,” or something like that. It’s pretty well known that the threat of punishment doesn’t deter crime. Finding out what causes it is a better route. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t do anything to criminals. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but it sure does make me feel better.

by MrBlank at June 3, 2004 1:48 PM

---

The general prison population already has some pretty sick fucks with nothing to do already. Have them dole out the punishment. Hell, it'd be like Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Secretary's Day all wrapped into one.

To answer your question JC, if a disgruntled wife cuts off her husband's member and there was a history of abuse then I say he got what was coming. If she was just a sick fuck who did it for no apparent reason and was convicted by a jury of her peers take the clit or cut off her tits. Same with Lecter. Find a Lecter in prison and do him a favor.

MrB, you hit the nail on the head. "Some famous, peacenick person said this once:" I think it's the threat of punishment we have in place that is lacking. To some, jail is preferable to their current living situation. At least you get three hots and a cot. Jail, as a deterrent, just isn't effective. I know it sounds brutal and medieval but aren't the crimes. Look at the jackass Baltimoron. I think he deserves the worst punishment available. Cutting off children's heads, for christ sake.

by Ezy at June 3, 2004 2:52 PM

---

The peacenik was Ghandi. And there are three reasons that I can think of that jail isn't an effective deterrent: first, most criminals, no matter how incompetent, believe that they won't get caught; second, because in many segments of society people are encouraged to act as though jail isn't a big deal, and that they shouldn't care about being sentenced to jail; last, many people are just so incredibly stupid that it's impossible to warn them off of anything, no matter how severe the penalty - they wouldn't get out of the way of a freight train if they saw it coming.

We can't deter people effectively, but we *choose* not to do the other thing - we don't do jack shit to rehabilitate. Our prisons are run like human warehouses, and if anything a convict emerges from jail even more fucked-up than when they entered. Rape, violence, constant fear, racist gangs - our prisons are a wreck. I don't know what the solution is, but my instinct tells me that getting all of the non-violent drug offenders out of the jails and making them less crowded would be a good start.

by Adam at June 3, 2004 5:17 PM

---

Yeah the real reason he turned himself in was cuz he needed health care? They had a deluxe prison here for elderly inmates that had great health care. For a while aged persons would cross the border and rob a store just to get access to it.

That dick-lopping occured in my 'hood too. The wife got off by claiming insanity due to abuse and he got off on charges of abusing her. No harm, no foul I guess.

And my wife was one of those moms that marched against guns and the death penalty. She has a shirt with that Gandhi quote on it. Then again, she believes in cruel and and inhuamane treatment i.e. criminals should all be thrown in a huge pit with only one another to eat. May the strong survive!

by anna at June 3, 2004 6:17 PM

---

I find it utterly ridiculous that you can go to jail longer for possesing acid than for killing another human being. That's just fucked up. Non-violent drug offenders have no business being in jail. Who have they hurt really? I know you can make the case that they are directly enabling cartels and drug lords who kill kids, womem, families and such but they aren't the ones doing the killing. It'd be like throwing someone in jail for wearing a certain brand of clothes just because it was found that they were made with illegal child labor. 1+1 does not equal 2.

by Ezy at June 3, 2004 6:35 PM

---

Yeah, the War Against "Some" Drugs is all screwed up. Those things just make me so mad. And people getting sentenced to huge terms because of "three strikes" laws when some of the strikes are non-violent. Also ridiculous. Just messed up.

by jean at June 4, 2004 7:03 AM

---

I read that the per-gram price of heroin, adjusted for inflation, hasn't changed AT ALL since 1970. What has changed is that purity has almost doubled. In other words, the effective price has been cut in half. And there are less harmful impurities. So much for the "War on Drugs" that began in 1970. Now where's my works?

by anna at June 4, 2004 7:46 AM

---

Jean, I have to say that the three strikes law is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard of. Throwing someone in jail for a minor crime just because it's their third time getting caught is nothing short of insane.

I think the potency of most drugs have increased. The only one I noticed that has gotten less potent is acid. I used to do quite a bit way back when and have done it a couple of times in the past few years and the last couple of times sucked. When you have to wonder whether you're getting off or not something isn't right.

by Ezy at June 4, 2004 9:42 AM

---

ezy, this could be at least part of the reason your acid sucks:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2098109

by JC at June 4, 2004 12:00 PM

---

Well, that just blows. I had noticed how much tougher it was to get acid now as opposed to, say, the early and mid nineties. That's a huge bust. A couple billion hits of acid is nothing to scoff at. That would definitely explain it JC.

by Ezy at June 4, 2004 1:21 PM

---

It's good to see "I eat poo, you eat poo" is still going strong. What a bunch of sick fuckers. I thought I was fucked in the head. Sheesh.

by Ezy at June 4, 2004 1:23 PM

---

You're such a prude!

by Linz eats poo at June 4, 2004 4:14 PM

---

Some of my friends have been on the look out for acid for about 3 or so years now... they haven't been able to find anything! There was a recent lead, but I've since learned that the guy's in jail.

That article definitely explains things.

by leaffin at June 4, 2004 5:16 PM

---

I think if I were to do it now I'd want it to suck. I sure wouldn't want it anything like the shit that made you think you were a knight in medieval armor you couldn't get out of. Not that that ever happened to me.

by anna at June 4, 2004 6:29 PM

---

The crime should fit the punishment. That's not eye-for-an-eye. The constitution protects us from that sort of nonsense (usually).
One problem is that the bar for what passes as reasonable punishment was been lowered substantially in the 20th Century. There is an on-going re-evaulation of punishment now, as many crimes now have much hight jail times.
Another problem is that punishment for serious crimes shouldn't be treated as a deteriant, because it's not. The prisons are full of people that just didn't think that the law was catch up with them (or just didn't think, period).
Yet another problem is that our prisons are actually considered desirable turf by gangs. They intionally commit serious crimes in order to get arrested and sent to prison so they increase their membership in a given prison. So, prison isn't the necessarially best way to exact justice.

by fcsuper at June 4, 2004 8:20 PM

---

I dunno. When you consider this, maybe it is.

by anna at June 5, 2004 9:30 AM

---

And let's not forget the ever-present possibility of this happening to innocent people.

by anna at June 5, 2004 9:43 AM

---

Don't forget, drugs also fund Terrorism! (wink, wink). But don't think twice about buying a diamond ring or an un-necessary gas guzzler.
Something that is peculiar to us is that when people do bad things, we tend to think of them as bad people. Whereas in many other societies, people who do bad things are thought of as people who fell into circumstances in which they made bad decisions. Adam hit it right on the head - the prison system is not about re-habilitation. We have all this technology and excess, yet we ignore a fundamental problem that affects us all: how to fix criminals. I think of the brain as the most complex processing machine on earth. It takes in information, processes it, and then executes a response. Simply putting people in prison is like putting computers with bad software in cages. The brain is an amazing resource with incredible potential - yet we ignore serious efforts to actually change criminals into functional, productive people.

by chris at June 7, 2004 5:15 PM

---

If someone doesn't want to go to jail for life for their third strike drug offense, maybe the more logical solution is to not do drugs? I remember when that moron jumped off the Niagra Falls to win some radio contest. Everyone got down on the guy for being so stupid as to risk his life. You do the same thing with drugs (risking your life), and somehow the "system" is the problem?

