Weed legalized in Cali and age to buy Tobacco is raised to 21. Seems weird to celebrate both.

[CaliforniaLove]

IDK how much truth there is to this, but it almost seems to me like the same people celebrating the legalization of MaryJ are also celebrating the restriction of tobacco products.

It seems like a lot of the conversation around marijuana legalization comes down to discussion about how safe marijuana is compared to tobacco, a legal substance.

And that's true. And I personally have never done either, but if I was forced to hang around somebody who does one, I'd choose marijuana. I can agree that tobacco is a less healthy and less pleasant substance.

However, that's never been the reason why I've supported marijuana legalization. The argument I've felt was the most persuasive to me is simpler. Why should somebody else have a say in what I put in my body? That's really at the core of most of my political beliefs. People should have the agency to control their own lives when it doesn't have a negative effect on anybody else's.

And the same can easily be applied to tobacco.

But even more concerning to me than that is that with this law, it's all about age. The law seems to be saying that a 23 year old has agency over their own body, and a 20 year old does not.

As a 21 year old, this kind of hits a little close to home. It kinda freaks me out a little bit. I really start to think about slippery slopes. What are they really saying to me when they say that if I was 1 year younger I wouldn't be able to make the decision on whether I wanted to smoke tobacco? It was less than a half century ago when people ages 18-20 couldn't vote at all. And we all know that if that went back to being the case, Republicans would benefit significantly.

I've heard people talk about raising the age of adulthood because of something about the amygdala not being full size until you're 25. To me, that's a nightmare scenario. Not that I'd expect the average person of any age to be ok with that, but crazier things have happened.

So any time I see rights being restricted to people because they aren't a certain age, it makes me feel a little uneasy. And whenever I see that age being RAISED, it makes me feel very uneasy, because it makes me feel like it sets a standard for further restriction.

To me, raising the smoking age is a big step backwards. If smoking is a terrible unhealthy thing that 20 year olds shouldn't be doing, then it's a terrible unhealthy thing that 30 year olds shouldn't be doing as well.

[Single drop]

1. Who me ?

I'm not arguing the point, but I will say that Governor Brown is pretty far removed from his old Governor Moonbeam days. Just saying.

[procon]

2. Look up the stages of how the human brain develops.

It actually does make sense because most of us lack the capacity to make good decisions until our mid 20s.

[CaliforniaLove]

9. Then why stop at tobacco?

"Good decisions" is very ill defined.

People are in a constant state of growth. One could just as easily argue that a lack of brain elasticity at age 25 is the very first stage of senility.

If you're saying that you were too stupid at 23 to make good decisions for yourself, why let people 18-24 live on their own? Why let them drive themselves around in cars? Why let them vote? Why not box them in like we do 5 and 15 year olds?

I know a certain group who would totally love it if people ages 18-24 weren't allowed to have any political rights. I know a certain political party that would benefit greatly from that.

Personally, I would love to see all of these ages drop significantly. Particularly the age of voting rights, the age of consent, age to drive. I'm not personally affected by the legal status of tobacco, alcohol, or marijuana, and I wouldn't love to see a 15 year old addicted to tobacco, but I also wouldn't love to see a 35 year old addicted to tobacco.

Personally, I'd want to fight tobacco use with education rather than force.

[Hekate]

36. The original intent of "age of majority" laws was to protect youngsters until they matured

It was not perfect; nothing ever is; but it's easy to see why full legal adulthood used to be 21. Even without sophisticated modern analysis of how the human brain develops, our ancestors could easily observe behavior associated with that development. Among Roman Catholics, the age of First Confession is 7 y.o., in line with development of an ethical/moral sense of the universe. First Communion is at age 12, in line with another stage of maturity. And they figured this out centuries ago.

I have seen laws seesaw in my lifetime, always under some kind of public pressure. Really, alcohol should not be sold to teenagers, nor should tobacco. I put pot in the same category. It's just too easy for the young brain to become addicted to substances that by and large are simply recreational/occasional for full adults.

So you ask why I as a Californian supported both measures. As regards cannabis, the "war on drugs" applied to pot has done nothing but fill our prisons for no good reason. Prohibition of alcohol also failed miserably. Treat cannabis like alcohol, is my opinion.

Tobacco should not be banned, either, and for the same reasons. But because the Big Tobacco companies knowingly have peddled their addictive product to youngsters as young as 10 (see: Joe Camel) I really would not grieve if they were forbidden to advertise. Every time consumption of their product starts to drop, they come up with something else. Currently it's vaping. They try to get them very young because studies have shown that if a person gets to 21 without cigarettes, they very likely will never smoke at all.

The least we can do is protect the majority of children and young adults by making it illegal to sell them recreational drugs until the age of 21. Education has helped a lot, but so does the long arm of the law.

