When I hurt someone, or damage their property, that is when Government should step in.If you truly believe that then how can you object when the Government steps in to prohibit drug uses from hurting others and damaging property?
Me: BEFORE I hurt someone, or damage their property, that is when Government should step in.
You: AFTER I hurt someone, or damage their property, that is when Government should step in.
If you truly believe that then how can you object when the Government steps in to prohibit drug users gun owners from hurting others and damaging property?
Me: BEFORE I hurt someone, or damage their property, that is when Government should step in.
You: AFTER I hurt someone, or damage their property, that is when Government should step in.
B: AFTER I hurt someone, or damage their property, that is when Government should step in.
An excellent synopsis of the argument. Although something is implied that we need to discuss. If we ignore that implication (which I'll get to in a minute), it is clear that "B" is the proper answer, and "A" is a totalitarian nightmare. Why should the goverment EVER stop me from doing something if it doesn't hurt anybody else? What authority does the government have to punish me for something I didn't do?
Now, I will add the unstated implication:
A: If Government knows I will hurt someone, or damage their property, they can punish me for what I will do.Can you be punished for something you haven't done yet? And how certain does the government have to be that you will do it, before they can punish you for it?B: Even if Government knows I will hurt someone, or damage their property, they can't punish me until I actually do it.
How many people who smoke marijuana will, as a direct result of doing so, hurt someone else, or damage their property? 1%, 10%, 50%, 99%? At what percentage does the government earn the right to punish 100% of the smokers, in order to stop the "X%" that will commit real crimes because of smoking?
If I can stop 1 drunk driving death by putting 100 18-year-olds in jail for drinking, is that a good trade-off?
Now, I happen to believe that if government has a rational certainty that harm is emminent, government has the right to take action against an individual. If you pull a gun on someone, government has a right to arrest you before you pull the trigger, even though technically you haven't caused any real harm yet.
I assume some would argue that until the trigger is pulled, there is no harm, and government shouldn't act. Heck, even my statement is qualified, as if you are told to put the gun down, and you do, and it turns out you had a reasonable explanation for pulling the gun, I don't think you should go to jail.
But our notion of police force action is based on the idea that police step in when it is clear there is a crime, and use only as much force as is necessary to eliminate clear threats. And yet we also pass laws that make things illegal that harm nobody (except possibly ourselve), on the off chance that by making those acts illegal, we can reduce by some small percentage some other criminal activity.
And in fact, while we can argue that drug laws exist solely because we are trying to protect others from harm by people on drugs, the fact is that a LOT of the support for drug laws comes from people who think drugs are immoral, and are in fact wanting to keep others from taking drugs.
TO use a different example. I can kill people with my car quite easily. And people are killed by cars every day. But because we see the benefit of allowing people to drive cars, we don't overly regulate it, although we have a lot of stupid car rules again just to slightly make it safer. For example, many states have age rules under which you can't have passengers in your car, or you can't drive after dark, or after 11pm. This even though a vast majority of 16-year-olds manage to drive at all hours and with all sorts of people in their car without EVER having an accident.
But we punish 100% of the 16-year-olds, because 5% of them will behave immaturely. And yes, my argument is I'd rather have some people killed or injured as a result of those 5%, and then PUNISH those 5%, than to restrict the freedom of the other 95%.
We are too accepting of restrictions on our freedoms, and thsoe restrictions are eliminating the very IDEA of responsibility. Nobody behaves responsibly, because the law is written as if nobody has any responsibility to behave responsibly. If we regulate everything, nobody has to make any choices of consequence. I can't buy food that is bad for me, because government bans it. I can't engage in a risky activity, because government forbids it. I'm not allowed to take drugs, because I might hurt myself. I have to buy health insurance, because I'm too stupid to know better, and if I don't buy insurance I might get sick and die because I can't afford treatment.
Mandated health insurance is simply an extension of the SAME thinking that bans drug use.