[QUOTE=Lankist;17115271]More than I can honestly count.
Have you asked any of them why drugs are illegal?[/QUOTE]
I have been to a conference where somebody else did, yes (hippy student type) and the answer was as I have said, the protection of society against the crimes surrounding drug use. (Charter 88/ Unlock Democracy anniversary lecture, Westminister House)
What did your legions of politicians say?
[QUOTE=ryandaniels;17115081]
Also, no offense but I have trouble understanding your writing.[/QUOTE]
haha, that's probably because i made a 1st grade mistake.
i meant throw*
On the subjects of drug legalisation I think the Lisbon example shows some promise.
Also, because I decided a US example would be appropriate, a drug threat assesment titled "The Impact of Drugs on Society"
[url]http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs11/18862/impact.htm[/url]
(page looks old, but the US Justice Department archive just seems to be like that)
In case anyone is wondering, I am not saying that this is the right way to decide laws, simply that this is the current paradigm.
[QUOTE=Athelus;17115300]I have been to a conference where somebody else did, yes (hippy student type) and the answer was as I have said, the protection of society against the crimes surrounding drug use. (Charter 88/ Unlock Democracy anniversary lecture, Westminister House)
What did your legions of politicians say?[/QUOTE]
What does that have to do with immorality?
[editline]11:51PM[/editline]
You said any politician will say it is immoral.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17115568]What does that have to do with immorality?
[editline]11:51PM[/editline]
You said any politician will say it is immoral.[/QUOTE]
I said
[QUOTE=Athelus]Also I would imagine a large basis of the law is the perceived impact on society, not just the victim. In fact I would say that the preservation of social stability, correctly percieved or not, is the major driving force behind most laws, and that individual rights are often secondary, especially in undemocratic states.[/QUOTE]
In fewer words, the driving force behind laws is often percieved benefit to social stability, not morality.
[QUOTE=Athelus;17115166]For example, ask any [b]legislator[/b] why drugs are banned and chances are that they will reply [b]not that it is 'immoral'[/b] but that it could cause harm to society.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't look like
[QUOTE=Lankist;17115568]You said any [b]politician[/b] will say it is [b]immoral[/b].[/QUOTE]
Please read what I wrote before disagreeing with it.
Not really, you have a misconception for what that layman term means.
When they refer to society they are referring to people rather than the sort of philosophical society. When talking to laymen most politicians use "the people" and "society" interchangeably.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17115632]Not really, you have a misconception for what that layman term means.
When they refer to society they are referring to people rather than the sort of philosophical society. When talking to laymen most politicians use "the people" and "society" interchangeably.[/QUOTE]
I give up. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology[/url]
Also
so⋅ci⋅e⋅ty
  /səˈsaɪɪti/ [suh-sahy-i-tee]
–noun
1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
2. a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.
3. the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.
4. a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.
5. such a system characterized by its dominant economic class or form: middle-class society; industrial society.
Shoddy sources? Yes. But shouting 'layman' at me doesn't make you correct.
Uhh, did you read the words I wrote?
[QUOTE=Lankist;17115721]Uhh, did you read the words I wrote?[/QUOTE]
Yes, and I wasn't talking about 'the sort of philosophical society' whatever that might mean.
I was just pointing out that if I
[QUOTE=Lankist;17115632]have a misconception for what that layman term means.[/QUOTE]
then so do the social sciences, not to mention dictionaries.
That's why I didn't say "You are talking about the sort of philosophical society whatever that might mean"
[QUOTE=Lankist;17115746]That's why I didn't say "You are talking about the sort of philosophical society whatever that might mean"[/QUOTE]
You're exagerating what I said, but [i]who[/i] was talking about "the sort of philosophical society"? What do you even mean by that?
Enlighten me and the Oxford English Dictionary about our layman's misconception, please.
[QUOTE=Athelus;17115776]You're exagerating what I said, but [i]who[/i] was talking about "the sort of philosophical society"? What do you even mean by that?[/QUOTE]
You said politicians refer to drugs being illegal for the protection of society.
You seem to have inferred that they meant society as the intangible, fluid, philosophically defined society rather than the tangible, measurable "The People" society. This is something they often do when talking to laymen.
Social engineering deals with the prior, protection of individuals as a whole is the latter.
That is their justification.
[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111592]So you're saying that if we legalize drugs, we won't have a larger amount of people than we have currently using drugs begin to use them?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I've said that a dozen times in this thread already.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17115815]You said politicians refer to drugs being illegal for the protection of society.
You seem to have inferred that they meant society as the intangible, fluid, philosophically defined society rather than the tangible, measurable "The People" society. This is something they often do when talking to laymen.
Social engineering deals with the prior, protection of individuals as a whole is the latter.
That is their justification.[/QUOTE]
I am still clueless as to the "society as the intangible, fluid, philosophically defined society", and exactly what is the "layman's" term and what isn't.
In any case I am talking about society as being
[quote=Oxford English Dictionary]
Society
• noun (pl. societies)
1. the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.[/quote]
and laws being in place to mantain this order.
[QUOTE=Malumbre;17115834]Yes, I've said that a dozen times in this thread already.[/QUOTE]
I moderateley agree. [url]http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080[/url]
I am not going to get into a philosophical discussion on the tenants of society with you right now.
[QUOTE=Malumbre;17115834]Yes, I've said that a dozen times in this thread already.[/QUOTE]
Even if more people did, it wouldn't matter. That's an individual choice.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17115906]I am not going to get into a philosophical discussion on the tenants of society with you right now.[/QUOTE]
Can you not simply assume that i'm using the standard definition of the word without resorting to calling me a 'layman'?