As for the age of driving -- my goodness, you certainly are throwing in everything but the kitchen sink. Same thing: brain maturity.

[ret5hd]

3. Where I grew up...

When I was 17, females could buy alcohol when they were 18, males when they were 21.
When I was 18, both males and females could buy alcohol at 18.
When I was 21, both males and females could not buy alcohol till 21.

Also, I was never required to register for the draft.

I know it's OT for your post, but you just got me thinkin' of how lucky I've been in that regard.

[Lochloosa]

6. 59?

It was the same for me.

[ret5hd]

16. Yep.

[CaliforniaLove]

10. May I ask where that is?

"females could buy alcohol when they were 18, males when they were 21."

This in particular seems somewhat odd.

[ret5hd]

13. Only the oddest place in the lower 48: OK

[TrekLuver]

4. Tobacco is very addictive...physically addictive. Weed is not.

Also people for the most part start smoking when they are young. Most 30 years old don't start smoking if they aren't already. Weed i can go without...i don't like to but i won't die...if i don't have cigarettes i am physically uncomfortable and NEED IT. It is highly addictive, as i said...the addictive properties are likened to heroin and it grabs you right away.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Two things: One, weed isn't legal under 21 either, and two, tobacco is way fucking worse for you.

And harder to quit.

[bravenak]

15. Bingo

[TheFrenchRazor]

45. doesn't matter. when you're 18 you have the *responsibilities* of being an adult; you should have

the rights, as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. it's an arguable point

but since by now, everyone under 30 looks like a kid to me, I don't seem to get as worked up about it as I might have in 1982.

[milestogo]

7. Both weed and tobacco increase your chances of getting lung cancer.

Assuming you inhale, of course.

[loyalsister]

34. I'm not familiar with tobacco edibles- other than chewing tobacco

Do they exist? If so, that would do away with the false equivilence.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. nicotine gum?

[loyalsister]

43. Have people started chewing it for health reasons

other than quitting smoking or keep withdrawal at bay?

[edhopper]

8. smoking tobacco is not a right

Last edited Sun Jan 22, 2017, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

it is the most dangerous consumer product sold. It's manufacture and sale should be banned.

It's fortunate that its use is banned in many places.

[CaliforniaLove]

11. If we're going to ban it, ban it from all or from none.

That's how I see it.

I don't disagree that tobacco may be the most dangerous consumer product sold. I don't know if I would agree with banning it completely, but regardless it wouldn't personally effect me because I don't smoke at all to begin with.

But the age discrimination hits very close to home.

[edhopper]

17. things like tobacco and alcohol

have always had age restrictions.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. age restrictions, yes

but once we're talking about consenting adults we need to stop pretending that we have the right to play junior fascist over other peoples' bodies and bloodstreams.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Well, we make a distinction between adults and minors on all sorts of things.

That's how it is. I didn't think it was fair, either, but now I get it.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Oh, bullshit. Hey, my dad even died from lung cancer, but you know what?

I'm a fucking adult, and my body doesn't belong to you, the pope, donald trump, the supreme court or any other 'authority'.


GOT IT? ITS NOT UP TO YOU WHAT I'M "ALLOWED" TO DO WITH MY OWN GOD-DAMN MOTHERFUCKING BODY. PERIOD. END OF FUCKING STORY. WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

The fucking mentality that we need to police other peoples' personal decisions needs to be done with, once and for all.

[mythology]

29. Second hand smoke impacts others around the smoker

So by that logic, given there is no way to 100% ensure that somebody else's smoke doesn't end up in my body, then actually there is a social reason why we might limit what somebody can do with their own body.

Also according to your logic, we couldn't have laws around drunk driving because that limits what you can do you with your own body.

And stomping your feet, typing in all caps and using lots of profanity doesn't actually make you right. In most cases, it just makes the person using it look foolish, especially when it's an intellectually poorly thought out position.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. No, the minute your choices endanger others then it becomes their business.

Not before.

We have laws against drunk driving. It is the getting behind the wheel inebriated that is the criminal act. There are regulations about where people can smoke- totally legit- not the same thing as saying "I'm putting you in prison for putting an unauthorized substance into your own body".

I don't give a shit whether you think it's 'foolish' or not. This bullshit authoritarian attitude that posits some people as having the authority to dictate what other people do with their own bodies- it comes straight from this sunday school fantasy that we are not the property of ourselves, but of "god".

A fundamental cornerstone of liberty is that our bodies belong to ourselves. That informs reproductive choice, it informs the right of the terminally ill to a pain-free, dignified exit on their own terms, and it informs pushback against the clusterfuck that is the drug war.

Don't like it? Too fucking bad. My body doesn't belong to you.

