Debate on Bricker's Moral Assertions [ed. title]

[MaxTheVool]

So over in this pit thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=390865) a mighty hijacking occurred in which our good friend Bricker started debating his general philosohpical/moral/political beliefs, but then hesitated to continue, reasonably, lest he be accused of doding the original point of the thread.

Thus, I have started this thread.

So, I put posted this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7842149&postcount=243) asking various tough questions, Bricker responded here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7842264&postcount=253), and I will continue to respond now.

But any other leftover debate type issues from that thread should certainly go here as well.





I think a case can be made that a similar situation occurred in World War II. Roosevelt's administration lied to the public, and illegally (prior to the Lend-Lease Act, anyway) supported the Brits with munitions and generous financial aid.

An important note, and one that goes to the very root of the issue: Even if we assume that FDR cynically lied out of his ass, what was he lying to do? What did the lying accomplish? It got the US to send financial aid and munitions to an ally. What did Bush's (hypothesized) lying do? It got the US to unprovokedly invade and conquer a sovereign nation. When judging the morality of deceiving-people-into-doing-things, I think the sin is greater when the thing you're fooling people into is (a) more intrinsically evil, and (b) something that people would be more violently and abjectly opposed to, if they knew the truth.

If you know I love puppy dogs above all else, and say "hey, donate $10 to this charity, they help puppy dogs", when in fact that charity helps kittens, you lied to me to get me to do something. If you then say "hey, that guy killed a puppy dog!" and I attack and kill that man, and it turns out that in fact he did something that you personally objected to, so you personally honestly thought that killing him was moral and justified, but you knew (correctly) that I would not agree with that assessment, then you again lied to get me to do something, but in a much more immoral fashion.


I agree that aspects of this have been handled poorly, and I agree that there comes a point at which incompetence becomes its own evil. But i do NOT agree that we are at that point yet.

Well, good to know that it's at least a conversation worth having.


All anyone can ever do is act as the circumstances may appear at the time.

And the more serious the decision being made, the more important it is that one study the circumstances with due dilligence and intellectual openness. The problem here is not that Bush was wrong about something and made an incorrect decision. We've all done that. The problem is that he was making an INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT decision, the decision whether to take the nigh-unprecedented action of unprovokedly invading and attacking a sovereign nation, one which happens to sit smack dab in the middle of one of the more volatile and heavily armed parts of the world. I mean, that's a BIG decision. Not one to be made lightly. So that's a situation where it's more important than probably anything else he'll do over the course of his entire life to really positively certainly have the facts. And he didn't have them. Not even close. So, to slightly simplify things, either he and his administration are incompetent, or they're dishonest. And even if they're neither, even if they just happened to be victims of circumstance where the most honest dilligent hard-working brilliant people imaginable would also have been fooled, well, the other frustrating (although perhaps less immoral) thing about it is that they seem so unwilling to honestly admit what happened. If they made an incredibly tough decision based on their absolute honest best assessment of the information (and I've just now realized that I'm conflating two issues they were wrong about, although it applies to both: (1) does Saddam have nukes? (2) how easy will it be for us to invade Iraq?) and were wrong, where are the apologies? The mea culpas? The resignations in shame? Instead, what we see is spin, spin, spin, revision, revision, revision.

(I realize my impartial and logical debate got a bit sidetracked into ranting there...)



To deter others from doing so. It seems to me that your cousin is making a relatively rational risk-based decision. If she were caught, she'd receive a slap on the wrist. So she weighs the unlikeliness of getting caught and the small penalty if she did and continues to buy pot. Which continues to feed the demand for it. Your cousin alone does not create a huge demand, of course. But in the aggregate, plenty of people like her do. If your cousin were guaranteed being locked up for a long period of time... would she really risk smoking it just to relax?
So you're saying that she shouldn't smoke pot because she might get caught. Or rather, she should face long sentences so that others don't smoke pot. And they shouldn't smoke pot because...?

In other words, I'd assume you'd agree that there's a pretty high standard (speaking morally and ethically here, not legally) to be met before you tell an adult "that product/pastime that you intend to enjoy in your free time is NOT allowed and you shall NOT do it and if you DO do it, we shall lock you up". So, what's the justification here? How is the world, our the nation, or my cousin, worse off when she smokes some pot? And how does that view of yours fit into your broader framework of values? Isn't a keystone view of the Republican party individual responsibility? Aren't they constantly bitching at the dems (sometimes with justification) about turning the US into a nanny state?

[Bricker]

With all due respect, the thread title "Debate Bricker's Morality" seems to hold the promise of some personally antagonistic conclusions -- that is, one side of the debate seems to be the conclusion that I am immoral. I'm not sure that's a good GD subject, and I am uncomfortable with it phrased thusly.

Perhaps you could request that a mod change the title to something less personally targetted at me. In GD, after all, the idea is that the poster's arguments may be assailed, but not the poster personally. So with that model in mind, maybe "Debate Bricker's Moral Assertions?" Or something like that?

[Gaudere]

Yes, I agree. Actually, perhaps something like "Debate [whatever term Bricker wishes to use to describe his politcal philosophy]" would be best--undoubtably this won't be just Bricker v. you but people will weigh in on both sides. And I'm a little hesitant about threads which soley target one person, anyway.

[Ludovic]

Inasmuch as I believe in morals, it's inherently correct to lie about something given that it will lead to a morally superior outcome. Since morality, as much as it exists, is pretty set in stone, anything that leads to that (less deaths, more happiness and less stress, etc.) is good.

However, ethically I am conflicted. Ethics is more firm in my mind, in addition. After all, everyone has their own version of (hard-set, ironically enough,) morals, whereas pretty much everyone can agree that it's bad form to lie, to coerce, and to not fully disclose.

But what if an ethical breach can be used to thwart those who themselves commit ethical breaches, inasmuch as many governments lie, coerce, and coverup more than others? I really don't know if it's completely ethical to lie in this situation, but it's ethically better than lying without such a purpose in mind, since the end result will be a more ethical world.

Now, is it more ethical to lie to reduce ethical breaches, or to not lie and not do so? If I had to pick one or the other I'd have to say that it is slightly less ethical to lie but it is more moral.

Should governments regularly do so? Should Roosevelt have done so to get us into WW2?

I'd have to say that on the balance, unfortunately the answer is yes: there were plenty of isolationists that were more than willing buy a little temporary safety at the expense of others' liberty. The same thing goes for Iraq: if it were handled better, with true shock and awe and an overwhelming troop presense, it would have been worth it to lie to the American people about WMD. As it turned out it was a CF of the most massive proportions: the lie only compounded the gravity of the situation.

So the bottom line is: if you're gonna lie to get us into war, at least have the expertise to succeed :)

[What Exit?]

With all due respect, the thread title "Debate Bricker's Morality" seems to hold the promise of some personally antagonistic conclusions -- that is, one side of the debate seems to be the conclusion that I am immoral. I'm not sure that's a good GD subject, and I am uncomfortable with it phrased thusly.

Perhaps you could request that a mod change the title to something less personally targetted at me. In GD, after all, the idea is that the poster's arguments may be assailed, but not the poster personally. So with that model in mind, maybe "Debate Bricker's Moral Assertions?" Or something like that?
Agreed, the title seemed very wrong for GD.

Can we debate your view on drugs here?
I would like to know why you believe Pot should remain illegal and what you believe is so wrong with it?
I do not smoke, but I use to, my personnel experience and readings on the subject seem to indicate that there is no good reason to continue to treat Pot smoking and growing as a crime. Throw away the law and let it be a new cash crop for the American Farmer.

Jim

[MaxTheVool]

With all due respect, the thread title "Debate Bricker's Morality" seems to hold the promise of some personally antagonistic conclusions -- that is, one side of the debate seems to be the conclusion that I am immoral. I'm not sure that's a good GD subject, and I am uncomfortable with it phrased thusly.

