Prohibition

Gary L

Simple question really. Is there a general presumption in Irish society that the majority can dictate rules on individual behaviour based soley on moral judgement, with no rational basis regarding the public welfare? I'm thinking of cannabis prohibition in particular.

I considered posting this in legal discussion but I'm more interested in examining the underlying presumptions of the concept of prohibition.
Secondly, is it fair to say that the principal of self ownership suffers in a predominantly christian state?

Joe1919

Your question is not simple but I will put forward some open ended points.

1 As far as I know, the way our country is constituted, the majority (of voters or Dail deputies) can dictate rules, directly or indirectly, by Referendum or the Dail or the constitution as necessary. I am thinking here of various historical events, such as the contraceptive bill, Divorce Laws, Abortion Laws, EEC treaties etc.where there was a majority vote at some stage.

2 Moral judgements/ rational basis. Who judges? The voters when they vote. The TDs when they draft laws. The judiciary when they interpret the law. Are laws compatible with human rights/European codes etc? More judges and politician in Europe there to decide.

3 Irish Constitution. Note our commitment to 'seeking to promote the common good,'
Preamble (full text)
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

4. I don't think the record of Christian states is any worst than non-Christian states, such as China, middle-east, Communist countries under Stalin etc.

However, these are quick replies and I may be wrong.

raah!

Gary L wrote: »

Simple question really. Is there a general presumption in Irish society that the majority can dictate rules on individual behaviour based soley on moral judgement, with no rational basis regarding the public welfare? I'm thinking of cannabis prohibition in particular.

I think things like prohibition do normally purport to be for the improvement of the general welfare of the people. It is a general presumption in any society with laws that the majority or else just the state, dictate what is allowed in terms of the behaviour of other people.

I considered posting this in legal discussion but I'm more interested in examining the underlying presumptions of the concept of prohibition.
Secondly, is it fair to say that the principal of self ownership suffers in a predominantly christian state?

In my opinion, the concept of self ownership suffers in any state other than one which is libertarian, or an anarchist state. Or something like that.

What exactly do you mean by 'the principle of self ownership'?

Gary L

raah! wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by 'the principle of self ownership'?

Basically that society can dictate to an individual only in so far as it relates to other individuals. What you do to your own body is your business if it doesn't somehow spin out and harm others. It's a concept that seems conspicuously lacking.

Specifically regarding cannabis , I cant identify a rational objective basis for prohibition so my mind has drifted to thoughts of irrational moral policing based on the christian value system.

Joe1919

Things need to be looked at from different sides. To look at things objectively, you must take the subject (which is yourself) out of the equation. So forget about yourself (as you are the subject). Now. do you think the world would be a better place if cannabis was legal? Think about it not in terms of yourself because that would be subjective and I presume you are looking for an objective answer. Hence you must look at others.

If you can honestly say that you would have no problems with say your parents smoking cannabis or say your partner or your children smoking cannabis, then I will respect your opinion. This is just a thought.

Gary L

Thank you for the refresher course on objectivity, it was charmingly pedantic.
There have been many studies that indicate that the damage to society and the individual resulting from cannabis use is significantly less than from alcohol and tobacco. Objectively speaking, a much more compelling case could be made for alcohol prohibition, though this would also be and has been a mistake.

Also, considering the vast amount of money channeled into the criminal underground as a result of cannabis prohibition, the large number of otherwise law abiding citizens that are criminalized as a result, and the plants notable benefits for stress relief, I do believe legalization would to some extent make the world a better place.

To get back on topic, I'd like to hear your own opinion on the idea that society can impose restrictions on individual behaviour, even when it is purely private and cant be shown to harm others. This particular ban seems to me to have as much rational clout as a ban on masturbation.

Joe1919

Gary L wrote: »

..... ban on masturbation.

This has been tried long before Christianity. Doesn't work anymore I think.....

Prohibition is (imo) as much about 'might' as it is about 'right'. i.e. There is no point in trying to prohibit something if it cant be prohibited. The US tried to ban strong alcohol in the past but it eventually failed. The same situation seems to be likely to occour with drugs.

There are pragmatic and rational arguments for and against the banning of drugs, head shops etc. There are also philosophical arguments on both sides e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
There is a case, for example, for allowing the sale of cannabis etc. and perhaps putting a heavy tax like with cigarettes. But the Irish government/people may be cautious about doing this and I suspect may not want to risk this unless the US, England and other European countries do the same. (e.g. It may bring in the wrong type of tourist, etc.).

Anyhow, my point is, I cannot tell the future and I cannot argue one way or the other for definate. But there are rational arguments on both sides and so I do not think that this is an irrational debate.

PS Stanford have a good article below.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-limits/index.html

looksee

Gary L wrote: »

There have been many studies that indicate that the damage to society and the individual resulting from cannabis use is significantly less than from alcohol and tobacco. Objectively speaking, a much more compelling case could be made for alcohol prohibition, though this would also be and has been a mistake.

Also, considering the vast amount of money channeled into the criminal underground as a result of cannabis prohibition, the large number of otherwise law abiding citizens that are criminalized as a result, and the plants notable benefits for stress relief, I do believe legalization would to some extent make the world a better place.