[TheFrenchRazor]

47. WHEN 2nd hand smoke is a problem, it should be prohibited, otherwise not. OK? nt

[Texasgal]

31. I don't often agree with you

But DAMN! I wish I could rec THIS post a million times!

YES! YES! YES!

[Warren DeMontague]

32. I can be a right **** sometimes

but no one is gonna accuse me of not standing up for personal freedom and choice.

[TheFrenchRazor]

46. OMG. does a person own and control their own body??!! a lot of "progressives" are unfortunately

just as totalitarian as RW fundies, only on different issues. and yes, of course, smoking where 2nd hand smoke can be a problem should not be permitted, so please don't bring up that red herring.

[edhopper]

53. If you notice

I said sale and manufacture, not a prohibition on smoking. That should be restricted by place. The sale ans manufacture of deadly products are often banned.

[Igel]

12. The reasoning "it's my body, hands off" works sometimes.

At other times, the people who make that argument make the opposing argument--"I know what's better for your body."

Tobacco.

Alcohol.

Various drugs, some currently legal and some not.

Abortion.

Vaccination.

Sugar.

It's the conflict between libertarianism and authoritarianism that drives most political ideologies. Some things are rights and to be protected. Some are duties and to be imposed. There are secular virtues that are required and secular sins that are prohibited.

[CaliforniaLove]

14. Very well said

nt

[Warren DeMontague]

23. I agree 100%, except about vaccination.

If parents refuse to vaccinate their kids, they're actually endangering others. Directly.


At least I understand not allowing them to go to school like that.

[LeftyMom]

18. Tobacco will kill you and the people around you.

Weed just makes you have bad taste in music.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Anti-weed musicians: Ted Nugent, Gene Simmons, and New Kids on the Block

I rest my fucking case.

[LeftyMom]

24. Who noodle dances to jam bands again?

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Oh my god, if you can't appreciate that Other One

I just can't help you.

[opiate69]

27. Imma just leave this here....

[TrekLuver]

40. Weed just makes you have bad taste in music makes no freakin sense...it's not even

funny so I'm not sure where you were going with that one.

[Doreen]

26. I am 49 and still think that 18 year olds should

be allowed to smoke and drink. They can vote and go die in the military, buy guns, be held as adults in court, and live on their own. I think it is good that cannabis passed. You are 18 and your an adult but we are only going to allow you to be half an adult..doesn't make sense does it.

[CaliforniaLove]

28. Especially the "tried as an adult" thing

So if I raise my little siblings, have a job, do good in school, pay the electricity for my mother, etc. then I still can't be seen as an adult.

But if I commit a bad enough crime then I'm an adult.

[TheFrenchRazor]

48. exactly; shouldn't even be an issue. sadly, most people will take away the rights of others in just

just about any circumstance where they think they can do it with no harm to themselves. and that includes "progressives."

[kcr]

54. IKR? People who "think" and have "opinions" that are "different"

Such "Bullshit!" That's so not "progressive."

[Warren DeMontague]

61. thank heavens someone

"lit" the "batsignal"

[kcr]

83. Given that somehow I actually agree with some of your posts in this thread, that is too funny, WD

But it just wouldn't be a thread without a knee jerk giant picture as a reaction from you, would it?

[Warren DeMontague]

60. apparently, you can't be against the drug war unless you're also against social security.

The shit I learn on DU!

[kcr]

86. Was this a dig at me? Because I don't agree with that other poster.

There is no bat signal. I think the OP is ridiculous to claim that those who are happy that weed is legal should also support legalizing tobacco for children. That's insane. I support legalizing weed and I also support banning cigarette smoking for minors. Call me crazy! Take away my "progressive" creds I guess.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. No.

And I agree with all your points. We make distinctions between adults and minors all over the place, and rightfully so.

I think there may be legitimate debate- never really settled since vietnam or earlier- as to whether the line for most of this stuff should sit at 21 or 18, personally I side with 21.

My point has always been that when you're talking about consenting adults, "my body, my business"

[DanTex]

33. Unless you think heroin and meth should be legal, then the government is going to be

regulating what people can put in their bodies.

And actually, it doesn't end there. Because even if heroin and meth are legalized, the government is still going to regulate medical drugs, not just prescription drugs but also things like anesthetics. Trust me, you don't want any jackass to be able to go to a gas station and buy hospital grade pharmaceuticals.

The purist libertarian approach just doesn't work. Milton Friedman thought there shouldn't be any medical licensing, anyone should be able to perform surgery, and the free market would sort it out. That experiment has never been tried, but if it did, it wouldn't end well.

Reality is, personal freedom and public health concerns need to be balanced. About the age thing, the truth is, people start smoking in their teens and early twenties, and then get hooked. For example, me. And then they need to quit. For example, me. Most people manage to quit, but some don't and some of the ones that don't end up dying from it. People don't start smoking when they are 30. Most smokers want to quit, and if they could go back and never start smoking, they would.

