Legalize Marijuana?

[antchak]

Laws should be based upon these rights. A law is essentially a rule imposed by somebody with authority (legitimate or not) that bans somebody from doing something, or forces them to do something. If a law violates my rights, that law should be abolished.

Ah, but the law against drugs violates no rights, moral or legal. The law does not prevent you from doing drugs, it merely imposes consequences should you. Abolishing such laws would create anarchy, in the purest sense. I do not believe laws should be based on moral rights, especially in a democracy, where so much freedom is already taken for granted. Long term in an anarchistic society would eventually violate more moral rights that it was worth, as the country would be plunged into chaos.

 

[The Riddler_]

Ah, but the law against drugs violates no rights, moral or legal. The law does not prevent you from doing drugs, it merely imposes consequences should you. Abolishing such laws would create anarchy, in the purest sense. I do not believe laws should be based on moral rights, especially in a democracy, where so much freedom is already taken for granted. Long term in an anarchistic society would eventually violate more moral rights that it was worth, as the country would be plunged into chaos.

O....kaaaaaay....?

Summary: Go marijuana! and no moral laws!

Did I hit the right points?

 

[DropKick Murphys]

I do not believe laws should be based on moral rights, especially in a democracy, where so much freedom is already taken for granted.

What do you propose laws should be based on?

Long term in an anarchistic society would eventually violate more moral rights that it was worth, as the country would be plunged into chaos.

Why is that?

 

[antchak]

What do you propose laws should be based on?

I thought that would be logical. Society's standards of morality. Moral rights are infinite; it is my right to jump out of a window, or flick you with my pinky finger. Society's standards are much more specific.

Why is that?

Is that a trick question? Why do you think? Perhaps you don't understand what anarchy means. No law. Draw your own conclusions as to why a society with no laws might be a dangerous place to live.

 

[antchak]

O....kaaaaaay....?

Summary: Go marijuana! and no moral laws!

Did I hit the right points?

No

My points were I am indifferent to people smoking it, but I do not believe it should be legalized. I also believe anyone has the right to do whatever they want, as long as they understand the consequences and are willing to accept them.

 

[odt]

I'm against the idea, but it's almost like reverse pschology, if its made legal in small ammounts then people would be less addicted in wanting to take it

 

[Shredderbeam]

Ah, but the law against drugs violates no rights, moral or legal. The law does not prevent you from doing drugs, it merely imposes consequences should you. Abolishing such laws would create anarchy, in the purest sense. I do not believe laws should be based on moral rights, especially in a democracy, where so much freedom is already taken for granted. Long term in an anarchistic society would eventually violate more moral rights that it was worth, as the country would be plunged into chaos.

Those consequences are a violation of my rights.

I thought that would be logical. Society's standards of morality. Moral rights are infinite; it is my right to jump out of a window, or flick you with my pinky finger. Society's standards are much more specific.

Society's standards of morality are not real standards of morality - they are usually violations of my rights.

Is that a trick question? Why do you think? Perhaps you don't understand what anarchy means. No law. Draw your own conclusions as to why a society with no laws might be a dangerous place to live.

An anarcho-capitalist society would be a decent place to live in.

 

[euromobsta]

SMOKE WEED

This post is extremely sexy

 

[antchak]

Those consequences are a violation of my rights.

Perhaps of your self-imposed rights.

Society's standards of morality are not real standards of morality - they are usually violations of my rights.

"Real" standards of morality are specific to the individual. "Your moral rights" are infinite, and and any action is a violation of them in some indirect way.

An anarcho-capitalist society would be a decent place to live in.

I do not think it is possible to have an anarcho-capitalist system. One would cancel the other out. Capitalism flourishes under law and order, whereas anarchy blooms under chaos. I do not think a lawless country where there are no penalties for crime would be a decent place to live.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Perhaps of your self-imposed rights.

These are not self-imposed rights - these are rights that rational beings necessarily have.

"Real" standards of morality are specific to the individual. "Your moral rights" are infinite, and and any action is a violation of them in some indirect way.

My moral rights are centered about the self-ownership principle - they certainly do not extend into infinity.

I do not think it is possible to have an anarcho-capitalist system. One would cancel the other out. Capitalism flourishes under law and order, whereas anarchy blooms under chaos. I do not think a lawless country where there are no penalties for crime would be a decent place to live.

Anarchy is not necessarily a disordered system - it is simply a system that has no government. Order can be provided by economic incentive and security firms.

First, let us note that even with a state, the problem of crime is not solved.

Second, in an anarchist society, there would be deterrents against crime - individuals defending themselves, and security firms.

 

[antchak]

These are not self-imposed rights - these are rights that rational beings necessarily have.

Yes, but are specific to each individual based on moral values and are thus self-imposed.

My moral rights are centered about the self-ownership principle - they certainly do not extend into infinity.

Theoretically, they do. You can infinite number of twists to any situation, making them infinite.

Anarchy is not necessarily a disordered system - it is simply a system that has no government. Order can be provided by economic incentive and security firms.

First, let us note that even with a state, the problem of crime is not solved.

Second, in an anarchist society, there would be deterrents against crime - individuals defending themselves, and security firms.

A system that has no government and no law becomes disordered quickly. There is no economic incentive when you can kill your neighbor, steal his money with no consequences.

Obviously, even with government the problem of crime is not solved. It is certainly lessened by a very high percentage. It is indeed only the law that deters many from crime. Sure individuals could defend themselves, but that already goes on now. It would be a country at war with itself.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Yes, but are specific to each individual based on moral values and are thus self-imposed.

The individual's moral rights are based upon the principle of self-ownership. They do not vary from person to person - they are universal.