To get back on topic, I'd like to hear your own opinion on the idea that society can impose restrictions on individual behaviour, even when it is purely private and cant be shown to harm others. This particular ban seems to me to have as much rational clout as a ban on masturbation.

Alcohol and tobacco are firmly established in society and it would be impractical to just try and ban them, though tobacco has been pushed well into the sidelines.

It is not true to say that cannabis does not harm others. When it is smoked in the presence of children - and it is - the children get high. If it were legal it would be pretty well impossible to stop this situation becoming even more common.

It would also make it much more likely for people to come into school, college or the workplace high, at least if it is illegal they have to be a bit discreet about it. How do you sort out, say, drivers who have been smoking cannabis from those who just - legally - have it in their car?

I personally don't much care what people do to themselves, but I do care about children, colleagues and other road users who would have to cope with the side-effects.

AnonymousPrime

Gary L wrote: »

Simple question really. Is there a general presumption in Irish society that the majority can dictate rules on individual behaviour based soley on moral judgement, with no rational basis regarding the public welfare? I'm thinking of cannabis prohibition in particular.

I considered posting this in legal discussion but I'm more interested in examining the underlying presumptions of the concept of prohibition.
Secondly, is it fair to say that the principal of self ownership suffers in a predominantly christian state?

My 2 cents on the matter. I'll keep is short as I am new here.

Question 1: Firstly I would remove the word "Irish" from the question. It is a global thing.
The philosophy of others regarding this matter is based on a fear of the unknown and how it affects THEM, (e.g. heroin addicts robbing their TV). I suppose with an ignorance of the known facts and a lack of long term data showing the effects on a society I think the majority are justified in enforcing their views on the country

Question 2: Of course it does, as catholicism (not christianity) does not practice self ownership: you do what you're told bitch!

Gary L wrote: »

Objectively speaking, a much more compelling case could be made for alcohol prohibition, though this would also be and has been a mistake.

Also, for a reasonable, manageable debate I think we must exclude tobacco and alcohol (and coffee and chocolate and masturbation). These practices are too embedded in society for us to decide whether they are right or wrong alongside a relatively new substance

Goduznt Xzst

Gary L wrote: »

To get back on topic, I'd like to hear your own opinion on the idea that society can impose restrictions on individual behaviour, even when it is purely private and cant be shown to harm others. This particular ban seems to me to have as much rational clout as a ban on masturbation.

As this seems to be the crux of your argument. Let me ask you this.

Hentai (Anime porn) depicting adults having sex with babies, minors and children (i.e. lolicon... etc). Should it be made legal everywhere? No children where actually harmed or used in the process of making this porn as it's an animation.

Should forms of child pornography be allowed everywhere if no children are used to make it?

looksee

Just digressing for a moment onto the subject of self-ownership.

True self-ownership would surely mean that the state has no responsibilities towards you, no health care, education grants, unemployment benefit, pension. No obligation to educate you, keep you safe in the streets, make jobs and food available to you.

It would be survival of the fittest. However if you could stay alive you would be free to take any drugs you wish, who is going to stop you? And presumably while you were out cold, someone would rob you!

If you want to live in a safe society that offers you some protection and support, you have to concede some self-ownership. Maybe it is not a perfect system, but you have a better chance of staying alive, healthy and free to get in a pizza and a few cans when you fancy them.

There has to be some self-ownership, but in choosing how you lead your life you have to accept the concept and limitations of the 'greater good' in order for society to function for everyone.

AnonymousPrime

looksee wrote: »

Just digressing for a moment onto the subject of self-ownership.

True self-ownership.....

interesting....

That is a fair point actually. We do owe society as a whole something. How far do you go though.
For instance if society can guarantee 100% safety and a long life, would society be justified in taking all of our freedoms from us, to the point of incarceration?

looksee

AnonymousPrime wrote: »

interesting....

That is a fair point actually. We do owe society as a whole something. How far do you go though.
For instance if society can guarantee 100% safety and a long life, would society be justified in taking all of our freedoms from us, to the point of incarceration?

But society cannot guarantee that 100% safety and long life - and I am not sure that most people would want it to - and it does not take our freedom, we offer it.

raah!

People are born into a society with rules and laws, they have no choice in the matter. It's not realistic for a person to say that they want to live outside of society or a government. The land upon which they are born is apparently the property of the society founded there.

In what sense does anyone offer anything, when they are born automatically into a set of freedom restricting laws?

AnonymousPrime

looksee wrote: »

But society cannot guarantee that 100% safety and long life - and I am not sure that most people would want it to - and it does not take our freedom, we offer it.

I would disagree with you that a majority people would not take a guarantee of safety. For instance, I drive a motorcycle, and the vast majority of people I know disapprove, either silently or otherwise.

Yes we offer freedom. I suppose the ideal (and unrealistic) circumstance would be if we could choose the amount of freedom we offer.
Take the legal highs which are being taken off the shelves. I resent that that freedom is being taken from me, even though I have never set foot in a head shop. Given the choice I would not trade that freedom for the potential of being in contact with dangerous substances and people under the influence.

And as for the guarantee of safety, I am commenting on the sliding scale of sacrifice.
In order to make an informed decision on anything in this vein, it is beneficial to understand both extreme ends of the spectrum, be they a reality or not. The extreme I posed has no definite answer, so I asked the question.