Pot is different because it's not addictive. Alcohol is somewhere in the middle, it is addictive, though not as much as nicotine. But the health effects of drinking are pretty bad.

On the other hand, it can't be denied that recreational drugs are really fun. And, yeah, the argument adults should be able to decide for themselves whether the enjoyment of drinking/smoking/whatever outweighs the health damage is a strong one.

But it's not the only one. There's a balance.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. no one has tried "the purist libertarian thing". What we HAVE tried is the authoritarian one.

We know for a fact that alcohol prohibition doesn't keep people from drinking. We also know that draconian sentences for drug possession don't stop people from doing meth and heroin any more than filling our prisons with pot smokers has stopped marijuana use.

And the idea that somehow relaxing this stupid fucking authoritarian posture even in the slightest; is somehow incompatible with safety regulations- please, can we be done with this red herring? Deaths from bathtub gin were a product of prohibition, not legal and regulated alcohol sales.

Of course there's a happy medium between freedom and micro-managing peoples' choices, but what I'm saying here is that we're way too fucking far towards the control freak end of the spectrum. The philosophical baseline should be "what consenting adults do with their own bodies is their own business"- that should be the starting point.

I can't envision meth and heroin being sold at the 7-11, but I don't buy that the only alternative is prisons full of millions of nonviolent drug users; we should start from the proposition that people are free to make choices that we ourselves may not agree with, and then treat things like hard drug abuse as a public health matter, not a law enforcement one. When peoples' bad decisionmaking crosses into the lives of others, that is when legislation should get involved.

The people who want to outlaw everything from booze to chewing gum to birth control to consensual sex between gay people to pictures of naked women on the internet always have some cockamamie slippery slope rationale to justify their shit. It would be nice if just once they would stop pretending to be something other than what they actually are....

and just admit that they have this overweening need to tell other people what to do.

[DanTex]

37. No, but people have advocated it.

You're right, alcohol prohibition doesn't keep people from drinking. On the other hand, a combination of messaging and legislation has greatly reduced the amount of smoking and saved huge numbers of lives.

And speaking of red herrings, where did you see me being opposed to "relaxing this stupid fucking authoritarian posture even in the slightest"? Is that seriously what you got from my post?

Having said that, I disagree with your philosophical baseline. Because your baseline implies not only that heroin and meth should be available at 7-11, but also that all prescription drugs should be OTC, and hospital grade pharmaceuticals as well. Michael Jackson, for example, died because a crooked doctor was giving him anesthetics to use as sleeping pills. That doctor went to jail, as he should have. But according to your philosophical baseline, MJ and his doctor were just consenting adults who weren't hurting anyone but themselves, so there should be no issue with it.

And it's even worse than that. Your baseline implies that there should be no regulations on credit cards or payday loans, after all if a consenting adult wants to borrow at 10,000%, why should the government stop them? In fact, all product safety laws: as long as the vendor doesn't misrepresent the product, who cares if it might blow up in my face. And if I want to save some money buy buying potentially contaminated meat, that's my body, my business, right?

No. That's crazy. There are actually two philosophical baselines in play. The first is personal freedom. The second is public health/safety. Taking either to the extreme is bad. Each individual law needs to be evaluated non-dogmatically with both of these concerns in mind. Which is why, getting back to the OP, decriminalizing pot while tightening smoking laws is not a contradiction. It's only a contradiction to dogmatists.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. "tightening smoking laws" isn't the same thing as outlawing nicotine.

I don't know who in the ol' gang put out the payday loan memo, why that one keeps coming up in these threads. Like clockwork. (Odd that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is so in favor of putting marijuana users in prison, is so fond of the payday loan industry)

but it's not on topic. Regulation is a very different thing than wholesale prohibition. Alcohol is regulated, so is lending. We regulate where people can smoke.

However, it is a particular and specific sort of conceit that says that the government should be putting people in jail for doing "unauthorized" shit with their own bodies and nervous systems.

If they're not hurting anyone else, I have a lot of fucking trouble figuring out why they should be charged with a crime.

Michael Jackson managed to do what he did under the current system. The laws in place didn't stop him. So what's the answer- more laws? More mandatory minumums?

Also, precision in language is important. I realize there are people here who think "decriminalizing" marijuana is the height of forward-thinking progressivism, but states (starting with Oregon) have decriminalized the stuff since 1973. Marijuana, at least at the state level, is LEGAL in California. Not just "decriminalized".

Decriminalization is an excellent approach, mind you, for these other drugs you mention. Keep the commercial trade illegal but stop throwing users in jail.

