Beer: As Lethal as Tobacco.

[Chmee]

Um, the people taking the Vioxx were the ones that died ... is that really a valid comparison if our discussion is about protecting people from alcohol users more than protecting the users themselves?

You think that alcoholics suffer no consequences of their own behaviour? Alcohol is WORSE because it not only shortens the lifespan of the user but also endangers everyone around him.
No, and that's not what I said. tharkûn's argument quite validly focused on the conflict between my right to make personal choices and the right of others to be safe from dangerous choices I could make, so I was responding to that. If you want to talk about the purely personal damage one can inflict on one's self with alcohol abuse, I'd say yes that's terrible, but in a free society I am relatively willing to let them make personal choices even when they are not the 'optimal' choice ... I don't want to get into a slippery slope argument here, but if the strongest argument is 'don't let them have it because it's bad when they abuse it,' we have to get rid of processed sugar, saturated animal fats and caffeine right along with the beer & wine.

Well, I think I answered this already ... I'm referring to the intended consequence of the 'wand' here, aren't I? It's removing a choice from everyone, a successful prohibition, right? I don't see how you can look at the lost liberty in that hypothetical as an 'unintended' consequence, it's the entire point of the action.

Could you please name all of the people who fought wars and died for the freedom to drink alcoholic beverages? Or the passage in the Constitution where it says that this is a fundamental right? Or the part of the UN Universal Decalaration of Human Rights where this is enumerated? You seem to act as if this is one of those really important fundamental freedoms that people should be willing to risk or sacrifice their lives for (tens of thousands of lives per year, in fact); I don't recall seeing anyone but you describe it as such.

Well, another laundry list of things I didn't say. I'm talking about control of your body ... what goes into it. Now, is this a Fourth Amendment matter of being secure in my person against unreasonable searches, that is, an unreasonable inquiry by the state into what I put into my body? That's one possible line of argument. Is it part of the 'penumbra' of privacy that the SCOTUS says is an inextricable element of the Constitution? I don't know, the whole 'penumbra' argument makes me uncomfortable.

But if you're looking for literal enumeration, show me where it says in the Constitution that the federal government posseses the legislative authority to regulate what I eat and drink .... I missed that part, too. In a government of limited powers and specific guarantees of a citizen's liberties against the whims of a majority, the presumption is always on the side of the individual's liberty, not the security of the majority.

I admit that's a concept that seems to have less and less support in the post-9/11 world, but it's one I still consider worth defending.

I'm not sure how that fits with a request for an 'ethical' analysis. Whose ethics? A pure numbers balancing test? If that's the test, I think prohibition wins, because a pure numbers test won't even care about personal liberty.

[Darth Wong]

No, and that's not what I said. tharkûn's argument quite validly focused on the conflict between my right to make personal choices and the right of others to be safe from dangerous choices I could make, so I was responding to that. If you want to talk about the purely personal damage one can inflict on one's self with alcohol abuse, I'd say yes that's terrible, but in a free society I am relatively willing to let them make personal choices even when they are not the 'optimal' choice ... I don't want to get into a slippery slope argument here, but if the strongest argument is 'don't let them have it because it's bad when they abuse it,' we have to get rid of processed sugar, saturated animal fats and caffeine right along with the beer & wine.

More black/white fallacies. You're quite incapable of functioning without them, are you? The VIOXX argument comes along a different angle, but it is one that you have not addressed. We DO protect people from themselves on occasion in this society; seatbelt laws are a good example. Do you have an ethical counter-argument to that other than simply railing emotionally against "paternalism" or ranting about "liberty"? Do you realize that ethical arguments are supposed to be more substantive than black/white fallacies?

Well, another laundry list of things I didn't say. I'm talking about control of your body ... what goes into it. Now, is this a Fourth Amendment matter of being secure in my person against unreasonable searches, that is, an unreasonable inquiry by the state into what I put into my body?

No. Not even close; it is not an unreasonable search and seizure to tell you that you can't buy a certain substance. Nice desperation move, though. It really highlights the utter lack of substance in your position.

But if you're looking for literal enumeration, show me where it says in the Constitution that the federal government posseses the legislative authority to regulate what I eat and drink .... I missed that part, too.

It doesn't have to say that. If it does not explicitly outlaw a form of legislation, then the government can pass it. Why do I have to spell this out for you? This is your government we're talking about, isn't it?

I'm not sure how that fits with a request for an 'ethical' analysis. Whose ethics? A pure numbers balancing test? If that's the test, I think prohibition wins, because a pure numbers test won't even care about personal liberty.

Why should anyone care about a "personal liberty" which is obviously not important enough to protect in the Constitution or any other major human-rights document that I know of? That's a point which I made just now and which you tried to dismiss as irrelevant.

[Stormbringer]

Why should anyone care about a "personal liberty" which is obviously not important enough to protect in the Constitution or any other major human-rights document that I know of? That's a point which I made just now and which you tried to dismiss as irrelevant.

