The rationale behind "not in public" isn't that I don't like it but that drug use has significant deteriorating effects on society and can thus not be allowed to become normal social behavior.
Bullshit. Any truly free country would not infringe upon people's fundamental liberties in the name of safety. Also, have you ever heard of personal responsibility? If someone sees you doing drugs and wants to try them too, then that is *their* problem and no one else's. And I think there are constitutional problems with the drug war, and constitutional problems with banning public drug use.
I have a better idea: Stop trying to control people and just leave them alone. That way, maybe we'll move closer to becoming 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' rather than 'the land of the unfree and the home of the worthless cowards who sacrifice freedom for safety.'
And, as such, your comment is illogical. You are once again attempting to apply logic to what is purely subjective.
No, my comment is not illogical. And subjectivity is not devoid of logic, either. There might not be an absolutely correct answer in certain cases, but that does not mean logic is not involved at all. I have absolutely zero clue what your second sentence is supposed to mean.
You can't debate this, because you already admitted it is completely subjective.
It is completely subjective. But you're misunderstanding something about subjectivity; nothing prevents you from criticizing others, even if your criticism is subjective. So I can debate anything I want, as long as I frame it all as a personal opinion.
Heroin, etc. are dangerous and they weren't just banned because of moralizers.
The 'land of the free and the home of the brave' would not violate people's fundamental liberties for safety. These things are banned because of freedom-hating scumbags who despise the thought of living in a truly free country, and yet pretend that that is their goal. But we have the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, constitution-free zones, free speech zones, protest permits, DUI checkpoints, mass warrantless surveillance, unrestricted border searches, and a number of other policiies or agencies that violate the constitution and people's fundamental rights (thanks to people like you), so of course we've never been 'the land of the free.'
The bottom line is that outlawing drugs reduces their use, and correspondingly reduce their negative effects on society.
Even if I were to accept that as true (I don't), I would still be 100% opposed to the drug war, because it violates people's fundamental liberties. Such a thing would never be allowed in any truly free country, safety or no safety. It's people like you who cheer on the TSA, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, etc. simply because you think they keep people safe, without caring that you're supposed to be living in a free country.
This is 100% irrelevant even if it is true. The 'land of the free and the home of the brave' would not ban people from taking drugs, even for safety, just like it wouldn't allow the TSA, the NSA surveillance, or any other freedom-violating/unconstitutional nonsense to exist.
No ads, no public displays of drug use, no public drug use, not even in designated public venues, and no brown paper bag bullshit either.
Well, if you don't want to do any of that or pay attention to it, then feel free not to. However, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned.
I don't necessarily sympathize with any random plight; I just don't buy into bullshit logic like "X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad simply because there's something worse."
It's not even there by a loose interpretation, it's not a matter of an exact phrase, it's a matter of the concept not being stated in any form or fashion in the US Constitution.
Thanks to the limitations established upon the government by the constitution, it does exist. See his post where he lists the relevant amendments. That is but one possible interpretation.
Well, police aren't omnipresent, so there's going to be some "random" factor to it. The same is true of other larger cases (e.g. murder, rape, etc.). There's just no getting around it. If we want to get rid of some laws, then we should do that without pointlessly prosecuting people for laws that we believe are unjust to begin with.
Whether or not you believe that the role of universities *should* be vocational training, the curriculum and organization of institutions of higher education---particularly research universities---is still geared toward that Enlightenment ideal of academia.
Colleges are basically turning into poor imitations of vocational schools. The same is true for some universities. You get the worst of both worlds.
No, it's not. A clear perusal of the US Constitution shows that phrasing is entirely absent.
And your point is... what? That has already been established. His real point was that it's there, even if it doesn't use that exact phrasing. Even if it's just an inference, that still makes it part of the constitution, because the constitution establishes these rules to begin with.
You're the one who claimed it was part of the Constitution.
It is. That you need it to be spelled out using that exact wording for you to understand that it's there reflects very poorly on your level of intelligence.
Unless you are personally working to change our justice system, you are no better than the person you accuse of being a sociopath.
Nonsense. It's possible to be apathetic without cheering on wrongful executions, you know. You can be better than the person above by not saying that this sort of nonsense is acceptable; it isn't. That applies even if you don't actually do much.
Should a police officer be stationed on every corner to write tickets the old-fashioned way?
No. Perhaps we should mostly focus on bigger things, and if they happen to see someone breaking the law, then they can handle it? We shouldn't have officers dedicated to looking out for trivialities, or at least not many.
This is a colossal waste of resources
Good. You seem to think it is a good thing to streamline law enforcement, but in 'the land of the free,' it absolutely is not. That just gives them too much power to abuse, and far more efficiently. That's why mass surveillance is bad.
