How do you respond to the “Let people enjoy things” argument?

Great Debates
21

I think blanket concepts like this are the reason the OP is asking the question. Is someone in California who’s smoking a doob doing anything illegal? No, cannabis is legal in California. Is it immoral? Probably depends on your definition of immoral.

To me, I draw the line at basically whether it’s causing harm or disruption to anyone else. Smoking weed is only problematic in my mind if it is contributing to the illegal drug trade and all the issues involved with that, or it’s somehow grown/processed in a way that makes it unusually unsafe. If it’s legally grown in the US and processed/distributed legally and safely in states where it’s legal, then I’m 100% ok with it. Why wouldn’t I be? It’s no different at that point than legally distilled alcohol. And FWIW, I’m against moonshining for the same reasons. Same for porn too; I’m against the exploitative parts of it, but if everyone involved is consenting, not coerced, etc. and it’s just a fun way to make a buck, then why not? That isn’t harming anyone. Ditto for gambling. If someone goes to Shreveport and has a weekend in one of the casinos there, good for them if they enjoy it- it’s legal in Louisiana, and as long as they’re not hurting their family or doing anything that’s causing anyone harm, then go for it.

Most of the other things people rail against are very much a situation where they’ve been raised to believe that there is ONE straight and narrow path that is “right”, and everything else is wrong. They’re not so much against say… drag queens because they have some kind of carefully considered, well-reasoned position against them, but rather because in their minds, men dressing as women upends the “right” way of the world, and as a result, must be corrected, or at least decried. Same goes for gay people, trans people, swingers, and a whole host of others who aren’t doing anything that’s morally wrong, just that goes against a certain set of people’s concepts of how the world should be.

Finally, there’s the set of people who are against anything because it could be a problem for others, or because it’s a problem for a small number of people. I’m reminded of elementary school teachers who would often forbid the whole class from something because one or two kids couldn’t handle it. It’s that sort of thinking writ large. These folks tend to have the idea that because some small percentage of drinkers become alcoholics, or gamblers become problematic. They also usually believe that it’s necessarily a slippery slope or inevitable, so it must be banned. Lots of your anti-alcohol people fall into this category. They tend to believe that everyone will inevitably increase their consumption and become alcoholics, so they want to ban it so nobody does. Never mind the vastly more massive numbers of responsible and not-quite-so-responsible drinkers who still don’t become problem drinkers or alcoholics. Most of your “gateway drug” people fall into this category- I’ve met several people who basically have the idea that weed on its own isn’t problematic, but it’s a “gateway drug”, and people who smoke weed are going to inexorably move on to cocaine and heroin, so it must be banned. I think more likely it’s a gateway into the drug dealers who can supply you with cocaine and heroin, but there’s nothing about weed that leads to the other drugs beyond that. Which is a stupid reason to ban it.

22

These inherently bad things cost society a LOT of monies. Broken families, maiming car accidents, broken children repeating the patterns, abuse of spouse and children, families being unhoused, etc, would all rise in numbers.

It is better and more effective, to protect women and children from addiction situations. Then trying to clean up the lives and messes the addicts create.

If you want to end spousal abuse, homeless families, and children scarred by exposure, who will end up also addicted, or worse. Throwing money at it won’t help, evidence shows.

Society made these laws in response to these horrid conditions for women and children. And they have largely worked to reduce these tragedies.

I for one, will always support these laws.

23

Porn is often illegal? Is that why I can see it for free on the internet? Care to re-consider this statement? (or are you going to narrow it way down to something obviously niche, like child porn or porn based on trafficking?)

What if the only persons they are really harming are themselves? It can be a difficult line to draw, and can be difficult for family members to deal with, but in my opinion and generally speaking, outsiders should butt out.

As for the OP, I feel perfectly justified in at least tentatively judging other people for their actions, and thinking that they are stupid or self-destructive or otherwise undesirable. These judgments, however, I keep to myself, and so are not part of social discourse. If my problems with another person’s behavior pass my ability to stand them, then I will dissociate to some degree. If they ask, I will tell them why, but I probably won’t volunteer the information. I think this is a workable way of going through the world.

24

But I can still enjoy taking the piss out of people who enjoy things I find stupid, childish, irritating or irrational… right?

25

If one wishes to be pedantic, yes, that person is doing something illegal.

Recreational cannabis has been decriminalized in about half of U.S. states, but it is still a Schedule I controlled substance at the federal level. Generally speaking, the Feds aren’t enforcing that law in states which have decriminalized it, but it’s still technically illegal (even for medical use) nationally.

26

If you want to be that person, feel free. Don’t expect me (or very many other people) to want to spend much time with you.

27

Pedantic, sure. But practically speaking, it’ll be local law enforcement who do the enforcement, and they take their orders from the city/county/state, not the federal government.

And on a national level, this “still illegal, but not being enforced” thing is essentially a best-of-both-worlds situation for all the states. The ones that choose to make it legal can have it, and the ones that don’t, can keep it that way, without the pressure that it would cause if it was legalized on a Federal level.

28

But is it worth that at the cost of reducing the vast majority of people’s freedoms?

I mean, this is the elementary school teacher problem writ large. Just because Timmy the spaz can’t handle having permanent markers without marking up his face, the other 25 kids in the class can’t have them either.

