Public Domain vs. Private Descision
 

In another thread, an interesting issue came up. Perhaps a gathering of opinion is in order here.
Please list the major issues of todays society, that you think should fall under government control. And if you are so inclined, also those that should be left to individual choice.

My take:

Public Domain-
Affirmative action/civil liberty
Gun control
Public Safety/ Law enforcement
Narcotics


Private Descision-
Abortion
marriage
Marijuana/Alcohol
Prostitution


I fully expect to edit my list, adding and changing as other opinions come to light, Thanx.

Public Domain
cigarette use (as it affects others)

Private Domain
all other uses of nicotine, sodomy (as defined by the UCMJ), miscegenation, homosexuality

When you put "marriage" into the Private column, is that in reference to gay marriage, or do you wish to see all government benefits (such as tax credits/benefits and so forth) ended? I agree with the former, disagree with the latter.

Former

tecoyah: I find it interesting that you place narcotics in the public domain but seem to think differently about alcohol and weed. As I'm sure you know, very many people (especially on tfp) feel this way.

I was wondering if you could explain the rationale behind it? Why does the status of drug use as public or private vary according to the severity or strength of the drug?

edit: sorry if i'm de-railing, feel free to kill / ignore this post if the idea of this thread was not to debate. i refrain from answering the main thread question only because i'm unclear how i feel about several of these issues.

In my opinion, the use of mild drugs are not detrimental to society. Wheras the more "mind altering" substances can lead to violence, and degradation of societal norms.
There need to be limits imposed by the ruling body, when dealing with a whole population, and the many differences it entails. To be honest, I think Alcohol is more in need of legal boundaries then marijuana, as it induces far more violence than many Illegal drugs.
As for the boundary....it would require much research, and moral understanding to create a system that would work. I firmly believe the primary reason most drugs are illegal, is an inability of Government to change the ethical guidelines , considered Taboo by the religious lobby.
Take a good look at ritalin, and then tell me the Government is Anti-Drug, they are only anti poor people drugs.Many of the Perscrirtion drugs we have availible, actually mimic the effects of the illegal counterparts.
Ok...end of rant.

In short.....Drugs will be used, that is reality.
Some drugs kill, or in other ways destroy life.
Some drugs do not.

There are Deadly Legal Drugs.
There are virtually harmless illegal drugs.
This makes little sense to me.

I would disagree with you about prostitution because of the huge health and safety risks involved, both with the spread of disease and possible abuse of the sex workers themselves.



Yes, but these prescriptions are given only when they are medically needed, and they have medical purposes that their illegal counterparts lack.

I suppose a great portion of the legalization debate revolves around this; whether in fact some illegal drugs are actually harmless. That issue could occupy dozens of threads on its own, so I guess we can leave it alone for now.

With the abortion issue, it similarly revolves around whether the fetus is a "life", since if it is, that automatically brings it into the public realm since more than one's own life is involved.

Maybe because alcohol and weed are not narcotics? Maybe because a single dose of alcohol or marijuna can be fatal, where narcotics could easily be overdosed on in a single serving? Or even over several servings?

You can't smoke yourself to death. It's just not possible to get that much in you. No one has ever died from it. Ever.

You can't reasonably consume enough alcohol in one place to kill yourself. This does not happen.

If you have a handful of pills, or some other narcotic, you may very easily perish by taking even a little more than you're supposed to.

You can, especially with higher-potency alcohols.

LD50 of drinking alcohol: 2 - 7 g / kg
So, for a < 100 kg person: 200 - 700 g
That's 500 g - 1.75 g of 80-proof liquor
At 1 g/ml, that's 0.5 -> 1.75 L of 80-proof liquor
Basically, drink a large bottle of vodka, and you are getting close to the LD50 of liquor.

After further contemplation,....pros and cons tip the scale in your direction. Pay attention people.....he changed my mind.

Government regulation/public domain:

Actions that bring harm to others
Proper punishment for those who bring harm to others


Private decision

Everything else, including the right to choose what to do with one's body (drugs, abortion, prostitution,) the right to own anything that others may want to regulate, including controversial media (definition of obscenity,) weapons (within reason, I'm not advocating private nuke ownership.)

I would argue that there is a certain utility in government-backed safety regulations on things.

What kind of things? Many kinds.

The idea is, you don't want to have to worry about the safety of your telephone, toilet, life jacket, boat, toaster, or chewing gum.

You could argue that the market can take care of it, but the "market" is just a means of distributing the workload: individual people are responsible for checking the safety of products, which causes market forces to generate the "ideal" amount of safety.

I don't want to have to research if a particular brand of chewing gum is toxic. It isn't something I'm interested in becoming an expert in. Others possibly are.

By pushing that regulation up to the government level, competition can occur in areas outside of "does it kill you" or other safety factors. Does it taste good? Is it cheap? Do I like the packaging? Can I get it convieniently?

I don't want to have to rely on brands to determine if something is safe, or do reasearch on every single purchase I make.

The same arguement, in a less personal way, can be applied to things like prostitution. Regulating it for the purposes of safety (of both the workers and the clients) has some appeal.

I would argue that the current ineffective ban on it is more harmful than it being regulated and legal.