I agree that prison is hardly about rehabilitation (a discussion I recall us having here before), but how can you justify getting upset over someone breaking the law going to jail? Fine, if you believe the law is unjust, do something to change it, but for Christ's sake, don't complain that you are going to jail if you can't control yourself. If drugs are legal, they are legal, but if they aren't, why in the world would you put yourself in the position to go away for a night, much less your life?

by mg at June 8, 2004 1:50 PM

---

Why mg? As a protest, and as a (clearly false) assertion of your freedom to do what you see fit with your own body. I sorta feel this way about the seatbelt law, believe it or not. If someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt, they shouldn't get fined for it. Same with helmets. But this might suggest that I think all drugs are dumb, which I don't. And frankly, I think alcohol and nicotine are 2 of the dumbest. It's so fucking arbitrary that alcohol's legal and pot is not.

by Linz at June 8, 2004 2:50 PM

---

The simple fact is that alcohol is legal and drugs are not. Whether one is dumber to use or not is besides the point. Drugs are illegal, if you get caught using/holding, you go to jail. If you don't want to go to jail, don't do it. How is it a protest if you do something and then complain when exactly what you know will happen to you (jail) happens to you? I don't think anyone is doing drugs as a protest. This isn't a bus boycott. People use drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc, because they have poor impulse control. If you can't control your impulse, you pay some price. This is the way I feel about people who today (not past smokers, because big tobacco used to lie and lie and lie about the safety of smoking) bring up law suits against big tobacco. _You_ choose to smoke, knowing the risks. If you die of cancer that is the price. If you go to jail, that is the price.

by mg at June 8, 2004 3:38 PM

---

You talk like an exemplary citizen who has completely surrendered to the idea of Big Brother. I guess you go exactly the speed limit at all times when you drive? Otherwise, you have poor impulse control and must be stupid. That's the only explanation. Not because you simply want to go 70 instead of 55. It's a character flaw to speed.

"How is it a protest if you do something and then complain when exactly what you know will happen to you (jail) happens to you? I don't think anyone is doing drugs as a protest. This isn't a bus boycott." It is a protest because it is accepting a risk in order to do what you believe you should be free to do. Do you understand? I'm not saying that this is the sole reason, or even the most important reason people use drugs. But everyone who does knows that is a risk involved. It is civil disobedience. I can't even believe what you are saying! You are suggesting blind obedience!

You made no comment to my second suggested concept, that of excercising freedom with your own body.

"The simple fact is that alcohol is legal and drugs are not." Yet alcohol is a drug. It's stupid. It's not a simple fact. It's an arbitrary law. Let's say abortion was illegal, which it probably soon will be. But let's say I wanted to have one. If there was a safe way, I damn well would do it, whether it was legal or not, because I know what is good for me more than the law-for-dummies does.

You seem to think that humans require government. This is a construct that we are stuck with due to its long existence and pervasive, insidious self-perpetuation in our education system, not to mention that we are all still animals that sometimes are stupid and selfish and violent, and this hand-holding all our lives basically forces us to depend on the government, right or wrong. Encourages lack of free thinking. But the law certainly is not The One and Only Truth.

To simplify my recoil from your response: it reminds me of the TJ Maxx initiation video I had to watch when I started working there in high school. All about adherence to rules & creating a cheesy sense of brotherhood/patriotism/loyalty when the only real take-home message was "Report any coworkers you see stealing because they threaten our corporation." And the real truth is the corporation didn't give a shit about us: the adherence to policy only served them.

You work backwards from this desire to justify everything and believe everything is the way it is for a good and moral reason, despite telling me recently how I just need to expect that nothing makes sense.

by Linz at June 8, 2004 5:04 PM

---

Is there a reason the counter thing says 25 comments but I can only see a handful?

by anna at June 8, 2004 7:15 PM

---

Government is necessary because rules are necessary. We can't go around bashing people on the head. And when my tax/insurance dollars have to pay for your health insurance, then I think I have a right to say you shouldn't do things that are harmful to your body. I would be upset if drugs were made legal because I believe they are pyschologically and physiological harmful. I belive the same thing about Big Macs, and I wouldn't be upset if someone stepped in and told McDonalds, "Hey dumbasses, quit making something that is killing people, or at least quit making it so tasty!" If drugs were made legal, I'd still be against them. It isn't a question of laws, or following Big Brother, or whatever. It is a concern for my fellow citizen, which I know you wont believe.

I don't try to say anything is for a moral or good reason. It is pure dumb luck, and precident, that keeps pot illegal while alcohol is legal. There is no reason one is and the other isn't. The only point I was trying to make is that one is legal and the other isn't, and you don't have a right to complain when you get put in jail for doing something illegal. You can fight a law without breaking it. Yes, civil disobedience has its place, but when, and I'm guessing here, 1 out of 1000 people in jail are there as a political statement, it sort of waters down that political statement that 999 other people are in there because they just wanted to get high.

Abortion is a good arguement. Personally, I would never allow a partner to have an abortion, but if you feel like going out and getting one, that is your deal. But, if it were illegal, and you did it, you should go to jail. Sorry, but I believe a law is a law, and because you or I disagree with it doesn't mean we shouldn't be punished for breaking it.

And, you are right, I do speed. But I shouldn't. I don't need to get anywhere that fast, and it really isn't safe to drive much over the legal limit. Speeding is a stupid of me, and that whole speeding personality is character flaw, not on the scale of drug use because it isn't as pernently damaging through intended use - ie speeding and not getting in an accident causes no harm, whereas drug/alcohol/tobacco use is harmful each and every time. But, speeding is bad, and reckless driving surely causes more deaths than drug usage. I do break the law and if I got a ticket, I would PAY it. Because I broke the law. I wouldn't complain, and I wouldn't have any right to. Thank you for prooving my point.

And, as far as "nothing makes sense", I don't think I exactly said that. What I said was there isn't any reason to bother trying to make sense of it. Of course things make sense, but if you bring to the world some internal expectations of it, then it will only make you crazy.

by mg at June 8, 2004 11:18 PM

---

One thing with "three strikes" is that any third felony can put you in jail for fifteen (or a similar large number) years to life. Yes MG, that does include possession of a certain amount of drugs. It also includes bouncing a check. There are many documented cases of people getting large sentences for, in the end, writing a bad check. Then taxpayers pay for their prison stays at an average of $22,000 a year. (Incidentally, elderly inmates average a cost of $69,000 a year) All other arguments aside, at the very least I don't think that the threshold for incurring these costs should be set so low.

by jean at June 9, 2004 3:54 AM

---

Having just gone out and read the California Three Strikes Law, I can say that the law only applies to "serious felonies", of which the list is long and includes only violent crimes (and selling drugs to minors). I'd like to hear about the bouncing a check case, because I'm sure there is more to that story than you think there is.

The point I'm making is, if you get convicted of three of these violent felonies, you deserve to go to prison for life. Yes, rehabilitation would be great, and if there was a way to do that, I'd be all for it. But we haven't figured that out yet, so instead of letting someone comitt violent felony (armed robbery), after violent felony (forced oral copulation), after violent felony (carjacking), without any serious threat of punishment is ridiculous. Maybe the kinks haven't been worked out yet, if indeed someone is sent to jail for life for merely passing a bad check, but I'd rather have to fix one mess like that then allow 100 career criminals back on the street.

Also, I think worrying about costs is unfair. I would guess the cost of social programs like welfare, food stamps, medicaid/care costs payers a much higher, per tax-payer, than prison. We pay those costs because if we don't, people will go hungry, unhealthy, etc. We have to pay the prison costs because then those people in there will be outside. I think that is fair.

by mg at June 9, 2004 9:24 AM

---

Michael, I would argue that another difference about the risk of speeding is that you are risking other people's bodies, which in my eyes, makes it worse than drugs, because you are making decisions for someone else's body. Accidents from speeding also have a cost: more cautious drivers' insurance money.

I see your point about tax dollars, which is why it's even sillier for people to go to jail for pot possession.

If alcohol became illegal, would you stop drinking it? If your favorite unhealthy food became illegal, would you stop eating it?

I suspect my tax dollars to insurance companies are wasted far more on alcoholics than on pot smokers. Far more on people who have health problems due to simple neglect of their bodies in other, perfectly legal ways.

In your perfect world would overeating be illegal too, to save you money?

What do you want man??? A police state???

I'm kidding, but you really don't seem to mind big government, do ya?

"Sorry, but I believe a law is a law, and because you or I disagree with it doesn't mean we shouldn't be punished for breaking it." Does this hold true only in the "democracies" like the U.S. (democracy where big money decides things) or even in states that make laws like Sharia (sp?) where "adulterers" (raped married women) are stoned to death?