Dogmatists? There are people on this board who think the sports illustrated swimsuit issue and "blasphemous" cartoons should be outlawed. In that context, I hardly think it's "dogmatic" to say that putting nonviolent drug users in prison is a wrongheaded policy.

So, sorry if I get a little peeved with the authoritarian tendencies.

[DanTex]

41. The OP isn't talking about outlawing nicotine. Nobody is.

Also, I've never heard anyone talking about outlawing the swimsuit issue. Those are red herrings.

I have, however, heard people advocating for getting rid of, or at least privatizing, social security. After all, social security is an infringement on personal freedom: it forces people to save for retirement against their will. And it also forces those people to put their savings in something secure. Without it, there is ample evidence that people would not save enough, and would invest their savings stupidly.

Which must really bother you. It's a much bigger government intrusion than the war on drugs: tens of millions of people, maybe hundreds, if not coerced by the nanny state, would let themselves become utterly destitute in old age. And they would be hurting nobody but themselves. It drives libertarians nuts that the government doesn't just let these people "choose" to live their old age in total poverty.

And, yeah, if you try to not pay into social security, you will be charged with tax evasion, which is a crime. Do you have a lot of trouble figuring that one out? It meets all your criteria: you're only screwing yourself, and the government is trying to stop you, by force of law and threat of imprisonment, from making your own choice about your own life. How is that, in principle, any different from a drug law? It's actually worse, from a libertarian perspective, because drug laws are aimed at dealers, whereas social security is squarely aimed at individuals who would otherwise make poor financial planning choices.

Look, I agree that people shouldn't be thrown in jail for using drugs, only for selling. And as far as pot is concerned, I think it should be legal to sell also. Not based on libertarian dogma, just based on cost-benefit analysis. Pot is not addictive, it's not very harmful, it's a good time, so whatever, let people sell it. Heroin is a different story. As is using anesthetics as sleeping pills.

And by the way, the fact that a wealthy celebrity got hold of dangerous anesthetics is a really really horrible argument that the current system of regulating medical pharmaceuticals is a failure. Very few people die from using anesthetics as sleeping pills, and the reason for this is that, thankfully, the FDA doesn't subscribe to your libertarian philosophy.

The guiding principle shouldn't be libertarianism, it should be cost-benefit analysis.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Actually, the reason for that is that very few people live in their own amusement park

And have had so much plastic surgery that their nose is missing.

Maybe the hospital-grade anaesthetics were the only thing that made that dude's existence tolerable, at that point. I dont know. Maybe you could have fixed everything that was wrong with him with a 12 step meeting or a good jargon-filled lecture or two.

Above my pay grade, I tell you what.

What I do know is, prohibition doesnt work. It's rich that you accuse me of "red herrings" when bringing up a point of historical fact here- and the month long meltdown some folks had over the SI swimsuit issue is a matter of record; maybe you missed the threads, but I have trouble believing that- and then accuse me of being anti social security, which is a position I've never come close to espousing.

In fact, I've never heard anyone here argue for eliminating social security. I *have* heard people -here, mind you- say that "blasphemy" isnt protected by the First Amendment, and neither are pictures of consenting adults having sex.



A strong commitment to individual, personal freedom with regards to what one chooses to do with their own body and nervous system is only incompatible with support for a solid social safety net in the minds of people who dont want to argue the issues as they actually stand, instead preferring to conconct elaborate straw armies and artificial ideological turf lines which bear no resemblance to reality.

I'm sure you know people like that.

[DanTex]

51. No, the reason is that they're illegal.

The ban on hospital-grade anesthetics is an example of a prohibition that works extremely well. And it's not the only one. Hospitals are full of drugs that are illegal for general consumption, as they should be, and there isn't any black market for them. Each one is a direct refutation of your "prohibition doesn't work" talking point. Relatively, there are very few cases of prohibitions that don't work. And even then, it's doubtful whether the prohibition on, say heroin, despite "not working", is worse than the alternative of legalization.

A far as the social security argument, it's not an "elaborate straw army", it's a challenge to your philosophical premise of individual freedom. This is what one does with philosophical premises: one explores the implications, to see if they are absurd. And in this case, the implications are absurd. Your premise of "people should have the right to fuck themselves over as long as they don't hurt anyone else" carries with it with it the implication that if people want to not save a dime for retirement, they shouldn't be imprisoned for tax evasion. The fact that you are dodging this argument speaks to the logical indefensibility of your philosophical position. Otherwise, please explain: why when it comes to drugs, do people have the right to harm themselves, but not when it comes to retirement?

I highly doubt that you have an answer. Instead you dance and dodge.

Two posts ago, you claimed that there are people on this board who want to outlaw the swimsuit issue. I've never seen that, and even though the internet is full of idiots saying stupid shit, I don't think this particular one exists. But, OK, let's grant that such a person does exist on DU. Even so, banning the swimsuit issue is not even close to being a thing in the real world. The swimsuit issue ban is precisely an "elaborate straw army and artificial ideological turf line which bears no resemblance to reality."

