The US "drug war" as seen by an arch - conservative

[Hariti]

But what does this actually mean? Is gambling unjust? Should it be illegal because it can cause financial and psychological harm to people? Or would that contradict 'freedom of choice'?

The key to understanding my entire ideological worldview is the word "other." Causing harm to self is not the same as causing harm to other people, as far as I believe. Doing things that harm others, or that could harm others, without their explicit and informed consent is a no-go, but engaging in activities that endanger oneself is not, in my view, something anyone else has the right to impede.

if two or more people all consent to engage in a harmful activity like gambling, they aren't harming *other* people, now are they? They are harming themselves, or at least potentially doing so, because they enjoy the activity and think it's worth the risk. I say; let them be.

[Yei]

The key to understanding my entire ideological worldview is the word "other." Causing harm to self is not the same as causing harm to other people, as far as I believe. Doing things that harm others, or that could harm others, without their explicit and informed consent is a no-go, but engaging in activities that endanger oneself is not, in my view, something anyone else has the right to impede.

if two or more people all consent to engage in a harmful activity like gambling, they aren't harming *other* people, now are they? They are harming themselves, or at least potentially doing so, because they enjoy the activity and think it's worth the risk. I say; let them be.

Yes, gambling does actively harm people other than the participants! First, there are the fiends, family, and coworkers, the people who depend on gamblers. Children in particular are very vulnerable to parental gambling problems, as they are entirely dependent on parental supports for their lives and their futures. The financial stress caused by gambling losses can destroy friendships, break-up relationships, and ruin trust working agreements. I'd also like to point out that the people who go on to develop gambling problems probably don't start with a full awareness of the consequences, which may not be evident to them until too late. Is it fair to say that they 'chose' to do it, and accept the risk. I want to challenge the idea that an action can affect only oneself as an intrinsic property of the action itself. This is only really true when the action remains small and limited, and even then circumstances beyond personal control often decide that. Now, I'm obviously talking about something a bit more severe here than a round on the pokies, or a game of blackjack here or there. Just like an odd drink its not a problem when limited. However, there is nothing intrinsic about gambling or drinking that makes it a personal choice that won't affect others.

There is also a side to this that is often forgotten, and that's how our 'individual choices' affect industry and social practises. Your 'harmless gambling' goes to support an industry that normalises such behaviour, even advertises to vulnerable children, and is often linked to organised crime. The same can be said of drugs. Sure you'll say 'individual choice' but remember that profits from those drugs go to fuel gang violence in Mexico. US drugs are paid for with the blood of Mexico. Even with obesity this can be true. You might not have a problem with your weight or diet, but such lax attitudes can contribute to apathy over food health standards. In addition to setting a bad example, things like nutritional labels, sugar taxes and the like are opposed often on the basis of 'personal choice,' regardless of weather or not the recipients are in a position to exercise their choices or not. And apathy towards these problems allows them to continue, and it is easier for corporations to get away with no, or even misleading, nutritional information. How is that supposed to help people?

[Hariti]

How is that supposed to help people?

I think we stand at an impasse. I don't *disagree* with anything in your comment on a factual level, but I find your interpretation what to DO with that information to be inadvisable.

Yes, gaming can, sometimes, cause indirect harm to other people; so can driving a car, or listening to loud music, or playing baseball in your backyard with your kids. Where do you draw the line on how much risk is an acceptable amount that is justifies passing laws that restrict people's rights. Clearly, you draw that line WAY sooner than I do, if you think, for example, that a parent choosing to gamble is dangerous enough for their children that it should legislated against.

IF a parent neglects their child; if harm actually happens, rather than being a possible outcome of an action, then I support government intervention. However, preemptive prohibition of activities should be done only with great caution, and only for activities, like drunk driving, where the risk is very high. Plenty of healthy, normal men and women gamble occasionally, without harming their families at all. I don't think it's guaranteed, or even likely, to cause harm; the chance exists, but it's low enough that it's not worth throwing people's rights and freedoms out the window. 

[Yei]

I think we stand at an impasse. I don't *disagree* with anything in your comment on a factual level, but I find your interpretation what to DO with that information to be inadvisable.

