Macro-Criminalization of Consensual Crimes

[LuckyR]

I reluctantly ticked the bottom option.
There is a massive gray area between the two.

No one in their right mind is going to make alcohol illegal, so I am surprised that the first option got any votes at all
This crazy idea was tried in the USA. Prohibition led to a massive increase in violent crime and the unprecedented rise of Gangster culture.
Today we have a useless and unnecessarily cruel prohibition of cannabis.

But there is a world of horror in the word "ETC." in the second option which makes ticking that option frivolous and careless.
Do we really think that the selling of unregulated heroin is acceptable?

So I have to conclude to a vote of no confidence in the thread.

Just a minor clarification.

Illegal heroin sales are (by definition) unregulated. If heroin was legal it would become regulated (age of purchaser, purity and thus safety of product etc).

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Do we really think that the selling of unregulated heroin is acceptable?

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that the sale of alcohol, marijuana, acetaminophen, hydrocodone, oxycodone, morphine, or heroin be completely unregulated.

In fact, the Original Post (OP) explicitly suggests the exact opposite.

To illustrate, I might be very angry if someone sold acetaminophen (e.g. Tylenol) to my 11-year-old daughter, especially considering acetaminophen (e.g. Tylenol) is the leading cause of liver failure in the United States, and 40 thousand people overdosed last year in the USA alone. The FDA considers acetaminophen (e.g. Tylenol) to be one of the most dangerous drugs on the market (source). If someone sold my daughter acetaminophen (e.g. Tylenol), and she died of an overdose, depending on the exact circumstances, I might consider that person a murderer, and respond accordingly. The same would go for a case where she stumbles upon or gets gifted some hydrocodone, oxycodone, morphine, or heroin at some place other than a hospital by a doctor with a medical degree and medical license.

It's helpful (and technically required by the Forum Rules) to read an OP in full before replying to it.

[Sculptor1]

I reluctantly ticked the bottom option.
There is a massive gray area between the two.

No one in their right mind is going to make alcohol illegal, so I am surprised that the first option got any votes at all
This crazy idea was tried in the USA. Prohibition led to a massive increase in violent crime and the unprecedented rise of Gangster culture.
Today we have a useless and unnecessarily cruel prohibition of cannabis.

But there is a world of horror in the word "ETC." in the second option which makes ticking that option frivolous and careless.
Do we really think that the selling of unregulated heroin is acceptable?

So I have to conclude to a vote of no confidence in the thread.

Just a minor clarification.

Illegal heroin sales are (by definition) unregulated. If heroin was legal it would become regulated (age of purchaser, purity and thus safety of product etc).

There is no hint that ANY regulation would be included in option Two.
It would seem to include any "unhealthy or self-harmful activities".
Would you support being able to buy heroine, say from a vending machine? And did you vote option2?
Guns were not mentioned by are contentious and "harmful activities". Would you support being able to buy, say, a box of handgrenades?
And did you vote option 2?

Like so many polls whose designers wish to illicit a desired response, this one is similarly poorly designed with such bias as would achieve that desire.

[Sculptor1]

Do we really think that the selling of unregulated heroin is acceptable?

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that the sale of alcohol, marijuana, acetaminophen, hydrocodone, oxycodone, morphine, or heroin be completely unregulated.

The poll posits freedom for "unhealthy or self-harmful activities". regulation was not mentioned. Unregulated drugs are more harmful and unhealthy so mores the better.
In your extended list you could also mention Fentanyl; lethal without careful prescription and already responsible for the death of thousands of Americans.
A more recent analysis estimates 128,000 Americans die each year as a result of taking medications as prescribed.
How many more would make you take stock and ask WTF are we doing ?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Criminalization of the allegedly self-harmful/unhealthy activity exacerbates the problems caused by it rather than stopping the activity from occurring by pushing the activity underground, eliminating the possibility of regulation, and causing violent career criminals to be the ringleaders, dealers, pushers and profiteers of the activity rather than legitimate, relatively non-violent businesses. The most common example given is the effects of the historical prohibition of alcohol in the United States.

[Emphasis Added.]

Do we really think that the selling of unregulated heroin is acceptable?

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that the sale of alcohol, marijuana, acetaminophen, hydrocodone, oxycodone, morphine, or heroin be completely unregulated.

In fact, the Original Post (OP) explicitly suggests the exact opposite.