I know I always go to extremes but the implications of freely [sic] relinquishing freedoms because the law says so is kinda scary coming from a free thinker like you.

by Linz at June 9, 2004 11:34 AM

---

I am a free thinker, but I also believe that there should be laws about what we are allowed to do to others, and what we are allowed to do to ourselves. Freedom is an inate right, but it also requires a certain amount of responsibility, if you expect to live in a society. Your personal freedom intersect with mine when my insurance rates go up because some dumbass can't figure out that smoking is bad for him, or someone who weighs 400 pounds because malomars taste good. Intellectually you may be able to say the consequences of what you do to your body are contained solely to your person, but realistically that is far from true. And while, yes, it would save me money if these people didn't do harmful/illegal things, but it would also helps these people by preventing them from doing harmful things! If there is a way to, legislatively, prevent someone from having a heartattack at 35 years old, we should do it. Are you the same person who is for stricter gun control, and against polution? What exactly is the difference between dumping chemicals in a lake and saying there is nothing wrong, and duming chemicals in a box of chips-ahoy and saying nothing is wrong? I don't see it.

Personal freedom is a great thing, but at some point there needs to be someone/thing to step in and say "You shouldn't do that, it isn't good for you." Unfortunatly, that is the government, and unfortunately, the only tool they have in preventing people from doing these things is punishment. It would be great to live in a world where no one treated themselves badly (whether through overeating, undereating, drinking, drugs, extreme sports/jackass), or where someone could do whatever they wanted to themsevles without reprecussion on the rest of the world. But that place doesn't exist, and for all your talk of how drugs don't effect anyone but the user, forget insurance, productivity, etc, try telling that to the parents of a kid who overdoses. I'm not sure they'll agree with you.

Now, picture this, remember a couple years ago when people were taking the diet pill Ephedra? It killed/sickened thousands of people in a short number of years. The government stepped in and made it illegal. Do you think the government should of done that? Do you think people should have the right to take Ephedra, even knowing the very real risk of death associated?

by mg at June 9, 2004 12:30 PM

---

"If there is a way to, legislatively, prevent someone from having a heartattack at 35 years old, we should do it. Are you the same person who is for stricter gun control, and against polution?" We are looking at personal choice vs. choices that affect others. Preventing someone from overeating should be done if we could do it?? Just because you want cheaper insurance? Where does it end? Should the gov't just dole out daily rations of the South Beach diet?

I won't argue that alcoholism or drug abuse can't affect families and whatnot. But so do physical abuse and a whole host of things that the government cannot control. My point is about personal choices. Would you rather be free to fuck up a little bit or have every aspect of your life regulated? Again, I am curious if you think alcohol should be illegal. It's a huge factor in sick days taken, which in turn impacts GNP and all that. It causes far more family problems than pot, for example.

If you can't tell, my biggest issue is with pot. I don't know if, in a debate, I would stand firmly behind legalization of ALL drugs. Maybe. Maybe I'm an anarchist. Maybe I think without all this control, people would hold themselves more accountable for themselves.

Chemicals in a Lake vs. in Chips Ahoy? It's a matter of scale, and again, personal choice vs. a decision that affects others. Chemicals in a lake affect the environment. Chips Ahoy just affect you.

I don't get the Ephedra question, esp. given that cigarettes are perfectly legal. Why not just put warnings on Ephedra and let Darwinism take over?

Speaking of which, I always thought malomars were some kind of cigar! They're food?

I just think we should be free to make our own mistakes. What if someone always caught you, so you never fell? Is that any way to experience life?

by Linz at June 9, 2004 2:22 PM

---

Mallomars

Admit it or not Linz, you agree with me. "I don't know if, in a debate, I would stand firmly behind legalization of ALL drugs. " If you look into yourself, I have a feeling you'd say that crack, for example, shouldn't be legal. And if you think one drug shouldn't be legal, your whole arguement goes out the window. Personal freedom for me ends at pot, but personal freedom for you ends at heroin, or crack. But the point is, that it does have an end. If you aren't willing to admit that, there is little point in continuing this discussion.

Othewise, the question then becomes "Where does personal freedom end, and the government's responsibility to protect someone begin?" Even if you admit to the above, it's obvious we disagre as to the point government has a responsibility to care for its citizenry.

Come on Linz, do you honestly believe Ephedra should be legal? That people should be allowed to give themselves strokes, just to lose weight? If you really believe we should "let Darwinism take over" why are you working for an organization that goes out and helps people? Why do you get upset at yourself for not doing more? I know you are stuck in this arguement, and have to support your side, but that is not only ridiculous, but completly unlike you to say that. I hope you were just doing it for some kind of shock value.

As for whether I would be upset if alcohol was made illegal, I can honestly tell you it'd have no effect on my life. I don't _need_ alcohol. It is not a necessary part of my life, (nor should it be), and if me legally being restrained from doing something I don't need to do anyway, is the only way to force people to control themselves, both from DUI, wife-beating, and from liver disease, etc, then I would accept that. If the government decides tomorrow that a can of Coke can only have 10mg of caffeine, instead of 50, because caffeine is found to cause cancer, I would live with it. Do you get what I'm saying? This isn't about the big bad government trying to stop you from having fun or living your life a certain way, its about them stepping in to protect you when you, and the vendors who you deal with, ignore the physical effects of using a product.

by mg at June 9, 2004 2:42 PM

---

"If you aren't willing to admit that, there is little point in continuing this discussion."

I have to pretend to have a decision on this matter, when I'm really not sure? I honestly don't know. I'm not lying, I'm not hedging. Is it possible to not have a certain opinion on crack legalization and still firmly believe smoking pot is not "stupid" just because it's illegal? Yes, it IS possible. And yes, I HONESTLY lean towards thinking all drugs should be everyone's CHOICE. Even the ones that can kill you. Much like I believe in my right to sky dive. What do you think about sky diving? Gosh I hope the government comes to protect me from myself.

By my lack of a conclusion about what I consider to be harder drugs, I am no longer worthy of a conversation? Do I have to align with either a moderate leftist way of thinking or sheer anarchy? No. At least I have the balls to admit that I do not have a solid philosophy about every single issue. I am admitting it is open for discussion.

"I know you are stuck in this argument, and have to support your side, but that is not only ridiculous, but completely unlike you to say that." No, I am not stuck. I didn't even confirm the all-drugs-legal stance you are now forcing me into. I do feel like you are utterly unwilling to consider my side of things because you have concluded, like the South Park guidance counselor, that drugs are bad.

As far as not being able to integrate today's comments into your overall opinion of me, let me clarify. I believe in personal freedom, even if it's the freedom to hurt yourself, which we all do all the time with McDonalds and alcohol and cigarettes and sitting hunched over at computers staring at a screen, to name a few. I work for an organization that helps people because I care about people, and I wish we all were born with the same opportunities. These two aspects of me are not mutually exclusive. I care about people, and I want them to be free to do what they want with their own bodies. What we do with our opportunities is up to us.

"if me legally being restrained from doing something I don't need to do anyway, is the only way to force people to control themselves... then I would accept that"

mg, I am your government. I have just decided that sex, except for procreation, is bad for people. You don't need to do it. And if I catch you, you go to jail for your moral depravity. Sorry, but you can't seem to control yourself, so I am going to make your decisions for you. You will say, "Linz, sex doesn't harm you like drugs do." Right. And sex doesn't harm you like a Big Mac either. I also find that the ex-smoker is often the most lofty in their "look at me, I don't need anything" attitude. Please don't make this social faux pas. You don't need anything but spinach, beans, and some whole grains. But still you excercise a disgusting lack of restraint every day, I bet. I bet you drink JUICE when FRUIT is far better, what with the fiber and all.

"Force people to control themselves."

I totally agree to disagree with you, but I will NOT concede that it's me that's saying ridiculous things. Haven't you read Brave New World? Are you just feigning the degree of your willingness to surrender to a higher authority to get me riled up, or are you really this unconcerned about your personal freedoms? Who is the one that is stuck in their argument?

by Linz at June 9, 2004 3:56 PM

---

If you believe the government has no place in restricting the actions of its citizens, then yes, there is no point in having a discussion. I don't agree with you, and nothing you could ever say will make me agree with you. Even libertarians will admit there are certain roles the government must take, and if you agree to that statement, then the discussion we should have is at what point do societies interest (enforced by the government) overrule the rights of an individual.

