What should we enforce?

[Cory Legros]

So I was down by this little stream that runs through a park. Enjoying the warm of some soft California day when I thought wouldn't it be nice to throw a glass bottle into this here water. Then I thought my that's quit a destructive arbitrary want, why would I want to do that?

After that I thought wouldn't it be nice to take a dip in the water? But stopped myself for fear of cutting my feet on glass. I walked down the river some time latter to find a shallow area where the floor of the stream was visible. It wasn't surprising to find that the bottom was completely covered with the remains of glass bottles and other sharp pieces of trash.

I stopped and thought about myself and how I had wanted to throw a bottle and how I had also wanted to swim. Then I thought; if I were in a position of power would I make it a crime to throw bottles in the lake or would I allow people to do as they pleased and not infringe upon the bottle throwers right to throw bottles.

I had flash backs of my childhood and how every kid in the neighbor wood would shit and piss in the same bucket and fill it with dead frogs as well as other disgusting things. I remembers the pleasure we all got out of making something truly disgusting and at that moment believed that people should do what they will. Sure the lake is not as safe but I'd rather have it that way then take punish a small crime that we should all be aloud to commit.

I let the thought pass and continued about my day. At some point I helped some kids get their soccer ball out of the water. Later I saw one of the kids again, this time limping having cut his foot on the glass and began to rethink my conclusion.

Even later in that day I saw an old woman dressed in the style of a hippie pick glass from the stream and throw them to the opposite shore which got no traffic from children and other park goers.

I'd like to know what you think of all this.

 

[Dami0]

I generally think we should only enforce laws which prohibit people from hurting others; in broad scope the ones about murder, stabbing and other things such as robbing or financial harm. I don't see any reason anything subjective like religion or moral views should brought into regulating people's lives and especially not into people who do not believe the same.

EDIT: To add to that, I believe laws shouldn't just limit someone's freedom for no good reason unless they really stop something bad from happening such as recreational drug laws. I mean, not all of them are worse then the already legal ones so why stay illegal?

To refer this to your post I think we should enforce laws to stop people from throwing bottles into the river as it can quite clearly cause problems for people. You want to throw bottles on your patch of land or something then feel free to, that's another story.

Also, why should we "all be aloud to commit" a crime like that?

 

[manaman]

It's easy to see why making actions like robbery and violence against others crimes does not infringe on a persons basic rights, harder to see is why making things like drugs, deception, and as the OP showed something as simple as throwing a bottle into a stream can be illegal without infringing for the same reasons.

With those actions it becomes all about the overall impact of those actions as a whole against society as a whole. One person throwing a bottle into a stream isn't a big problem to one other person, but everyone doing so starts to have an impact on everyone's enjoyment of that stream. Same with drugs, a person shooting up in a park doesn't cause problems to other people on an individual level but the extra crime attracted by those elements that do drugs as well as the burden on social services does have an impact on society. Which is why a trade off in personal freedoms is necessary for the greater gain by society.

 

[Cory Legros]

Also, why should we "all be aloud to commit" a crime like that?

I thought that at the time because I thought of it as harmless. I changed my mind since then.

 

[Cory Legros]

I know that there is no clear answer to this problem and that at most points it is situational. This sort of thing is seen on many different levels that range from people being aloud to smoke and where to enforcing anti-discriminatory laws on a private business. Would civil rights have advanced as far and as fast as it did without that legislation and was it worth infringing upon the owners right to do what he wants with his business?

Even if the racist restaurant owner is completely wrong when we enforce something that infringes upon his constitutional right to do what he wills with his own property we risk having somebody Else's version of right being forced upon us latter when the power shifts. If we disregard the rules for good now some one might disregard them for worse latter.

I myself believe that anti-discriminatory laws were necessary but the above show the flaw I saw in my argument.


Also

It's easy to see why making actions like robbery and violence against others crimes does not infringe on a persons basic rights, harder to see is why making things like drugs, deception, and as the OP showed something as simple as throwing a bottle into a stream can be illegal without infringing for the same reasons.

With those actions it becomes all about the overall impact of those actions as a whole against society as a whole. One person throwing a bottle into a stream isn't a big problem to one other person, but everyone doing so starts to have an impact on everyone's enjoyment of that stream. Same with drugs, a person shooting up in a park doesn't cause problems to other people on an individual level but the extra crime attracted by those elements that do drugs as well as the burden on social services does have an impact on society. Which is why a trade off in personal freedoms is necessary for the greater gain by society.

I see where your coming from but I do think that most of the crimes related to drugs happen because they are illegal themselves. Yes the altered state some can put people in can cuase a crime to happen but its the same with alcohol and thats legal. I think that the drugs shouldn't be illegal themselves but the behavior that occurs as a consequence should most definitely be restricted and be enforced against.

 

[manaman]

I know that there is no clear answer to this problem and that at most points it is situational. This sort of thing is seen on many different levels that range from people being aloud to smoke and where to enforcing anti-discriminatory laws on a private business. Would civil rights have advanced as far and as fast as it did without that legislation and was it worth infringing upon the owners right to do what he wants with his business?

Even if the racist restaurant owner is completely wrong when we enforce something that infringes upon his constitutional right to do what he wills with his own property we risk having somebody Else's version of right being forced upon us latter when the power shifts. If we disregard the rules for good now some one might disregard them for worse latter.

I myself believe that anti-discriminatory laws were necessary but the above show the flaw I saw in my argument.


