Guest #26 August 28, 2007 Quote >sooner or later criminals would find a way to sell stolen organs . . . That's happening now; there are thousands of transplants a year with organs of questionable pedigree. History has shown that when there is a demand for something, illegal sales of that something are always higher when that form of commerce is against the law. The most common example is prohibition. People are generally willing to obey the law, pay taxes on alcohol production, follow rules on sales to minors etc. But when it is made illegal, then they become more willing to break the law to get it. That's what gave organized crime its start in this country. If there is a moral objection to people being paid for organs, that's one thing. But I think the argument that "if it was legal to pay for it then crime would increase" isn't a good argument, because history has shown the opposite tends to be true. One could easily apply this rationale to firearms, drugs, or anything else that is prohibited... and I corrected your grammar. Making something legal doesn't make it right, or beneficial to society. Legalizing vice won't improve people's lives. I once posted a thread on this forum almost two years ago that addressed what I thought of as "laissez-faire socialism", and it fell upon deaf ears. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #27 August 28, 2007 QuoteI believe someone who is left no choice but to sell their body for food, or sell there kidney to save their children is a sad thing that should not happen. this is a straw man... there is always a choice, the individual just might not like the alternatives.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #28 August 28, 2007 QuoteMaking something legal doesn't make it right, or beneficial to society the opposite is equally true.. what is illegal is not necessarily wrong, nor are the benefits to society the 'gold standard' by which such things should be judged. many things are 'beneficial to society' (from the 'correct' POV) but should never be imposed on the individuals who compose 'society'.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #29 August 28, 2007 QuoteThe most common example is prohibition. People are generally willing to obey the law, pay taxes on alcohol production, follow rules on sales to minors etc. But when it is made illegal, then they become more willing to break the law to get it. That's what gave organized crime it's start in this country. No kidding. I always thought organized crime in the US started about 40 years before Prohibition began. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #30 August 28, 2007 >One could easily apply this rationale to firearms, drugs, or anything else >that is prohibited... Correct. Examples of its validity are plentiful. >Making something legal doesn't make it right, or beneficial to society. That is also correct. It merely makes it legal - which has been shown historically to reduce the crime associated with it. >Legalizing vice won't improve people's lives. Nor will making such vices illegal - again, as history has shown. Alcohol abuse went UP after prohibition, because people tended to binge drink more often, and had to do so in secret. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #31 August 28, 2007 I see your point but I believe it is like prostitution. You can’t make a blanket statement. If it is your choice and you are doing it because you want to is different then you are desperate and feel you have no other choice. Lots of grays. Paying a guy for the time he would have to take of work who wants to donate to help, is way different then someone who is destroying his or her health out of desperation.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #32 August 28, 2007 >Paying a guy for the time he would have to take of work who wants to >donate to help, is way different then someone who is destroying his or her >health out of desperation. Exactly. But making it a law takes away that distinction - if you pay him anything, you go to jail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #33 August 28, 2007 Quote>Paying a guy for the time he would have to take of work who wants to >donate to help, is way different then someone who is destroying his or her >health out of desperation. Exactly. But making it a law takes away that distinction - if you pay him anything, you go to jail. And in a "FREE" country we should be able to choose how to live our own lives, including desparate, stupid choices. We don't need a government to think for us. Once that happens, we become a herd.