Nanny State Legislation Poll

Many people argue that the government should regulate/prohibit only those activities that harm other people, not activities that harm solely the people who freely and voluntarily consent to engage in those activities.

For example, many people would say the government should prohibit murder, but not smoking weed.

Part of this is based on the idea that it is really difficult and paternalistic to say that an activity "harms" the person if they voluntarily chose to engage in the activity.

But there are many activities that have no tangible, harmful effect until many months or years down the line, at which point the effect becomes quite serious. If the government has evidence that 10 years down the line, 70% of people who engage in a specific activity regret their decision and wish they hadn't engaged in the activity, does that give the government grounds to prohibit or regulate the activity?

Technically, smoking tobacco cigs are also very harmful seventy years down if you smoke. And think about when cigarettes came out- they advertised that they were healthy. Although we now know otherwise, cigarette companies still advertise that cigarettes are 'pleasurable'. Now if a certain activity, like smoking weed, was declared legal by the government, no, people could do it whenever they want. However, like cigarettes, they can regulate these activities to inside your own property, for example, and that would be fine because they are doing it to protect other people around you. Also, if if weed became legal, then the government could still regulate advertising, taxes, a general surgeons label, ect. Basically saying- that specific activity- you can do it. But the government can control everything about that pack of weed, until you smoke it, but where you smoke is regulated. I don't know where this will settle with the Libertarians.

You only have one life to live, and that life is yours to do with as you please. The government's only responsibility in this case is to ensure that the companies selling the drugs are providing what they advertise.

There can be no crime without a victim. How does locking someone in a prison cell for "endangering themselves" help them?

Not necessarily talking about criminal prohibition that would result in imprisonment, and not talking only about weed.

Nope.

Anyone see the movie I, Robot? That's what happens when you trust an external entity to determine what is "good" for you and what you should be allowed to do.

Krhazy said:

Many people argue that the government should regulate/prohibit only those activities that harm other people, not activities that harm solely the people who freely and voluntarily consent to engage in those activities.

For example, many people would say the government should prohibit murder, but not smoking weed.

Part of this is based on the idea that it is really difficult and paternalistic to say that an activity "harms" the person if they voluntarily chose to engage in the activity.

But there are many activities that have no tangible, harmful effect until many months or years down the line, at which point the effect becomes quite serious. If the government has evidence that 10 years down the line, 70% of people who engage in a specific activity regret their decision and wish they hadn't engaged in the activity, does that give the government grounds to prohibit or regulate the activity?

Click to expand...

No, but they will. Government is all about gaining power and control over peoples lives so it can remain in place forever.

Perotista said:

No, but they will. Government is all about gaining power and control over peoples lives so it can remain in place forever.

Click to expand...

Good morning, Pero. :2wave:

Back in the "old" days, when our Republic was young, legislators would meet at intervals, conduct the business that needed to be done, then they went back home. No career politicians and no pensions for life - they had lives outside of the political arena which kept them occupied. This country got along just fine, too. I don't know when all that changed, but it sure wasn't a change for the better - look at what we have today! Busybodies who want to regulate as much of our lives as they can get away with! WTH!

When I logged on this morning, I got the shock of my life when I read the thread about Obama considering using the military against the people of this country. Huh? What the Hell is going on, and why??

Perotista said:

No, but they will. Government is all about gaining power and control over peoples lives so it can remain in place forever.

Click to expand...

And they're succeeding admirably.

Krhazy said:

Many people argue that the government should regulate/prohibit only those activities that harm other people, not activities that harm solely the people who freely and voluntarily consent to engage in those activities.

For example, many people would say the government should prohibit murder, but not smoking weed.

Part of this is based on the idea that it is really difficult and paternalistic to say that an activity "harms" the person if they voluntarily chose to engage in the activity.

But there are many activities that have no tangible, harmful effect until many months or years down the line, at which point the effect becomes quite serious. If the government has evidence that 10 years down the line, 70% of people who engage in a specific activity regret their decision and wish they hadn't engaged in the activity, does that give the government grounds to prohibit or regulate the activity?

Click to expand...

Peoples' reasons for regret vary. I have some friends who regret having children for any number of reasons. That is their regret, not mine. Some people regret getting married. That's their regret.

I have a choice to smoke pot. I don't have a choice not to be murdered if I am innocently cleaning my home and some monster breaks in and intends to do me bodily harm.

And for me the long and short of it is that the government shouldn't get to decide what I do that involves me and me alone and I'm not infringing on anyone else's life or rights. The government, much as they believe otherwise, isn't the arbiter of what's good for me and what isn't.

JMO.

Government should be neither seen nor heard.

polgara said:

Good morning, Pero. :2wave:

Back in the "old" days, when our Republic was young, legislators would meet at intervals, conduct the business that needed to be done, then they went back home. No career politicians and no pensions for life - they had lives outside of the political arena which kept them occupied. This country got along just fine, too. I don't know when all that changed, but it sure wasn't a change for the better - look at what we have today! Busybodies who want to regulate as much of our lives as they can get away with! WTH!

When I logged on this morning, I got the shock of my life when I read the thread about Obama considering using the military against the people of this country. Huh? What the Hell is going on, and why??

Click to expand...

Did you know at first all a congressman was paid was per diem. No salary, no health benefits, no pension, nothing but expenses. But back then it was expect a citizen would leave his job, donate a term or two to public service and then return to his job. The idea was serving the country, not making it a career or doing things, passing laws that they think will ensure their re-election.

Somehow government went from being the umpire to being one of the teams--or at least being the equipment used by one side to beat, as a club, the other teams.

Krhazy said:

Many people argue that the government should regulate/prohibit only those activities that harm other people, not activities that harm solely the people who freely and voluntarily consent to engage in those activities.

For example, many people would say the government should prohibit murder, but not smoking weed.

Part of this is based on the idea that it is really difficult and paternalistic to say that an activity "harms" the person if they voluntarily chose to engage in the activity.

But there are many activities that have no tangible, harmful effect until many months or years down the line, at which point the effect becomes quite serious. If the government has evidence that 10 years down the line, 70% of people who engage in a specific activity regret their decision and wish they hadn't engaged in the activity, does that give the government grounds to prohibit or regulate the activity?

Click to expand...

At the level of harm you describe, no. I would not consider regretting a decision made to be a palpable harm.

The part of your post I bolded is false. I smoke. I do so voluntarily. If does harm my body. That is just one of many examples. By what you are saying in that sentence, carried out to an extreme, is that saying suicide is "difficult and paternalistic to say" harms the person, which should be clearly false.