To illustrate, I might be very angry if someone sold acetaminophen (e.g. Tylenol) to my 11-year-old daughter, especially considering acetaminophen (e.g. Tylenol) is the leading cause of liver failure in the United States, and 40 thousand people overdosed last year in the USA alone. The FDA considers acetaminophen (e.g. Tylenol) to be one of the most dangerous drugs on the market (source). If someone sold my daughter acetaminophen (e.g. Tylenol), and she died of an overdose, depending on the exact circumstances, I might consider that person a murderer, and respond accordingly. The same would go for a case where she stumbles upon or gets gifted some hydrocodone, oxycodone, morphine, or heroin at some place other than a hospital by a doctor with a medical degree and medical license.

It's helpful (and technically required by the Forum Rules) to read an OP in full before replying to it.

The poll posits freedom for "unhealthy or self-harmful activities". regulation was not mentioned.

Regulation absolutely was explicitly mentioned in the Original Post (OP).

As I said in my last post to you, it's very helpful (and technically required by the Forum Rules) to read an OP in full before replying to it.

[Sculptor1]

Criminalization of the allegedly self-harmful/unhealthy activity exacerbates the problems caused by it rather than stopping the activity from occurring by pushing the activity underground, eliminating the possibility of regulation, and causing violent career criminals to be the ringleaders, dealers, pushers and profiteers of the activity rather than legitimate, relatively non-violent businesses. The most common example given is the effects of the historical prohibition of alcohol in the United States.

[Emphasis Added.]

Do we really think that the selling of unregulated heroin is acceptable?

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that the sale of alcohol, marijuana, acetaminophen, hydrocodone, oxycodone, morphine, or heroin be completely unregulated.

In fact, the Original Post (OP) explicitly suggests the exact opposite.

To illustrate, I might be very angry if someone sold acetaminophen (e.g. Tylenol) to my 11-year-old daughter, especially considering acetaminophen (e.g. Tylenol) is the leading cause of liver failure in the United States, and 40 thousand people overdosed last year in the USA alone. The FDA considers acetaminophen (e.g. Tylenol) to be one of the most dangerous drugs on the market (source). If someone sold my daughter acetaminophen (e.g. Tylenol), and she died of an overdose, depending on the exact circumstances, I might consider that person a murderer, and respond accordingly. The same would go for a case where she stumbles upon or gets gifted some hydrocodone, oxycodone, morphine, or heroin at some place other than a hospital by a doctor with a medical degree and medical license.

It's helpful (and technically required by the Forum Rules) to read an OP in full before replying to it.

The poll posits freedom for "unhealthy or self-harmful activities". regulation was not mentioned.

Regulation absolutely was explicitly mentioned in the Original Post (OP).

As I said in my last post to you, it's very helpful (and technically required by the Forum Rules) to read an OP in full before replying to it.

Okay.

But the devil is always in the detail.
No one in their right mind could seriously vote for either clause with or without regulation.
There is a world of pain and misery in "I support the legalization of all victimless/consensual activities by adults including marijuana use, gambling, alcohol consumption, prostitution, etc."
Where does "etc." stop?
In many US states at the moment there is a cascade of anti trans legislation employing "etc" that could be used to stop a trans person leaving the house.
But also no one in their right mind could vote for the first option either.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, @SSculptor1,

Thank you for your reply and question!

There is a world of pain and misery in "I support the legalization of all victimless/consensual activities by adults including marijuana use, gambling, alcohol consumption, prostitution, etc."
Where does "etc." stop?

Everything appearing after word "including" including the word "including" are just examples. You can even ignore the word 'including' and all the examples after that. They are merely examples.

The key content is "I support the legalization of all victimless/consensual activities by adults."

The rest is some examples of things that are included in the category of "all victimless/consensual activities by adults".

Keep in mind, that the above is only in regard to macro-criminalization (i.e. bans by big non-local governments), such that "legalization" only means the lack of macro-criminalization, nothing to do with local ordinances or so-called house rules or such (e.g. "no shirt, no shoes, no service in this restaurant").

For instance, in terms of macro-criminalization, legalizing public nudity doesn't mean that a big apartment complex, a big hotel, a small town, or a private beach couldn't ban public nudity on their own beach or in their own town or building or such. Indeed, as I say in my book, In It Together, I believe the beauty of freedom is the diversity it engenders. In the absence of some big non-local or global government violently ordering that all beach must be nude beaches or that public nudity on all beaches is required, we then end up with a beautifully diverse world in which some beaches (1) ban public nudity, and some beaches (2) require public nudity ("no clothes or swimsuits allowed on this beach!"), and (3) some beaches allow public nudity but don't require. I think a diverse peaceful world with all three beaches is beautiful.

Some households may require you take your shoes off to enter, some may require you keep your shoes on when you enter, and some may allow both. All three are compatible with political freedom, in terms of the absence of macro-criminalization or some huge large-scale national or global order telling all households whether they need to allow shoes or require shoes or such.


Thank you,
Scott