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derekbox 0 #34 August 28, 2007 Are you single again and looking for a loophole there buddy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #35 August 28, 2007 oh the greys what shade is the best. I have no ideaI'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #36 August 28, 2007 QuoteMaking something legal doesn't make it right, or beneficial to society. Legalizing vice won't improve people's lives. ..... . It's not the job of the government to improve lives. Legalizing vices certainly won't hurt lives, because those vices are already readily available. Ask any kid in high school where to get drugs. Chances are, they know, and they have access, but they don't use, just like most people have access to cigarettes but only a small percentage use. Most people don't participate in vices because they understand they are bad for you, not because they're illegal. A vice being bad for you won't change based on whether or not it's legal. I wish the government would stop banning things and start educating about them by providing real data, not scare tactics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #37 August 28, 2007 Quote I wish the government would stop banning things and start educating about them by providing real data, not scare tactics. The government has provided read data. If you try an illegal drug you will die or become addicted to drugs. No, seriously. Let's face it ... the government has created laws based on morality (that is based on their religion), race, sex, money, etc... while also creating laws to protect religion, race, sex, etc..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azdiver 0 #38 August 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteMaking something legal doesn't make it right, or beneficial to society. Legalizing vice won't improve people's lives. ..... . It's not the job of the government to improve lives. Legalizing vices certainly won't hurt lives, because those vices are already readily available. Ask any kid in high school where to get drugs. Chances are, they know, and they have access, but they don't use, just like most people have access to cigarettes but only a small percentage use. Most people don't participate in vices because they understand they are bad for you, not because they're illegal. A vice being bad for you won't change based on whether or not it's legal. I wish the government would stop banning things and start educating about them by providing real data, not scare tactics.We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America. I think it could be argued that it is their job, but it does seem to over reach a bit to much at times.light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 871 #39 August 29, 2007 baaaaaa baaaaaa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chykynlyps 0 #40 August 29, 2007 ok, watch the porn, rub one out and have a good night. if you insist on paying someone else to do it for you, go to a rub and tug.Bear Down Chicago Bears! "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 August 29, 2007 The operative word in the phrase is "PROMOTE", not "provide".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #42 August 29, 2007 Quote>One could easily apply this rationale to firearms, drugs, or anything else >that is prohibited... Correct. Examples of its validity are plentiful. >Making something legal doesn't make it right, or beneficial to society. That is also correct. It merely makes it legal - which has been shown historically to reduce the crime associated with it. >Legalizing vice won't improve people's lives. Nor will making such vices illegal - again, as history has shown. Alcohol abuse went UP after prohibition, because people tended to binge drink more often, and had to do so in secret. Agreed. But what is an enlightened, compassionate society to do about those who are the weakest and most vulnerable? Isn't this a Darwinian approach? If it is, then by this rationale, should society do absolutely nothing to help those who are out of work, ill, handicapped, etc? By this rationale, it's their problem, or "choice", or simply their tough luck. A lot of addicts I've met believed they had no choice. Where is the light in the dark gray area between individual rights and the common good of mankind? mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #43 August 29, 2007 QuoteA lot of addicts I've met believed they had no choice. I agree with the overall tone of your argument, and understand this statement is just the consensus of addicts you've met, but I think its worth noting that the reason they believe this is because somebody told them they had no choice. However, at some point in their life they did have a choice and continued to have a choice. The choice is just easier for some than it is for others, or at least more evident. I believe this statement has done more harm than good. Regardless, even if it does help...its still a lie. I can agree that people may not have a choice when they become physically addicted, but it was their choice that led them to the condition in which they have found themselves. This is not to say however that we should not help them or eachother.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #44 August 29, 2007 >But what is an enlightened, compassionate society to do about those who >are the weakest and most vulnerable? Help them if we can >If it is, then by this rationale, should society do absolutely nothing to help >those who are out of work, ill, handicapped, etc? ?? What does any of this have to do with "helping people?" The problem with alcoholism isn't that alcohol is available, it's that people abuse it. As I mentioned before, when we look at history, making it illegal does NOT prevent people from abusing it; indeed, it made the problem worse for many people. >By this rationale, it's their problem, or "choice", or simply their tough luck. >A lot of addicts I've met believed they had no choice. Well, they always have a choice - but for an addict that can be an impossibly difficult choice to make. We can help them make that choice through