Printable View
Clearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
ClearlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Granted, I'd be opposed to smoking marijuana if it was manditory. However, I'd rather not have you deciding which of my habits are vices (and, admittedly, that one is) and which are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Well, it's not me. You're country is a democracy/republic I take it. Its society through the democratic process that determines it. Hey there are many laws I don't agree with here, but I chose to be an American.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
And again we're getting into the whole 'tyranny of the majority' bit. I wonder what happened to the principle that every individual can act as he wants so long as he does not harm others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Where was that priciple enacted? It seems like you're saying that it was in effect at one point and isn't anymore, and if it was, I'd like to study that. I'm deficient as far as history is concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
It's the harm principle, one of John Stuart Mill's major theses, and one of the main principles of liberalism (both the US and Canada are, technically, liberal democracies, no matter which party is in power). It's intended to be a guide for legislation, although there is nothing in any constitution to enforce it that I'm aware of, and it seems to have been forgotten almost as soon as it was written down.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
I was aware of the harm priciple, what I wasn't aware of is that John Mill was a politician. Why is the United States of America under any obligation to take his views into consideration? Or any government for that matter? The fact that Canada's and America's governments don't adhere to this individual's philosophy doesn't strike me as particularly earth shattering.
It's not, I know. What upsets me is the fact that both are supposed to be liberal democracies, and both seem to think that it's their business to legislate the living arangements, vices and personal habits of their citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
Just so we're clear: the reason I'm bemoaning this is not that I think that the current situation runs contrary to any ingrained principle of the government of said countries or any sort of objective morality (which I don't believe in), but simply because I, personally, like the harm principle.
As an aside: marijuana is at least as effect as the pain-killer that is currently most commonly prescribed to AIDS patients, and has fewer side effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
That is a sensible question Virgil. Now let me give you a true story. The small town I grew up in had three bars on Main Street and one just a block off of Main. Then there was one on the outskirts of town, just outside the corporation limits. They drew the usual crowd of rowdy people. A cousin of mind was picked up regularly as he came out of the "Klub Kafe", very drunk, for public intoxication. Asked by the Judge why he was again in court for the same old charge, he boldly told the Judge, "Because I can't afford to go to the Lounge at the Holiday Inn and get drunk like your Honor!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
We moved forward, and got rid of all the bars. Now we have restaurants that sell liquor-by-the-drink, and we have the same problem with public intoxication. Changing the atmosphere doesn't change the effect of too much to drink! I used to drink myself. I drank because there were certain types of liquor I liked the taste of. But I couldn't control it, it controlled me. So it had to go.
I know it's a problem. It seems that some people are biologically predisposed to being alcoholics. The problems from it are serious. That's what drove the passion for prohibition. I enjoy a drink in moderation, but I'm lucky I guess I'm not predisposed. Despite my enjoyment of a drink of wine, I fully understand why we tried prohibition. I don't think it's prudent to open another pandora's box and legalize drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
It's open, we're just pretending that we can put everything back in it through legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
No it's not. It's not egal and it's not sanctioned by society.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Talking about prohibitions and drinks, i was in South Carolina and it was Sunday and one good friend of mine wanted to drink a beer and he drove miles in order to go in Charleston ( if i am not wrong) as this was the only near city in which alcoholic drinks were allowed on Sunday ( which is the day of God) Finally he drunk this bottle of beer. Is he alcooholic?Just a question. Are the laws of South Carolina good? Another question.
Evi
It sure is popular, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
To the first: if he only drank one bottle of beer, it's unlikely. To the second: no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evi