Perhaps you could request that a mod change the title to something less personally targetted at me. In GD, after all, the idea is that the poster's arguments may be assailed, but not the poster personally. So with that model in mind, maybe "Debate Bricker's Moral Assertions?" Or something like that?

Sure. Sorry about that. I was trying to be descriptive, not judgmental.

(I mean, obviously, I am judgmental, but I'm trying to craftily conceal it :) )

[MaxTheVool]

Sure. Sorry about that. I was trying to be descriptive, not judgmental.

(I mean, obviously, I am judgmental, but I'm trying to craftily conceal it :) )

By which I mean, might mods, please change the title to whatever you and/or Bricker prefer.

[What Exit?]

By which I mean, might mods, please change the title to whatever you and/or Bricker prefer.
I reported it for you.

[Steve MB]

On the drug issue, there are two basic questions and two subordinate questions:

1. Is compelling people to refrain from using such-and-such a drug within the legitimate scope of government power?

1a. If so, does this principle apply in general, or only in cases where a given drug has certain properties?

2. Does compelling people to refrain from using such-and-such a drug actually achieve the intended public policy objectives?

2a. If so, does the policy have undesirable side effects that outweigh the benefits of achieving those objectives?


My answers would be:

1. Yes, if

1a. the drug in question is known to cause a significant risk of "berzerkerdom" (i.e. a psychological state in which the user is an uncontrollable danger to bystanders)

2. Reply hazy -- I note that scholarship in the years immediately after alcohol prohibition concluded that it just didn't reduce drinking, but revisionist claims in the 1980s and later dispute this assertion.

2a. Yes (providing a revenue stream for organized crime, creating a subculture cut off from peaceful legal means of dispute resolution, requiring intrusive police measures for enforcement, breeding contempt for law in general as a result of the preceding).

[MaxTheVool]

I'd have to say that on the balance, unfortunately the answer is yes: there were plenty of isolationists that were more than willing buy a little temporary safety at the expense of others' liberty. The same thing goes for Iraq: if it were handled better, with true shock and awe and an overwhelming troop presense, it would have been worth it to lie to the American people about WMD. As it turned out it was a CF of the most massive proportions: the lie only compounded the gravity of the situation.


I think it's a bit more complicated than that. A president lying to the American people isn't just committing the "sin" (using the term loosely) of lying, he's also committing the sin of subverting democracy. An important part of democracy is that the populace know what elected officials are doing, and why, so that they can decide whether to reelected said officials. Thus, any lack of openness in that flow of information decreases the extent to which the people are, practically, self governing and sovereign.




Anyhow, Bricker, now that the thread is renamed (and sorry again for a poor initial choice of names), how about jumping back in?

[Bricker]

As to the war:

And even if they're neither, even if they just happened to be victims of circumstance where the most honest dilligent hard-working brilliant people imaginable would also have been fooled, well, the other frustrating (although perhaps less immoral) thing about it is that they seem so unwilling to honestly admit what happened. If they made an incredibly tough decision based on their absolute honest best assessment of the information (and I've just now realized that I'm conflating two issues they were wrong about, although it applies to both: (1) does Saddam have nukes? (2) how easy will it be for us to invade Iraq?) and were wrong, where are the apologies? The mea culpas? The resignations in shame? Instead, what we see is spin, spin, spin, revision, revision, revision.

I believe that in fact they did make an incredibly tough decision based on their absolute honest best assessment of the information at hand, and that decision turns out to have been wrong.

Now, if the issue of this thread is immorality, and if that belief is true, then you surely cannot argue that the war was immoral.

You're right -- the best thing would be for the administration to now be more upfront about the mistakes in information that led them to the now-clearly-wrong choices that were made. And while I fault them for not being more forthright in this arena, I do not agree that it retroactively translates into an immoral war as a result.

[Bricker]

As to the weed:

So you're saying that she shouldn't smoke pot because she might get caught. Or rather, she should face long sentences so that others don't smoke pot. And they shouldn't smoke pot because...?

In other words, I'd assume you'd agree that there's a pretty high standard (speaking morally and ethically here, not legally) to be met before you tell an adult "that product/pastime that you intend to enjoy in your free time is NOT allowed and you shall NOT do it and if you DO do it, we shall lock you up". So, what's the justification here? How is the world, our the nation, or my cousin, worse off when she smokes some pot? And how does that view of yours fit into your broader framework of values? Isn't a keystone view of the Republican party individual responsibility? Aren't they constantly bitching at the dems (sometimes with justification) about turning the US into a nanny state?

Let's first be clear here: I never said that the issue of pot use is a moral one. So, again, if the question in this thread is limited to moral issues, I am not making the claim that pot is intrinsically immoral.

However, I believe that the strict regulation of pot is within the valid powers of the government, and that such strict regulation is wise.

Why?

Consider motorcycle helmets. You may argue that it's a "nanny state" that insists on motorcycle helmets -- after all, the rider risks only his own neck (and skull) by failing to wear one.

But that's not entirely true. We do not live in a country that will let a person die if they have no medical insurance and are injured in a motorcycle accident wearing no helmet. Ultimately, your tax dollars and mine will be used to pay for his care. Since that isn't likely to change, I believe it's correct for the state to insist on helmets.

So, too, with marijuana. I believe the overall costs to society from marijuana use are high enough that it is wise to forbid the use of the drug. Peer-reviewed studies also suggest that marijuana use leads to harder drugs (admittedly, these are not uncontroverted).

So -- not a moral issue, but a practical one.

[RickJay]

AsSo, too, with marijuana. I believe the overall costs to society from marijuana use are high enough that it is wise to forbid the use of the drug. Peer-reviewed studies also suggest that marijuana use leads to harder drugs (admittedly, these are not uncontroverted).
An honest question, then;

Do you support the reinstitution of Prohibition? Since alcohol has all the same properties of marijuana, and in some regards is in fact worse, why should it not have the same legal status?

[Polycarp]

If it is not too much of a hijack of a thread started to prevent hijacking another thread, may I ask (ideally Bricker but whoever wishes to essay an answer) if indeed Lend-Lease was founded on lies. From what I've read of the period's history, I got the distinct impression that that was not the case.

Second, Bricker did an interesting summary of why he was/is a Republican, not by glittering generality but by specific issues, over in the Pit thread. While I could copy that here, I would like to offer him the opportunity of instead restating what he no doubt typed in some urgency as a response to others, identifying the issues that he sees as critical differentiations between the party platforms and philosophies, and perhaps briefly restating why he holds with (what he conceives of as) the Republican stance.

[MaxTheVool]

I believe that in fact they did make an incredibly tough decision based on their absolute honest best assessment of the information at hand, and that decision turns out to have been wrong.

Now, if the issue of this thread is immorality, and if that belief is true, then you surely cannot argue that the war was immoral.

But it's more complicated than just whether someone's motives were pure. To quote you: "I agree that there comes a point at which incompetence becomes its own evil."


You're right -- the best thing would be for the administration to now be more upfront about the mistakes in information that led them to the now-clearly-wrong choices that were made. And while I fault them for not being more forthright in this arena, I do not agree that it retroactively translates into an immoral war as a result.

I agree that it does not AUTOMATICALLY AND NECESSARILY "retroactively translate into an immoral war as a result". But I think it gives us insight into their character, which might retroactively influence how we judge their initial decision-making. We have, to a certain extent, only their word that they (a) honestly believed that Saddam had nukes, and (b) put in the due diligence verifying and corroborating that belief. (It may actually be the case that there's sufficient evidence that we could, simply based on the evidence, conclude that they were in fact either honest or dishonest in that claim. I'm assuming for the moment that evidence is insufficient, so it comes down to whether we trust them or not.) So, given that it comes down to an issue of trust, is their conduct post-invasion, and in particular their discussions of their decision-making, their consistency, their spin, their revisionism, their transparency, etc.; is all of that together something that makes us trust them more or less?