Theoretically, they do. You can infinite number of twists to any situation, making them infinite.

I don't see how that follows. There are an infinite number of situations in which you might ask if the individual's rights are being violated, and in each situation, the answer is either yes or no. It does not imply that an individual has rights that extend to infinity.

A system that has no government and no law becomes disordered quickly. There is no economic incentive when you can kill your neighbor, steal his money with no consequences.

A system without government and law does not become disordered.

When I speak of economic incentive, I refer to a sort of "credit rating". If you default on a loan, your chances of getting another are not very good. If your credit history reports that you are not a very reliable person to deal with, then you shall not be dealt with.

In an anarchist society, gun-ownership is perfectly acceptable. One thing that tends to correspond with high gun ownership is low crime rates.

Also, most people are not capable of/do not want to murder.

Obviously, even with government the problem of crime is not solved. It is certainly lessened by a very high percentage. It is indeed only the law that deters many from crime. Sure individuals could defend themselves, but that already goes on now. It would be a country at war with itself.

Again, private security firms/home defense.

 

[antchak]

The individual's moral rights are based upon the principle of self-ownership. They do not vary from person to person - they are universal.

Clearly they do not as I do not share your views, and therefore my moral rights are different. Perhaps because you base your opinion on self-ownership, everyone has the same rights from your perspective. Since everyone does not share your opinion, and they see things from a different perspective, they will see their moral rights differently. Moral rights are exclusive to the individual.

I don't see how that follows. There are an infinite number of situations in which you might ask if the individual's rights are being violated, and in each situation, the answer is either yes or no. It does not imply that an individual has rights that extend to infinity.

It follows because I can think of infinite variations on moral rights. If I wave my hand in front of your face, you could hypothetically your hand had the right to be where I waved it, but could not because my hand was there, and that I violated your rights thus. That is semantics, but that is your argument.

A system without government and law does not become disordered.

When I speak of economic incentive, I refer to a sort of "credit rating". If you default on a loan, your chances of getting another are not very good. If your credit history reports that you are not a very reliable person to deal with, then you shall not be dealt with.

In an anarchist society, gun-ownership is perfectly acceptable. One thing that tends to correspond with high gun ownership is low crime rates.

Also, most people are not capable of/do not want to murder.

Most people would have no such inhibitions, or at least to threaten at gunpoint, if their family was starving or endangered.

We might as well stop this now, if your an anarchist your views will never shift, or at least they will not be affected by my views. Your opinions will not affect my views either. So this is just pointless. But I think some of your earlier points are valid from a your perspective, I just don't agree with some of them.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Clearly they do not as I do not share your views, and therefore my moral rights are different. Perhaps because you base your opinion on self-ownership, everyone has the same rights from your perspective. Since everyone does not share your opinion, and they see things from a different perspective, they will see their moral rights differently. Moral rights are exclusive to the individual.

Your moral rights are not based upon how you view them. They can be derived by reason:

It all begins with a simple choice of what to use as your moral standard - life, or death. If you choose life, then all things that support your life are good.

Your mind, your rational faculty, is your tool of survival. You survive by virtue of your ability to reason. To do this, you require freedom of action.

It follows because I can think of infinite variations on moral rights. If I wave my hand in front of your face, you could hypothetically your hand had the right to be where I waved it, but could not because my hand was there, and that I violated your rights thus. That is semantics, but that is your argument.

So, there are a few rough areas that need to be cleared up. That does not make the individual's rights extend to infinity.

Most people would have no such inhibitions, or at least to threaten at gunpoint, if their family was starving or endangered.

We might as well stop this now, if your an anarchist your views will never shift, or at least they will not be affected by my views. Your opinions will not affect my views either. So this is just pointless. But I think some of your earlier points are valid from a your perspective, I just don't agree with some of them.

What I'm seeing is that you are arguing from end effects - basically you are operating under the assumption that the end results are what is important, and that the means justify the ends. I'm coming from the other end, that the end never justifies the means...but perhaps we can continue this in the Socialism thread.

 

[mike_w_99]

I agee that it should be legal, and ciggarets should be ilegal. This is because "statistics" say that nobody has EVER died from Weed/marijuana. But over 10,000 people die a year from smoking ciggaretts in canada alone, now imagine the whole world. It's legal in turkey, and in amsterdam, why not make it legal everywhere else? Just because its in a different place doesn't give it a different effect.

 

[iLeviathan]

It should only be legalized if people dont abuse it, because it is used as a medicine, and isnt as bad as tobacco, or other drugs, i say no to the other drugs though O:.

 

[Cut Yew Boy]

I'm in support for weed being legal but with restrictions at school and putting an age limit on it just like alchohol. First of all, if weed was legal, the government could open private/public weed shops, tax them and make huge money off the taxes, not to mention how high the countries GDP will rise once these 'under the table' deals become legal. They will also reduce the amount of crimes because most crimes are caused by weed, therefore the government can monitor it more and decrease crime. When comparing weed with cigarettes and alcohol, weed is much less harmful and less addicting, and have caused many less deaths than booze. Those are just my inputs, I have many more but dont feel like getting carried away with this subject

 

[ZaKK]

I voted For

Why legalize ciggarettes, which are ADDICTIVE but not Marijuana, which is healthy in many ways and not addictive? And if it is legal people wont deal it and it will reduce violence.

 

[Cut Yew Boy]

^^ not that people wont deal it, making it legal wont stop people from selling, it will just make people sell in different ways, people could open shops or start doing larger trades with provinces or states.

 

[Best in the world]

I think people should be free to do what they want in their own enviroment.