Haha basically, you should have to be "this smart" to be in this country. (kinda like an amusement park with height.) because mostly stupid people are the ones who commit the crimes because they can't find work because they're uneducated. gambling doesn't necessarily lead to crime, i gamble all the time with friends and it's not like i'm shooting people in the streets every day. Drug laws should be less strict, but they should still have regulations on them. I think it's okay to experience a high once and a while for shits and giggles, but a lot of, again, uneducated/trashy people get overboard with it.
[QUOTE=Athelus;17115968]Can you not simply assume that i'm using the standard definition of the word???[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about political justifications.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17115980]I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about political justifications.[/QUOTE]
I don't think we're even speaking the same language...
[QUOTE=Athelus;17115994]I don't think we're even speaking the same language...[/QUOTE]
Do you not remember what you are arguing
I agree that in criminal law at least, before society can tell someone "no you can't do that, it's against the law", society better provide a clear, nonreligious reason why not. Two examples:
Pot- A legal age guy can drink as much beer while watching a football game as he wants, no law broken. If he smokes a bowl, hell if he even just HAS a bowl of weed, while watching the game he's in violation of the law. How does that make a lick of sense? What interest of society is being served here?
Sex- A woman can have sex with a man. A woman can be given money by a man. All legal, society has no problem with those things. A woman cannot be given money for sex by the man- society has a problem now. Makes no sense to me.
It's because women want to string men along for two thousand dollars worth of lobster before they finally put out
[QUOTE=Lankist;17116001]Do you not remember what you are arguing[/QUOTE]
[quote]Also I would imagine a large basis of the law is the perceived impact on society, not just the victim. In fact I would say that the preservation of social stability, correctly percieved or not, is the major driving force behind most laws, and that individual rights are often secondary, especially in undemocratic states.[/quote]
I am arguing that the preservation of order in society
[quote=Oxford English Dictionary]society
• noun (pl. societies) 1 the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community[/quote]
is the main driving force of legislation, overtaking the rights of individuals.
Note that I am not saying this [i]should[/i] be the driving force, simply that it often is. I still don't get what your problem with that is, except for your 'alternative' interpretation of the word society.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;17116013]I agree that in criminal law at least, before society can tell someone "no you can't do that, it's against the law", society better provide a clear, nonreligious reason why not. Two examples:
Pot- A legal age guy can drink as much beer while watching a football game as he wants, no law broken. If he smokes a bowl, hell if he even just HAS a bowl of weed, while watching the game he's in violation of the law. How does that make a lick of sense? What interest of society is being served here?
Sex- A woman can have sex with a man. A woman can be given money by a man. All legal, society has no problem with those things. A woman cannot be given money for sex by the man- society has a problem now. Makes no sense to me.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you. A lot of the laws, I think, are just made so that people can't go overboard. And to be fair, they ban everyone from it, not just the people that abuse it.
[QUOTE=Athelus;17116051]Words[/QUOTE]
I said: First World laws need to be justifiable in benefit to the individual and not the whole
You said: Generic Politician told me that drugs are illegal to protect society
I said: He is using the words Society and "The People" interchangeably where as I was referencing society as the intangible phenomena that appears when people bunch together, i.e. memetics and shit.
Cliff's
[QUOTE=Lankist;17110973]No it isn't you nonce.
Murder violates the rights of another individual, THAT's why it's illegal. Not because it's immoral. The idea is that you can do anything that does not impede anyone else's ability to do the same.[/QUOTE]
What rights? Where do they come from?
Oh, I forgot, we're doing this whole argument where the athiests claim the UN gives people rights.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;17116209]What rights? Where do they come from?
Oh, I forgot, we're doing this whole argument where the athiests claim the UN gives people rights.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck are you talking aboot.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17116110]I said: First World laws need to be justifiable in benefit to the individual and not the whole
You said: Generic Politician told me that drugs are illegal to protect society
I said: He is using the words Society and "The People" interchangeably where as I was referencing society as the intangible phenomena that appears when people bunch together, i.e. memetics and shit.
Cliff's[/QUOTE]
Ok then;
I said: Laws in the majority of worldwide countries are based on the stability of society (reffering to the population as a whole) before the protection of individuals.
You said: In MEDCs this is not the case.
I said: A legislator would most likeley be in agreement, in the context of substance prohibition, that the laws primarily focus on protecting society as a whole as opposed to protecting individual members of society.
You said:Have you met a politician.
I said: Yes, several.
You said: I've met more. Did you pose to him that question?
I said: No, but I was present at a lecture where someone else asked something simmilar. The answer was that society is protected by the illegality of drugs.
You said: By society he means 'the people', i was talking about intangible stuff.
I said, but I wasn't in my original statement, regardless if you were or not, and I assumed this was obvious as my meaning is the predominant usage of the word.
You said: I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE INTANGIBLE FORM! (Capitals because you said it several times)
I said: but... I wasn't....
You said: This isn't about you!
I said: I don't understand...
You said:" I said: First World laws need to be justifiable in benefit to the individual and not the whole
You said: Generic Politician told me that drugs are illegal to protect society
I said: He is using the words Society and "The People" interchangeably where as I was referencing society as the intangible phenomena that appears when people bunch together, i.e. memetics and shit.
Cliff's"
I said: See Above.
Edit:
Basically I don't even think you really disagree with what I am saying, mereley that you've misread it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