Or to put it another way, in the other thread, you've basically been saying "I vote for Republicans because their policies more closely align with my morals and ethics". Which is fine. But why does that make you trust them? Why does the fact that GWB agrees with you on X, Y and Z mean that you trust what he says about the starting of the Iraq war?


Relatedly, it's hard for me to see any way to judge Bush and co. as moral which does not immediately force us to also judge them as massively incompetent. Either of which are traits that we do not want in elected officials.



So, too, with marijuana. I believe the overall costs to society from marijuana use are high enough that it is wise to forbid the use of the drug. Peer-reviewed studies also suggest that marijuana use leads to harder drugs (admittedly, these are not uncontroverted).

What type of costs are we talking about?
Also, might it not seem logical that whatever gateway effects marijuana has would be far less if it were legal? That is, if the same scruffy guy on the corner sells both pot and heroin, and if they're both things that are in the category of "forbidden things my mom, and THE MAN, don't want me to try", then if I like pot, I might try heroin; whereas if marijuana is just as acceptable as smoking, then I would have no particular reason to go from it to heroin?

And, to echo RickJay, how is marijuana different from Alcohol? Tobacco?


And, while we're on the topic, when my cousin smokes pot, is that immoral of her? Is it something she should not do? Why? Does it (to use a fairly simplistic and vague definition of "good" vs. "evil") increase the total amount of ongoing human happiness and/or potential?

[Bricker]

An honest question, then;

Do you support the reinstitution of Prohibition? Since alcohol has all the same properties of marijuana, and in some regards is in fact worse, why should it not have the same legal status?

It has all the same properties? I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that show alcohol use leads to harder drugs.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Peer-reviewed studies also suggest that marijuana use leads to harder drugs (admittedly, these are not uncontroverted).

Are you sure? I thought that studies have established correlation, but I am unaware of any that establish causation. As far as correlation is concerned, there is a pretty high correlation establishing that people who have tried heroin first tried caffeine; correlational studies are notoriously unreliable.

If causation has been established, I'd like to see that.

Daniel

[elucidator]

...admittedly, these are not uncontroverted...
Nominations for SDMB Calculated Understatement of the Year for 2006 are now open. They are now closed, 'cause nobody's gonna get even close. I wonder if friend Bricker was blushing when he hit the enter key.

By an astonishing coincidence, I was just watching a FoxGnaws scroll about studies which suggest that marijuana may have a role in preventing Alzheimer's. Good enough for me, case closed. Hell, if you can't trust FoxGnaws, who can you trust?

[Bricker]

If it is not too much of a hijack of a thread started to prevent hijacking another thread, may I ask (ideally Bricker but whoever wishes to essay an answer) if indeed Lend-Lease was founded on lies. From what I've read of the period's history, I got the distinct impression that that was not the case.


During the 1940 presidential campaign, Roosevelt repeatedly asserted he was committed to peace, and federal law prohibted the country from involving itself in the war. Nonethess, in September 1940 Roosevelt authorized the exchange of American destroyers for British bases in the Caribbean and in Newfoundland.

In January 1941, without the knowledge of Congress, Roosevelt hosted a series of British - US military staff talks, despite his administration's public assurances that there were no "war implications" in the proposed Lend-Lease Act, passed two months later in March. In Bailey's book Man on the Street, he notes: The country was overwhelmingly noninterventionist to the very day of Pearl Harbor, and an overt attempt to lead the people into war would have resulted in certain failure and an almost certain ousting of Roosevelt in 1940, with a complete defeat of his ultimate aims..... A president who cannot entrust the people with the truth betrays a certain lack of faith in the basic tenets of democracy. But because the masses are notoriously shortsighted and generally cannot see danger until it is at their throats, our statesmen are forced to deceive them into an awareness of their own long-run interests. This is clearly what Roosevelt had to do, and who shall say that posterity will not thank him for it?


...I would like to offer him the opportunity of instead restating what he no doubt typed in some urgency as a response to others, identifying the issues that he sees as critical differentiations between the party platforms and philosophies, and perhaps briefly restating why he holds with (what he conceives of as) the Republican stance.

Not sure what you're looking for here. The list I offered in the other thread was not intended to be comprehensive, but it did give a fair cross-section of issues that all tilt towards the Republicans -- that is, all the issues I mentioned there are generally supported by the Republicans and generally opposed by the Democrats. Someone did ask if I had had any examples that were not on the "religious right" list, and of course I do:

- Minimum wage. The Democrats wants to raise it; the Republicans don't, and I believe raising it would be a very unwise idea

- Tax cuts. The Democrats want to roll back the Bush tax cuts. The Republicans don't. I Believe the tax cuts were directly responsible for the economic stimulus of the past couple of years and I think it would be unwise to roll them back.

- Environmentalism. I believe that, as a general principle, the Democrats resolve conflicts between the environment and business needs incorrectly, weighing the environment far too heavily in their calculations. As a general principle, I think the Republicans resolve conflicts too heavily in favor of business, but closer to what I would consider an ideal balance.

- National health care. The Democrats want the government to subsidize health care coverage. I don't believe this is wise fiscally. The Republicans seem to agree with me on this.

- Social Security privitization. The Republicans have pushed the idea of permitting people to choose private investments with some or all of their mandated Social Security savings. I think this is an excellent idea. The Democrats oppose it

Beyond further such examples -- not sure what you're looking for.

[Bricker]

Are you sure? I thought that studies have established correlation, but I am unaware of any that establish causation. As far as correlation is concerned, there is a pretty high correlation establishing that people who have tried heroin first tried caffeine; correlational studies are notoriously unreliable.

If causation has been established, I'd like to see that.

Daniel

Well, as I read it:

Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls
Michael T. Lynskey, PhD; Andrew C. Heath, DPhil; Kathleen K. Bucholz, PhD; Wendy S. Slutske, PhD; Pamela A. F. Madden, PhD; Elliot C. Nelson, MD; Dixie J. Statham, MA; Nicholas G. Martin, PhD


JAMA. 2003;289:427-433.

This study seems to suggest it.

The results of our co-twin control analyses indicated that early initiation of cannabis use was associated with significantly increased risks for other drug use and abuse/dependence and were consistent with early cannabis use having a causal role as a risk factor for other drug use and for any drug abuse or dependence. Individuals who used cannabis before age 17 years had a 2.3- to 3.9-fold increase in odds of other drug use and a 1.6- to 6.0-fold increase in odds of alcohol dependence and other drug abuse/dependence, relative to their co-twin who had not used cannabis by age 17 years, regardless of whether or not the pair were monozygotic.

[elucidator]

Oh, c'mon [b]Bricker[b], you know better than that! Coincidence is not causation, you could replace "weed" with "Sesame Street" in that study and likely get very similar results.

[MaxTheVool]

Oh, c'mon [b]Bricker[b], you know better than that! Coincidence is not causation, you could replace "weed" with "Sesame Street" in that study and likely get very similar results.

That's hardly a fair criticism, given that the study itself includes the word "causal", right there in the bolded section.

Although it seems that at best that study would be a valid argument against legalized marijuana FOR MINORS, which isn't something even most hardcore liberatrians seem to want.

[Age Quod Agis]

Coincidence is not causationAnd correllation is not coincidence.