I’d argue that Timmy’s the one with the problem, not the other 25, and it’s not their problem nor burden to do without because Timmy can’t get his shit together.

Same thing for pot smoking, alcohol, gambling, and pretty much everything else like that, except where the negative effects are judged by society to outweigh the loss of freedom. And clearly because these arguments are frequent and heated, that’s not a solved problem yet.

29

AIUI, it creates quite a bit of difficulty for the businesses which grow and sell cannabis in those states, as it locks them out of a lot of financial systems and options which all other businesses can use.

30

Nonsense. I’m fucking charming.

FWIW, I think we’d get along.

31

Oh, no doubt. I was specifically talking about the states themselves and the Federal government, and their legal relationships to cannabis.

It’s not really ideal for anyone else for sure.

32

Have you ever seen families devasted by either parents drug addiction? The things addicts will do to get another fix? lie, cheat, steal, anything? I am not talking marijuana, how on earth that got listed up with with heroin, etc I can not fathom.

Yes, but is weed the only example? Heroin? Crack? Meth? Fentanyl? I will concede Marijuana, but not the rest.

In some areas, it is very difficult to buy a home that is not covered by a HOA.

I have stated that TikTok, having been proven to be harmful, should be banned. Blackout Challenge, Tide Pod, and more- Estimates have come up with a dozen deaths a year.

In CA and 23 other states- MJ is not longer illegal. And so far that is the only exception.

The debate point that “here is one drug that is not very harmful” doe snot excuse the dozens of deadly addictive drugs.

And I will state that smoking tobacco is something that should be illegal.

Good point.

Porn is restricted even in the USA, you do not see porn in the magazine racks at bookstores. And it is illegal in several nations. Yes, some types are illegal, also. But I did not say porn is always illegal, just like gambling it is restricted.

33

Never. If an HOA were to suddenly spring up in my neighborhood and everyone but me climbed aboard they could not compel me to join.

Not all HOAs are the same. Some of them don’t have the power to regulate the color of your door, whether you can park a work truck in your driveway, or what kind of flag you can fly.

34

Yes, but AFAIK, a HOA can change it’s rules, and it does not take a unanimous vote to do so. All they need is a majority of owners that bother to vote.

35

OP, what you’re really asking about are risky behaviors or habits, right? Like, why should “society” care if others are frequently engaging in risky behaviors that are often debated for possible legal intervention.

The answer is because risky behavior has externalities.

If you like to get shitfaced 3 or 4 days a week, maybe that’s something you can do for a while without it impacting anyone else. But if you get into a barfight, that’s a cost to society – the bar owner loses money, cops and emergency medical professionals may be involved, etc. If you lose your job, you may end up leaning financially on your network.

If they’re not causing external actors to incur costs, who are they harming? We can just step in once they cross over that light. Freedom!

At some point, though, letting people engage in risky behavior becomes prohibitively expensive, and we need to weigh the benefit of that behavior to the individual, the benefit of that behavior to the perception of freedom, the risk of using the government’s power (potential for abuse), the collective external costs of dealing with that behavior, etc.

Banning BASE jumping seems to make sense even though it takes away some individual freedom, because there’s a low number of individuals affected and the external costs of an incident are high (hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars).

Requiring drivers to have insurance seems to make sense because the benefits of a mobile society are strong, even though the external costs of incidences can be high.

Allowing marijuana sales seems to make sense because the external costs of marijuana abuse are low and the cost of enforcement is high.

Every category of risky behavior has its own pile of things to weigh. People saying “Let people enjoy things” can throw that argument on the pile, maybe it will tip the scales in rare cases, but it doesn’t seem to weigh much compared to other factors.

36

Or drunk driving, or spousal abuse.

Right, even smoking weed- and then driving- is risky, and has thus been banned.

37

Historically? Likely because, for much of the 20th century, it was seen by whites (and white lawmakers and law enforcement) as a drug that blacks and immigrants (and, later, hippies and counter-culture types) used.

38

I did not say i did not know- I have read the histories. But i can not fathom the reasonings- which were dead wrong.

39

I suspect the reasonings were “it’s a drug that’s used by scary people who don’t fit in with what we think proper Americans should be.” As you say, “dead wrong,” but by far not the only law which was targeted towards marginalized groups and minorities.

As for why those laws are still on the books (at the federal level, and in half the states), for a long time, any talk of decriminalizing or legalizing cannabis was seen as being “soft on drugs,” and not a winning political strategy in all but the most liberal of states and cities.

40

Very true.

The devil is in the details of the externalities and how damaging they are. To some, any risk or externalities are a no-go. To others, there’s a significant tolerance for them, because to them, freedom is more important than the impact of the externalities.

Is it more important to have the freedom to smoke tobacco/drink alcohol/smoke weed/etc… than to have restrictive laws to prohibit those things because some small number may incur externalities that are problematic?

Everyone comes to their own decisions on each, and in theory at least, the laws that are passed are supposed to reflect the aggregate feeling on each issue, maybe adjusted by actual statistical analysis and expert opinion.

I think the LPET argument is basically coming down on the default of “Unless the externalities are severe and provable, the default should be freedom.”