Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[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 beaches 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 it. 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

[Good_Egg]

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

Yes, that's the principle.

And as amateur philosophers, our job is to explore what is meant by "consensual" and by "adults". "Activities" seems at first sight straightforward, but if anyone thinks there are unexplored subtleties there, do feel free to say so.

By "adults", do we mean people of fully-functioning mind, or only people who have lived a certain round number of years ?

If someone takes an LSD tablet thinking it's paracetamol, did they consent ? If they take it at the urging of a friend who tells them it's perfectly safe, did they consent to the risks ?

And who has to consent for an activity to be consensual ? If the activity is walking through the public square naked, is it enough for you to consent, or is the consent of everyone in the public square required ?

Keep in mind, that the above is only in regard to macro-criminalization (i.e. bans by big non-local governments).

That's an important aspect. You're not ruling out a village getting together and agreeing collectively that they'd prefer a life with or without public nudity or whatever the activity is.

Seems like what you're denying is that any conceivable form of public consultation by a large polity falls short of the level of consent achievable by a village meeting ?

[Sculptor1]

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, 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 beaches 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 it. 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

I'm puzzled that you seem to have penned this March 29 but I am only now receiving it.

In some sense this edict is the customary norm of all society since the danw of time, except that what is considered "consentual" and wo can be included as viable "victims" varies from time to time and place to place.
For example no slave has ever been worthy of consent, nor can they be considered a victim, since they are not considered the whole human. SImilarly in today's society large sections of the population do not consider trans people to be real people and are commonly victimised as we see in Florida.

[Xenophon]

The downtown area of a number of large American cities in effect decriminalizes drugs. How's that working out, Yanks? Needles & s*** in the street. Stoned zombies wandering at will. One cannot go out after dark. Businesses closing. Yeah, decriminalization works.

For gods' sakes: cultivate a little pride in yourself, in those kindred to you. Then start posting philosophy. A bunch of loner-losers on the spectrum are not fit stuff out of which to fashion a commonwealth.

[Lagayscienza]

Generally, I'm not in favor of banning things that do not harm others and about which adults are generally capable of making informed decisions for themselves. I think making things illegal can sometimes result in more harm than good. For example, the banning of alcohol in the US during Prohibition was a disaster. Humans have been drinking booze for millennia and it will never be stamped out. And that's good because I love a beer now and then - to hell with the wowsers. Banning X-rated adult movies and magazines is another example of really stupid illegalization. They were just traded illegally on the black market and then true criminals got involved. The banning of consensual relations between adult members of the same sex was also ineffective and harmful. It criminalized and ruined the lives of millions. I feel likewise in respect of other victimless crimes such as prostitution. In general, I think governments and the law should mind their own goddamned business in such personal matters where adults are concerned. I would legalize pot for adults but bans on the sale of tobacco products to minors and limitations on where tobacco can be smoked are necessary to protect kids and public health. If people want to ban things in their own homes then that is their business. But they shouldn't try forcing their own personal values down other people's throats.

[Sculptor1]

The downtown area of a number of large American cities in effect decriminalizes drugs. How's that working out, Yanks? Needles & s*** in the street. Stoned zombies wandering at will. One cannot go out after dark. Businesses closing. Yeah, decriminalization works.

For gods' sakes: cultivate a little pride in yourself, in those kindred to you. Then start posting philosophy. A bunch of loner-losers on the spectrum are not fit stuff out of which to fashion a commonwealth.

The fact that the US has junkies has ZERO to do with any sort of imaginary decriminalisation.

If you want to have a citizenry with pride in themselves then you have to build a more equitable society, rather than all the wealth forever going to the top and creating more and more billionaries and now trillionarres, you have to bite the bullet and return to better progressive taxation, higher minimum wage, and spend more on public education.
SInce Milton Friedman taxation has been directed away from the rich towards the military and away from health and education. At the same time government corruption has meant those taxes have been looted by the rich whilst pretending to provide social projects.

[Good_Egg]

The downtown area of a number of large American cities in effect decriminalizes drugs. How's that working out, Yanks? Needles & s*** in the street. Stoned zombies wandering at will. One cannot go out after dark. Businesses closing...

Seems to me that plenty of places manage to criminalize public drunkenness without criminalizing the consumption of alcohol in one's own home (or in some sort of private club).

And that public/private distinction is important.

Seems to me that Scott's thesis here is that what consenting adults do in private is their own business, That regulating such conduct is outside the legitimate function of government.

Conversely, the public realm is a social space, and he's deliberately not ruling out community-based regulation of what goes on in such spaces.

[LuckyR]

The downtown area of a number of large American cities in effect decriminalizes drugs. How's that working out, Yanks? Needles & s*** in the street. Stoned zombies wandering at will. One cannot go out after dark. Businesses closing...

Seems to me that plenty of places manage to criminalize public drunkenness without criminalizing the consumption of alcohol in one's own home (or in some sort of private club).

And that public/private distinction is important.

Seems to me that Scott's thesis here is that what consenting adults do in private is their own business, That regulating such conduct is outside the legitimate function of government.

Conversely, the public realm is a social space, and he's deliberately not ruling out community-based regulation of what goes on in such spaces.

Exactly. As someone who lives where the possession of small amount of drugs was decriminalized, there is an unanticipated side effect of it that needs correction (which is in the works). Specifically that law enforcement uses the threat of incarceration to get addicts into treatment and the community benefits from a lower amount of addiction. So hard, addictive drugs need to be illegal, but law enforcement should not enforce that legal status routinely.