[MovieMogul]

It has all the same properties? I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that show alcohol use leads to harder drugs.This suggests (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1554998&dopt=Abstract) alcohol and tobacco have more causal relationship than marijuana:A Guttman stages of drug use model was confirmed for Australian youth in this systematic household survey of 13-17-year-olds in Perth.... Marijuana use was not a necessary stage for the progression to other illicit drug use as 29% of current users of other illicit drugs reported never using marijuana. The hazard rate for use of marijuana or other illicit drugs, if one was a current tobacco smoker, was high. Alcohol and tobacco were implicated as important 'gateway' drugs though hazard rates showed tobacco to be the more important of the two. Your study says Individuals who used cannabis before age 17 years had a 2.3- to 3.9-fold increase in odds of other drug use and a 1.6- to 6.0-fold increase in odds of alcohol dependence and other drug abuse/dependencebut this implies that cannabis use leads to alcohol dependence, where the exact opposite is just as likely to be true. Cite (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11534749&dopt=Abstract):
Compared with nonbinge drinkers, current binge drinkers were significantly more likely to report "ever" using and current use of cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, and other illegal drugs. The researchers also found that the more often students binge drank, the more likely they were to have ever used cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs, and the more likely they were to report current use of cigarettes and marijuana.And this cite (http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps9890/lps9890/www.casacolumbia.org/newsletter1457/newsletter_show.htm-doc_id=6995) states:
Children who drink are 50 times more likely to use cocaine than non-drinkers...Adults who drank as children are six times more likely to be regular cocaine users. While the rates for marijuana are higher (85x and 17x, respectively), there still is a correlation between alcohol use and harder drugs--in fact, 90% of children who use marijuana smoked or drank first.

[elucidator]

It certainly can be. But that evades the larger issues, which is that we live in a drug-soaked culture. Speed kills and alcohol positively massacres. Its anybody's guess as to how many prescription junkies we got walking around.

When white guys in suits get the money, that's a socially acceptable drug. Otherwise, its a scourge, etc.

[John Mace]

When white guys in suits get the money, that's a socially acceptable drug. Otherwise, its a scourge, etc.
Well, if any given drug is legalized you can be sure that the money will start flowing to white men in suits in short order. Not that I think that has anything to do with whether or not any given drug should be legalized, but I think you have your cause and effect backwards. We libertarian types tend to be quite, well, libertarian when it comes to drug laws.

[RickJay]

It has all the same properties? I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that show alcohol use leads to harder drugs.
Are you serious?

Why would you assume I was referring solely to the alleged "gateway drug" affect, or that alcohol isn't a gateway drug? Alcohol is the most destructive addictive drug in the history of the human race, far and away. Drunk driving accidents alone will kill more people this year than have died as a direct result of marijuana use in, in all likelihood, the entire history of the United States.

So let me ask some more straightforward question;s

1. Is your position that marijuana should be illegal, and alcohol should not be illegal, based solely on the "Gateway drug" allegation?

2. If I could provide you with studies showing alcohol is in fact a gateway drug, would you advocate it be made as illegal as you want marijuana to be?

3. Do you consider, in your position, the fact that alcohol is more destructive in other ways (e.g. its massive effect on traffic fatalities) than marijuana?

4. Do you use alcohol?

[RedFury]

So, too, with marijuana. I believe the overall costs to society from marijuana use are high enough that it is wise to forbid the use of the drug. Peer-reviewed studies also suggest that marijuana use leads to harder drugs (admittedly, these are not uncontroverted).

So -- not a moral issue, but a practical one.

99% of people that drink milk go on to try alcohol at one point or another in ther lives. I certainly fit into that particulat factoid.

Thus, obviously, we agree that milk and alcohol should be considered illegal and their comsumption penalized by -- at the very least -- lenghty incarceration alongside rapists and murderers.

And here I thought we'd never agree on anything!

BTW, ever try any Panama Red? Sure as heck gets rid of my Fury.

[Bricker]

Oh, c'mon [b]Bricker[b], you know better than that! Coincidence is not causation, you could replace "weed" with "Sesame Street" in that study and likely get very similar results.

1. The study says CAUSAL. That's why I offered it as a cite to show causation.
2. Show me a peer-reviewed study that shows a causal link between Sesame Street and hard drugs, then.

[RedFury]

Well, if any given drug is legalized you can be sure that the money will start flowing to white men in suits in short order. Not that I think that has anything to do with whether or not any given drug should be legalized, but I think you have your cause and effect backwards. We libertarian types tend to be quite, well, libertarian when it comes to drug laws.

John, I don't have time to go into this at lenght for the moment, but IMHO, you're being really, really naive in you rresponse to 'luc -- who has it exactly right.

The day they legalize pot is the day many a respectable white man in suits looses the lerger part of his income.

Nota Bene: I'm rather ambivalent as to how to handle hard drugs -- I've seen what they can do, alcohol included of course -- but pot? I can think of a bunch of people I know, on-line and off, that could only benefit from its consumption.

Can you -- or anyone else -- point out how marijuana is anything but benign as compared to alcohol? Pardon my saying so, but I think that's an impossible task. My own uptight sister and her two elder kids for starters.

Anyway, for the sake of the point I'm trying to make, agree with my above statement for a sec -- which if you do your research, I believe you'll have to -- and tell me who do you think stands to make the most profit by keeping it that way (illegal)?

[Bricker]

99% of people that drink milk go on to try alcohol at one point or another in ther lives. I certainly fit into that particulat factoid.

Thus, obviously, we agree that milk and alcohol should be considered illegal and their comsumption penalized by -- at the very least -- lenghty incarceration alongside rapists and murderers.

And here I thought we'd never agree on anything!

BTW, ever try any Panama Red? Sure as heck gets rid of my Fury.

The study says CAUSAL. You are offering a correlation.

[elucidator]

Nope. Never heard of it. Uh-uh. Nosiree, Bob.

[Bricker]

This suggests (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1554998&dopt=Abstract) alcohol and tobacco have more causal relationship than marijuana:Your study says but this implies that cannabis use leads to alcohol dependence, where the exact opposite is just as likely to be true. Cite (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11534749&dopt=Abstract):
And this cite (http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps9890/lps9890/www.casacolumbia.org/newsletter1457/newsletter_show.htm-doc_id=6995) states:While the rates for marijuana are higher (85x and 17x, respectively), there still is a correlation between alcohol use and harder drugs--in fact, 90% of children who use marijuana smoked or drank first.

It's unclear to me what your point is.

[RedFury]

...and no, its not because I'm high -- drugs laws here are draconian, even if this country is likely one (or THE one) biggest drug-running money laundering havens as long as you know the "right" people. Think "Midnight Express." I'm simply too old to chance it or bother.

Well, if any given drug is legalized you can be sure that the money will start flowing to white men in suits in short order. Not that I think that has anything to do with whether or not any given drug should be legalized, but I think you have your cause and effect backwards. We libertarian types tend to be quite, well, libertarian when it comes to drug laws.

John, I don't have time to go into this at lenght for the moment, but IMHO, you're being really, really naive in you rresponse to 'luc -- who has it exactly right.

The day they legalize pot is the day many a respectable white man in suits looses the lerger part of his income.

Nota Bene: I'm rather ambivalent as to how to handle hard drugs -- I've seen what they can do, alcohol included of course -- but pot? I can think of a bunch of people I know, on-line and off, that could only benefit from its consumption. My own uptight sister and her two elder kids for starters.

Can you -- or anyone else -- point out how marijuana is anything but benign as compared to alcohol? Pardon my saying so, but I think that's an impossible task.

Anyway, for the sake of the point I'm trying to make, agree with my above statement for a sec -- which if you do your research, I believe you'll have to -- and tell me who do you think stands to make the most profit by keeping it that way (illegal)?

[Bricker]

Anyway, for the sake of the point I'm trying to make, agree with my above statement for a sec -- which if you do your research, I believe you'll have to -- and tell me who do you think stands to make the most profit by keeping it that way (illegal)?

How is that relevant to the decision?

[Brainiac4]

It's unclear to me what your point is.
Seeing as how his post was in reponse to yours where you said:
It has all the same properties? I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that show alcohol use leads to harder drugs.
... I think he's showing that yes, there are indeed such studies, and that a case can be made for both alcohol and tobacco as "gateway drugs."

Looking at the three of them, I find alcohol to be the most dangerous in the short-term, as drunk driving is fatal and you can actually kill yourself by drinking enough. Tobacco has nasty long-term health effects and is highly addictive. Marijuana, on the other hand, is primarily a gateway drug to watching too much television and eating half a bag of chips.