But getting rid of social security is a thing. It does bear resemblance to reality. Milton Friedman, probably the most influential right-wing economist of all time, wanted it gone. And he, and his followers, use precisely the same "personal freedom" argument that you are using about drugs to advocate for getting rid of it. They do that because, they have a point: social security is a clear violation of the supposed right of individuals to make poor choices without the interference of the government.

You are the one in the straw fantasy world, where the swimsuit issue being outlawed is a real concern, but social security being dismantled by libertarians "bears no resemblance to reality."

[Warren DeMontague]

55. know what? I'm not going to apologize for believing that people should have the RIGHT to

control their own god-damn bodies.

Full fucking stop.

[DanTex]

57. So you're totally ignoring the arguments I'm making.

And I wish you wouldn't because I'm curious what you have to say about them.

Seriously, with your libertarian philosophy, how do you justify social security, which gives the government control over people's savings and retirement strategy. Please explain: if I have the right to abuse heroin and hospital-grade anesthetics, how on earth do I not have the right to blow all my money on lottery tickets and live my old age in destitute poverty? Do you have anything at all?

Social security is a MUCH bigger infringement on individual freedom that the drug war will ever be. Not even close. We're talking trillions of dollars of government coercion, hundreds of millions of people affected. The fact that you can't take heroin is a tiny footnote in the book on government intrusion into the right of citizens to fuck themselves; social security is the biggest chapter.

It satisfies all the criteria. It is enforced with threat of imprisonment. It affects nobody but the individual -- if I don't save for retirement, I suffer, nobody else does. It's actually worse than the drug war, because the drug war targets dealers and traffickers. But social security targets individuals. If you don't pay into social security, then you will be prosecuted for tax evasion, not the people trying to profit off of your poor financial planning decisions.

What gives? Let's have the philosophical argument.

This is the problem with libertarians. They never own up to the implications of their philosophy. At least I have to give Milton Friedman credit, because he did own up to it. Not only did he want social security abolished, he wanted to get rid of medical licenses and food inspections and FDA approval for prescription drugs and everything else. It's crazy, but at least it's consistent. Hey, it's my body, why should the FDA have to approve drugs before I take them? Why should the government decide who I let perform surgery on me? Why can't I decide the risk of eating contaminated foods?

Own it.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. you're not making arguments. You'e conflating unrelated shit. Here, I'll play:

I guess you're not pro-choice, huh.

You must not be, because Milton Friedman.

[DanTex]

65. Yes, I am. I'm challenging your libertarian orthodoxy.

And it looks like it's a pretty strong challenge, too, because you have no answer to it whatsoever. We can try again if you want: why is the right to shoot heroin so much more important that the right to not save for retirement?

[Warren DeMontague]

66. I don't have a fucking "orthodoxy". Unlike some people, I am exactly what I appear to be, here.

If you think that someone can't oppose the drug war and also support social security, I can't help you.

[DanTex]

69. Actually, yes, you do. It's just that you apply the principles inconsistently.

For some reason you think the right to shoot heroin is sacred but the right to not save for retirement is not. I'm curious how you justify this, after all, both are generally self-destructive actions that harm nobody but the person who takes them.

What gives? What's so special about drugs?

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Thank you for presuming that you're inside my head. But you're not.

I don't think the "right to shoot heroin is sacred", derp. I make a distinction between telling a private adult citizen what he or she may do with his or her own body and nervous system in the privacy of their own home, and telling that private citizen that they have to pay taxes to support a general social safety net.

They're not the same thing.

[DanTex]

73. I'm not presuming anything, that's why I'm asking. I'm going by what you have said.

And you're wrong about how social security works. It's not a general social safety net. It's not a redistributive welfare program like Medicaid, where everyone pays in to help out the less fortunate. It is a very specific government-mandated retirement savings program. Everyone puts in money when they work, and the amount they get out when they retire is a function of how much they put in. And this is a good thing, because without it, many people will make poor choices and end up retiring in poverty.

But it's obviously coercive and impinges on personal freedom, much more so than not being able to legally possess or shoot heroin.

So you're OK telling a private adult citizen what he or she may do with his or her own retirement savings, but not what kind of drugs he or she may take or possess. Which is fine, but this is not based on any kind of principle of individual liberty. It's entirely capricious: you personally value drug rights more than financial rights, and that's that.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. so how come we never see Batman and Bruce Wayne at the same time?

riddle me that.

[kcr]

85. You know, it's almost sad

You seem like a smart guy. You just want to put no effort into it whatsoever. You come here. But then it's just hey, look, funny pictures! And quick, often incorrect assumptions about other people instead of actual productive discussion.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. I've pretty much said everything I need to say on the matter, in the thread.

