The proper role and scope of government

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Frankly I was expecting a whole lot better ...

I'm not sure why. You keep telling me you don't understand anything I'm saying anyway, how do you know I didn't actually meet your expectations?

It's a simple analogy.

Raw milk = tobacco = high fructose corn syrup.

All three are potentially dangerous, but all three have certain desirable benefits to the people who choose to use them.

I think all three should be legal, with people taking personal responsibility for using them. You think one of them should be banned, but the other two are somehow okay.

Does that make sense?

[Lamplighter]

whatever...

Peace.

[Ibby]

Clod, why not add cocaine or heroin to that list? What about toxic wormwood absinthe (as opposed to less-toxic proper absinthe)? What about toys made with lead (even labeled)? (maybe you think we SHOULD legalize and regulate those, fine - surely there's SOMETHING you think we shouldn't offer)

I think it's fair to say that everyone draws a line between safety and freedom somewhere. There are, to the vast majority of people, some things whose benefits outweigh their risks, and some whose risks outweigh the benefits. Where raw milk falls on the continuum and where the line should be drawn on the continuum are two separate issues, and there's no reason to expect consensus on EITHER point. It's quite possible that Lamp thinks raw milk is more dangerous than you do, or otherwise not worth the risks over pasteurized milk, and that tobacco or hfcs aren't. I'm not sure it's fair to equate the three out-of-hand.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

...toxic wormwood absinthe....

Really, where can you buy that in the US?

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Really, where can you buy that in the US?

You (quite rightly, I think) can't, but they do still make it some places in eastern europe.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

You (quite rightly, I think) can't, but they do still make it some places in eastern europe.

With all do respect, I could give a shit about anything that happens outside of the our economy unless it involves my fellow troops.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Ibram

It's quite possible that Lamp thinks raw milk is more dangerous than you do, or otherwise not worth the risks over pasteurized milk, and that tobacco or hfcs aren't. I'm not sure it's fair to equate the three out-of-hand.

HFCS I'll give you, it's harder for some people to see and acknowledge long-term health effects. But it would be impossible to look at the number of people sickened by contaminated raw milk, compared to the number of people killed each day by tobacco use, and conclude that raw milk is more dangerous.

Originally Posted by Ibram

why not add cocaine or heroin to that list? What about toxic wormwood absinthe (as opposed to less-toxic proper absinthe)? What about toys made with lead (even labeled)? (maybe you think we SHOULD legalize and regulate those, fine - surely there's SOMETHING you think we shouldn't offer)

I'd be fine with legalizing cocaine and heroin, within the same regulated framework as all other medicines. Many countries have done fine with it. And like Zen said, if there's a demand for wormwood-absinthe, I'm fine with people buying it, as long as it is properly labeled, and those with the certified non-toxic label are held to an agreed-on standard of nontoxicity. There isn't a demand for toys made with lead, but if there were, then sure, label that shit up and down and let people buy it. You can go to any sporting goods store today and buy large quantities of lead in the form of fishing lures, and you can take your kid fishing with them.

The problem is when people lie about the contents of their products, not when they sell a legitimate product to the people who are informed of the contents and want to buy them anyway. And when people use products to directly harm or otherwise infringe on the rights of others, in which case the full extent of the law should be used against them. Regulation is key, but no, at the moment I can't think of a product that should be banned on its face.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I'd be fine with legalizing cocaine and heroin, within the same regulated framework as all other medicines.

I'm not sure I understand what that means. Really, the only medicine available for recreational use is dextromethorphan and it's not all that fun. How would recreational cocaine and heroin be regulated? would you have to get a prescription? who would write you one? would it be OTC? in that case, aside from ensuring purity of content and responsibility of outcomes, are there ANY practical "regulated framework" to regulate it?

edited to add: more concisely: explain how you think "I" as a potential cocaine customer should legally go about purchasing it.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

You can go to any sporting goods store today and buy large quantities of lead in the form of fishing lures, and you can take your kid fishing with them.

Or you can give your kid lead weights to use to bring his pinewood derby car up to weight and also incorporate as ornamental rocket engines.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Ibram

it's not all that fun.

I don't personally think heroin or cocaine would be that much fun, either. Whether it's fun isn't the point, and I'm not suggesting that it should all be available for recreational use, or over the counter.

I'm thinking about, for example, the Netherlands policy of heroin-assisted treatment, wherein a doctor (who is regulated) is allowed to prescribe (again, a series of regulations) forms of heroin for patients who for whatever reason are unable to tolerate similar medications such as morphine.

As another example, take radioactive substances--one might argue that there is no possible use for the layman to have with these substances that doesn't also endanger those around him, so they should be banned. Except, again, doctors use them to great effect in cancer treatment, among other things.

As I said, regulation is key. The level of danger indicates the level of regulation required, but banning things outright, especially things that arguably have important benefits that may or may not outweigh the risks (as raw milk does,) is a foolish policy.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I don't personally think heroin or cocaine would be that much fun, either. Whether it's fun isn't the point, and I'm not suggesting that it should all be available for recreational use, or over the counter.

I'm thinking about, for example, the Netherlands policy of heroin-assisted treatment, wherein a doctor (who is regulated) is allowed to prescribe (again, a series of regulations) forms of heroin for patients who for whatever reason are unable to tolerate similar medications such as morphine.

As another example, take radioactive substances--one might argue that there is no possible use for the layman to have with these substances that doesn't also endanger those around him, so they should be banned. Except, again, doctors use them to great effect in cancer treatment, among other things.

As I said, regulation is key. The level of danger indicates the level of regulation required, but banning things outright, especially things that arguably have important benefits that may or may not outweigh the risks (as raw milk does,) is a foolish policy.

So then maybe (doubtfully, but this is a logical/theoretical argument) Lamp thinks that raw milk should only be available is a doctor thinks you need raw milk because it's the only way you can take calcium because youre allergic to everything else with calcium in it. Maybe he thinks the benefits of being raw are so far outweighed by the risks that it should be very-nearly banned outright, like heroin would be under laws that allow heroin-assisted treatment. I would just about call that the same as being banned.

I'm personally all for raw milk. I think if you drink raw milk that you can't personally individually convince yourself is safe from squirt to sip, you're an idiot, but I think that if you want it that bad, sure, go for it - and both the distributor and the consumers should be held accountable if that milk is responsible for an outbreak of illness. I'm just saying that I can understand the argument that the public safety risks of access to raw milk might, to some people, outweigh any benefits of being raw.

[infinite monkey]

I say bring back DDT.

I'm serious.

Just don't spray it all over the kids.

[glatt]

Kids were fine with DDT, it was the bald eagles who had a hard time with it. Made their egg shells fragile, if you'll recall.

[infinite monkey]

Yabbut, less eagles = less insidious infesting fuckers like bedbugs.

I don't know about your communities but they're spreading like wildfire around here.

Legislators ignore the problem because they don't really hurt anyone, don't spread disease, etc. They might make you go off the deep end trying to get rid of them, though. So mental hospitals will benefit from more patients. It's WIN-WIN. (really, what isn't?)

(I wasn't directing anything at you, Lamp, so I hope I haven't offended you?)

[glatt]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Yabbut, less eagles = less insidious infesting fuckers like bedbugs.

I'd be willing to bring DDT back if it was only sold to licensed pros and had some fairly strict requirements to use. It's the fogging of entire swamps and backyards that caused the problems.