[RedFury]

How is that relevant to the decision?

Might I suggest you read what I was answering to? IOW, try reading the thread prior to knocking a tooth or two prior to posting.

Answer: its a racket with little to no foundation, plain and simple. Think Prohibition and Al Capone. Just not as flashy.

:::::grumble, glumble. Would someone feed the hamsters, please. Had to hit the reply button five times prior to being able to counter:::::

Sure as heck makes nigh near impossible to carry on an online debate.

[RedFury]

See what I mean? This post was written prior to my last one and after trying to get it through numerous time I finally got a response that said something to the effect: " Your post is a duplicate of one posted within the past five minutes" :rolleyes:

Prior post, thankfully saved in Word:

The study says CAUSAL. You are offering a correlation.

The study is bullshit, period. Yes, I know, not a great rebuttal, but as the late, hardly lamented, Albedaran use to say: " My post is my cite." Then again (regrettably?) I like facts to back my opinion -- and experience -- as well:

Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts (http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/)

Give it a read. You might be surprised at how little you know about what you are so quick and cocksure to harshly condemn.

Hell, perhaps if you do (read it) you might not only allow for gay marriage, but for said couples to get a buzz on prior to watching a movie, listening to some tunes, or (gaaaps!) making love.


</end hijack>... but pardon me if I don't try to respond anymore tonight. This sucks.

[RedFury]

Brainiac4, thank you, yes, that was the most significant part of my post.

Not sure what's confusing Bricker so much 2night.

Bad batch or lack of munchies. ;)

:::hitting "reply" once...doesn't work, shrug, doesn't work:::

Nite all.

[Bryan Ekers]

I'd rather debate Bricker's dress sense.

I mean, white belt and shoes? Puh-leeze, darling, the seventies weren't current even when we were in them.

[Der Trihs]

The same thing goes for Iraq: if it were handled better, with true shock and awe and an overwhelming troop presense, it would have been worth it to lie to the American people about WMD. As it turned out it was a CF of the most massive proportions: the lie only compounded the gravity of the situation.

So the bottom line is: if you're gonna lie to get us into war, at least have the expertise to succeed :)Are you actually arguing that an unprovoked war, what amounts to an act of mass murder and terrorism ( "Shock and awe" as you say ) by America, would be moral if it had been a more successful mass murder/terrorist strike ? You are saying that if we had killed so many and terrorized the rest that they were too scared to defy us, that would make what we did good ?

[Ludovic]

Are you actually arguing that an unprovoked war, what amounts to an act of mass murder and terrorism ( "Shock and awe" as you say ) by America, would be moral if it had been a more successful mass murder/terrorist strike ? You are saying that if we had killed so many and terrorized the rest that they were too scared to defy us, that would make what we did good ?Are you arguing against the moral righteousness of war in general? If not, what cause would be better than toppling Saddam Hussein, if the peace could have been won as well? Note that more troops != more civilian deaths. You would have to show that the extra troops would cause more deaths than the death squads and general lawlessness, in addition to the better stability caused by being able to rebuild the infrastructure due to better security, a virtuous circle that could have restored Iraq's previous higher standard of living and given potential terrorists and insurgents less reason to join.

Which is not to say that 500,000 troops would have accomplished this, but they had much better chance than what we put it: i.e. deliberately not enough.

(I think this is dangerously close to a hijack since you appear to be arguing against war per se, which is naive in the extreme, rather than debating the question of whether it is moral to lie to get us into war.

[Der Trihs]

If not, what cause would be better than toppling Saddam Hussein, if the peace could have been won as well? Fighting someone who's an actual danger ? Nor do I see how replacing Saddam' reign of terror with an American one would be an improvement.

Note that more troops != more civilian deaths. Of course it does, you yourself talked about using "Shock and Awe" to get them to submit, which means even more death and destruction.

(I think this is dangerously close to a hijack since you appear to be arguing against war per se, which is naive in the extreme, rather than debating the question of whether it is moral to lie to get us into war.I'm arguing against unprovoked war. They did did not ask us to come and "save" them, nor were we protecting anyone else. It is most certainly not just to lie to get us into an unjust war.

[John Mace]

John, I don't have time to go into this at lenght for the moment, but IMHO, you're being really, really naive in you rresponse to 'luc -- who has it exactly right.

The day they legalize pot is the day many a respectable white man in suits looses the lerger part of his income.

Nota Bene: I'm rather ambivalent as to how to handle hard drugs -- I've seen what they can do, alcohol included of course -- but pot? I can think of a bunch of people I know, on-line and off, that could only benefit from its consumption.

Can you -- or anyone else -- point out how marijuana is anything but benign as compared to alcohol? Pardon my saying so, but I think that's an impossible task. My own uptight sister and her two elder kids for starters.

Anyway, for the sake of the point I'm trying to make, agree with my above statement for a sec -- which if you do your research, I believe you'll have to -- and tell me who do you think stands to make the most profit by keeping it that way (illegal)?
Are these people white guys in suits (ie, corporate stiffs)? Nope.
Would white guys in suits (ie, corporate stiffs) take over the biz if it were legal? Yep.

Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about... And in case it wasn't clear, I would have no problem if pot were made legal. In fact, I'm not in favor of making any drugs illegal.

[elucidator]

Far out, John. By the way, those brown barrels you sold me in '68? Bummer. Owsley, my ass.

[John Mace]

Far out, John. By the way, those brown barrels you sold me in '68? Bummer. Owsley, my ass.
Dave's not home!

[Hellestal]

This study seems to suggest it.The results of our co-twin control analyses indicated that early initiation of cannabis use was associated with significantly increased risks for other drug use and abuse/dependence and were consistent with early cannabis use having a causal role as a risk factor for other drug use and for any drug abuse or dependence. Individuals who used cannabis before age 17 years had a 2.3- to 3.9-fold increase in odds of other drug use and a 1.6- to 6.0-fold increase in odds of alcohol dependence and other drug abuse/dependence, relative to their co-twin who had not used cannabis by age 17 years, regardless of whether or not the pair were monozygotic. Here's what your article claims to establish:Conclusions: Associations between early cannabis use and later drug use and abuse/dependence cannot solely be explained by common predisposing genetic or shared environmental factors. The association may arise from the effects of the peer and social context within which cannabis is used and obtained. In particular, early access to and use of cannabis may reduce perceived barriers against the use of other illegal drugs and provide access to these drugs.Notice what they're saying: it could be peer and social factors that contribute to cannabis being a gateway drug to the hard dangerous stuff. What they did not control for, could not possibly control for, was whether the current legal status of marijuana (i.e., not) might have some effect on these social factors. In other words, the very fact of marijuana being illegal could quite possibly have the effect that you dislike.

There's also something else you really should establish if you want to press your current argument: whether the stepping-stone effect, the increased likelihood of marijuana users to try other drugs and become dependent, is greater than the effect from legal substances such as tobacco (nicotine, of course, being an incredibly addictive drug) and alcohol (which seems to cause many more deaths than marijuana).

Speaking of those deaths, yet another thing that we really need to know: whether this stepping stone effect, even if it really is worse, leads to dependencies and drug use that cause greater harm than the known harm caused by legal drugs.

Which leads me to my problem with this whole thing: Your apparent haste to tell other people what they shouldn't be doing is based on very little information.

I have no real dog in this fight. The idea of strange chemicals in my brain skeeves me out enough that I dislike taking over-the-counter allergy medication. There ain't no way that I'm smoking a cigarette, let alone a marijuana joint. But right now I'm not trying to tell people that what they're doing is wrong, wrong, wrong. Right now you, and the rest of the anti-pot people, don't have much going for you, and yet you still seem to insist that your way of telling other people what to do is the right way.