If you want to be technical about it the Twenty First Amendmant does just that.

[Phil Skayhan]

Why should anyone care about a "personal liberty" which is obviously not important enough to protect in the Constitution or any other major human-rights document that I know of? That's a point which I made just now and which you tried to dismiss as irrelevant.

If you want to be technical about it the Twenty First Amendmant does just that.

It does not protect individuals' access to alcohol. The 21st prohibits the Federal goverment from passing laws regarding alcohol and gives sole legislative power over it to the states. They could still ban it with one law.

[Chmee]

<hyperbole snip> We DO protect people from themselves on occasion in this society; seatbelt laws are a good example. <hyperbole snip>

Well, another laundry list of things I didn't say. I'm talking about control of your body ... what goes into it. Now, is this a Fourth Amendment matter of being secure in my person against unreasonable searches, that is, an unreasonable inquiry by the state into what I put into my body?

No. Not even close; it is not an unreasonable search and seizure to tell you that you can't buy a certain substance. <hyperbole snip>

But if you're looking for literal enumeration, show me where it says in the Constitution that the federal government posseses the legislative authority to regulate what I eat and drink .... I missed that part, too.

It doesn't have to say that. If it does not explicitly outlaw a form of legislation, then the government can pass it. <hyperbole snip>

I'm not sure how that fits with a request for an 'ethical' analysis. Whose ethics? A pure numbers balancing test? If that's the test, I think prohibition wins, because a pure numbers test won't even care about personal liberty.

Why should anyone care about a "personal liberty" which is obviously not important enough to protect in the Constitution or any other major human-rights document that I know of? That's a point which I made just now and which you tried to dismiss as irrelevant.

You may want to go back and review Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) and its descendants if you're unfamiliar with the concept that protecting a citizen's privacy can go far beyond protecting an enumerated 'laundry list' contained in the Bill of Rights. Since Griswold involved the attempted prohibition of the sale of a product which the state had deemed 'harmful' (contraceptive devices), it's actually not a bad case to mention here ... despite my aforementioned discomfort with the 'penumbra' argument, at least it lays out the relevant political philosophy for you.

In point of fact, the American government, unlike many, does *not* have unrestricted legislative power to infringe on personal rights, that is an area where it is quite explicitly restrained. The debate, which is conducted over & over again in the courts, is where that border is drawn between the state's legitimate power and the rights of a citizen guaranteed by the Constitution. I wouldn't want to be the lawyer arguing that 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' necessarily includes the choice of whether to have wine with dinner, but I'd happily work on a bag of popcorn in the back row while it was argued.

[tharkûn]

Um, the people taking the Vioxx were the ones that died ... is that really a valid comparison if our discussion is about protecting people from alcohol users more than protecting the users themselves?

Okay the purpose of an analogy is to show a concept. The concept here is that for the obscene majority of individuals Vioxx was beneficial, they had the liberty to take this drug and received objective benifit for so doing. Despite the fact that literally millions of people took Vioxx, were happy with the result, and did so responsibly ... in order to save a handful of lives it was pulled. Did they slap labels on the bottles and say it carries a risk, did anyone come out of the woodwork screaming about the liberty of being able to take a pain-releiving drug that WORKED for them?

No. It was perfectly acceptable to pull the drug because there was potential that a few people would die. Rather than look at the basic logic: That the ability of millions to receive benifit does not a priori negate the potential for a small number to suffer harm; you decided to quibble about irrelevent details. Indeed the loss of liberty stemming from the pulling of Vioxx should be more henious in your book, as the number of innocents hurt was much more limited than from alcohol consumption.

I could just as easily have cited various steriods (clinically demonstrated to promote violent tendencies), fat soluble hallucinogens, or gammahydroxybutyrate (date rape drug). All of the above have been banned or controlled because they have serious side effects that are not limited to the user. I really don't feel like dredging up my pharmacopedia and citing every damn drug that has ever been controlled or banned because it hurts the user and other people, so could you please NOT PISS ABOUT IRRELEVENT DETAILS IN AN ANALOGY.

I agree there's a difference of degree when speaking of how much you're infringing a liberty in this balancing test ... I do still see a difference of type when regulating purely personal behavior (drinking & staying home) vs. behavior that can impact third parties (drinking & driving). Don't want to harp on that, because it seems like a minor sideline of the discussion.

Yes tell that to a kid who has to stay home with their drunk father (which correlates well with child abuse), tell that to ungodly number date rapes influenced by alocohol consumption, as we all know nothing bad ever happens when a drunk stays home

The only good thing about a drunk staying home is that he is less likely to kill someone, so is a homocidal maniac with ax compared to one with a loaded gun.

Well, I think I answered this already ... I'm referring to the intended consequence of the 'wand' here, aren't I? It's removing a choice from everyone, a successful prohibition, right? I don't see how you can look at the lost liberty in that hypothetical as an 'unintended' consequence, it's the entire point of the action.