On a semi-related note, should it be illegal for security cameras to be used by police, and instead require an officer to physically witness an alleged crime in person?
My take on this is that security cameras are okay, but if and only if there is a person using it. So cops can use cameras as long as they're placed on their car or on their bodies, but installing security cameras everywhere in public places is a no-go. Also, stop assuming that cops are right and force a court case each and every time they say they caught someone breaking the law (and they want to punish them), even for 'trivial' matters. If they don't have evidence, then the person goes free. This would also force them to focus on more important things most of the time.
still doesn't take away from the fact that, petty as it is, the drivers did actually commit an offense.
There's no guarantee that any such thing happened. We can't even see how these cameras work, and even if we could, automating surveillance of public places is a bad idea. It just makes abuse more efficient.
Giving other people or organizations an unlimited right to endanger me isn't really freedom.
No one suggests unlimited, but the least you could do is wait until someone is confirmed to be doing something 'bad' before you punish them, rather than just punishing everyone from the very beginning because there's a possibility they could do something 'bad.' The former is okay in a free country, but the latter is not.
Do you believe the law in question to be immoral or unjust?
Try to follow the conversation before making huge rants. He said: "Any toleration of law breaking undermines the order of society." That is what I responded to.
You can challenge any traffic violation in the courts.
Except for the fact that it's not automatic like it would be otherwise. Your punishment can be determined before anyone *ever* goes to see a judge.
People just choose to wave their rights and just pay the fine because they broke the law and they know it.
Bullshit. It's often because it's too costly/takes too much time and people have no confidence in the system. More importantly, why do you, someone who presumably lives in 'the land of the free'--a place where it is considered a good thing to distrust authority, and a place where the constitution is intended to place severe limitations upon the government--have absolute faith in authority? Hundreds of millions of people were abused and/or killed throughout history by your beloved authority figures, so to assume people are guilty is just plain ignorant.
Is that really the same as mass government surveillance of public places, or the NSA-style surveillance, where people are spied on en masse? I think not.
Slashdot Mirror
The rationale behind "not in public" isn't that I don't like it but that drug use has significant deteriorating effects on society and can thus not be allowed to become normal social behavior.
Bullshit. Any truly free country would not infringe upon people's fundamental liberties in the name of safety. Also, have you ever heard of personal responsibility? If someone sees you doing drugs and wants to try them too, then that is *their* problem and no one else's. And I think there are constitutional problems with the drug war, and constitutional problems with banning public drug use.
I have a better idea: Stop trying to control people and just leave them alone. That way, maybe we'll move closer to becoming 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' rather than 'the land of the unfree and the home of the worthless cowards who sacrifice freedom for safety.'
And, as such, your comment is illogical. You are once again attempting to apply logic to what is purely subjective.
No, my comment is not illogical. And subjectivity is not devoid of logic, either. There might not be an absolutely correct answer in certain cases, but that does not mean logic is not involved at all. I have absolutely zero clue what your second sentence is supposed to mean.
You can't debate this, because you already admitted it is completely subjective.
It is completely subjective. But you're misunderstanding something about subjectivity; nothing prevents you from criticizing others, even if your criticism is subjective. So I can debate anything I want, as long as I frame it all as a personal opinion.
We don't need to make our nation any more unfree, and we don't need schools to become any more like awful prisons. Vanish, authoritarian scumbag.
Heroin, etc. are dangerous and they weren't just banned because of moralizers.
The 'land of the free and the home of the brave' would not violate people's fundamental liberties for safety. These things are banned because of freedom-hating scumbags who despise the thought of living in a truly free country, and yet pretend that that is their goal. But we have the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, constitution-free zones, free speech zones, protest permits, DUI checkpoints, mass warrantless surveillance, unrestricted border searches, and a number of other policiies or agencies that violate the constitution and people's fundamental rights (thanks to people like you), so of course we've never been 'the land of the free.'
The bottom line is that outlawing drugs reduces their use, and correspondingly reduce their negative effects on society.
Even if I were to accept that as true (I don't), I would still be 100% opposed to the drug war, because it violates people's fundamental liberties. Such a thing would never be allowed in any truly free country, safety or no safety. It's people like you who cheer on the TSA, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, etc. simply because you think they keep people safe, without caring that you're supposed to be living in a free country.
This is 100% irrelevant even if it is true. The 'land of the free and the home of the brave' would not ban people from taking drugs, even for safety, just like it wouldn't allow the TSA, the NSA surveillance, or any other freedom-violating/unconstitutional nonsense to exist.
No ads, no public displays of drug use, no public drug use, not even in designated public venues, and no brown paper bag bullshit either.
Well, if you don't want to do any of that or pay attention to it, then feel free not to. However, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned.