You asked in the other thread whether people could realize that your positions are held honestly, and to tell you the truth, I have real trouble believing that. It seems to me, you'd find out much much more about your position before you'd be willing to tell a large number of harmless people what they can and can't smoke if you were really being honest with yourself. This tendency isn't at all uncommon. It's probable that I'm not very honest with myself.

But right now, I'm not trying to tell others what to do.

[Ludovic]

Fighting someone who's an actual danger ? Nor do I see how replacing Saddam' reign of terror with an American one would be an improvement.It is true that there are several other places we could have better used our troops, but Saddam was in the top 10. Just because the repressed people can't speak for themselves does not mean they are not being repressed.

There was no moral reason not to go in. There is only ethical reasons, such as lying and as you have said the will of the Iraqi people was unknown and unknowable due to lack of free press. But I believe the polls taken right after the convention land war that said iraqis were glad to be rid of Saddam.

Of course it does, you yourself talked about using "Shock and Awe" to get them to submit, which means even more death and destruction.There's only one reason Saddam has been lauded by many on the loony fringe as a more sympathic leader than the American pResident: he didn't have to do as much repression due to the fear factor. Now, if we were to successfully instill fear into the insurgents and terrorists they would perform fewer acts of violence, necessitating fewer attacks that might kill civilians (not to mention fewer death squads, etc.)

However, by going in and showing our weakness (in a strictly military sense, not in the Hate Amerika Loony Right sense,) we have emboldened our enemies within Iraq to the point where it might be unwinnable.

I'm arguing against unprovoked war. They did did not ask us to come and "save" them, nor were we protecting anyone else. It is most certainly not just to lie to get us into an unjust war.How the hell could they ask us to save them? To get back to the OP a bit, other than the lying thing, would it have been morally correct for Roosevelt to proactively get into WW2? After all the German people did not ask us to "save" them :rolleyes:

We should have finished the job in Iraq '91 (Mideast leaders understand lose war = lose regime and leader's life) but now is better than never.

[MaxTheVool]

Bricker: Please respond to post 15 when you get a chance. Thanks.

[marshmallow]

Bricker:

I've never seen anyone convincingly argue why marijuana should be illegal while cigarettes and alcohol remain legal. If marijuana is too dangerous to be trusted in the hands of an American citizen then I weep for our future.

Of course, we all know it's because cigs and alcohol are ingrained in our culture and weed is associated with those dirty, traitorous, long haired hippies. At least, that's the impression I get talking with the fine people of my state.

Bricker, I think this may be the best argument you can put forward (but feel free to prove me wrong): Alcohol and cigs should be outlawed, but can't pragmatically due to the societal outrage that would occur if such legislation were to pass. It's better to bleed them to death with a thousand cuts. I wouldn't be surprised if cigs were de facto illegal or extremely unpopular in the next 50 years.

As for Iraq...well, there's been so many threads, so many cites, I don't understand what position you are advocating, especially with your comparison to WWII...but OK, let's go with it. Bush is today's FDR, recognizing the uh...grave and gathering threat of Iraq? Thus, lying to go to war is justified.

So what would've been the consequences of not invading? Iraq was secular, Iraq pulled vital resources from Afghanistan, Iraq was a paper tiger in a cage at best, Iraq just doesn't make any sense to me...I'm sure you've heard all of these before. But I've never heard an adequate response. What was the point of invading Iraq? If Bush is lying about WMDs for public acceptance, what was the noble motive? The desperation?

[MaxTheVool]

So what would've been the consequences of not invading?

At least part of Bricker's response is taht the consequences of not invading would have been getting nuked, given the information people honestly beileved to be true at the time the decision was made.

Which is not a prima facie ridiculous argument.

[RickJay]

Of course, we all know it's because cigs and alcohol are ingrained in our culture and weed is associated with those dirty, traitorous, long haired hippies. At least, that's the impression I get talking with the fine people of my state.
Actually, pot was originally banned in large part because of its connection with blacks. At the time there wasn't any such thing as a "hippie."

I am not for one instant suggesting Bricker is a racist; pot was banned before he was born. That's just the history of the law.

Last year, 16,885 Americans died in drunk driving accidents. That's actually low, historically speaking, but in recent years the number has stopped going down. The total number of Americans killed in drunk driving accidents to date is likely greater than the number of Americans who have been killed in all the wars the United States has ever fought. Now, mind you, I am not even getting into the lives destroyed by alcohol addiction that don't involve cars.

So why shouldn't alcohol be banned, Bricker?

[MaxTheVool]

Bump...

Bricker, please respond to my post #15 when you get a chance. Also, I think a bunch of people have asked you a tough but fair question about your views of marijuana vs. alcohol/tobacco, and have done so for the most part in a polite and non-piling-on fashion.... I'm honestly quite looking forward to your response.

[Bricker]

Assuming without deciding that alocohol and tobacco are generally as dangerous as marijuana, there is a simple reason to treat them differently: pragmatism. We have to. We have multi-billion dollar legal industries built up around alcohol and tobacco. It's not politically or practically feasible to criminalize them. We can avoid adding to the list of harmful substances which are legal much more easily than we can unrachet the legal status of tobacco and alcohol.


But it's more complicated than just whether someone's motives were pure. To quote you: "I agree that there comes a point at which incompetence becomes its own evil."


Yes. But I don't agree that we've reached that point.

I agree that it does not AUTOMATICALLY AND NECESSARILY "retroactively translate into an immoral war as a result". But I think it gives us insight into their character, which might retroactively influence how we judge their initial decision-making. We have, to a certain extent, only their word that they (a) honestly believed that Saddam had nukes, and (b) put in the due diligence verifying and corroborating that belief. (It may actually be the case that there's sufficient evidence that we could, simply based on the evidence, conclude that they were in fact either honest or dishonest in that claim. I'm assuming for the moment that evidence is insufficient, so it comes down to whether we trust them or not.) So, given that it comes down to an issue of trust, is their conduct post-invasion, and in particular their discussions of their decision-making, their consistency, their spin, their revisionism, their transparency, etc.; is all of that together something that makes us trust them more or less?


For me, the answer is: while I am troubled by the facts, I do not believe we've reached a point where I can conclude that the President deliberately, pre-meditatively, and repeatedly lied. The conduct post-invasion is attributable to surprise and lack of contingency planning, not malice or lying.

Or to put it another way, in the other thread, you've basically been saying "I vote for Republicans because their policies more closely align with my morals and ethics". Which is fine. But why does that make you trust them? Why does the fact that GWB agrees with you on X, Y and Z mean that you trust what he says about the starting of the Iraq war?


I'd trust Bill Clinton under the same circumstances. I don't trust Bush MORE on the Iraq war simply because he's pro-life and opposes raising the minimum wage.

Relatedly, it's hard for me to see any way to judge Bush and co. as moral which does not immediately force us to also judge them as massively incompetent. Either of which are traits that we do not want in elected officials.


"They screwed up" is not the same as "they're massively incompetent." The war went fine at first -- that is, with relatively minimal casualities, they drove into the capital city and forced the Iraqi President into hiding, toppling his government. The fact that things didn't go as planned in subsequent steps is a hit against competency; it's not "massive incompetence."

Also, might it not seem logical that whatever gateway effects marijuana has would be far less if it were legal?

"Far less?" No. Somewhat less, perhaps.

That is, if the same scruffy guy on the corner sells both pot and heroin, and if they're both things that are in the category of "forbidden things my mom, and THE MAN, don't want me to try", then if I like pot, I might try heroin; whereas if marijuana is just as acceptable as smoking, then I would have no particular reason to go from it to heroin?


I don't imagine that to be a significant factor.


And, while we're on the topic, when my cousin smokes pot, is that immoral of her? Is it something she should not do? Why? Does it (to use a fairly simplistic and vague definition of "good" vs. "evil") increase the total amount of ongoing human happiness and/or potential?

