What liberal ideas do we REALLY need for the 21st century?

[Iriemon]

Really.
No one else suffers when someone does drugs.
Show this to be true,
Then show how that means drug use is not malum in se.

He didn't say no one suffers, he said it was a victimless crime. But I will testify I saw a guy smoke marajuana once. He didn't attack anyone. No one got hurt. He giggle a little bit. That was about it. No one suffered.

 

[Kandahar]

Really.
No one else suffers when someone does drugs.
Show this to be true,
Then show how that means drug use is not malum in se.

Someone suffers from nearly every decision others make; that doesn't mean the government should regulate them all. The government is not a babysitter.

If you're going to make the argument that the family members of drug addicts suffer, you also need to explain how police raids of their homes and throwing the addict in prison instead of getting them treatment for their addiction will improve the lives of their family.

 

[The Mark]

People who are addicted to drugs should not go to jail.
Unless they are also drug dealers and such--who addict other people to increase their number of customers.
But drug addicts do not need to go to jail to be punished.....their addiction will do that for us. They decided to start; they must live with the consequences. Unless they decide to get help. I know a few people who have moved from addicts to productive members of society. More power too them.

 

[Goobieman]

He didn't say no one suffers, he said it was a victimless crime.

How do you define 'victim' if not 'one who suffers from an action'?

 

[Goobieman]

Someone suffers from nearly every decision others make; that doesn't mean the government should regulate them all. The government is not a babysitter.

Apparently, the government disagrees with you.
Not sure how this shows that drug use isnt inherently wrong, as you claim.

If you're going to make the argument that the family members of drug addicts suffer, you also need to explain how police raids of their homes and throwing the addict in prison instead of getting them treatment for their addiction will improve the lives of their family.

Strawman and red herring.
Apply this to a murderer - do we care how arresting him in his home will 'improve the lives of his family'? No? Then why would we care about an addict?

 

[Kandahar]

Apparently, the government disagrees with you.
Not sure how this shows that drug use isnt inherently wrong, as you claim.

So you're saying that the government IS a babysitter and SHOULD regulate every action that could potentially affect someone else?

Strawman and red herring.
Apply this to a murderer - do we care how arresting him in his home will 'improve the lives of his family'? No? Then why would we care about an addict?

That is NOT the same situation. You're claiming that drug use has victims, by which I assume you mean the drug user's family. Therefore it's a very valid question. If you believe that punishing drug use somehow lessens the suffering of the drug user's "victims," but the punishment itself harms the family more than the drug use does, who exactly benefits from it?

The people who suffer from the murderer's action are the person he killed or attempted to kill, his victim's family, and any potential future victims. Of the ones still alive, their lives ARE improved by imprisoning the murderer.

YOU are the one throwing out red herrings.

 

[Goobieman]

So you're saying that the government IS a babysitter and SHOULD regulate every action that could potentially affect someone else?

Nope. Just the things that have an obvious, negative impact.

That is NOT the same situation.

Doesn't matter.
You;re arguing that the family of the criminal must be taken into consideration whe it comes to the arrest and prosecution of said criminal.
Your standard, apparently, is one of convenience.

You're claiming that drug use has victims, by which I assume you mean the drug user's family.

Or the other people immediately surrounding him, yes.
Note that some of these victims may be unintentional such as when someone is count in the wrong place when the dealer comes by to collect and the user cannot pay.

Therefore it's a very valid question. If you believe that punishing drug use somehow lessens the suffering of the drug user's "victims," but the punishment harms the family more than the drug use does, who exactly benefits from it?

Doesnt this standard also apply to the murderer?
And yet, you have no problem taking him from his wife and kids.

The people who suffer from the murderer's action are the person he killed or attempted to kill, his victim's family, and any potential future victims. Of the ones still alive, their lives ARE improved by imprisoning the murderer.

Really.
So the wife and kids lose the house and live on the street - just like the drug user's family - what of them?
Not seeing the distinction or the difference.

 

[Iriemon]

How do you define 'victim' if not 'one who suffers from an action'?

We can argue semantics. But everyone who suffes is not necessarily a victim. In crimes like homocide, rape, and burglarly, the crime is done with the specific intent to harm another preson's body or property. That is not the case with a guy who smokes pot.

Many people use marajuana without causing suffering to other people. If sufferin is caused, many times it is the result of criminal laws.

If anyone abuses any substance or activity to the point where it interferes with their ability to function in society can cause suffering to those that depend or care for him or her. Personally, I'd rather have the person use pot than alcohol; the former usually produces a mellowing effect while the latter often induces agressive or angry behavior.

But that is a different kind of "victim" than the victim of a murder or rape. Which is why using marajuana is called victimless crime. Gambling would be another.

 

[Goobieman]

We can argue semantics.

Translation:
The only way I can win this argument is if the words we use dont mean what they really mean.