Also

It's easy to see why making actions like robbery and violence against others crimes does not infringe on a persons basic rights, harder to see is why making things like drugs, deception, and as the OP showed something as simple as throwing a bottle into a stream can be illegal without infringing for the same reasons.

With those actions it becomes all about the overall impact of those actions as a whole against society as a whole. One person throwing a bottle into a stream isn't a big problem to one other person, but everyone doing so starts to have an impact on everyone's enjoyment of that stream. Same with drugs, a person shooting up in a park doesn't cause problems to other people on an individual level but the extra crime attracted by those elements that do drugs as well as the burden on social services does have an impact on society. Which is why a trade off in personal freedoms is necessary for the greater gain by society.

I see where your coming from but I do think that most of the crimes related to drugs happen because they are illegal themselves. Yes the altered state some can put people in can cuase a crime to happen but its the same with alcohol and thats legal. I think that the drugs shouldn't be illegal themselves but the behavior that occurs as a consequence should most definitely be restricted and be enforced against.

There are illegal drugs I don't think should necessarily be illegal, like weed. I feel that should just be restricted to adults. It's still going to get in the hands of kids, but it's already there. And really as bad as it can be, it's not really worse then alcohol use among adults. This country (the US) never feel apart before it was criminalized, which was surprisingly recent. Other refined drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth however are still a problem. I mentioned social services, it is already a heavy burden on society to care for those people that use those drugs, and unlike what many say taxes on the substances are not going to make up for that. It's a large cost in welfare even taking away the side effect drug use has on local crime (as those actions are already illegal). Even if you raised the taxes high enough on the substances to counter the cost on society people are just going to resort back to an illegal trade in those goods. They already do it with cigarettes (running them across state lines and from Indian reservations) with much lower taxes then you would need on those drugs.

 

[Cory Legros]

There are illegal drugs I don't think should necessarily be illegal, like weed. I feel that should just be restricted to adults. It's still going to get in the hands of kids, but it's already there. And really as bad as it can be, it's not really worse then alcohol use among adults. This country (the US) never feel apart before it was criminalized, which was surprisingly recent. Other refined drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth however are still a problem. I mentioned social services, it is already a heavy burden on society to care for those people that use those drugs, and unlike what many say taxes on the substances are not going to make up for that. It's a large cost in welfare even taking away the side effect drug use has on local crime (as those actions are already illegal). Even if you raised the taxes high enough on the substances to counter the cost on society people are just going to resort back to an illegal trade in those goods. They already do it with cigarettes (running them across state lines and from Indian reservations) with much lower taxes then you would need on those drugs.

I agree with you about meth and heroin and without openly admitting to anything I can say that cocaine isn't really a problem. Crack how ever is very much so a problem.

I also dont think that cigarettes should be taxed. In new york it was intense and I dont take kindly to the state trying to punish me because of what some people think is right or wrong. I'm not to much of a smoker but when I did I didn't mind smoking outside even if it was freezing. Right there is a perfect example of the situational morality were talking about.

Also I lived near an Indian reservation not to long ago and bought my cigarettes there because they were literally $4 whole dollars cheaper for a pack. Even if a lot of my business went on to fund some of the dirtier parts of the tribes functions I would have rather taken my business there then give the state more money for punishing me.

 

[manaman]

There are illegal drugs I don't think should necessarily be illegal, like weed. I feel that should just be restricted to adults. It's still going to get in the hands of kids, but it's already there. And really as bad as it can be, it's not really worse then alcohol use among adults. This country (the US) never feel apart before it was criminalized, which was surprisingly recent. Other refined drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth however are still a problem. I mentioned social services, it is already a heavy burden on society to care for those people that use those drugs, and unlike what many say taxes on the substances are not going to make up for that. It's a large cost in welfare even taking away the side effect drug use has on local crime (as those actions are already illegal). Even if you raised the taxes high enough on the substances to counter the cost on society people are just going to resort back to an illegal trade in those goods. They already do it with cigarettes (running them across state lines and from Indian reservations) with much lower taxes then you would need on those drugs.

I agree with you about meth and heroin and without openly admitting to anything I can say that cocaine isn't really a problem. Crack how ever is very much so a problem.

I also dont think that cigarettes should be taxed. In new york it was intense and I dont take kindly to the state trying to punish me because of what some people think is right or wrong. I'm not to much of a smoker but when I did I didn't mind smoking outside even if it was freezing. Right there is a perfect example of the situational morality were talking about.

Also I lived near an Indian reservation not to long ago and bought my cigarettes there because they were literally $4 whole dollars cheaper for a pack. Even if a lot of my business went on to fund some of the dirtier parts of the tribes functions I would have rather taken my business there then give the state more money for punishing me.

Taxes on cigs where for the most part pretty much low, and in keeping with normal sin taxes on other items, which is fitting. They create more litter, people that smoke have an elevated level of health complications etc, etc (I smoke as well, and even I have no problem with that level of taxes). So allow them to smoke and tax it, seems an obvious solution. However the federal government has been running anti-smoking campaigns for years and paying for it with taxes, and state governments seem more then happy to help by trying to tax the habit out of people. When I started smoking you could still pick up a pack for $2.50. Prices have since skyrocketed towards $8 a pack. Heck when I left Utah a carton there cost $25. I entered Washington to find a carton was $38. Now you are lucky to find a carton for under $60.

Sure costs are up, but seeing how out of an average pack only $2 - 2.50 is going back to the manufacturer and the rest of the price is state and federal taxes it's a little crazy.