I argue that it's immoral in the same sense that running a stop sign is if there's no traffic: it's forbidden by law, and we, as part of the social contract, agree to be bound by and obey the law. We do not have the right to selectively obey only the laws with which we are in agreement.

The act is not intrinsically wrong. It's wrong because she has an obligation to obey the law.

[Voyager]

Please explain how incompetence becomes evil. Here is what I don't get. If the invasion were immoral, then it is immoral whether or not the occupation was done competently or incompently. The cost might be less if it was done competently, but you can't judge morality on cost.

Let's talk justification. Consider two cases. In one, the Decider is honestly uncertain whether an invasion is necessary. He incompetently does not collect all the facts, and makes an incorrect decision. Incompetence, yes, but is the invasion immoral?

In case two, the Decider has pre-decided to invade. He claims to be collecting all the facts, but structures the investigation to ignore or downplay those arguing against the invasion. Immoral? Maybe. Incompetent? Certainly not. I think the second case is much closer to the truth, given the plans for war long before the invasion. Exactly who the Decider is is unclear here.

Along the same lines, what is the morality of refusing to take the next step in investigating a potential problem. Hastert did not know of Foley's IMs, and he certainly does not support the solicitation of minors. Was his refusal to investigate further immoral or incompetent? I don't know - I think it depends on whether his inaction was to try to avoid a scandal damaging to the party or from a lack of curiousity - a lack prevalent in high Republican circles these days.

[MaxTheVool]

Assuming without deciding that alocohol and tobacco are generally as dangerous as marijuana, there is a simple reason to treat them differently: pragmatism. We have to. We have multi-billion dollar legal industries built up around alcohol and tobacco. It's not politically or practically feasible to criminalize them. We can avoid adding to the list of harmful substances which are legal much more easily than we can unrachet the legal status of tobacco and alcohol.

Certainly a consistent and logical position. BUT, isn't there a similarly pragmatic argument to be made about pot? Given that the damage it does is VERY small, so small that well-intentioned people can basically argue whether it exists at all (as compared to alcohol and tobacco), and given the enormous cost of enforcement, of public-health-issues relating to unregulated non-FDA-approved supply, the social cost of kids growing up without their parents who are in jail on drug charges, etc., doesn't it make sense to legalize? At the risk of sounding patronizing here, I honestly get the impression from your tone that you think pot should be illegal just because you think pot should be illegal, beacuse, hey, it's pot. And it's illegal. And daggumit, that's how Uncle Sam wants it.





For me, the answer is: while I am troubled by the facts, I do not believe we've reached a point where I can conclude that the President deliberately, pre-meditatively, and repeatedly lied. The conduct post-invasion is attributable to surprise and lack of contingency planning, not malice or lying.

Do you dismiss as alarmist and/or paranoid and/or blindly partisan those who do believe that the president more-or-less-deliberately lied? Or at least, didn't put in due diligence in finding out the truth once he saw the data he wanted to see?



"They screwed up" is not the same as "they're massively incompetent." The war went fine at first -- that is, with relatively minimal casualities, they drove into the capital city and forced the Iraqi President into hiding, toppling his government. The fact that things didn't go as planned in subsequent steps is a hit against competency; it's not "massive incompetence."

There's screwing up and there's screwing up. If you hire me to build a wall, and I say "well, this wall will withstand winds up to 30 miles an hour, but at 35 miles an hour it will start to bend and flex, and if those winds keep up long enough, eventually it will fall over", and then it starts to bend at 33 instead of 35 mph, but basically fails in a way that I designed and anticipated, well, you're not happy with me because I didn't build a strong enough wall. But at least I had some idea of what was going on, some description of potential failure states, etc. If, on the other hand, I say "I will build you a super awesome happy wall! It will take only a week! And come in under budget! Buy! Buy! Buy!" and then the wall keeps falling down and crushing kittens, and never seems to get finished, and takes 3 years longer than estimated...

It's not like Bush at the beginning said "we're going to topple Saddam. That will be easy. Then we'll have to work for a peace. It might be tough. We hope to be out within two years, but things could stretch out...", and we see that his worst case wasn't quite bad enough, but at least he had a worst case. So, either all the people planning the entire war (which includes not just an invasion but an occupation/withdrawal/whatever) were monumentally off in their estimates, or they didn't share their estimates with the president, or he didn't share them with us.



I argue that it's immoral in the same sense that running a stop sign is if there's no traffic: it's forbidden by law, and we, as part of the social contract, agree to be bound by and obey the law. We do not have the right to selectively obey only the laws with which we are in agreement.
Well, we kind of do. There are things more important than laws (see many parts of the civil rights movement). And some laws are more important than others. If there's a law that doesn't really have popular support (PARTICULARLY in the community in which you live), isn't really enforced, and which is clearly a victimless issue, the imperative dimishes until it becomes irrelevant. Now, obviously, this is a heck of a slippery slope, and it might make an interesting hijack.

[Blalron]

Assuming without deciding that alocohol and tobacco are generally as dangerous as marijuana, there is a simple reason to treat them differently: pragmatism. We have to. We have multi-billion dollar legal industries built up around alcohol and tobacco. It's not politically or practically feasible to criminalize them.

So your personal support for a particular drug is dependent upon how big of a lobbying arm they have.

Let's not forget that there's a firmly established multi billion dollar (albeit illegal) marijuana industry in this country. Pragmatically speaking, it seems we should recognize this and instead of losing billions on enforcement we could gain billions in tax revenue.

It seems you are willing to deal with marijuana "idealistically" but alcohol and tobacco pragmatically.

[Random]

So your personal support for a particular drug is dependent upon how big of a lobbying arm they have.




"Politics is the art of the possible."

[Bricker]

Certainly a consistent and logical position. BUT, isn't there a similarly pragmatic argument to be made about pot? Given that the damage it does is VERY small, so small that well-intentioned people can basically argue whether it exists at all (as compared to alcohol and tobacco), and given the enormous cost of enforcement, of public-health-issues relating to unregulated non-FDA-approved supply, the social cost of kids growing up without their parents who are in jail on drug charges, etc., doesn't it make sense to legalize? At the risk of sounding patronizing here, I honestly get the impression from your tone that you think pot should be illegal just because you think pot should be illegal, beacuse, hey, it's pot. And it's illegal. And daggumit, that's how Uncle Sam wants it.

Not at all. It should be illegal because it's harmful, and because that particular horse is still in the barn. The booze and tobacco horses are out; there's no use trying to shut the barn door on them.

Do you dismiss as alarmist and/or paranoid and/or blindly partisan those who do believe that the president more-or-less-deliberately lied? Or at least, didn't put in due diligence in finding out the truth once he saw the data he wanted to see?


Oh, not remotely! People who believe that Bush's team either lied or was grossly incompetent have a lot of solid argument on their side. It's a reasonable position to take. I just don't share it -- but I don't dismiss it out of hand.

It's not like Bush at the beginning said "we're going to topple Saddam. That will be easy. Then we'll have to work for a peace. It might be tough. We hope to be out within two years, but things could stretch out...", and we see that his worst case wasn't quite bad enough, but at least he had a worst case. So, either all the people planning the entire war (which includes not just an invasion but an occupation/withdrawal/whatever) were monumentally off in their estimates, or they didn't share their estimates with the president, or he didn't share them with us.


It is entirely plausible that he didn't share his worst-case estimates with the nation.

Well, we kind of do. There are things more important than laws (see many parts of the civil rights movement). And some laws are more important than others. If there's a law that doesn't really have popular support (PARTICULARLY in the community in which you live), isn't really enforced, and which is clearly a victimless issue, the imperative dimishes until it becomes irrelevant. Now, obviously, this is a heck of a slippery slope, and it might make an interesting hijack.

Then the thing to do is work to change it -- or engage in civil disobedience; flaunt your violation of the law and demand to be arrested. Choosing to ignore the law is a violation of the social contract. It's not generally the recommended choice.

