Philosophical question : Whats the moral difference between sexuality laws and drug laws?

[Rod1]

As in whats the moral difference between sending someone to jail for having sex and sending someone to jail for possession of drugs?

Public health? well promiscuous sex is a public health issue too.
Public order? you cant do drugs in your own home either.

 

[hillelslovak87]

It's a concession to christian morality. Crimes without victims are like debts without creditors. They only exist in the mind of those with a need to punish. It's about banning anything that is better than prayer, or pro creative sex.

 

[Pwent]

i think the issue with hard drugs is the societal impact of creating drug addicts, since they generally are unproductive members of society who often commit more crimes and drive health costs

i am philosophically opposed to both sexuality and drug laws, even though i personally think poorly of drug abusers

 

[InternetHero]

The question is a tad ambiguous my friend.

What kind of sex laws and what kind of drug laws?

Are we gung ho about public fornication in city parks or recreational cannabis use for terminally ill people with disabilities? Please elaborate.

 

[InternetHero]

It's a concession to christian morality. Crimes without victims are like debts without creditors. They only exist in the mind of those with a need to punish. It's about banning anything that is better than prayer, or pro creative sex.

I think Confucius would disagree with you, but we have kind of lost our care for society, human health and happiness, and the harmony of that social environment for what we want, rather what I want, I being the absolute individual (perhaps even an uber-mensch if you will...) without the moral bearing, or judgement if you prefer, of Christianity or any sense of shame.

 

[Burning Hammer]

False analogy is false.

You can't compare the two just because you feel like they have similar consequences. This issue is far too wide spread to have this discussion. They're separate crimes and as a result deserve separate approaches to law.

 

[Greoric]

I agree TS. Both are bullshit. Lets end the coercion by ending the state... So that's settled.

/Thread.

 

[Rod1]

False analogy is false.

You can't compare the two just because you feel like they have similar consequences. This issue is far too wide spread to have this discussion. They're separate crimes and as a result deserve separate approaches to law.

Its a philosophical question.

In both cases we are punishing individuals for morality related actions that affect nobody else but themselves.

 

[Rod1]

The question is a tad ambiguous my friend.

What kind of sex laws and what kind of drug laws?

Are we gung ho about public fornication in city parks or recreational cannabis use for terminally ill people with disabilities? Please elaborate.

Its ambiguous on purpose, because the arguments for or against will determine the scope of whether one can suppress freedom or not. So take any example you want for or against drugs.

 

[Rod1]

i think the issue with hard drugs is the societal impact of creating drug addicts, since they generally are unproductive members of society who often commit more crimes and drive health costs

i am philosophically opposed to both sexuality and drug laws, even though i personally think poorly of drug abusers

So is the societal impact of sexual freedom, how many fatherless kids do you think there would be if we had laws like Saudi Arabia when it comes to women in the west?

We know fatherlesness is the main cause of inner city violence, if women had no rights and people were sent to prison for out of marriage sex i could reckon the incidence of single moms would drop to very low levels.

 

[Fedorable]

Its ambiguous on purpose, because the arguments for or against will determine the scope of whether one can suppress freedom or not. So take any example you want for or against drugs.

Hold the news reader's nose squarely, waiter, or friendly milk will countermand my trousers.

 

[Rod1]

Hold the news reader's nose squarely, waiter, or friendly milk will countermand my trousers.

 

[nostradumbass]

Its a philosophical question.

In both cases we are punishing individuals for morality related actions that affect nobody else but themselves.

Drug addicts affect nobody but themselves? Surely you aren't serious. They fuck up everything around them and immiserate everyone around them. It's very rare for a serious drug addict to not have committed a slew of other crimes during the course of their addiction. There's also a nice amount of overlap in drug abusers and sexual promiscuity.

BTW, selling sex is illegal. Morally, neither promiscuity nor drug abuse are things you'd hope for in friends, family, neighbors. Legally, sex serves a biological purpose, and is encouraged in monogamous couples, so it's impractical at best to investigate every sexual encounter to discover intent, but coercive sex, sex with minors who can't consent, sex in public, and prostitution are illegal. Drug abuse is a little more cut and dry, since it really serves no other purpose than being a drain on society. Promiscuous sex is also not a product being imported to wreck societies. There isn't any way to stop the flow of vaginas coming into the country, and everybody is already in possession of sex organs through no fault of their own.