Yes and I'm still waiting for a consistent and coherent answer as to why the liberty of people to get drunk is superior to the liberty of people to live without fear that some drunk is going to ruin their life.

The part of my point you're ignoring is which way we lean in a free society -- we lean very heavily against presumptive solutions which pre-empt individual free will, solutions along the lines of 'because some will abuse alcohol with negative consequences, let's assume everyone might and remove their choice.'

That is exactly the reason why we ban drunk driving, because some will end up with negative consequences and we remove their choice.

A certain percentage of people will abuse it, you can't simply ignore it because they are abusing it. You must weigh the harm they cause as part of the good coming from prohibition. Society does this routinely. Automatic weaponry? Grenade launchers? CD decryption tools? Virtually all hard drugs? There are many things society has no problem banning because some people might abuse it that I think are stupid, but societies in some way attempt to weigh the cost vs benifit and only a moron would look at the status quo on alcohol use and say it would be superior to magic wand prohibition.

In point of fact, the American government, unlike many, does *not* have unrestricted legislative power to infringe on personal rights, that is an area where it is quite explicitly restrained. The debate, which is conducted over & over again in the courts, is where that border is drawn between the state's legitimate power and the rights of a citizen guaranteed by the Constitution. I wouldn't want to be the lawyer arguing that 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' necessarily includes the choice of whether to have wine with dinner, but I'd happily work on a bag of popcorn in the back row while it was argued.

The American government DOES have unrestricted legislative power to infringe on personal rights, provided it can secure two-thirds supermajorities throughout the states to do so. By its nature as a living document the Constitution can be changed through a legislative process laid out within it called amendment.

Indeed it was that very same constitution whiched legislated the attempted prohibition of the 1920's. The reason it was amended back the other way is that prohibition was ineffective, and to make cash on sin tax. The constitutional legitimacy of prohibition rests squarely on the supermajorative opinion of the people of the several states.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I am not up on my constitutional law exactly. Which rights is the government allow to sweep away with legislation? Any or just some?

What about rights that aren't specificially placed in the bill of rights? Are those the ones that can be limited?

[Chmee]

The American government DOES have unrestricted legislative power to infringe on personal rights, provided it can secure two-thirds supermajorities throughout the states to do so. By its nature as a living document the Constitution can be changed through a legislative process laid out within it called amendment.

Indeed it was that very same constitution whiched legislated the attempted prohibition of the 1920's. The reason it was amended back the other way is that prohibition was ineffective, and to make cash on sin tax. The constitutional legitimacy of prohibition rests squarely on the supermajorative opinion of the people of the several states.

Agreed, the federal government can validate hitherto unconstitutional laws by seeking a constitutional amendment ... that power is somewhat shared with the states, but it's still an authority.

[tharkûn]

I am not up on my constitutional law exactly. Which rights is the government allow to sweep away with legislation? Any or just some?

Whatever the government can convince a super majority to back through the procedure for a constitutional amendment.

Barring a constitutional amendment, well that depends on the legal viewpoint of the individuals writing legislation and the justices in the courts. For instance the right to privacy appears, expressed by justices today, does not appear textually within the constitution or any amendments. A Scalia and a Ginsberg have widely disparate opinions about what 'rights' the government can sweep away.

Right now the consensus is that "reasonable" rights are to be protected as long as they do not place an undue burden on society. Free speach doesn't cover "FIRE" in a crowded theater nor does bear arms apply to AA missiles.

For all of Chmee's stick about the liberty of being able to ingest whatever the hell one wants, the US government currently has zero problem banning the use of hard drugs, marijuana, etc.

[Darth Wong]

You may want to go back and review Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) and its descendants if you're unfamiliar with the concept that protecting a citizen's privacy can go far beyond protecting an enumerated 'laundry list' contained in the Bill of Rights. Since Griswold involved the attempted prohibition of the sale of a product which the state had deemed 'harmful' (contraceptive devices), it's actually not a bad case to mention here ... despite my aforementioned discomfort with the 'penumbra' argument, at least it lays out the relevant political philosophy for you.

Yes, and in the ruling, we find that "Connecticut's birth-control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy", hence it was struck down. Obviously, we widely recognize that sexual relations between a husband and wife are considered private. Since you do not have any such precedent indicating that peoples' "right" to purchase and ingest whatever substance they want is similarly protected, you are simply wasting your breath pretending to have precedent supporting you when in fact you have nothing of the sort.

In point of fact, the American government, unlike many, does *not* have unrestricted legislative power to infringe on personal rights,

I did not say that it did. I said that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the "right" to purchase and ingest whatever substance you want is protected. You have not provided a shred of evidence to disprove this position, and in point of fact, if you were even close to being correct, then the country's legions of devoted marijuana advocates would have had marijuana possession laws struck down on constitutional grounds years ago.