Yes, gaming can, sometimes, cause indirect harm to other people; so can driving a car, or listening to loud music, or playing baseball in your backyard with your kids. Where do you draw the line on how much risk is an acceptable amount that is justifies passing laws that restrict people's rights. Clearly, you draw that line WAY sooner than I do, if you think, for example, that a parent choosing to gamble is dangerous enough for their children that it should legislated against.

IF a parent neglects their child; if harm actually happens, rather than being a possible outcome of an action, then I support government intervention. However, preemptive prohibition of activities should be done only with great caution, and only for activities, like drunk driving, where the risk is very high. Plenty of healthy, normal men and women gamble occasionally, without harming their families at all. I don't think it's guaranteed, or even likely, to cause harm; the chance exists, but it's low enough that it's not worth throwing people's rights and freedoms out the window.

Indeed, we are stuck. So interesting that two people can come to the same conclusion from very different starting position. And I can assure you that I find your method to be as problematic as you find mine.
And I should also point out that you are mistaken about my beliefs. I have not actually voiced support for more restrictive regulations than yourself. My argument was almost entirely about process; or how we conceive of, understand, and justify our positions on issues such as regulation.  Take the gambling example. Note that I did not suggest or advocate restriction. The difference is how we each differently interpret the consequences of certain actions.

[Hariti]

I should also point out that you are mistaken about my beliefs. I have not actually voiced support for more restrictive regulations than yourself. My argument was almost entirely about process; or how we conceive of, understand, and justify our positions on issues such as regulation.

Mea culpa. I was assuming things that you hadn't overtly stated. I apologize.

[Yei]

Mea culpa. I was assuming things that you hadn't overtly stated. I apologize.

Don't worry about it. We were only looking at negative effects of things such as gambling and drinking, not the positives which I also associate with them. Thus, it is hard to get an accurate understanding of how I actually feel about them.

[SunflowerP]

For the record, I don't have any problem with gay marriage (or 'marriage' as it should be known).

  If you don't have any problem with it, why do you advocate putting quote marks around marriage?

Sunflower

[SunflowerP]

No. I didn't mean to suggest that obesity is always a choice; oftentimes, it is the result of factors quite outside of one's control.

However, it *can* be a choice, an in such a case, an obese person should not be penalized by the government. I personally happen to be obese, and I consider that a choice. I don't have any major health issues, and I've lost weight a few times in the past, but I find eating healthy to be a chore and don't bother with it. It's not genetics, or lack of access to good food, or any other social or biological factor. It's what I eat, how much I eat, and how little exercise I do, that makes me obese.

I don't need, or want, the government taking away my right to live this way.

Okay, that makes more sense in context. Thanks!

Sunflower

[Yei]

If you don't have any problem with it, why do you advocate putting quote marks around marriage?

Sunflower

For emphasis. In this case to emphasise how weird it is that pretty much everyone calls marriage between gay people gay marriage, as though it is somehow different from marriage. The quotation marks were not part of the avocation, just emphasising what I as advocating.

[Darkhawk]

The quotation marks were not part of the avocation, just emphasising what I as advocating.

Since quotation marks are not actually used for emphasis, this was rather confusing.  Especially since that usage of quotation marks is commonly meant to suggest that whatever's in the quotemarks is a fake.

ETA:  I can see the syntactical thing you were trying to do there now you point it out, just.  It was confusing! :}

[SunflowerP]

Since quotation marks are not actually used for emphasis, this was rather confusing.  Especially since that usage of quotation marks is commonly meant to suggest that whatever's in the quotemarks is a fake.

ETA:  I can see the syntactical thing you were trying to do there now you point it out, just.  It was confusing! :}

It's not even an incorrect use of quotation marks, just one that's become less common as scare quotes/distancing quotes have become predominant. (Not emphasis per se, but used when speaking of a word rather than just using it, such as in the sentence, 'Many jurisdictions have changed the legal definition of "marriage" to include same-sex couples.') Because of that shift in predominant usage, more standard indicators of emphasis such as putting it in *asterisks* or italics would have been clearer, but not necessarily more correct.

I didn't spot it either, even though now that I know, it passes my Inner Copyeditor standards. Thanks for the clarification, Yei!

Sunflower