Thread: Freedom of choice and the Law

Ok, here I go stirring up the proverbial pot. I know this has been discussed before, and I hope it will continue to be discussed. I think that change occurs little by little, much as a boiling kettle builds steam pressure, until it finally can no longer contain the pressure and explodes.

So, anyways, I was out walking the dog and thinking, as I usually do, and probably thinking too much, as I usually do...

And I think most of the guys here at SRP are fairly reasonable and friendly, so where else would I want to pose radical and controversial topics? Blah, blah, blah...I digress..

So here's my thought:

In a trully free society, shouldn't free individuals have the freedom to make either good choices or bad? In other words, the freedom to be responsible AND irresponsible (ie - negligent)?

Should the governments of free peoples ALWAYS trust the people to make responsible choices (Kind of like assuming innocense until proven otherwise). Or, at times, corall them into being responsible via law?

In some cases goverments seem to do this (allow for irresponsible behavior. ie you can choose to steal your neighbor's property), but in other case (see below) they don't.

If your free choice to act responsibly affects no one but the acting party (ie. you), or has no ill effect at all, then all is well.

If your free choice to act in an irresponsible manner results in negligence causing some form of harm to others, then there are laws to address that negligent behavior.

Now here's the clincher (go ahead and cringe):

Of course what I'm talking about are gun laws AND the "War on drugs." I know these two topics are almost trite, they've been beaten around so much, but, when is enough enough?

So let the stones fly...what say ye all?

I tend to agree with you. I have always believed in the right to bare arms and the pursuit of personal freedom and happiness if it does not harm anyone else, but when it comes to the war on drugs, I do believe some things should be regulated due to their addictive nature, i.e. meth, cocaine and opium. but I have never believed in the laws against cannabis due to the fact it was used to expel one ethnicity to make room and create jobs for the man, so to speak.

Our founding fathers, (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson) grew it and believed in it for alot of textile and medicinal purposes, and it used to be law that if you wanted own land in this country, you had to grow hemp. ( Decreed by King James in the 1600's.)

To make it even weirder, the first law was a joke( the tax stamp of 1937.) It was illegal to grow the crop unless you had the stamp, but to get the stamp you had to bring in the crop, which would instantly get you incarcerated for possession. This was eventually overturned due to the 5th amendment violation ( self icrimination). Ok enough of my rant, I think my opinion is noted.

The reason I believe so strongly in this is when I broke my back I got precriptions for Lortab 10, 40 a week for a solid seven months straight( it started at 60 aweek and then tapered down). The withdrawls were hell when I tryed to stop taking it (insomnia, nausea, shakes, cold sweats). I want say how I came off of them but I am clean and almost pain free now.

Originally Posted by celticstone

The reason I believe so strongly in this is when I broke my back I got precriptions for Lortab 10, 40 a week for a solid seven months straight( it started at 60 aweek and then tapered down). The withdrawls were hell when I tryed to stop taking it (insomnia, nausea, shakes, cold sweats). I want say how I came off of them but I am clean and almost pain free now.

Of course this is really good news. I think it is somewhat the exception to my original position though. Don't you think?

Originally Posted by celticstone

I tend to agree with you. I have always believed in the right to bare arms and the pursuit of personal freedom and happiness if it does not harm anyone else, but when it comes to the war on drugs, I do believe some things should be regulated due to their addictive nature, i.e. meth, cocaine and opium. but I have never believed in the laws against cannabis due to the fact it was used to expel one ethnicity to make room and create jobs for the man, so to speak.

Our founding fathers, (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson) grew it and believed in it for alot of textile and medicinal purposes, and it used to be law that if you wanted own land in this country, you had to grow hemp. ( Decreed by King James in the 1600's.)

To make it even weirder, the first law was a joke( the tax stamp of 1937.) It was illegal to grow the crop unless you had the stamp, but to get the stamp you had to bring in the crop, which would instantly get you incarcerated for possession. This was eventually overturned due to the 5th amendment violation ( self icrimination). Ok enough of my rant, I think my opinion is noted.

I hear this from a lot of people I have this conversation with. I really believe that trully free people should also have the freedom to be absolutely stupid too (regarding drug use). We allow people to become addicted to alcohol and nicotine, so why not the others as well?

