Decriminalizing Crime: Dealing with Drugs

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Yes! But then I wonder what quantum soup would have made of logic.

What you think? Ever thought of that?

Logic is quite capable of dealing with probabilities. As I've tried to explain to other people, logic has nothing to do with physical ''cause-and-effect''. But explain more about quantum soup, because I may be talking out of the left side of my spleen here 😕.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
My (?) bible ....

By the way .... people can kill, God cannot .... The same way you cannot steal something that belongs to you.

Exodus 12:29

"At midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of the cattle."


It seems quite specific to me. The lord did a lot of killing with his own hand, with malice aforethought. Not only enough people to qualify for for being tried for crimes against humanity, but a good quantity of stupid cattle as well.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
http://www.legalisedrugs.co.uk/results.html

Well, I guess we all know by now what the western pro-drug lobby is trying to say but I've found an interesting article from a side we seldom hear from in this discussion, from Islam.

About the Author:
Mazhar Khan Pathan is actively involved in the field of Islamic dawah and has work published on various we ...[text shortened]... /articles/decriminalizing_crime_drugs.htm


What are your thoughts about this article ?

I would say that the principle of freedom is that people should be free in all actions unless there some level of justification for removing that liberty, so completely pointless legislation, eg making it illegal to eat a banana with a spoon, is not just pointless, it is morally wrong according to this principle. Closely related is the principle of personal responsibility: if someone comprehends the risks of doing something, they do so AT THEIR OWN RISK, ie a crime where the only victim is the criminal is not really a crime. I accept that these are axiomatic, and are certainly not the only reasonable attitude one could take, but they are still valid.

I disagree with the article's conclusion, that the principle of freedom is a fallacy. I also feel there are very serious weaknesses in the author's argument, some of which I'll discuss below. Unfortunately his whole argument rests on an appeal to divine authority - he claims that ANY decisions made by human beings are inconsistent and flawed, including those made contrary to the ones he criticises in the article, so we should turn to God (who is presumably either perfect or less flawed than us) for guidance. This is only any good if a) you believe in God, and b) you know what his advice/commandments are. As there is disagreement on both, it's difficult to see how this could be made objective and hence free from human errors. If you do not accept that this can be done, his arguments point to a different conclusion, that compromise is necessary.

Of course freedom has to be conditional: at the very least a less important freedom shouldn't infringe on equally or more important freedoms of others (eg you can't give people the freedom to steal). That doesn't make it completely arbitrary, as the author seems to conclude: just because you don't have a higher authority spelling it out in black and white, doesn't mean that it isn't desirable to come to a reasonable compromise - even Sharia is open to interpretation and has many contradictory schools. I agree with him that laws can't always be justified on the basis of other laws; but consistency in the law is desirable in itself, as for one thing it makes it easier to understand what is legal and what isn't. And inconsistency in existing law is certainly not a reason to maintain the legal status quo.

Personal responsibility is a more difficult one, as you have to say what you mean by 'comprehends the risks'. No matter how many warnings you issue, you will stil get people who (wilfully) ignore them, fail to understand them fully, or do something stupid in a way that they weren't warned about (eg the woman who put her poodle in the microwave to dry it). But by this argument we should dictate to these people that they don't do anything considered unnecessarily risky, which would lead to a major imposition on the majority to protect an irresponsible few. I think here it makes sense to have some kind of compromise, though it is debatable where the risk threshhold should lie.

The author's argument that drug problems in the West demonstrate the inadequacies of the principle of freedom is one I find hard to follow. However, legal and police policy in the West towards, say, heroin, has NOT been one of tolerance, so the idea of freedom is untested in this area. In fact he seems to be making a case for why strict control hasn't worked, implying that we ought to consider alternatives. He makes a second argument, that drug use is caused by freedom: "Some take drugs to practise their freedom to create heaven on earth." (ie, they are deluded); "Others take drugs to escape from the hell created by freedom." (ie, freedom causes problems in society - a statement which he does not justify, except by the circular argument that freedom leads to drug abuse, so freedom causes misery, which makes people turn to drugs). I can accept that some people are woefully misinformed about the consequences of taking drugs, and that this should be remedied as much as possible.

Later he uses a 'slippery slope' argument, that if you legalise drugs, you would have to legalise mugging. You could take the opposite approach for consistency and make EVERYTHING undesirable a crime, which is equally preposterous. What this in fact shows is there is no black-and-white solution; in the light of limited resources, you have to come to a compromise, which will inevitably have some weaknesses.

"With regards to prohibition, Rowena Young the author of a government think tank report said, 'There is not a single piece of evidence to show prohibition works'. This is true; prohibition of drugs cannot work within the context of a western society since the law would be in contradiction with its creed. The creed stipulates individual freedom whereas the banning of drugs contradicts that same freedom."