So I got a batman theme goin'. I'm sure it makes sense from a certain perspective. I've got mad pattern recognition skills, you know.

But for my trouble I get told I'm ideological kissy-pals with milton friedman and I want to dismantle social security. (And no, I know that wasn't you) It's frustrating.

[TheFrenchRazor]

49. i think heroin and meth *should* be legal. who are you to tell anyone what they can or can not

do with their own body?? when they cause OBVIOUS, DIRECT harm to someone else, then it's your business, otherwise not.

[DanTex]

52. Do you also apply the same principle outside of drugs?

For example, if I don't want to save a dime for retirement, should I be allowed to? Currently, the law says no. You have to pay into social security, and if you don't, you get imprisoned for tax evasion.

Who are you to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their own retirement planning?

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Do you think that paying taxes is the functional equivalent of having a leg forcibly amputated?

I don't.

[DanTex]

63. Huh? Of course not. Neither is not being allowed to shoot heroin. Not sure what your point is.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Do you think women should have the right to use birth control or get abortions? Why or why not?

Is it based on a "cost-benefit analysis"?



or is there some other principle at play?

[DanTex]

67. Of course. The cost-benefit analysis is easy because there are no costs whatsoever.

In fact, there is a big cost to preventing women from access to reproductive care. Are you really comparing birth control to heroin?

[Warren DeMontague]

68. so personal freedom is totally irrelevant. Gotcha.

[DanTex]

70. Of course it's relevant. It's a benefit.

When it comes to birth control and abortion, everything comes down in the benefit column. Not just personal freedom, but also improved health. It's not a close call. Not only should women have access to reproductive care, but it should be subsidized for women who might not be able to afford it.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. right, but personal freedom is bad, because milton friedman.

People should only do what they're told.

[DanTex]

74. Of course personal freedom is good. What are you talking about?

It's just that personal freedom is not the only good, and when it comes in conflict with other goods, there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. no, your orthodoxy is that people aren't allowed to make their own decisions.

You are not being consistent with your values, which are that citizens don't have any rights to control their own lives, because only libertarian doody-heads think such wrongthought.

[DanTex]

77. What? No. My orthodoxy is that people should be allowed to make their own decisions,

unless there is an overriding harm that justifies limiting those decisions. Personal freedom is a good, it's just not the only good. In the case of social security, I agree with curtailing personal freedom for the sake of making sure huge numbers of people don't retire in poverty. When it comes to heroin, I agree with curtailing personal freedom for the sake of reducing the damage from addiction.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. you disagree with my statement up there that "prohibition doesn't work". Do you think it has worked

with heroin?

Nice to know that filling our prisons with drug users has been so successful. No need to look to other countries that have adopted a harm reduction approach.

[DanTex]

79. Whether it's worked with heroin is a good question.

Overall, I think that the situation with heroin would be worse if it were legal. There would be more people using it, more people addicted, more lives destroyed, more drain on economic productivity, etc.

Having said that, I disagree with putting users in prison. I think dealers should be in prison, not users. I think the tough laws regarding possession of small quantities that have been passed are counterproductive, they end up punishing addicts who need treatment and not prison.

Thing is, my whole perspective on hard drugs is practical. I place very little value on the loss of personal freedom that comes from not being allowed to shoot heroin. It basically doesn't enter the equation. The questions are how do we reduce the number of lives being ruined unnecessarily, either through addiction or through imprisonment.

[Warren DeMontague]

80. Again, it's not so much that I think "shooting heroin is great", I philosophically believe that the

body of a citizen belongs first and foremost to that citizen.

If a consenting adult wants to do something with their own body or bloodstream in their own home and they aren't directly harming or endangering anyone else, I think there needs to be a damn good and well thought out rationale for WHY the government should have the right to turn them into a criminal. Beyond "because we say so". Beyond "because it makes us mad that you're doing something without our permission"

And I don't think that is directly analogous to telling that citizen they need to pay taxes. A wallet is not an extension of the human body. Money and commerce are by definition collective endeavors. Saying we have a few basic responsibilities to the society in which we live which are expressed mainly financially is NOT the same as saying that our physical person is somehow the property of the state.

Like I said, I'm not going to apologize for that stance. Never.

You would do well to study countries and regions that have relaxed their drug laws, however. I'm pretty sure that in Scandanavian countries what have adopted harm reduction strategies, etc. the numbers of addicts have not significantly increased. Rather, by providing safe places for them to maintain their addiction in a clean environment with access to public health services, more tend to get treatment.

also, as much as you may have been told that you're paying into some imaginary personal retirement fund with social security, the fact is it doesn't actually work that way. If you are actually a 30something male or whatever, you're currently paying for Baby Boomers.