Here is another issue to judge where we both stand on the "personal freedoms" issue. Gun can be used to kill, but if used safely, a gun will cause no harm to anyone, not the person using it, and not any innocents.

Now, drugs, if are used as intended, they wont harm anyone but the user. If used incorectly, they can be the cause of murders, violence, and accidental death/injury. With intended use, they cause no harm to innocents, but do cause physiological and pychological damage to the user.

So, if used correctly, drugs hurt the user, guns hurt no one. Do you believe in gun control? Why?

Personally, I don't see any reason why a person today needs a gun, and wouldn't shed a tear if they were banned. The harm they cause through misuse far outweighs any personal hapiness granted when used correctly. I have a feeling you probably agree with me there.

Now, do you see how gun control, according to your definition, is an uneccessary restriction of freedom?

Now, remember that dude in Germany who put up an add, someone responded, and he ate the person. He was charged with murder, despite the fact that the "victim" agreed to the act. If this fellow can't consent to let himself be killed and eaten by someone else, why should he be allowed to (slowly) kill himself with drugs, alcohol, fat, etc?

The government (society) steps in in cases of suicide, statutory rape, etc - cases where the individual implicity consents to give up their rights. The government steps in and stops companies from leaching chemicals into groundwater (or should), even if people implicitly agree to give up their rights by moving to an area near a power plant. What is the difference between those situations, and those in which a person explicitly gives up their rights not to be harmed by a good or service, in this case drugs/alcohol/tobacco? I don't see the difference.

The other part of this whole arguement is that I believe I should be protected from violating my own rights, as much as I am protected from you violating my rights. If you shot me with a laser beam that gave me lung cancer, I would want you punished. Why, then, should I be allowed to smoke cigarettes for 30 years and get lung cancer that way?Why do I have more rights protected with my itneraction with you, then I have with my interaction with myself?

As for you "sex" example, it makes no sense. You are supposing, which might be the problem, that the government is making arbitrary decisions. Besides for STDs, can you point to scientific evidence suggesting sex is harmful? Now, do you doubt the scientific evidence that alcohol, fat, pot, cocaine, etc, etc, are harmful? If you, a musician from Atlanta, tell me sex is bad and is now illegal, I would get upset and wouldn't abide it. But if C. Everett Koop or Richard Carmona, Surgeon Generals of the U.S. tell me drugs are harmful and are illegal, I'm going to trust that these fellows understand the science a little better then me, and have my best interest in mind. Maybe I'm too trusting and naive, but I believe my government usually has my best interests in mind.

by mg at June 9, 2004 4:44 PM

---

“If you believe the government has no place in restricting the actions of its citizens, then yes, there is no point in having a discussion.”

I didn’t say that once. I contemplate things. You, on the other hand, have everything decided already.

“I don't agree with you, and nothing you could ever say will make me agree with you.”

Why are we even having a conversation? And wow, what a long shelf life your biased beliefs have: forever! Are you not a simple little human in a great big universe?

“Even libertarians will admit there are certain roles the government must take”

Libertarian does not equal anarchist. Libertarian does not equal “most liberal.” Also, while I lean towards anarchy as a concept, especially with regard to personal freedom, never once did I suggest that I think the best thing for the country as it stands is to suddenly have no government.

Your gun example. I am going to have to think about this more. On some levels it’s a good example. But you are using such extreme situations about drugs when the majority of drug users don’t harm a fly. Also, I am dubious about the level of physiological and psychological damage done to the average person who uses drugs. You speak on the presumption that these numbers are very high, whereas I would argue that most drug users, like most alcohol drinkers, experience negligible damage. Indeed, I wonder if the most extreme and violent drug issues are due to the fact that drugs are illegal, and often involve guns. Would a crack dealer be shooting a customer who hadn’t paid up if the dealer was Kmart?

Yes. In this hand-held baby age I believe in gun control. If everyone had a lick of sense though, I’d be fine with some harmless target practice. Maybe the difference is, when it comes to people, I think in ideals, i.e. freedom in a world where people could have half a brain, and you are thinking in worst-case scenarios, where everyone is a jackass. However, when it comes to our gov’t, you think in ideals, and I think in worst-case scenarios. Neither of us are arguing based on reality. But could you admit it?

I’m sure you’ll be appalled, but I do dispute a guy wanting to be eaten and consequently getting eaten by someone who wanted to eat him. I think it’s hideously disgusting, but some people think our culture is disgusting. However, I would worry that the eater was of questionable sanity, thus I would worry about him eating people who DIDN’T want to be eaten. Thus I’d most likely hope the eater would be placed in a mental institution rather than a prison. But wait, are you saying you think fat should be illegal too?!

Someone has played out your scene to its end, a la Brave New World, and my scene to its end, a la Lord of the Flies. I am not going to say I have a perfect solution, but I am at least asserting that I want to keep some of my freedoms and not be kept in a soft, protective cage all my life.

Your power plant example presumes that people in the past knew that living near a plant must be a threat to their water! The difference is the plant is hurting other people’s environments, not just its own. Accelerating the breakdown of an environment it does not have rights to. Christ! Our acid rain falls in the Southern Hemisphere; is it their fault for living there? If you do not see how that differs from drugs/alcohol/tobacco, you are not even trying to understand me.

“I believe I should be protected from violating my own rights… Why, then, should I be allowed to smoke cigarettes for 30 years and get lung cancer that way? Why do I have more rights protected with my interaction with you, then I have with my interaction with myself?”

This is getting absurd. Are you serious? You are saying the government should hold you widdle hand and slap it all day because you don’t know any better? You want a police state with no “rights” unless they’re good for you?

And quit spelling argument wrong. I’ve read it so many times it’s starting to look right.

“As for you "sex" example, it makes no sense. You are supposing, which might be the problem, that the government is making arbitrary decisions.”

Holy crap! I am not; think they make very calculated decisions to protect big money, not you and me. I believe the paper industry fought like hell back in the day to keep pot illegal hemp was too good at making cheap paper. Thus, for my purposes, government decisions are often worse than arbitrary, they are utterly selfish. My arbitrary sex example was one step up. Except...

“Besides for STDs, can you point to scientific evidence suggesting sex is harmful?”
I don’t need to; you gave me an excellent picture of the harmfulness. So my example now should be hit by your harm radar. Should the government enforce condom use to protect your right not to get herpes? And crap, there’s really no surefire way to prevent all STDs, so I suppose we better just make sex illegal.

“Now, do you doubt the scientific evidence that alcohol, fat, pot, cocaine, etc, etc, are harmful?”

No; what kind of dumbass would think that? Is fat now on the list of things you would find it reasonable to outlaw?

“If you, a musician from Atlanta, tell me sex is bad and is now illegal, I would get upset and wouldn't abide it.”

Even if I graduated college with honors and scored well on my SATs?

“Maybe I'm too trusting and naive, but I believe my government usually has my best interests in mind.“

Cough! Cough!

by Linz at June 9, 2004 6:36 PM

---

Doh! "I do dispute a guy wanting to be eaten"

Should be: "don't."

by Linz at June 9, 2004 6:41 PM

---

Man o man. When something sets you two to verbal sparring it is something to behold and I mean that in a good way. Your intellectual capacity for defending your views in interesting ways is one of the things I like most about this site. I, on the other hand, probably have the intellectual capacity to do it. I could side with either of your viewpoints pretty eloquently, but I lack many if any true convictions so I don't.

But I like MG's alternate spelling of argument and you're.

by anna at June 9, 2004 7:06 PM

---

Have I told you lately that I love you, Linz. Because I do. What I love almost as much is imagining you sitting at your desk, frothing at the mouth and mashing at the keyboard, because you can't type up a response fast enough. That image makes me hot.

You don't dispute a guy who wants to be killed and eaten? I'm not sure I know what to respond to that. What about the statutory rape question? What about grifters - do you believe those Nigerian spammers should be allowed to cheat people out of money? I mean, if you convince someone to send you money, they honestly understood the risks. What about people who started smoking before the surgeon general's warning - just because the companies told them it was okay, what right does the government have in telling people the truth, that smoking can kill you?