This is faulty reasoning (I think it's called a straw man, but that's not important). What he has done is taken the conclusion of a Westerner, and assumed that they must have come to that conclusion through their doctrine of freedom. This is unlikely; if Rowena Young had argued against prohibition on ideological grounds, she would probably have said 'Prohibition is morally wrong' or words to that effect. In effect, he is accusing her of disingenuity, but he does not justify this.

Bleh, I'm tired now. But I've given some indication of where I think this article goes wrong. Feel free to pick holes in MY argument (I'm sure there are some), and I'll try to patch them up.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Logic is quite capable of dealing with probabilities. As I've tried to explain to other people, logic has nothing to do with physical ''cause-and-effect''. But explain more about quantum soup, because I may be talking out of the left side of my spleen here 😕.

No. You have the essence. Just because you approach from the uphill slope of reality, ie, Math.

Probabilities fall way short in the quantum realm. One would expect that "given a billion" wave fractures, half would let "Sea Buscuit" win and half would not. In reality... Once "Something"... big mysterious... something... says "Sea Buscuit" wins. All crumbles. All becomes that. More than a quadrillion, quadrillion particles "surrender" to "reality". Thus we have a future. Very interesting, if you really get into it. If the "crumple" didn't occur... we then have determinism and religion. Scarry thought ... that.

Originally posted by rwingett
Exodus 12:29

"At midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of the cattle."


It seems quite specific to me. The lord did a lot of killing with his own hand, with malice aforethought. Not only en ...[text shortened]... for for being tried for crimes against humanity, but a good quantity of stupid cattle as well.

You read the Bible .... well, I never thought that would happen in my lifetime. Now you have to figure out what the correct interpretation is. It's always the most difficult part of reading, unless you want to become some sort of fundamentalist, taking things literally as you are doing right now. You are interpreting things in the way you want so you are able to reject the Bible. But beware dear friend, you are rejecting your own interpretations ..... maybe you should interprete it in a way so you are able to accept it.

Instead of reading what you think you already know, you should read it as if you knew nothing at all, like a true free thinker.

Originally posted by Acolyte
I would say that the principle of freedom is that people should be free in all actions unless there some level of justification for removing that liberty, so completely pointless legislation, eg making it illegal to eat a banana with a spoon, is not just pointless, it is morally wrong according to this principle. Closely related is the principle of p ...[text shortened]... el free to pick holes in MY argument (I'm sure there are some), and I'll try to patch them up.

I will read your post very carefully. I'm not sure when I can react to it however.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

You read the Bible .... well, I never thought that would happen in my lifetime. Now you have to figure out what the correct interpretation is. It's always the most difficult part of reading, unless you want to become some sort of fundam ...[text shortened]... as if you knew nothing at all, like a true free thinker.

God! I hate it when God speaks and I have to interpret! Why the hell doesn't he just come to Salt Lake City, {ok... not a good idea...} or New Yok or Lundun or StockHome ... and tell us! Is it taboo for us, for christs sake, to expect at least what Disney procures??... oops... sorry christians ignore last transmission. Does he have some agenda in being "all powerful in government and nations"... oops... sorry Islamists. Ignore last transmission.

Does he delight in setting poor buggers aflame with gasoline? ... oops... sorry budhists... Ignore that last transmission.


geez! There ain't much reality going on here. How bout we shi*can the religion cra[ and just be the jibbering monkeys that we are? Poor, blithering idiots in search of some truth. Any truth will do. But stow the superstition. "Oh great spirit... Hear your children..."...

"Yea, yea... sheesh! Like building universes isn't enough! Now the poor worms want this and want that. Do I give a crap? NOT!"





😞😕🙂😛 poor ol' god. never had a chance.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

You read the Bible .... well, I never thought that would happen in my lifetime. Now you have to figure out what the correct interpretation is. It's always the most difficult part of reading, unless you want to become some sort of fundamentalist, taking things literally as you are doing right now. You are interpreting things in the way you want so you are ...[text shortened]... ready know, you should read it as if you knew nothing at all, like a true free thinker.

Yes, I have read the bible. It comes in quite handy in making christianity look absurd. You can talk about interpretation until you are blue in the face, but the passage is very explicit. It was the lord that did the smiting. He had the smoking gun in his hand. And there are dozens and dozens of other passages which point out the capricious and psycopathic nature of your "god". I find it to be a curious phenomenon that christians always react to passages they find embarassing by claiming they aren't meant to be interpreted literally.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, I have read the bible. It comes in quite handy in making christianity look absurd. You can talk about interpretation until you are blue in the face, but the passage is very explicit. It was the lord that did the smiting. He had the sm ...[text shortened]... ssing by claiming they aren't meant to be interpreted literally.

Yes, rwingett. He is guilty, that's why they've nailed Him to a cross.