I will say this though, skanks are really pushing hard to make their sleeping around a drain by demanding other pay for their birth control, wanting others to subsidize murdering their children, and demanding social acceptance of their sexual recklessness.

 

[Burning Hammer]

Its a philosophical question.

In both cases we are punishing individuals for morality related actions that affect nobody else but themselves.

This is simply an untrue statement, for one there are other parties involved in both affairs. People usually buy their drugs. Not just that, addicts provide problems for all of those around them. Whom they buy them from could use that money to affect and or do harm to someone else. In the case of sexual, there is another person whom may be harmed.

 

[Greoric]

Drug addicts affect nobody but themselves? Surely you aren't serious. They fuck up everything around them and immiserate everyone around them. It's very rare for a serious drug addict to not have committed a slew of other crimes during the course of their addiction. There's also a nice amount of overlap in drug abusers and sexual promiscuity.

BTW, selling sex is illegal. Morally, neither promiscuity nor drug abuse are things you'd hope for in friends, family, neighbors. Legally, sex serves a biological purpose, and is encouraged in monogamous couples, so it's impractical at best to investigate every sexual encounter to discover intent, but coercive sex, sex with minors who can't consent, sex in public, and prostitution are illegal. Drug abuse is a little more cut and dry, since it really serves no other purpose than being a drain on society. Promiscuous sex is also not a product being imported to wreck societies. There isn't any way to stop the flow of vaginas coming into the country, and everybody is already in possession of sex organs through no fault of their own.

I will say this though, skanks are really pushing hard to make their sleeping around a drain by demanding other pay for their birth control, wanting others to subsidize murdering their children, and demanding social acceptance of their sexual recklessness.

You still have to justify why someone can threaten to throw you in a cage for doing either of these things or shoot you if you resist.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

If society pays the price is the crime still victimless?

 

[nostradumbass]

You still have to justify why someone can threaten to throw you in a cage for doing either of these things or shoot you if you resist.

I don't believe they do throw you in a cage for simple possession, or even for using. Dealers can get locked up, and you might get probation if you're caught with drugs in public, but they aren't raiding houses looking for a dime bag or a couple of bindles of coke or smack. It's usually just an add on for other crimes. Sex, you don't go to prison either unless it's rape. Even prostitution, you usually get probation.

As far as resisting goes, that should be pretty self-explanatory. If you pose a threat to the safety of the police, of course they can't just assume benign intentions.

 

[lecter]

This is simply an untrue statement, for one there are other parties involved in both affairs. People usually buy their drugs.

Yeah, that's called trade. It' not a problem, it's a good thing. And it certainly isn't a third party's business. The state is a third party. It happens voluntarily and is mutually beneficial.

Not just that, addicts provide problems for all of those around them.

So? That implies nothing.
People should be free to make bad choices and they'll be free to do so to a certain extent anyway. Human action always "affects" people around individuals. For the most part, that happens on an emotional level since those people feel they have obligations to help their loved ones out with self-imposed problems. But that's not a hard problem from a rational point of view, let alone one which should be solved by federal laws. Being a fat pig also increases the chance of providing problems to those around them.
The actual "solution" to that problem from a political point of view is to recognize that one's needs alone can't put moral obligations onto other people. I agree that legalization of all drugs is contradictory to other policies, especially those proposed by the progressive left, and while they're supportive of decriminalization, they certainly have a lot of questions to answer, regarding universal health care, unemployability, social security etc
But imposing more and more immoral laws and justifying it with other flawed laws doesn't improve anything.

Whom they buy them from could use that money to affect and or do harm to someone else.

And money earned by trading drugs is different in that regard than money earned by trading cars how exactly?

 

[brothir]

If society pays the price is the crime still victimless?

Yes, mostly because we distinguish between 'burden' and 'injury/harm'. We want to minimize both, but they are distinct.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Sex can result in the creation of new people.
Morally speaking, the potential repercussions are immense.