From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Oct 18 2002 - 20:00:21 MDT
Ok, my good friend Spike has *finally* gone over the edge.
I knew it might happen someday, but I thought it might be
when he got a bit older. :-(
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, spike66 wrote:
> Drug laws, instance. The main reason we have
> them is to prevent dopers from stealing to buy dope. So
> if you can prevent theft by other means, there is no longer
> a compelling reason to have anti-drug laws.
Jimeny cricket spike. Of course there is a reason to have
anti-drug laws. To prevent people from killing themselves
and/or others! If I could take a drug to eliminate the
pain I've been in the last few days I *would* do it.
(Its a chronic back condition.) I'm trying to tread
a thin line between lesser of two evils (the prescription
medications and the non-presription medications) until I get
to see a physician who is well enough informed to give
me some alternate options. I'm even considering whether
I should undergo back surgery to have a couple of disks
fused and from what I've read about *that* proceedure its
a *really* extreme solution for me to even be *thinking* about.
Now of course there are the recent reports on how much more
brain damaging Extasy is (though Eugene has pointed out to
me articles claiming this may be poor science -- so take
them with a grain of salt).
And then of course I saw some recent TV program (Law and
Order probably), about how some PCP pumped female actually
started consuming (lord doesn't she know about Mad Cow Disease???)
her female rival for her boyfriend's attention when an opportunity
arose to do that (you wonder where the writers get these stories).
Spike -- get this -- drugs are "usually" bad. They can
destroy a reasonably rational thinking process on which the
whole structure of society is based. They are risky
for the people taking them and they are potentially
risky for *you*!
The normal concept of legal "deterrence" (no, you shouldn't
*eat* human bodies -- we have a law against that) may
disappear when people are on drugs. They may not be
thinking "rationally". IMO, drug consumption is something
that should primarily be allowed but it can only be allowed in
environments where people behaving irrationally cannot
not pose threats to others. Additionally, if my experience over
the last couple of days is any example, then regulating
certain prescription drugs is actually a *good* idea --
and I would *not* have said that a month ago.
> Another example is speed laws. We don't need them. We
> only need laws against driving unsafely. Depending on the
> circs, it might be perfectly safe to haul.
Again I have to disagree here. (Nods to Rafal who I think
*really* objects to speed limits.) The problem *may* be
a cultural one -- i.e. in Germany the slowpokes know enough
to stay in the right lane. But there are fundamental safety
problems with vehicles travelling at highly different
velocities on the same roadway. The reaction time of
a 70 year old is *not* the reaction time of a 20 year old.
Drivers cannot always predict when they are going to encounter
"black ice". Less informed drivers may not even know what
"black ice" is! So they might be driving *safely* given
normal driving conditions but nobody is going to find them
guilty of driving unsafely with respect to "things they did
not know". [This is why you have commercials that say in
the fine print at the bottom -- "This should not be attempted
by non-professional drivers" or statements to that effect.]
Bottom line -- high velocity vehicles are carrying more
"energy on board" and represent a greater threat than
low velocity vehicles. Public safety -- IMO justifies
speed limits. After you have had a vasculoid system
installed and agree to drive on a separate highway system,
you can go any darn speed you can propel your vehicle to.
(So long as your automobile and health insurance aren't
in *my* insurance pool.)
> Back to the problem of power abuse: we really can stop
> this. For instance, consider speeding. Everyone here
> has done it. Well, ok, everyone other than Eliezer and
> Johnny Grigg.
ROTFL. Raises the interesting question of what *do* Eliezer
and John do for fun? :-) [I'm not asking this rhetorical
question so we get a large number of responses -- both of
them are valued members of the list and it simply wouldn't
be nice to voice our opinions in this area to large numbers
of people. Take the responses offlist and gossip about
them behind their backs... :-)]
> What if we got a ticket *every single time*
> we exceeded the limit? Would not a political candidate
> arise who would be elected on nothing besides a promise
> to remove speed limit laws?
I don't think so -- there are enough people that care about
the safety of themselves in their cars or their children
crossing the street that there would be a fair amount
of debate on this idea. In WA state they have been
*decreasing* the acceptable levels of blood alcohol
and increasing the ages where *any* is tolerated.
> As surveillance increases, I expect the legal system
> to compensate, first by removing absurd guard-rail laws.
Well, I think we can watch the U.K. to see how it plays out
before we take such actions in the U.S.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:39 MST