I don't expect hand holding, and I don't think trusting someone else to look out for me and advise me on things I don't have the power to study myself (the effects of drugs and alcohol, mercury posioning, car exhaust, etc), and make rules to not do things that hurt myself or others, even when I'm the one doing the hurting. I know you believe the same, and I know you really aren't an anarchist (though it does help the indie rock cred). I just wish I could give you a hug right now, because that has always been a good way to end a endless arguement with the wife.

by mg at June 9, 2004 7:32 PM

---

I think any greedy moron that gets suckered by Prince Abalada's plight with his ousted family deserves to have their account drained... Do I think the Nigerian spammers should have the right to cheat people? Of course not. In the the eater & eatee situation both knew exactly what they wanted and delivered on that. Different than the spamming. What if that was their spiritual nirvana? More likely they are both seriously fucked in the head, but... I don't know mg, I would be totally grossed out if that happened down the street from me... I am trying really hard to think if it was someone I knew, but it's so impossible to imagine.

I don't believe in stepping in for suicide. I hate to even talk about suicide due to the likelihood that someone reading this has loved someone who took his or her own life. But I wonder, would they try to force that person to stay alive? You won't be suprised to learn that I think assisted suicide for suffering people should be legal.

Statutory rape is not comparable. Look! Here is a law I agree with: legal adulthood... Statutory rape is a crime against another person, who is not a legal adult. But it's a new day and I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with the rape and suicide thing. Seems like one in which you think other people say what is okay and what is not okay for me, when I feel that my own actions with my own body (as a legal and consenting adult) are my own responsibility.

I guess mg, that I feel personal freedom is more important than perfect safety, and you feel the opposite. Like I said, the scenario you move towards with all this government control is life in a safe, padded cage. I would rather be free to fall, with warnings on my cigarette packages.

We don't agree.

The end.

by Linz at June 10, 2004 8:50 AM

---

I think we both agree that the government's role is to protect individuals from harm inflicted by other individuals, groups, corpropations, and governments. Where that agreement ends is on what responsibility the government has in protecting an individual from inflicting harm on themselves, right? Okay, in the first case, the government should protect the individual from being unwillingly inflicted harm, either through violenct means, environmental polution, etc. The government also steps in when the effects of an action are not sufficiently understood, generally, to allow anyone to make a resonable decision about use, such is the case with new pharmaceuticals. Do you believe the FDA has a responsibility to approve new medical drug before public use?

Now, an individual can't unwillingly inflict knowing harm on themselves, so that facet is not applicable. But, if an individual can unknowingly inflict harm on themself. If an individual does not sufficiently know the effects of their action, either by active deceit on the part of the person/group supplying the goods/services to them, through general distintrest, or intellectual inability (I couldn't explain, chemically, why I shouldn't drink mercury) the potential harm that can be inflicted through use, then I think it is the responsibility of the government to do something about it. That is where we disagree. Kind of.

Now, back to that Nigerian Spam example, you believe that if a person gets fooled, its there own damn fault. But you also believe that the person doing the spamming is doing something wrong in attempting to bilk people out of money. Do you see how those two positions are counter to each other? I have the right to be tricked out of my money, but no one has the right to trick me? By that logic, I have the right to use drugs, but no one has the right to sell them to me. It just doesn't make sense. You believe we are should be legally obligated to not deceitfully or recklessly inflict harm on others, but you also believe there should be no restriction on recklessly or deceitfully ("drugs aren't bad!") inflict harm on ourselves. I disagree.

The statutory rape example is a viable one. You believe that a minor has no ability to make a resonable decision about whether to have sex with a non-minor. You are restricting that minor's rights, based on your supposition that they can't make a resonable decision. I believe that, since most narcotics have been proven to be harmful again and again, those making a decision to take them are incapable of making an informed decision about the issue. Again, I'm trying to point out to you that you don't really believe in anarchy, and that your and my beliefs are on a scale, where yours just happen to fall way over to the side. But, while you believe in your personal right to do whatever you want with your body, you ARE willing to restrict the rights of a 16 year-old from having sex. To me, that case-by-case judgement of where a person's rights begins and where the government's responsibility begins is the problem. Using a case-by-case judgement, you are prone to make decisions based on personal morality, big money concerns, etc. For example believing pot should be okay, but that crack shouldn't be. Or in the case of the government, letting alcohol and tobacco remain legal, but continuing to restrict narcotics. These are BOTH situations in which something other than best interests and science are guiding the decision. I just believe that you either have to apply the law universally, or the other option is anarchy. You can't apply laws haphazardly, because that is injustice.

by mg at June 10, 2004 10:13 AM

---

There are middle grounds between the police state you are suggesting and anarchy. I believe in full disclosure. If the FDA knows something is bad, I want warnings. If I am taking a hallucinogenic malaria medicine that affects one in five users with moderate to severe psychological side effects, and the pharmaceutical company label only says "Lariam can rarely cause serious mental problems in some patients," that pisses me off. But I don't want them to take that drug away altogether. And I actually talked to some people who enjoy lariam and its vivid dreams, and they don't have the bad side effects. I just want full disclosure before I make my choice.

You are moving on to other topics, i.e. government approval or warnings, which I think is a good topic. I think alcohol & cigarettes have it right. They have warnings. If you are going to decide to ingest them, being forewarned, then go for it.

You have me wrong on the Nigeria spam thing, and are taking me too seriously about saying people deserve it (though it sure seems greedy and stupid). I do not think spammers should be allowed to deceive. Full disclosure. If they say, "We are about to take your money" and you STILL agree, well. It's pretty much legal. Insurance companies do it all the time. You can't compare this to drugs. Which brings me back to warnings. If drugs were legal, they damn well would come with warnings, wouldn't they? There would not be deceit in my scenario. You don't have an argument here, because you are arguing against an opinion I don't hold. If drugs were legal, they would not be sold by shady people in dark alleys, they'd be sold at CVS with big fat warning labels.

I never said I believed in anarchy. I said I leaned towards it vs. you leaning towards a police state. I also said anarchy would presume people were intelligent, when I know some aren't. Why are you trying to force me to be one or another? I told you, I don't have everything decided. Frankly, I find your certainty a little frightening.

I have little more to say about the statutory rape thing. Narcotics users are not children or dangerous crazy people (well, some are, but you know what I mean). The latter are the only two categories I feel should not have full rights. Everyone else should be responsible for their own decisions.

It always made me so mad when that one kid in the class wouldn't shut up and we all had to put our heads down and have quiet time. I have grown up to be a person that doesn't think that the few who abuse drugs should be how the government makes decisions for the vast number of recreational users, for whom the harm is minimal. As minimal as many other perfectly legal things. Did you know about the dangers of neckties?

You also have ignored my question about fats. Should fat be illegal, especially that one, trans fat? Or should there be full disclosure, so people can decide themselves? Chick-fil-a has MSG in it and probably trans fats too, but damn, I still chow down on that shit sometimes, and it makes me feel soooo gooood!

By the way Anna, thanks for the kudos. I enjoy the hell out of this.

by Linz at June 10, 2004 11:15 AM

---

*froth, froth!*

by Linz at June 10, 2004 12:28 PM

---

Just a note in Jean's defense: the 3 strikes law was originally very broad (it was passed in the wake of the Polly Klass slaying when everyone was astonished that she was killed by a 3rd time felon), but the moment the 3rd strike came down on someone for passing a bad check, an uproar ensued, and as I remember it was modified after that.
MG you said some pretty sweeping things up there somewhere, like: recreational drugs cause harm each and every time they are taken. Do you really think this is a defensible statement? I think your statement is patently false, but of course it begs the questions: what is a drug, and what is a harmful effect on a biological system? You're light years ahead of toxicologists if you can quantify a degree of harm that comes from single dosages of most drugs (not just recreational). Somehow I sense that your view of drugs isn't based in physiology, but lies elsewhere.

by chris at June 10, 2004 4:20 PM

---

Thanks, Chris. I have been too sleep-deprived, lately, to research an answer. :)

by jean at June 11, 2004 3:11 AM

---

I think I've made it clear from the beginning that I think there is more to this issue than physiology. One of my early arguments against drug/alcohol/tobacco use was the increase in medical insurance costs. If the basis of Linz’s arguments is personal freedom, if I haven't expressed it before, I'll say now that I believe in a perfect world everyone should be able to do whatever they want to themselves without effect on anyone else. But, I hope we can all admit how far such an ideal is from reality.

