Why Are So Many Still Against Hemp / Marijuana ?

[steveh_131]

I will mostly agree with this. I might be mistaken, but I would wager there is some level of risk mitigation you are comfortable with the government involving itself in. A person driving the wrong direction on a freeway. A person firing shots into the air, or just waving a gun around in public. Granted, no one is actually hurt, yet. I'm sure we could come up with others that are not far fetched, and that most people would agree would require some sort of legal ramifications. But I'm interested in your views, because I think you bring out a lot of great points.

This reminds me of the old joke: a man offers a woman $1,000,000 to sleep with him. She says, yes, why not. He then replies, well, would you take $20? To this she replies "what kind of a girl do you take me for?" The man says "we've already established that, now we're just haggling over price."

I don't know where this leaves us as a country, but sometimes I think we're just haggling over the price of our liberties.

You're right, I think that's a great analogy. Liberals and conservatives are both haggling over which liberties to sell. Unfortunately they're both succeeding, little by little.

That's exactly why I refuse to sell any of them. And that's why you won't find an activity that I'll agree to prohibit that doesn't directly harm a person or property. Including waving a gun around.

I recognize that this leaves me in the minority, but it is the only way to create policy without continually selling away our freedom.

 

[Woobie]

You're right, I think that's a great analogy. Liberals and conservatives are both haggling over which liberties to sell. Unfortunately they're both succeeding, little by little.

That's exactly why I refuse to sell any of them. And that's why you won't find an activity that I'll agree to prohibit that doesn't directly harm a person or property. Including waving a gun around.

I recognize that this leaves me in the minority, but it is the only way to create policy without continually selling away our freedom.

I respect that. As I posted in another thread a minute ago, I'm an incrementalist. I'll take what I can get now, and then I'll come back for more of what's mine tomorrow.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

You're right, I think that's a great analogy. Liberals and conservatives are both haggling over which liberties to sell. Unfortunately they're both succeeding, little by little.

That's exactly why I refuse to sell any of them. And that's why you won't find an activity that I'll agree to prohibit that doesn't directly harm a person or property. Including waving a gun around.

I recognize that this leaves me in the minority, but it is the only way to create policy without continually selling away our freedom.

Some of the things that you advocate for (or against) are fine if you're living alone out in the middle of nowhere. However, like it or not, unless you live alone on a mountaintop somewhere, you are a part of a group. As such, in order for the group to live in harmony and not be constantly bickering with one another, wouldn't you agree that there needs to be a set of "ground rules"? It sounds like you only want to prohibit an action after the fact. If I'm shooting at you, but I miss, is that okay? Or do you think my activity should only be restricted once the bullet actually strikes you? Because frankly the way you've come across in some of your posts, it sounds like you would really think that if someone shoots at someone but misses, it's no harm, no foul. To me it makes more sense to prohibit people from shooting at one another in the first place, rather than just hope they're a lousy marksman.

 

[steveh_131]

Some of the things that you advocate for (or against) are fine if you're living alone out in the middle of nowhere. However, like it or not, unless you live alone on a mountaintop somewhere, you are a part of a group. As such, in order for the group to live in harmony and not be constantly bickering with one another, wouldn't you agree that there needs to be a set of "ground rules"?

Yes, of course. Don't harm me or my property. If you do something stupid that does cause damage to me or my property, be prepared to pay steep restitution and/or go to jail.

It sounds like you only want to prohibit an action after the fact. If I'm shooting at you, but I miss, is that okay?

If you shoot at me, I'll assume that I am in mortal danger and I'll kill you. Or I'll call the police and they'll assume that you're trying to kill me and they'll kill you.

Do you really think that without laws against it, people would go around shooting at people while trying not to hit them? Do you have any examples of marauding shooters who go around purposely missing people with bullets?

To me it makes more sense to prohibit people from shooting at one another in the first place, rather than just hope they're a lousy marksman.

Sure, that makes more sense to you. To others it makes the most sense to prohibit people from owning guns to begin with. What say you? This is why I'm not interested in risk analysis and what 'makes sense' to people when deciding which freedoms to give up.

 

[Ericpwp]

If you shoot at me, I'll assume that I am in mortal danger and I'll kill you. Or I'll call the police and they'll assume that you're trying to kill me and they'll kill you.