[Bricker]

So your personal support for a particular drug is dependent upon how big of a lobbying arm they have.

Let's not forget that there's a firmly established multi billion dollar (albeit illegal) marijuana industry in this country. Pragmatically speaking, it seems we should recognize this and instead of losing billions on enforcement we could gain billions in tax revenue.

It seems you are willing to deal with marijuana "idealistically" but alcohol and tobacco pragmatically.

No - there is a clear distinction between pot and the other two -- there is considerable popular suppport for keeping pot criminal. That's a reasonable, pragmatic distinction.

[Voyager]

For me, the answer is: while I am troubled by the facts, I do not believe we've reached a point where I can conclude that the President deliberately, pre-meditatively, and repeatedly lied. The conduct post-invasion is attributable to surprise and lack of contingency planning, not malice or lying.

You are aware that the lack of contingency planning was deliberate, not an oversight, right? This is a Rumsfeld/Pentagon screwup, not a Bush screwup by the way - I don't expect him to be telling the generals how to go about planning. But the Pentagon deliberately ignored an existing State Department study on post-invasion contingencies. Similarly, Rumsfeld's refusal to supply an adequate number of troops for the occupation was a result of his ideological committment to doing more with less, which has continued past the point where any sane person thinks it is working. Refusing to face reality due to ideological blinders is one of the worst forms of incompetence in my book.

[Acsenray]

People who believe that Bush's team either lied or was grossly incompetent have a lot of solid argument on their side. It's a reasonable position to take. I just don't share it -- but I don't dismiss it out of hand.

I'm always impressed by your reasonableness and sound analysis. However, in this case, I'm troubled by this Yes, it seems like you've got very strong proof, but I'm still not quite sure I'm convinced stance. What quantum of evidence are you waiting for to push you over the line? What is holding you back?

What about if we talk about the Bush administration in terms of a "reckless disregard for the facts" standard? When you hold that up next to the Bush administration's actions, how does the analysis come out for you?

(In defamation law, reckless disregard for the truth is tantamount to proof of actual malice. If one were to conclude that the administration showed a reckless disregard for the facts with regard to its Iraq policy, do you think it fair to treat them as if they acted in bad faith?)

[Bricker]

I'm always impressed by your reasonableness and sound analysis. However, in this case, I'm troubled by this Yes, it seems like you've got very strong proof, but I'm still not quite sure I'm convinced stance. What quantum of evidence are you waiting for to push you over the line? What is holding you back?

What about if we talk about the Bush administration in terms of a "reckless disregard for the facts" standard? When you hold that up next to the Bush administration's actions, how does the analysis come out for you?

(In defamation law, reckless disregard for the truth is tantamount to proof of actual malice. If one were to conclude that the administration showed a reckless disregard for the facts with regard to its Iraq policy, do you think it fair to treat them as if they acted in bad faith?)

The problem is that we have to careful of imputing to the administration THEN then knowledge we have NOW. They had analysis teams -- some saying A, some saying B, some saying C. Deciding what weight to give those analyses was undoubtedly influenced to some degree by what they wanted to hear... but I don't believe it was recklessly done. That is, for every fact you can point out that they supposedly recklessly disregarded, I can point out why they were relying upon some alternate explanation. Before the war, there were not too many public voices that advanced the idea there simply were NO WMDs.

[Acsenray]

The problem is that we have to careful of imputing to the administration THEN then knowledge we have NOW. They had analysis teams -- some saying A, some saying B, some saying C.

By the nature of policy, political, and governmental operations, we are never going to have a smoking gun. The administration has worked hard to preserve plausible deniability and has used propaganda effectively to make sure it has cover, even from statements from the Democratic side. From a pragmatic point of view, we have to use inference and circumstantial evidence to decide whether the administration acted competently and good faith.

It seems to me that you are demanding a level of certainty that would prevent us from ever holding our government -- no matter who is in power -- accountable for acting in bad faith or incompetently. How can we survive if we give a tremendous degree of power to certain individuals to act in our name while at the same time grant them every single benefit of the slightest doubt when holding them to account? This is not a criminal trial -- beyond a reasonable doubt is not the appropriate standard of judgment.

That is, for every fact you can point out that they supposedly recklessly disregarded, I can point out why they were relying upon some alternate explanation.

And here is where democracy fails then, because every plausible explanation is given equal weight to the preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

Before the war, there were not too many public voices that advanced the idea there simply were NO WMDs.

This might be facially true, but it is fundamentally misleading.

First of all, part of the reason why that few public voices were saying that there were no WMDs was that (1) the administration's potential critics had only the adminstration itself as a source, and (2) for a variety of reasons, including many that were intentional on the part of the administration, the administration's critics were politically cowed to a position of fearing to take a stance too much in opposition to the administrations claims.

Furthermore, the question "Does Saddam possess WMDs that he could use against us?" was not the only question that a competent and sincere policymaker should have been asking at the time. There were many others, including --

1. What is the overall level of the threat presented by the Hussein regime?
2. What is the likely effectiveness of means other than military action to ameliorate this threat?
3. What is the likely effectiveness of military action -- both invasion and actions short of invasion -- to ameliorate this threat?
4. What are the likely side-effects of the use of military action on this threat, or other threats?
5. If invasion is the only effective option available, what are the minimum requirements for such an invation (troop levels, etc.)?
6. What are the non-military actions that will be necessary to support a political victory in the wake of the invasion (restoration of services, public order, etc.)?

Not only does the number of questions go on and on, but the subparts to these questions go on and on.

Can you say with a straight face that the evidence has not showed that the Bush administration did not take these questions seriously? That, indeed, the administration had not entered office in 2001 intending to depose Hussein at the first opportunity?

We know that there were people in the State Department and the Defense Department that took these questions seriously, and that Rumsfeld refused to even consider their analysis and planning at all (and then punished some for their impertinence), much less take it seriously?

[MaxTheVool]

Not at all. It should be illegal because it's harmful, and because that particular horse is still in the barn. The booze and tobacco horses are out; there's no use trying to shut the barn door on them.

Well, at this point, pot being in the barn is kind of like prostitution being in the barn. Making it illegal certainly doesn't stop people, even generally law-abiding upright citizens, from smoking it.

Another tack: Let's assume for the moment that pot and alcohol are equally harmful (when, in fact, alcohol is far MORE harmful). Now, we are outlawing people smoking pot privately in their own home. There just aren't that many things that, in this day and age, we tell people they can't do at private in their own home. (Not counting things like "commit wire fraud", which isn't really in private at home, as it involves communicating with people outside the home.) It's a pretty short list: child porn, manufacturing meth, owning an unlicensed machine gun, etc. Things have to meet a pretty de facto high standard of harmfulness before we should be willing to tell people they can't do them even at home in private. So, we, as a society, must think that the amount of damage that pot does is a VERY serious problem.

But if we do, then why are we complacent about booze just because it's a pre-existing industry? If there were a pre-existing child porn industry, would we just say "eh, whatever"? I don't see how pot can simultaneously be such an awful threatening scourge that we need to preemptively decrease freedom by telling people they can't smoke it, EVEN IN PRIVATE, and at the same time, say about tobacco and alcohol "eh, horse is out of the barn, whatever". Anything that is so threatening and awful that we should not allow people to do it in private should be something so awful that we are willing to fight it no matter what the preexisting circumstances are.


Am I making sense here?




Then the thing to do is work to change it -- or engage in civil disobedience; flaunt your violation of the law and demand to be arrested. Choosing to ignore the law is a violation of the social contract. It's not generally the recommended choice.
So, gay men engaging in consensual sodomy in privacy back when that was illegal should have instead been going out in the street, engaging in consensual sodomy, and demanding to be arrested? Yeah, THAT would have helped their cause.

Or, alternatively, I should either always obey the speed limit, or I should drive incredibly fast and demand to be arrested?