I'm sure you are familiar with Lorenz's "Butterfly Effect", and chaos theory in general. Seemingly unrelated events can have huge unintended consequences. Do you think the children of an alcoholic would say their parent's drinking only affected their parent? So, does that mean people are allowed to do drugs/drink until they have kids, and then we stop them? Now, you think you are buying pot from a friendly dealer. Somewhere down the line in his supply change, there is a not-so-friendly dealer, who has to kill a rival dealer, and your purchase is helping to support him (and don't give me that crap about how legalized drugs will end all drug related crime - how has copyright prevented illegal downloads or the massive East-Asian pirating market, how have age limits prevented minors from drinking, how has tobacco laws prevented the huge huge cigarette black market (which, if anything, has risen in response to the kinds of taxes we'd need to place on drugs)?).

All I'm saying is that what you think you are doing to your body, and your body alone, has significant, if immeasurable, effects on the world around you, and to use the "personal freedom" argument ignores the reality of the world, in favor of an ideal that, even in a best case scenario, would be impossible to achieve.

I also think the psychology of drug use is as big an issue as the physiology. What psychological elements go into an individual's decision to self-medicate? What causes someone to overeat? What causes someone to commit suicide? Why do we find it acceptable to allow someone to kill themselves slowly, but not acceptable to kill themselves quickly?

As to your question, Chris, do I think using pot once will have a permanent effect? Not really. But neither would stabbing yourself in the thigh, and I wouldn't want anyone to do that to themselves either. I think we can all agree that "cutting" is a sign of deeper emotional problems that should be dealt with. Yet, I'd guess cutting yourself 50 times will do less permanent physical damage (besides cosmetic) than dropping 50 hits of acid. Yet, someone who does that, while probably not a productive member of society, is seen as someone "just doing their thing" rather than someone with a psychological problem. I just don't get it.

But ignoring the above, lets say for the sake of argument that there are no psychological or sociological causes/consequences of drug/alcohol use. I've come to accept that you'll disagree with me on each and every issue Chris, but as a scientist, you must admit that for all we know about our biology, there is that much more that we don't know.

I may never have mentioned this, but I studied, for two years, in a biochemistry program, with my eventual emphasis to be on psychopharmacology - the study of drugs on the brain/mind. A professor once suggested to me that those with cancer are predisposed to get it, and rather than the environment playing havoc on their body, they, at a cellular level, crave items that will cause them cancer. I've since seen other speculations, in scholarly publications, about cancers and other diseases lying dormant in the body until they are "turned on." Obviously, this doesn't describe all cases of a disease (lung cancer among coal miners can hardly be explained by a genetic predisposition, for example), but it does suggest a reason why some people can smoke for 30 years and be able to quit cold turkey, while others consistently struggle.

Now, even if you don't see the short-term effects drug/alcohol/tobacco usage, (which I would suggest are more significant than is currently able to be quantified, scientifically) you must admit to the existence of long-term effects.

As Linz has been quick to point out, in the arena of environmental pollution, we don't restrict pollution because it will have an immediate effect, but because it will have a cumulative effect. Why shouldn't chemicals we ingest willingly be subject to the same standard?

If your argument is that small doses are not harmful and it should be a personal decision to use or not, does that mean government DOES have an interest in preventing people from taking harmful doses? If the question, then, is quantity, when do we decide someone has had "enough"? A year of constant usage? Five years? As a society, do we really want to let someone do a bad thing, but only until it will have a permanent effect? I don't want to get into that business. Would you really rather have government watch someone and decide for them when they've reached the threshold of harm, or does it make a lot more sense to not let them get near that point by stopping them from using a substance at all?

I think it is more than obvious that I don't have all the answers and, I've always respected your opinion, Chris, because even though it frequently (constantly) runs counter to my own, it is based on some logical, scientific, and fair-minded basis, and has forced me to question myself in ways that never would have occurred to me. But, I am pissed that you would question my motives and why I feel the way I do about the issue. While my construct of the world is based on my personal experiences, I think I have always tried to argue from a position of what is best for society, rather than from what I might gain personally. I will admit, as Linz has surmised, that I take a much harder line stance on issues in the course of an argument that I probably would in real life, but the foundation is based on more closely on "reality", are altruistic, and disinterest (in terms of it not effecting me that drugs are illegal, since I don't use them) than someone who does drugs, and is looking for a way to justify their behavior.

I had skirted this issue the entire discussion, because I was trying to judge the argument from a logical perspective, but, lets be honest here, a huge factor in someone's stance on legalization is based on their personal usage of the substances. I'm guessing a huge factor in Linz' willingness to waffle on legalization of crack is because she doesn't smoke crack. Just as it is difficult to believe Halliburton’s receipt of contracts in Iraq is without having something to do with Cheney's personal interests, it is difficult to believe a pro-legalization argument from someone who will be personally benefiting from the legalization. It pissed me off that you would question my motives, yet take Linz's at face value. Whatever you may think of me, know that my stance on this issue is foundationed solely on the philosophy that legalization of drugs will be harmful on a personal (to those who use) and societal level (all the intersections of lives), not on any personal gain. Can you say that about her's?

by mg at June 11, 2004 9:54 AM

---

Why would you be mad at Chris for being curious about your motives? Shouldn't everyone consider their motives, try to get to the human root of their philosophies?

Why take Chris's question as some sort of commentary on your selfishness? I certainly consider and question my motives! Then you follow up with a poorly veiled strike at my motives, by assuming that I only hold my opinions because I do drugs. I feel like you are trying to write off my opinions with the simplest explanation that is most comforting to you. But every single person seeks explanations that best fit their current frame of reference! Me included. Do you feel exempt from that?

I too try to form my opinions based on the greater good; why did you think Chris was questioning that about you? You made an awful lot of inferences from his simple question, plus you seem offended that anyone imply that your actual life experiences factor in to your philosophies. What is wrong with that?

by Linz at June 11, 2004 11:33 AM

---

I am sick of the topic of debate. I've said it several times. You believe in personal safety at the cost of personal freedom, which I understand and accept but disagree with. I believe in personal freedom at the cost of personal safety, which I ask you to try to accept as a not-totally-insane point of view that you are more than welcome to disagree with.

by Linz at June 11, 2004 11:37 AM

---

I don't feel exempt from self-analysis, did you read my comment? Reality is a construct that exists only in each of our minds. Within my construct, I believe that scientific, pyschological, and sociological evidence of the harmful effects of drugs/alcohol/tobacco outweight whatever personal benefit individuals derive from it. You disagree, and believe personal freedom outweighs government interest, even in protecting citizens from themselves. The question is, which of those two constructs is more viable within the general societal construct?

And the reason it bothers me is the same reason it bothers that, of all the things I brought up in my previous comment, this is what you choose to respond to. I have tried, and always do, to not make these discussions personal. I may attack, but I attack the argument, I attack the logic, I have never intentionally, and hope never unintentionally, attacked you. When Chris questions motives, he isn't attacking my argument, but me, personally. That is why I'm offended.

When someone question's why I feel the way I do, rather than respond to what I'm saying, then it suggests to me they have no response. Then the argument becomes a personal one, rather than issue-based. It is tought to seperate the two, but to have a civil, rational discussion, you have to.

It wasn't a poorly vieled strike, because it wasn't veiled at all. I'm sorry that you've taken the brunt, but if my motives are questioned, it has unfortunately opened up the whole idea of motives. If my opinion was based on, for example, a loved one ODing, I'd have said so. I can honestly tell you there is no emotional aspect like that effecting my thought-process. But, you do use drugs. That must have some effect on your legalization stance, yet you haven't mentioned that once. Why not? Do you think it lessens the impact of your argument?