It's important to remember that we are just one single identity, and not multiple other people.

[DanTex]

82. OK. I disagree, I think that point of view is entirely arbitrary with respect to liberty.

And by the way, I'm not talking about taxes in general, I'm talking specifically about social security, which has nothing to do with commerce and is not about responsibility to society. Social security is not a redistributive welfare program, it is a mandatory individual retirement program run by the government. Indeed, the very fact that social security benefits are earned -- meaning you get out (roughly) what you put in -- is one of the reasons the GOP has had such a hard time getting rid of it. Social security exists to protect people from their own financial irresponsibility. If people would voluntarily take the money that they pay in SS taxes and invest them responsibly on their own, there would be no need for SS. But that's not what people do, so there is a need for SS, otherwise we end up with huge numbers of retirees living in poverty.

Anyway, I don't think there's anything special about the right to put things into your own body. The importance of each freedom can only be ranked each individual in society, not by you or I. I would guess, and granted I have have no evidence, but my guess is that most people would rank the right to control their wallets higher than the right to put toxic chemicals into their body.

Me, for example. If I could opt out of social security I would. Not that it's a huge problem for me, but it makes no sense financially for me. On the other hand, if heroin was legal, I still wouldn't use it. The right to inject heroin matters zero to me. It comes down to practicality, costs and benefits. And to the extent that I feel violated by either drug laws or social security, the violation by social security is far greater.

I'm sure there are people who feel differently, but it's a matter of opinion, not of principle. Either way there is government coercion, loss of liberty, and in both cases it is justified IMO by cost-benefits.

Also, an important point here is that shooting heroin is not actually illegal. Possessing heroin is illegal, but even that is a minor crime compared what they are really after, which is distributing heroin. Like I said above, I don't think possession of small quantities for personal use should be illegal. But I definitely think dealing should be illegal, and in this matter there is no civil liberties questions whatsoever. Having the right to poison yourself most definitely does not mean that you have the right to sell that poison to other people for profit.

PS, you're right that social security is pay-as-you go, but the way it is structured is irrelevant. Sure, the dollar bills you put in aren't the same dollar bills that you get out, but it is still a personal retirement fund. The key fact is that the government keeps track of how much you put in, and then when you retire, the amount you get out is a function of what you put in. This is the same as any other investment. If you invest in, whatever, a vineyard, then the money you put in goes to buy land and grapes and all that. Then years later, the vineyard sells wine to people, and turns around and gives some of that money back to you. And the amount you get back is a function of the amount you put in.

[TheFrenchRazor]

81. i never said that there should be a ban on banning drugs; you are conflating the two;

society has the right to establish laws and taxes, as you refer to, with the consent of the governed, of course, but each one has to be justified on its merits. in general, i believe that legal prohibitions should be as absolutely limited as possible, and only in cases where the thing in question causes obvious, direct harm to a third party victim. taxation is actually a milder form of government control, because, for example, in the case you mentioned, there isn't (and shouldn't be) any law prohibiting you from creating your own separate retirement account, or none at all; that just doesn't relieve you of your responsibility to pay the SS tax. and if you really want o get nit picky, there is also no law requiring a person to pick up and cash their SS checks when the time comes, and there shouldn't be.

[DanTex]

84. You did said heroin and meth should be legal, right?

And you seemed to imply that you felt that whatever substances people put into their bodies is not something the government should be regulating. Which, in effect, is a "ban on banning drugs".

And I absolutely disagree that taxation is a milder form of government control than banning drugs. I would opt out of social security if it were legal. A lot of people would. I still think social security should be compulsory, because most of the people who would opt out would be making a mistake, and end up destitute in their old age. But, still, for me, and I think for most people, social security taxes are much more coercive than drug laws.

How many people would opt out of social security if it were legal, versus how many people would use heroin or meth if they were legal? I think it's by far more of the former.

[TheFrenchRazor]

44. when you're 18 you can be drafted and thrown in jail with ax-murderers; you should be able to buy a

a pack of cigarettes too. unfortunately, a lot of "progressives" are a little weak on respect for individual rights.

[kcr]

56. You really can't think of a reason why people would see both issues differently?

Like, the glaring fact that there is nothing redeemable about smoking tobacco. No health benefits. It's highly addictive. It causes cancer. Gee, what's the problem?

[LanternWaste]

58. I've never met anyone who didn't impose arbitrary limits

I've never met anyone who didn't impose arbitrary limits. Only the very creepy would argue that an eleven year old may marry without limitations.

Then it becomes a task of seeing where those arbitrary limits are placed by one person, and wondering why they are not wholly consistent.

Should eleven year old be allowed to vote, and on what objective measure is that reponse predicated on?