What if you assumed wrong? DoggyDaddy was shooting at Bigfoot, and he just saved your life? Did he just break one of the 4 rules? Or do they steal your freedom as well?

 

[steveh_131]

What if you assumed wrong? DoggyDaddy was shooting at Bigfoot, and he just saved your life? Did he just break one of the 4 rules? Or do they steal your freedom as well?

Interesting question. It is currently legal to shoot back at someone if you believe you are in danger. So I assume that you think this should also be prohibited?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yes, of course. Don't harm me or my property. If you do something stupid that does cause damage to me or my property, be prepared to pay steep restitution and/or go to jail.

But if I missed, I haven't caused any harm.



If you shoot at me, I'll assume that I am in mortal danger and I'll kill you. Or I'll call the police and they'll assume that you're trying to kill me and they'll kill you.
Why? Again, unless I hit you, I've done no harm.
Do you really think that without laws against it, people would go around shooting at people while trying not to hit them? Do you have any examples of marauding shooters who go around purposely missing people with bullets?
You tell me. You're the one that seems to think that the law is unnecessary. Do you think celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve in a heavily populated area is okay? The shooters aren't trying to hit anyone, so that's okay?



Sure, that makes more sense to you. To others it makes the most sense to prohibit people from owning guns to begin with. What say you? This is why I'm not interested in risk analysis and what 'makes sense' to people when deciding which freedoms to give up.

Clearly it is the action (shooting at someone) that should be prohibited, and not the implement used, right? So you in fact are saying that the risk that is incurred by someone shooting at you is unacceptable. Gun itself = low risk. Gun being used to shoot at you (action) = high risk. Whether you admit it or not, you have acknowledged that on some level, risk analysis makes sense.

 

[steveh_131]

Why? Again, unless I hit you, I've done no harm.

Wouldn't anyone assume that a weirdo shooting a gun at him is putting you in danger? What reality do you live in? Actions have consequences beyond those of government restrictions. Shooting a gun at someone has consequences: You'll probably get yourself killed.

Do you think celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve in a heavily populated area is okay? The shooters aren't trying to hit anyone, so that's okay?

Let's talk about 'okay'. I'm not 'okay' with it, I think it's stupid and irresponsible. And if you hurt someone or damage property (likely) then the penalty should be steep.

Clearly it is the action (shooting at someone) that should be prohibited, and not the implement used, right? So you in fact are saying that the risk that is incurred by someone shooting at you is unacceptable. Gun itself = low risk. Gun being used to shoot at you (action) = high risk. Whether you admit it or not, you have acknowledged that on some level, risk analysis makes sense.

I think you're missing my point.

You think the gun itself is low risk. Plenty of folks do not. They think gun ownership is high risk.

Do you think our liberties should be based on what the population believes to be 'high risk'?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

[/B]Wouldn't anyone assume that a weirdo shooting a gun at him is putting you in danger? What reality do you live in? Actions have consequences beyond those of government restrictions. Shooting a gun at someone has consequences: You'll probably get yourself killed.



[/B]Let's talk about 'okay'. I'm not 'okay' with it, I think it's stupid and irresponsible. And if you hurt someone or damage property (likely) then the penalty should be steep.



I think you're missing my point.

You think the gun itself is low risk. Plenty of folks do not. They think gun ownership is high risk.

Do you think our liberties should be based on what the population believes to be 'high risk'?

No, I prefer that my liberties, insofar as I am a citizen of this state/country, come from a document that enumerated them, and did so to declare which rights the government cannot take away. It's not a dichotomy as you seem to see it. The same document also defines which branch of government is tasked with making laws, and it's no small coincidence that that branch is the Legislative branch which is made up of... wait for it... duly elected representatives of the people. People... interesting word that. Usually refers to a group of individuals. Seems that I saw it bandied about that "society" was made up of individuals and as such was not its own entity. Yet our constitution allows for laws to be made by representatives of a group of individuals. So, wouldn't you say that "the people" are in fact a society? So laws are made by representatives of that society, ergo "society" makes the laws. It also does so (allegedly) without infringing on "liberties". I said allegedly because I do think there are things (laws) that do infringe upon them, but laws in general? Not so much.

ETA - I am in favor of legalizing marijuana and hemp, btw. Again, there is a method to change the law as it exists. Just need to convince "society" to vote for it.