But everyone who suffes is not necessarily a victim. In crimes like homocide, rape, and burglarly, the crime is done with the specific intent to harm another preson's body or property. That is not the case with a guy who smokes pot.

Intent doesnt matter.
You can unintentionally kill someone. That someone is still a victim, as are those close to him.

Many people use marajuana without causing suffering to other people. If sufferin is caused, many times it is the result of criminal laws.

And many people have suffered directly because people have used it. So...?

If your family loses its house because you went to jail for smoking pot -- whose fault is that? Who is harming your family?

 

[hipsterdufus]

Total Overhaul of our Education System. I'm not sure this is a liberal ideal-- since they just want to throw money at it-- but it sure ain't a conservative ideal either.

If you want to see what the Dems have been working on in terms of Education reform, this doc is a good place to start:

http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/TASKFORCEREPORTFINAL.PDF

In terms of other ideas you can go here:
http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/15_IDEAS.PDF

 

[Iriemon]

Translation:
The only way I can win this argument is if the words we use dont mean what they really mean.

LOL - no it means we can argue about definitions all day and accomplish nothing.

Intent doesnt matter.
You can unintentionally kill someone. That someone is still a victim, as are those close to him.

That is true, a better way to say it would be that those crimes are defined by the harm caused to another's body or property.

And many people have suffered directly because people have used it. So...?

That does not define the crime. Murder or manslaghter are defined by the fact that harm is caused to another. If no one dies -- if there is no victim -- you do not have the crime.

Smoking pot is illegal regardless of whether people suffer directly or not. It is still a crime even if no one suffers or is harmed. That is why it is "victimless." The fact that it may be possible that some may suffer as a consequence does not define the crime.

If your family loses its house because you went to jail for smoking pot -- whose fault is that? Who is harming your family?

Exactly. Here you are defining the harm not by the act which is the crime, but a consequence of the an act having been committed that is currently defined as a crime (and should not be).

And it points out why smoking pot should be legal. The harm caused in your example is merely because of the arbitrary fact that it is illegal to smoke it. If the harm it causes is mostly from the mere fact that it is illegal and people want to smoke it, as opposed to harm caused because people smoke it, it makes no sense for the act to be criminalized. Make the drug legal and you have eliminated the harm caused.

That is the point of repealing prohibition. The harm caused by the fact that pot is illegal is far greater than the harm caused by the act of smokin pot itself, particularly in light of the fact that prohibition has failed as a method for stopping use.

 

[Kandahar]

Nope. Just the things that have an obvious, negative impact.

So you want to regulate everything that has an "obvious, negative impact." That's quite a broad standard. Obvious according to whom? Do you also believe it should be a crime to gamble, to make bad investments, to drink alcohol, to smoke cigarettes, to eat at McDonald's, to have unprotected sex without the intention of pregnancy, to listen to loud music, and to be pessimistic?

There's a word for regulating everything with an obvious, negative impact: Fascism.

Doesn't matter.
You;re arguing that the family of the criminal must be taken into consideration whe it comes to the arrest and prosecution of said criminal.
Your standard, apparently, is one of convenience.

If the family of the criminal are the ones you are claiming to protect by making it a crime, then of course they should be taken into account. Your argument seems to be "Drug use harms the drug user's family, and therefore should be a crime. The punishment of that crime will harm the drug user's family even more, but that's irrelevant because the crime must be punished." Do you not see the flaw in this reasoning?

Or the other people immediately surrounding him, yes.
Note that some of these victims may be unintentional such as when someone is count in the wrong place when the dealer comes by to collect and the user cannot pay.

Those victims would disappear completely if there wasn't a black market for drugs. If drugs were legal, I don't think Acme Cocaine Company would summarily execute people who defaulted on their accounts-payable.

Doesnt this standard also apply to the murderer?
And yet, you have no problem taking him from his wife and kids.

Really.
So the wife and kids lose the house and live on the street - just like the drug user's family - what of them?
Not seeing the distinction or the difference.

The difference is that in the case of the drug user, the people who suffer from the punishment (the family) are the same people that you're claiming to protect. In the case of the murderer, the victims' families or potential future victims benefit from his incarceration.

 

[Iriemon]

So you want to regulate everything that has an "obvious, negative impact." That's quite a broad standard. Obvious according to whom? Do you also believe it should be a crime to gamble, to make bad investments, to drink alcohol, to smoke cigarettes, to eat at McDonald's, to have unprotected sex without the intention of pregnancy, to listen to loud music, and to be pessimistic?

There's a word for regulating everything with an obvious, negative impact: Fascism.

Back in the old days, Conservatism used to stand for getting the Govt off the people's backs -- I remember Reagan saying that.

Modern conservatives take the opposite tack -- they want the Government to tell you whether you can smoke pot, who you can have sex with, whether you can have an abortion, let the Govt tap your phone, spy on your house etc.

Get the Govt off the people's backs. Another reason I'm a liberal.