You're getting some pieces of the puzzle, but somehow you cannot get the full picture in the right perspective.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Idle... some would say evil curiosity. What purpose is filled by being "nailed" to a cross and then "causing" millions of deaths (see all the 'holy wars' and crusades) and the stalling of science for 500 years? Did god and his reckless kid have a plan? Other than "saving" all of us dumb asses who don't want to be saved? And then.... saved for ...[text shortened]... isney movie. Don't ask why the damned elephant can fly. Just be happy for it's mother.

Mike

I've found an interesting site for you, SVW. About the Origin of Space. How about that ?

http://rgouin.home.mindspring.com/

Originally posted by ivanhoe

I've found an interesting site for you, SVW. About the Origin of Space. How about that ?

http://rgouin.home.mindspring.com/

I don't know what a bunch of godders can tell me about that which no person knows anything. Nice try though.

I dare say I know more than they do. 🙁

Which ain't much.

Mike

Ps... anytime you see "Mindspring" ... just know that somebody went to a lot of work winding the bugger.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
I don't know what a bunch of godders can tell me about that which no person knows anything. Nice try though.

I dare say I know more than they do. 🙁

Which ain't much.

Mike

Ps... anytime you see "Mindspring" ... just know that somebody went to a lot of work winding the bugger.

I don't think you're in the mood for such things right ? Remember what you said about Christmas. It has been recorded for all generations to come.

Originally posted by Acolyte

[/b]

[silly post]

Yours is an interesting post, but what follows, bit by bit, is more of a commentary than a real attempt at poking holes.

I would say that the principle of freedom is that people should be free in all actions unless there some level of justification for removing that liberty...it is morally wrong according to this principle.

Since this bit and the next are to be regarded as axiomatic, it would be unfair for my purposes to disagree with them. However, I don't think they are at all complete unless you give some definition of what constitutes a legitimate justification for removing freedoms. Specifically, I want to know how one determines which is to take precedence when two people's freedoms come into conflict. However, in really obvious cases like your banana example, I see no problem and in general I think this principle is pretty reasonable.

Closely related is the principle of personal responsibility: if someone comprehends the risks of doing something, they do so AT THEIR OWN RISK, ie a crime where the only victim is the criminal is not really a crime.

No problems here. I think this may also be part of the definition I asked for above, in that A should not be free to do things that create some risk for B beyond B's control. But this is not important.

Unfortunately his whole argument rests on an appeal to divine authority...for guidance.

You are trying to show that either his axioms or arguments are faulty enough so that his attack on freedom is invalid, right?

This is only any good if a) you believe in God, and b) you know what his advice/commandments are...that compromise is necessary.

I agree with the first bit, but I think the whole article is resting on the claim that he has a perfect knowledge of God's advice. We can detect this hidden axiom (that he knows what god wants, or at least that this is knowable in principle) by noting that he definitely does not see compromise as necessary.

Of course freedom has to be conditional...Sharia is open to interpretation and has many contradictory schools.

I am not that familiar with Sharia but I don't have problems with this. You seem to have part of an answer to my first objection in mind. I have no trouble with this part of your argument though--unless anything implied by your reference to Sharia blatantly contradicts another part of your paragraph--I wouldn't know 😉.

I agree with him that laws can't always be justified on the basis of other laws...not a reason to maintain the legal status quo.

A good example is American tax law. Not even Goedel could say if that's consistent with itself, even if he was audited 😛. I don't necessarily think that's what he meant though.

Personal responsibility is a more difficult one, as you have to say what you mean by 'comprehends the risks'. No matter how many warnings you issue, you will stil get people who (wilfully) ignore them, fail to understand them fully, or do something stupid in a way that they weren't warned about

Now I think you've made an error. This is not a 'difficult one' at all: Failing to understand fully is accounted for by your axiom because if one has not understood the risks fully, then clearly one has not comprehended them. Willfully ignoring risks, but still being aware of them, makes one responsible for the act by your definition. Doing something stupid in a way they haven't been warned about always falls into either of the two above categories; either the lack of warning implies a lack of knowledge of risks or they know the risks from some other means. In particular, the fact that authority cannot account for everyone's knowledge implies that authority cannot dictate to people what is ''unnecessarily risky'', although that doesn't change the fact that to do so would result in such an ''imposition''. So if we are to adhere to the principle of freedom, then yes, a compromise is in order. But the problem I think you have does not affect your conclusion, and I don't think this bit is relevant anyway.

I'm afraid I can't find any serious holes in your post, and I haven't really said anything meaningful, because I keep thinking I spot some problem and then taking it out if I can think of a scenario in which it might not be a problem. I would like to see an explicit attack on the author's assumptions about god which underlie his argument though, since while you seem to have disagreed with him the real force of your post comes from attacking his reasoning, not his assumptions.

I'm off to dream of Kurt Goedel eating burnt toast and banana, before putting down his spoon to be phoned by the IRS 😕.

Mark

[/silly post]