"To arrest people because they're doing something that *can* lead to something wrong is to assume that they *will* do that something wrong."
And considering we have plenty of data on what behaviors lead to dangerous consequences, that's a good assumption. I fail to see what exactly is the horror of the state prohibiting people from doing something that 9 out of 10 times leads to bad consequences. It's baffling considering I'm assuming you believe in the right to self defense. So, we can shoot people who we *think* might threaten our life or property if they, for example, break into our home but we cannot implement common sense regulations that would preclude people from engaging in behavior which exponentially increases the chance of somebody being harmed?
"As opposed to being punished if they don't kill you, in fact if they don't harm you at all?"
They were being reckless. There is no constitutional right to be reckless. Just because the guy going 100 mph in 25 mph zone doesn't always cause a massive traffic accident doesn't mean that he didn't put other people in danger.
"Again I ask, what kind of world is it where one is punished for doing something that correlates with something else wrong, even if the something itself is not wrong?"
A rational one with fewer people killed by violent and avoidable actions.
"Since we still don't have the numbers for reckless-driving-while-high citations, I can't comment on that either way. "
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199408253310807
This was the original study I found regarding the reckless driving citations. Granted it is old, but I somehow doubt pot smokers have become so much more careful since then.
"Ultimately, any free society is relying on people to be dissuaded on moral grounds from hurting other people."
But since they engage in reckless activity, obviously they don't think what they're doing increases the risk of hurting other people, so they do it anyway, and other people suffer as a result. And they cannot do anything to protect themselves and so we have to wait until everybody has a common sense of morality, which will never happen.
"One's dissuasion from destroying a life is not enforced by the hand and guns of the state. "
For many people, yes it is. Let it never be said that Marxists have rose colored glasses about human behavior.
"The person would then be on the hook after the fact for the price of their care. "
And if said person cannot pay after the fact, then what? Who bears that cost?
"The point is that there are solutions to the issue, they are perfectly valid, and though I can respect that you disagree with them, they are there."
Sure there are 'solutions', the question is whether you think it is more moral that society that gouge people with chronic conditions and make healthcare costs prohibitively expensive so that we ensure that the state doesn't tell anybody what to do. I certainly don't. Actually I think the whole scheme you're outlining here is morally repugnant. The whole point of citizenship is participation in a community, this means common rights *and common responsibilities*. Citizenship isn't totalitarianism.
"Tell a drug user that his habit is costing him thousands of dollars annually and that he could seriously improve his standard of living if he voluntarily eschewed his habit, and he may laugh it off nonetheless."
Or he can just steal the money to pay for this thousands of dollars habit. And since you already said legal disincentives aren't effective this gets him around the economic disincentives. Your argument seems to defeat itself. Also, do you know anybody who is seriously addicted to drugs? Responsibly managing money isn't exactly the first priority. Whereas spending time in jail without any access to their fix and without treatment for detox is a truly frightening experience. Anybody ever witnessed alcohol detox? There's a reason why you're told to hide any mirrors.
"What's dubious about that? Believe it or not, the majority of drug users, by a substantive margin, aren't addicts strewn out under an interstate overpass, or similarly ruined individuals. That is what I'm claiming, and I don't find it to be dubious."
You're presenting a false dichotomy. Drug users suffer ill effects regardless of whether they are far-gone addicts. You cannot say the same for people in loving relationships. You've presented no evidence whatsoever that romantic relationships result in the same rates of biophysical dependence and violent behavior that drug use does, let alone any evidence that love results in similar exposure to toxic chemicals that increase the likelihood of mental illness and various physical problems. You're the one making this kind of absurd comparison, so it's on you to justify it.
"Divorce rates are high because there are two people involved. Drug use only involves one person. Drugs can't "divorce" from the user, whereas one person may divorce the other."
Well first, it's really not very easy to just divorce somebody without the partner's consent. So the analogy still holds. Because why would the addict agree? We should see a lot more cases of people refusing to sign the divorce papers.
"it's clear evidence that the father was *not* in love with the mother, because a father truly in love with a mother would take care of the children they have together. "
That's nice moral indignation, but nonetheless sheer speculation on your part, and really a cop-out. There could be plenty of cases where a father was really in love with the mother, but a bitter divorce process in which the father felt the support mandates were too high refused to pay. If romantic love is so addicting, so dependency-creating, then how could people be in so many loveless relationships?
" I don't innately view it as a positive goal. I'm ambivalent toward drug use, opposed to violence whether done while on drugs or not, and so I'm not concerned with whether legal or economic incentives stop drug use. I am concerned with whether drug use affects others or not, and how to prevent it from doing so."
I don't see how this changes a thing. You just repeated yourself.
"The first principle of human interaction is to preserve individual self-ownership. All other principles must run secondary. Keeping society safe and healthy is good, but it should not involve compromising others' self-ownership."
This effort to isolate people from society is really a delusion. No person is an island. Your actions always have on an impact on other people, for good or for ill. Complete self-ownership is not possible. Communities have a right to defend themselves from individuals who put the overall community's health and safety at risk. If you reap the rewards of living in a community you must also bear its costs.
Gunboat SoW Sign Up
)
)
)
)