But, you are right about one thing, it is more conforting for me to believe your opinion is based on a personal interest in legalization of drugs, rather than that society has no place in attempting to prevent its citizens from ruining their lives. The latter argument is, in fact, frightening to me. That is the reason I try to "force" you to take a stand on things like legalization of crack, because if you waiver there, then your whole "personal freedom" argument is on shakey ground. If you believe there is an end to personal freedoms (and that end is crack, or something else) then you can't use personal freedoms to justify legalization of pot. So, what then is the argument for legalizing pot? I honestly want to hear your answer about this. Personal freedom is, by definition, an all or nothing thing. If it is a scale, you are much closer to me on this than you realize.

As for me "writing off" your opinion, I don't think I've done that, or else this comment thread would have died 30 comments ago. I want you to understand that the reason I am continuing to respond is because I want to understand your logic and get you to understand mine. If I was writing you off, I just wouldn't bother at all. I've never met you, but over the past 2 years I have grown to have an immense respect for you. We disagree, and disagree often, but I value your opinion, and considering everythin else I should be doing right now, the only thing keeping me at BS the past couple days is the joy of this conversation with you.

by mg at June 11, 2004 12:28 PM

---

I didn't even get half as upset at your comment as I should have, because I didn't read the last paragraph of your last comment somehow. You can get pissed at Chris for bringing up motives, but then it's a free-for-all with me as your retaliation target? Get off your high horse and don't try to justify what was simply you overreacting. It is not an insult to question someone's motives. It is, however, rather insulting when you presume, before even inquiring, about my motives. Chris was just curious for you to supply your own motives so he could understand where you were coming from better, god forbid.

Allow me to explain my motives. I have had such a rich and full life, and some of that (a small fraction of the many things I've loved doing) has been experimentation with drugs. I have also been free to experiment with meditation and excercise, and many other exciting methods of mind alteration. I know that people abuse drugs. They abuse legal things too. I know your argument is to prohibit any substances that could kill you, because why would people want to consume something deadly? And you still never answered my fat question.

To answer that, I think experiencing life more fully is worth the risk. I used the sky diving example way back in the last drug argument. I will do that someday, and I know it might kill me, but the joy of the experience, even the possible broken leg or death, is worth the risk! It is worth it to me! I don't want a world where other people decide every risk I may or may not take! I went to Nigeria last month, while civil war was ensuing in the neighboring state. Yet another mind-altering experience that could have proved fatal. Do you understand?

You see drugs through some kind of lens that I do not have. I see drugs as a potentially deadly experience worth having. Now, crack? I make my own adult decision never to try it because it is stupid! It is our responsibility to know this as adults, and to educate our kids about it. I have tried cocaine, which is also stupid, but I am not sorry, dead, or permanently impaired because of it. Nor am I sorry, dead or permanently impaired because of having ridden on a motorcycle, which I also think is stupid.

You went so far as to say I am ignoring the realities of the world. No more than you are. If you are worried about drug black markets why don't you keep your eye on the diamond trade (which has finally been regulated), and other completely legal products that come out of Africa at the expense of the lives and limbs of children, so us precious Americans can have our precious possessions. For every reason you have to prohibit drug use, there are legal comparisons that refute your logic. In my tiny little single opinion. It keeps coming back to this *possibility* that maybe you have some beef with drugs. (Not cow beef.)

I didn't like the tone of your last comment and chose instead to question what got your shorts all bunched up. I didn't respond to anything more because it is pointless. I am listening to you. I am hearing you. I am respecting your opinions, and don't think you hold them in spite. But I don't agree, for good reasons, and now that YOU have gotten personal with ME, I do not have any desire to find new ways to make my same point & read your new ways of making your same point. I understand your argument and disagree. End of story.

I enjoy the hell out of these conversations too but I think it's clear we've made our points. Don't you?

by Linz at June 11, 2004 1:49 PM

---

As an FYI, I'm positive I've mentioned on the site that I am against the diamond trade. I've also mentioned in this thread I'm pro-gun control. I'm also for open markets, despite the inevitable loss of American jobs, because it is best for the world economy. The point I'm trying to make it that I think there are a lot of things wrong with the world, and we should be fixing them. But because there are drugs (alcohol) that are legal, that doesn't mean other drugs (heroin) shouldn't be kept illegal. That people abuse legal things (food), doesn't mean we should allow illegal things to become legal abused (crack). Two, or ten, or a hundred wrongs don't make a right. Is it hypocrisy? Yes, but I would prefer a hypocrisy that protects as much as it can, than a chaos in which nothing is controlled.

Also, don't you find it ironic that you think I got personal when I questioned your motives, yet "Chris was was just curious for [me] to supply [my] own motives so he could understand where [I was] coming from better"?

I think I have been very honest from the beginning about my beef with drugs. I will happily and willfully admit that I have a beef with drugs. I think they are emotionally, physically, and socially harmful. THAT is my beef, and I've said that in each and every comment in this thread. Whether or not it has anything to do with your opinion on drugs, it has taken 50 comments for you to admit using them. I don't think that negates your opinion, because it is consistent throughout other areas as well, but you have to admit it does have an effect and is worthy to bring into the discussion.

I willingly admit (and already have) that when I argue I take a much harder stance than I would in my daily life. However, I do believe there is a line in which personal interests conflict with society's interest. I don't want to be the one drawing that line, I don't necessarily want the governmnet making that decision either, but someone HAS TO. By default, it is the government. I've asked you this question several times, and never really gotten an answer, so you can ignore it again, or answer it and we can truley be done with this conversation - do you think there is a point at which an individual's rights conflict with society's? If so, who, besides the government, decides what that point should be? What metrics do they use to make that decision?

by mg at June 11, 2004 2:37 PM

---

No, it is not ironic because you didn't do what Chris did. You told me what my motives were, and frankly, you assumed a "huge factor" in my motives was very selfish vs. your very societally-directed motives. Take some ownership instead of trying to justify it: you were rude to me (and Chris) when Chris simply asked you to define your own motives, which shouldn't have offended you. If you have good pro-human reasons, you shouldn't be mad to be asked for them. On the other hand, you said I had selfish, pro-Lindsay reasons, which was okay apparently.

I am not sure about crack. I think there are compelling arguments to keep it illegal, and compelling arguments to make it legal. Apparently not just blindly choosing a side means I'm "waffling." But look, the reason I consider legalizing all drugs is because there honestly are compelling studies about the benefits to addicts that would result, which to me is better than trying to somehow make something impossible a reality (i.e. eliminate drugs from the face of the planet). Crack is already illegal and it's killing & hurting thousands.

We have tried the illegal thing, and the "war on drugs," and it's not stopping crack, and it IS costing us tons of money. To clamp down more, which seems to be where you're headed, would cost even more. The reason I contemplate crack being legal is because I've heard some arguments that the net damage would be less than when we keep it illegal. To think we can snuff out crack completely is not very realistic.

My reasons for wanting pot to be legal are because I know it's benign, and enjoyable, and if it was legal, it would cut down on silly prison sentences (which cost you money), and maybe stop some violence at the top of the chain.

"50 comments for you to admit using them" Did anyone here not know that I did? I don't mind bringing it in to the argument, but I do mind if you think that's the reason I hold my opinions. I agree that drugs can do harm, but only in extreme cases. Your opinions make it seem like that is the norm, when it is the exception.

"Do you think there is a point at which an individual's rights conflict with society's?" Maybe I didn't answer because I thought it was rhetorical. Would anyone answer "no" to this? I think the government should use harm levels to make decisions, and if they did, pot would be legal. And maybe McDonalds wouldn't.

Remember what I said about you & I being in different cases idealists & pessimists? You assume our government makes decisions based on morality and ethics, or that it somehow could if we just wish real hard. I assume all human beings have a hair of intelligence, or that they somehow could if we just wish real hard.

Say it with me.

We.
Both.
Have.
Compelling.
Arguments.

Either.
Of.
Us.
Could.
Be.
Right.