Originally Posted by celticstone

I tend to agree with you. I have always believed in the right to bare arms and the pursuit of personal freedom and happiness if it does not harm anyone else, but when it comes to the war on drugs, I do believe some things should be regulated due to their addictive nature, i.e. meth, cocaine and opium. but I have never believed in the laws against cannabis due to the fact it was used to expel one ethnicity to make room and create jobs for the man, so to speak.

Our founding fathers, (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson) grew it and believed in it for alot of textile and medicinal purposes, and it used to be law that if you wanted own land in this country, you had to grow hemp. ( Decreed by King James in the 1600's.)

To make it even weirder, the first law was a joke( the tax stamp of 1937.) It was illegal to grow the crop unless you had the stamp, but to get the stamp you had to bring in the crop, which would instantly get you incarcerated for possession. This was eventually overturned due to the 5th amendment violation ( self icrimination). Ok enough of my rant, I think my opinion is noted.

FWIW, when in history class years ago, we were actually told that Cannabis/hemp/marijuana were not on the original list of controlled substances; it was added not because of any proven detrimental effect greater than, say tobacco, or even the chance to keep a certain race or creed "down". No, once again it came down to the almighty dollar. It's been a few years but as I recall it was lobbyists from the then-powerful US textiles industry, who got it added to the list to get rid of one potential source of competition. Dupont had just come out with either Nylon or Polyester, one of those, and it is no accident that high-strength ropes are now usually nylon, and not hemp... I also recall that the cotton industry felt threatened also, as there were fields and fields of the stuff at the turn of the century for the shipbuilding industry, and they were branching out into regular fabric...
I may have missed a name or two, but pretty sure that's how it was basically explained to me.
Money.
John P.

I didn't read all the posts, only skimmed the original and a few others.

Here's something to chew on. "Freedom of . . . " does NOT translate into "freedom FROM . . . ."

Technically EVERYONE has freedom OF choice. However, everyone ALSO has to deal with the backlash of their choices. It's your choice to smoke. Don't blame the tobacco companies if your body isn't set up to resist the carcinogens and you get cancer. If it's your choice to eat poorly, don't blame the food industry for your health problems. Everyone wants freedom of choice and freedom FROM responsibility. It doesnt' work that way.

I wasn't talking about the tobacco companies. I was talking about our government. They keep taxing tobacco "because of rising health costs and b/c it's bad for the health." If it's so bad for the health, they have a good reason to completely ban it and in any case at least half of the money they took from me in taxes should go to help Canadians fight the addiction. So far I'm quitting cold-turkey, but some people need assistance or even institutionalization to kick the habit.

I don't want to say good luck, because that implies you'll need luck to kick the nicotine habit, but hey, good luck. I quit my 2 cans / 3 days dipping habit about 2 months ago now and it was pretty much god awful. I don't know what the actual addictiveness difference is between dipping and smoking, but nicotinewise I was taking in 30 cigarettes worth / day which would make me a pack and a half smoker. So to you I say: the insanity passes. Cranberry juice was helpful for me.

I tend to be strongly pro-individual liberty, much like Wildtim, though I wouldn't label myself "libertarian" as I believe most of our social programs are decent. FUD has it absolutely right, though, lately people want to sue away when their choices lead them to problems, and that's just idiotic. The worst part is that the courts are even hearing these cases.

I'm a big believer in "Do what you want, as long as it harms noone." Agree with the above poster, though -- harm is a tough thing to define, sometimes.

Originally Posted by honedright

...In a trully free society, shouldn't free individuals have the freedom to make either good choices or bad? In other words, the freedom to be responsible AND irresponsible (ie - negligent)?...

It would seem to me that individuals always have the freedom to make good/bad choices. It's the consequences of their choice that are the killer...

Society: • noun (pl. societies) the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. (Oxford English dictionary)

I think that if you want absolute total freedom then it is unlikely your society will ever consist of more than yourself. Otherwise, it's necessary that you compromise some of your "freedoms" to be a member of the society. It would seem that the very nature of a society puts it in conflict with other societies at some level. The problem comes when individuals become part of the society and fail to embrace the necessary compromises.