 

[steveh_131]

No, I prefer that my liberties, insofar as I am a citizen of this state/country, come from a document that enumerated them, and did so to declare which rights the government cannot take away.

See, right there in the first sentence you lost me. The constitution does not enumerate your liberties. How could one [very old] document enumerate every liberty that an individual can have?

The constitution does not enumerate your rights. It enumerates what the government may do.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

See, right there in the first sentence you lost me. The constitution does not enumerate your liberties. How could one [very old] document enumerate every liberty that an individual can have?

The constitution does not enumerate your rights. It enumerates what the government may and may not do.

FIFY

So you have your "pet" laws that are okay with you. They don't all take away your liberty. I am saying that laws and liberty can exist together and are not mutually exclusive.

 

[steveh_131]

So you have your "pet" laws that are okay with you. They don't all take away your liberty. I am saying that laws and liberty can exist together and are not mutually exclusive.

That's absolutely correct. Laws that prohibit actions that cause harm to people or property can exist alongside individual liberty.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That's absolutely correct. Laws that prohibit actions that cause harm to people or property can exist alongside individual liberty.

And who gets to decide what constitutes harm? Harm is not just physical harm. I think maybe that's what you take issue with.

 

[steveh_131]

And who gets to decide what constitutes harm?

The legislature that writes the laws.

 

[D-Ric902]

The legislature that writes the laws.

So if that legislature decides that pot is harmful to the population, you would agree?

cause it did

 

[steveh_131]

So if that legislature decides that pot is harmful to the population, you would agree?

cause it did

He was asking me who gets to decide. In our system, the legislature does. That was my answer. That doesn't mean I agree with the legislature.

Now 'pot' isn't harmful any more than 'guns' are harmful. They are inanimate objects. They harm nothing without the act of an individual. Those acts are what a legislature can criminalize.

Those prohibited acts should be limited to acts that result in direct harm to a named individual. Pretty simple.

 

[D-Ric902]

He was asking me who gets to decide. In our system, the legislature does.

and they did
Pretty simple

 

[jamil]

Thank you, Doug, for a reasonable and well-articulated argument.

Of course, I don't agree with it and I certainly wouldn't call it a 'libertarian' argument.

Freedom-lovers are not interested in your risk threshold calculations. It is not my place nor the government's place to calculate risks and prohibit activities based upon those calculations. If it was, I could probably find some pretty good statistics that would demonstrate the need for gun control.

The very act of performing that 'risk calculation' is the role of a nanny. That's what a nanny does when the boy is jumping on the couch, or the girl is eating too many cookies.

I don't want or need the government performing risk analysis on my activities.

Steve, sometimes I just watch you broad jump from solid ground right off that cliff into the ideological abyss, and I just shake my head. Doug is living in and speaking of a real world where real people interact. If there were ever such a thing as a pragmatic, reasoning Libertarian, Doug's probably it.

 

[steveh_131]

and they did
Pretty simple

Who said they didnt?

Who are you arguing with?

 

[steveh_131]

Steve, sometimes I just watch you broad jump from solid ground right off that cliff into the ideological abyss, and I just shake my head.

I believe that I am being quite pragmatic, actually. Here's reality: We already live in Doug's ideal world. He wants to draw his line at 75% risky, while others are drawing theirs at 60% risky. "Come on, guys" he says, "Marijuana isn't THAT risky! Let's legalize it!" What does this accomplish? It accomplishes the exact status quo. Everybody pushing for their favorite 'risky' activity to be legal. Conservatives want guns, liberals want pot. Conservatives want economic freedom, liberals want marital freedom. It's a never-ending tug-of-war. And the constant compromise has consistently tugged us away from liberty for a very, very long time.

I have a different idea. Let's forget 'risk analysis'. Let's never base criminal laws on it again. And my reasons are perfectly pragmatic: It fails to provide any significant security, and succeeds at stripping away our liberty.

I've tackled many examples in threads on INGO. Traffic laws, prohibition, gun control; none of these actually promote our safety as they are intended. They have, however, resulted in many instances of tyranny.

Doug is living in and speaking of a real world where real people interact. If there were ever such a thing as a pragmatic, reasoning Libertarian, Doug's probably it.

You probably find him pragmatic and reasonable because his views are not really libertarian