education, psychiatric treatment, medical care etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #45 August 29, 2007 Quote Well, they always have a choice - but for an addict that can be an impossibly difficult choice to make. We can help them make that choice through education, psychiatric treatment, medical care etc. Doesn't laissez-faire liberalism / socialism dismiss these options out of hand? I grant you that the topic of this thread has shifted somewhat, and I believe that a lot of money that is being thrown at drug interdiction (and the inprisonment of non-violent offenders) would perhaps be better spent on prevention through education and rehabilitation, but the question is, at what point does society intervene? Everyone objects to peeing in the cup, but do we really want to relax drug laws to the point where everybody's too busy getting stoned to fly the plane, practice medicine, other vital services, etc? mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #46 August 29, 2007 You're assuming that the drug laws work and if they weren't in place that lots of people would be doing drugs who otherwise wouldn't be. For myself I wouldn't use illegal drugs even if they were legal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #47 August 29, 2007 QuoteNor will making such vices illegal - again, as history has shown. Alcohol abuse went UP after prohibition, because people tended to binge drink more often, and had to do so in secret. I agree that making vices illegal won't do much to improve people's lives, but as for prohibition increasing alcohol abuse, I sort of doubt that. I'm sure that there are some sources which will say that, as there are other sources that will say it reduced alcohol abuse. But the fact is that alcoholism (or any other addiction) is often a private thing, and most statistics are based on rates of alcohol-related arrests, treatments, deaths, etc., which really doesn't tell us much about those who drink in private (which goes on with or without prohibition), who never enter the legal or medical systems for their alcoholism. And even those who do enter the system are rarely followed up on (except in severe cases), so actual rates of abuse are pretty hard to quantify. And as far as alcohol-related deaths, from what I have read the rate went down during prohibition. But this could have been because physicians were less likely to list alcohol as the cause of death during that time (because of the social implications for the family). Again, most of these statistics are unreliable. Anyhow, one thing that prohibition did likely do was to reduce the quality of the alcohol that was available, making it more dangerous. And that would be similar to the current situation with meth and other street drugs - the illegal status means that you're less likely to know exactly what you're buying and putting into your body. (And I suppose that prostitution is comparable; legal prostitution would probably be safer than illegal prostitution in many ways.) But would making meth legal reduce the amount of abuse? I tend to doubt it. Though having it illegal certainly isn't fixing the problem, and yeah it seems to be creating other problems beyond drug abuse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #48 August 29, 2007 >Doesn't laissez-faire liberalism / socialism dismiss these options out of hand? ?? I'm not sure I know what laissex-faire liberalism/socialism is. > Everyone objects to peeing in the cup, but do we really want to relax >drug laws to the point where everybody's too busy getting stoned to fly the >plane, practice medicine, other vital services, etc? Alcohol is legal. Does that mean many of our pilots are too busy getting drunk to fly the plane? Alcohol use by pilots is taken quite seriously and prosecuted very strongly; as a result the problem isn't a big one. (Indeed I would hazard a guess that a stoned pilot would be much less of a threat to his passengers than a drunk pilot, although both are bad.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #49 August 29, 2007 Quote Quote USA law is so logical. Consider: If I want to pay a woman to have sex with me, it is illegal. UNLESS I film it. Even if you wish to cling to a flimsy argument of "morality," you would have to argue that adding a camera to the mix makes the whole situation MORE immoral. Will other "immoral" things be made legal so long as we film them? Quit trying to find a loophole go get a girlfriend like the rest of us! That's usually more expensive.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #50 August 29, 2007 >but as for prohibition increasing alcohol abuse, I sort of doubt that. Well, as you mentioned, it's hard to get any sort of reliable statistics on that. But here are a few hints as to what was going on: Public drunkenness arrests were going down as the temperance movement gathered more and more converts. As soon as prohibition began, arrests began to rise. Total consumption went down - but consumption also switched from beer and wine to high-alcohol-content spirits because they were easier to transport and conceal. Americans began drinking at an earlier average age during prohibition. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there is no evidence that outlawing something reduces its harmful effects on society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