... or neither...

p.s. thank god your website doesn't erase my comment when I forget to fill in my name & email address.

by Linz at June 11, 2004 3:33 PM

---

Hey MG, I didn't mean to piss you off, and to be very very clear - I didn't see myself as questioning your motives. (I have every faith that your are a rational, reasonable person with only good intentions and interested in what's best for us all). I was trying to find the basis of your viewpoint, as I didn't accept your statement, "...whereas drug/alcohol/tobacco use is harmful each and every time" as sufficient, and I wondered if that statement were debunked, if you would have any other reasons for feeling the way you do about drugs. (a lot of people have a negative view of drugs, even when nothing harmful can be quantified). So again, sorry to piss you off, I wasn't attacking you, veiled or otherwise.
To comment on some of your points: in your perfect world, one's actions on oneself would affect only them and not others, yet by the Butterfly Effect, everything is connected. My ideal is different: I expect that my actions, however well intentioned or innocuous I think they are, will have an effect on others (I don't need to wish or expect them not to) - and I am willing to pay a price for the cost of this freedom. That is, I would rather pay to take care of obese people than to outlaw Big Macs (I don't eat Big Macs, but I want the freedom to eat one). I would rather pay the medicare overhead on lung cancer than outlaw smoking (though I would want to do as much as I can to encourage people to choose not to smoke; again I don't smoke but I want the freedom...well I don't want to smoke). We can't outlaw risk, and we ought to examine why we over-penalize risks with a voluntary component. i.e. cars are dangerous, but we wouldn't outlaw them because people have to drive, yet no one really has to eat a big mac. I spent several years riding my motorcycle in dense/hectic San Francisco bay area traffic, having near death experiences on a weekly, sometimes daily basis. EVERY SINGLE DAY the news reported at least one motorcycle down (usu. fatal). An argument could easily be made to outlaw motorcycles. Because we can't legislate against every risky human behavior we have to do what's reasonable (which changes). In summary, I question the assumption that we shouldn't have to pay for each others vices or freedoms. I'm willing to pay for a lot of freedoms that I don't use.
Regarding drugs, it's important to distinguish between use and abuse (though currently we don't). My mind altering drug of choice: coffee - two cups a day. I love it and have gone to great lengths to get it. If there were a crack parlor, like a crack starbucks, somewhere you go and pay 60 bucks to smoke a rock and hang out for 2 hours (like getting a massage, or having a couple of beers at a pub), I'd probably give it a try (not for pro-Lindsay reasons, but purely my own :) ). Yet I don't use crack. I've tried just about everything that doesn't fit in a syringe (a decade or two ago), yet I'm not a drug user (coffee aside). My point: drugs affect different people differently, there is a distribution of populations who use drugs with varying degrees of consequence. We don't have a good model for this so we label the entire thing as bad - with the exception of alcohol - yet alcohol is in the same club, and has terrible and beneficial consequences for society.
Regarding drugs, pollution, and cumulative effects, remember this: concentration matters. Extrapolating effects from one concentration to another is done across the board - yet rarely accurate. With pollution, a cumulative effect depends on the buffering capacity of the system being polluted. It can be the same with chemicals we ingest.
Anyway, we know it's complicated, and laws are supposed to be about some kind of compromise.

by chris at June 11, 2004 4:16 PM

---

Well I can tell you one thing from years of personal experience in a crime syndicate: We definitely favored the continued criminalization of cocaine and pot. Whore Hey got out of min-sec a changed man of God but that didn't stop him from digging up numerous buried coffee cans full of mucho dollars (and I mean mucho.) I was there and saw it with my own two eyes.

by anna at June 11, 2004 6:48 PM

---

Thanks Chris, for calling me a "a rational, reasonable person with only good intentions and interested in what's best for us all." I do appreciate it, and please don't read any sarcasm in that. Really.

So, Linz, lets forge a compromise; gov't should make laws, but not too many laws. Better than the chaos I envision Linz's ideals would get us, and better than the police-state that Linz imagine's my ideals would get us. I don't think either of us wanted what the other accused us of wanting, but sometimes in the heat of battle, you lose sight of common ground.

So, this is the end, and we'll agree to disagree.

However, I would like to clarify one thing. My belief that gov't has our best interests in mind is based on this: Say you have a group of 100 people. Of the 100, 1 are violent criminals, 9 are white-color/non-violent criminals, 1 is a saint, 9 are great human beings in every respect, and the other 80 are generally okay, but can sometimes be jerks.

My faith in governmnet is based on the belief that when those 100 people get together to decide something, because of group dynamics, they'll come up with a generally fair solution. The group will probably not always come up with a solution that'll make everyone happy. Sometimes, they'd come up with a solution that I hate. But I believe that much more often than not they will do better than the alternative. Because without the group collectively coming together to make the rules and enfroce them, each of the members of the group is subject to the whims of any of the other members of the group. I'd rather trust in the collective decision of a generally "good" group, than, in interactions with individuals, take the chance that I'm dealing with the 10% bad, or the 80% that could just be having a bad week, and not have a recourse to protect myself.

This is a simple example, but maybe that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

by mg at June 11, 2004 7:13 PM

---

Man, I missed an excellent debate. While reading this extremely lengthy comment strand, I actually took 2 pages of notes (who's a big dork?) of things I wanted to comment about, but it looks like it is dead :(. I actually do have a couple of points where I differ from my little sis, b/c I really think that marijuana/lcd/mushrooms should be legal and crack and other drugs should not. But oh well, next time...

by Shannon at June 14, 2004 10:38 AM

---

some friends told me about this site, and now i'm glad they told me about it.

by stephen allison at February 14, 2006 9:27 AM

---

Very informative site. Good job.

by Christopher Johnson at February 14, 2006 9:37 AM

---

You're doing a great work here. I enjoyed visiting here very much. Thanks!

by Robert Jones at February 14, 2006 10:12 AM

---

Death by poision is too simple...and painless. I bet the convicted would disagree, but they're rather stiff, as is. Electrocution is always good for a show, what with the convulsiong and occasional splatter of blood. But Im old-school. Drawn-and-Quartered, Dragged by a horse and bieng impaled through the anus. Bieng skinned alive, then made into a lampshade, a new technique, but popular. Or, in the intrests of humanity, make our murderers into leather coats, that we then give to our less fortunate. EYe for an eye, pah! Exessive force is the way to go!

by Clonereject1138 at February 14, 2006 3:00 PM

---

add a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments:



Enter the code above:

• contact

• recent comments
  • Goat porn this way sir.
    • Chevre | October 5, 2008 11:23 AM
    • Billy | October 5, 2008 10:57 AM
    • nady | August 24, 2008 1:00 PM
  • Die, Die, Die Pig, Die! Fuck the police!
    • Pig Hater | October 4, 2008 7:36 PM
    • michael mahaffey | January 14, 2008 12:29 PM
    • higherstandard | May 27, 2007 11:48 PM
  • The Teen Challenge Lady
    • Lisa Fischetto | October 3, 2008 4:43 AM
    • Brett | July 3, 2008 7:39 AM
    • lee pam | June 20, 2008 2:34 AM
  • He said, you are depressed I'm glad you came to see me and get this off your chest
    • oakwood | September 30, 2008 5:37 PM
    • Mista Guy | September 12, 2008 10:18 PM
    • disapointed | June 28, 2008 11:46 PM
  • never thought i'd see you naked (and i was right) : Sarah Silverman
    • King | September 28, 2008 2:57 PM
    • King | September 28, 2008 2:56 PM
    • Luger Ruger | March 13, 2007 8:07 PM
  • Don't eat the brown acid
    • Fron | September 17, 2008 12:14 AM
    • OBloodyhell | January 30, 2008 4:46 PM
    • OBloodyhell | January 30, 2008 4:41 PM
  • how much for a dime bag?
    • justin | September 16, 2008 8:41 AM
    • justin | September 16, 2008 8:40 AM
    • sirsmokealot | August 21, 2008 5:08 PM

• archives
  • 2007
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2002
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2001
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2000
    • December
    • November
    • October

• features
  • Do you take too many online quizzes?
  • bad advice
  • bad news
  • best of
  • fair use
  • link of the day
  • never thought i'd see you naked
  • osama bin laden nude
  • sex machines
  • three minute blog

• staff
  • mg        
  • snaggle
  • anna
  • jean
  • blank
  • leaffin
  • adam
  • chris
  • all authors

• support
  • lover's caught on tape
  • kick ass t-shirts
  • shop @ amazon
  • get free dvds
  • Got Brains?
  • Totally Crucial