If you prefer a more rigorous mental substitution for the term, consider trying "I reject your unproven premise that X is, in fact, bad."
I reject that too, because what is and is not bad is 100% subjective.
I don't necessarily sympathize with any random plight; I just don't buy into bullshit logic like "X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad simply because there's something worse."
It's not even there by a loose interpretation, it's not a matter of an exact phrase, it's a matter of the concept not being stated in any form or fashion in the US Constitution.
Thanks to the limitations established upon the government by the constitution, it does exist. See his post where he lists the relevant amendments. That is but one possible interpretation.
Well, police aren't omnipresent, so there's going to be some "random" factor to it. The same is true of other larger cases (e.g. murder, rape, etc.). There's just no getting around it. If we want to get rid of some laws, then we should do that without pointlessly prosecuting people for laws that we believe are unjust to begin with.
Whether or not you believe that the role of universities *should* be vocational training, the curriculum and organization of institutions of higher education---particularly research universities---is still geared toward that Enlightenment ideal of academia.
Colleges are basically turning into poor imitations of vocational schools. The same is true for some universities. You get the worst of both worlds.
No, it's not. A clear perusal of the US Constitution shows that phrasing is entirely absent.
And your point is... what? That has already been established. His real point was that it's there, even if it doesn't use that exact phrasing. Even if it's just an inference, that still makes it part of the constitution, because the constitution establishes these rules to begin with.
You cannot support one, without full acceptance of the other.
I disagree. It's possible to accept the fact that criminals will get away and yet not support executions at all, which is what I do.
You're the one who claimed it was part of the Constitution.
It is. That you need it to be spelled out using that exact wording for you to understand that it's there reflects very poorly on your level of intelligence.
I'm glad to hear it. We need more people to put their society first, even when society is wrong.
No, we absolutely don't. We need fewer worthless, mindless authoritarian scumbags, not more.
Unless you are personally working to change our justice system, you are no better than the person you accuse of being a sociopath.
Nonsense. It's possible to be apathetic without cheering on wrongful executions, you know. You can be better than the person above by not saying that this sort of nonsense is acceptable; it isn't. That applies even if you don't actually do much.
Should a police officer be stationed on every corner to write tickets the old-fashioned way?
No. Perhaps we should mostly focus on bigger things, and if they happen to see someone breaking the law, then they can handle it? We shouldn't have officers dedicated to looking out for trivialities, or at least not many.
This is a colossal waste of resources
Good. You seem to think it is a good thing to streamline law enforcement, but in 'the land of the free,' it absolutely is not. That just gives them too much power to abuse, and far more efficiently. That's why mass surveillance is bad.
On a semi-related note, should it be illegal for security cameras to be used by police, and instead require an officer to physically witness an alleged crime in person?
My take on this is that security cameras are okay, but if and only if there is a person using it. So cops can use cameras as long as they're placed on their car or on their bodies, but installing security cameras everywhere in public places is a no-go. Also, stop assuming that cops are right and force a court case each and every time they say they caught someone breaking the law (and they want to punish them), even for 'trivial' matters. If they don't have evidence, then the person goes free. This would also force them to focus on more important things most of the time.
still doesn't take away from the fact that, petty as it is, the drivers did actually commit an offense.
There's no guarantee that any such thing happened. We can't even see how these cameras work, and even if we could, automating surveillance of public places is a bad idea. It just makes abuse more efficient.
Giving other people or organizations an unlimited right to endanger me isn't really freedom.
No one suggests unlimited, but the least you could do is wait until someone is confirmed to be doing something 'bad' before you punish them, rather than just punishing everyone from the very beginning because there's a possibility they could do something 'bad.' The former is okay in a free country, but the latter is not.
Do you believe the law in question to be immoral or unjust?
Try to follow the conversation before making huge rants. He said: "Any toleration of law breaking undermines the order of society." That is what I responded to.
You can challenge any traffic violation in the courts.
Except for the fact that it's not automatic like it would be otherwise. Your punishment can be determined before anyone *ever* goes to see a judge.
People just choose to wave their rights and just pay the fine because they broke the law and they know it.
Bullshit. It's often because it's too costly/takes too much time and people have no confidence in the system. More importantly, why do you, someone who presumably lives in 'the land of the free'--a place where it is considered a good thing to distrust authority, and a place where the constitution is intended to place severe limitations upon the government--have absolute faith in authority? Hundreds of millions of people were abused and/or killed throughout history by your beloved authority figures, so to assume people are guilty is just plain ignorant.
No you are innocent until a court rules you are guilty.
There are no courts in this situation.
Is that really the same as mass government surveillance of public places, or the NSA-style surveillance, where people are spied on en masse? I think not.
Laws are always moral and just, and order is always good.
It's unacceptable even if it is random. Mass surveillance is never okay.