You're right, I should have been clearer in what I mean. I think doing drugs that are damaging your mind are a bad choice, since our minds are our tool of survival, it's foolish to risk damaging them, and one of the reasons I do so little alcohol, now that I understand what it can do in larger amounts (not to mention what it does to one's body). AFAIK, this does not apply to Caffeine (affecting the function of the mind), and that's where I think the difference lies. I imagine that anything done to excess is damaging, that doesn't mean that the substance itself should be shunned just because it's possible to abuse it, so long as there are legitimate uses, and in all cases, that decision should be left to the individual adult.

--Ron

<<lemecdutex

I've been trying to figure out what your point is in a few posts here, but so far cannot.

You say drug use is a bad choice and yet use a drug yourself..>>

Actually, I do consume a small amount of alcoholic beverages, but little caffeine. Even if I did, those are not necessarily choices involving morality, unless I abused them. The reason I stopped drinking coffee is that I found it was bad for me. I did not need a law to make that happen, nor does anyone. I've been trying to figure out what your point is in a few posts here, but so far cannot.

I firmly advocate letting adults make choices for themselves. Hopefully, you understand that making choices for one's self automatically eliminates the false choice of forcing someone else to do something. The underlying right to freedom is the right to be left alone. I keep repeating myself about this, but there are too many people who can't seem to grasp the concept, or rational concepts in general. Why is there so much irrationality in the world? That would make for an interesting topic.

--Ron

<<lemecdutex

I think prostitution and drug use are very bad choices, so I do not engage in or advocate them.

Sigh..

I have to ask.. Do you perchance consume alcoholic beverages?

How about foods/beverages with caffeine?

Caffeine is in a tremendous number of food items these days and it chemically quite similar to cocaine and more addictive than cannabis or LSD.

Try crushing up some No-Doz and snorting it, you'll get a surprisingly strong rush.

http://www.caffeinedependence.org/caffeine_dependence.htmllemecdutex

I think prostitution and drug use are very bad choices, so I do not engage in or advocate them.

Sigh..

I have to ask.. Do you perchance consume alcoholic beverages?

How about foods/beverages with caffeine?

Caffeine is in a tremendous number of food items these days and it chemically quite similar to cocaine and more addictive than cannabis or LSD.

Try crushing up some No-Doz and snorting it, you'll get a surprisingly strong rush.

http://www.caffeinedependence.org/caffeine_dependence.html>>

Apparently I have to type this slowly for you. I can't imagine other VALID purposes for a government (and neither can you).

Words have meaning, a republic does not mean the same as a democracy, no matter how much it'd be convenient for you.

Republics can HAVE democracies, but aren't necessarily democracies, as you imply.

Republic is not an antiquated term, it's a term you don't understand the need for.

The purpose of laws SHOULD be personal freedom, including the freedom to disagree with reeceo. You have the right to your opinions, indefensible as they are, but you don't have an objective right to making them into law.

--Ron

<<@lemecdutex

Ugh, not this crap again. Do you really still think you can get some mileage out of the meaningless It's-a-republic-not-a-democracy line?

Real quick, Ron: republics are democracies. You're making a distinction without a difference. The fact that there are constitutional limitations on a democracy doesn't mean that it's not a democracy. The fact that we elect people rather than voting on provisions doesn't mean it's not a democracy. "Democracy" is a broader term than includes the antiquated term "republic."

Furthermore, contemporary use of the term "democracy" implies constitutional limitations. That is because the term "democracy" is now short for "liberal democracy." Liberal democracies are composed of limited governments that have respect for individual rights.

So, please, please don't accuse me of not adhering to definitions when you choose to use out of date concepts.

I'm sorry you can't imagine other uses for a government. The rest of us can.>>

<<As for your point about torture being "intrinsically wrong". What features make an act "intrinsically wrong"? My point was that even the most morally repugnant act can be framed in a way where it can be viewed as beneficial. I would argue that one has to carefully examine and weigh consequences of systems of behavior to determine whether they are right or wrong, rather than making random judgments and saying that one is "intrinsic" and the other is not.>>

An act is intrinsically wrong if it is anti-life. Initiating violence (and torture is initiating violence) is anti-life. Forcing others to do things against their own judgment is wrong. People should be free to do what they wish, but only to the extent they do not force their judgments on others.

While it could be argued that prostitution and drug-use is not life-enhancing, doing either is something that is within the choices an ADULT (not a child) can make, and so long as he/she does not force others into it, should be left to their own devices, and allowed to fail or thrive as may be.

Some wrongs should be illegal (the ones involving force), and others must only be morally condemned (like vice).

Even though I think it is wrong to do drugs, it would be even more wrong for me to force other adults to stop. They have the right to their own life and body, or the destruction of it. I think religions do far more damage to life, mind and reason, because of the idea of faith. I think faith is one of the most mind-damaging things possible. But, I would not support making religion illegal.

I've never understood the mindset that says some people can choose what other people have the right to do or not do. That is a form of violence, it is an attack on another individual's sovereignty, and busybodies (as Glenn so aptly calls them) should be strongly condemned and shown for the asses they are until they get it through their thick skulls and mushy brains how WRONG they are, however, so long as they only voice their opinion, and don't make them laws, they have the right to say whatever idiotic things they wish, as I and anyone else have the right to point out their willful stupidity.

A note to the stupid and uncomprehending out there: One can think something is wrong to do, and not think that it should be illegal. Only violating individual rights should be illegal. For instance, I think prostitution and drug use are very bad choices, so I do not engage in or advocate them. But, I also do not think those choices are any of the government's business. Note that it does NOT mean that forcing someone into prostitution should be legal, the issue that's wrong is not the prostitution, but the FORCE.

--Ron Robertson