Was Prohibition a unjust law?

[nmgauss]

Yes. What gives you a right to tell me I can’t put something in my body? If it will harm me is totaly besides the point, I’m a consenting adult therefor I have a right to control what I ingest.

I own my body not the state.

If your indulging in narcotics or excess alcohol results in traffic accidents or psychological stress to your family or neighbors, then the state has a right to tell you not to do it.

Pregnant women on drugs or alcohol often give birth to sick or malformed babies. This is child abuse, and the state has the right to prosecute such mothers.

Narcotics use of one member of a family is harmful to the entire family. The same is true for excess alcohol consumption. If children get in trouble with the law, and parental alcoholism or narcotics addiction can be cited as the major cause, the children suffer and are frequently removed from the home by Child Protective Services.

 

[freeRadical]

Yes. What gives you a right to tell me I can’t put something in my body? If it will harm me is totaly besides the point, I’m a consenting adult therefor I have a right to control what I ingest.

I own my body not the state.

Do you agree that you should be responsible for paying for all medical care that may result from your drug use, including higher premiums if you have insurance?

 

[Brendan_64]

If I were lying in the gutter, convulsing from intoxication, I would be entirely responsible for this situation. If I were a leach sucking money from other people because it is there to be sucked (taxes), I would just keep on sucking it up. But if I were a responsible person (of which we are in short supply because of the welfare state), I would endure the temporary discomfort and resolve to never commit this kind of idiocy again.

You really think that if you were dying from an overdose you would say “Go away paramedics, I am not a leach, I will be a responsible citizen endure this discomfort as it is of my own making”.

And do you think that overdoses are merely temporary discomfort? Untreated overdoses tend to result in death, hardly a temporary discomfort, but I guess (if you did actually refuse treatment) you would be right in saying that you would never commit that kind of idiocy again.

 

[Brendan_64]

Do you agree that you should be responsible for paying for all medical care that may result from your drug use, including higher premiums if you have insurance?

And why stop at drug users? Obesity is the bigger threat to public health than drug use. Should a person’s premiums be directly proportional to their body mass index? Should all people be compelled by law to partake in a programme of regular physical exercise in order to be entitled to health care treatment? Should junk food be banned as a threat to health?

Illegal drugs, alcohol and tobacco are not the only things that people use that cause great damage to health. Ought we not take a consistent approach to all serious risks to health?

 

[Skadi]

Do you agree that you should be responsible for paying for all medical care that may result from your drug use, including higher premiums if you have insurance?

Certainly. I have no right to these people’s insurence, they are fully in the right to charge me based on my reletive risk. Insurence esentialy is a gamble, the bussines man gambles that in the long run I will pay more in than hey pays out in claims. So he has a right to charge me what he will, and I have a right to shop around for the best deal, incentivizing lower prices through competition.

 

[Skadi]

If your indulging in narcotics or excess alcohol results in traffic accidents or psychological stress to your family or neighbors, then the state has a right to tell you not to do it.

Pregnant women on drugs or alcohol often give birth to sick or malformed babies. This is child abuse, and the state has the right to prosecute such mothers.

Narcotics use of one member of a family is harmful to the entire family. The same is true for excess alcohol consumption. If children get in trouble with the law, and parental alcoholism or narcotics addiction can be cited as the major cause, the children suffer and are frequently removed from the home by Child Protective Services.

You are incorrect, if you hit someone while driving intoxicated then certainly you deserve punishment, though sense the state should not exist I would argue for a different method of going about punishment.

As for breaking up families, yes drug abuse does that, but hats none of he governments bussines. It’s the duty of he family to do something about it, not he government to ship the distinctional family member of to jail and ruin his life with a criminal record. Even though you obviously should love your family and value their oppinion the government can’t legislate that.

If something causing stress to your family and neighbors is grounds for it being illegal than basicly anything can be made illegal. Legality becomes based on mob rule, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the oppression of minority’s and alternative lifestyles.

 

[nmgauss]

You are incorrect, if you hit someone while driving intoxicated then certainly you deserve punishment, though sense the state should not exist I would argue for a different method of going about punishment.

As for breaking up families, yes drug abuse does that, but hats none of he governments bussines. It’s the duty of he family to do something about it, not he government to ship the distinctional family member of to jail and ruin his life with a criminal record. Even though you obviously should love your family and value their oppinion the government can’t legislate that.

If something causing stress to your family and neighbors is grounds for it being illegal than basicly anything can be made illegal. Legality becomes based on mob rule, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the oppression of minority’s and alternative lifestyles.

If you cause an accident, it cannot be undone. It is a fait accompli. Isn’t it better to opt for safety? If you drive recklessly, is that your privilege? Punishment after the fact will not undo the damage. Here are many cases showing the fallacy of “doing your own thing” without regard for others:

drphil.com/uncut/page/archive/

 

[freeRadical]

And why stop at drug users? Obesity is the bigger threat to public health than drug use. Should a person’s premiums be directly proportional to their body mass index? Should all people be compelled by law to partake in a programme of regular physical exercise in order to be entitled to health care treatment? Should junk food be banned as a threat to health?

Illegal drugs, alcohol and tobacco are not the only things that people use that cause great damage to health. Ought we not take a consistent approach to all serious risks to health?

Well, that’s the road we are going down in the US. One state has already banned sodas over a certain number of ounces. That’s what happens with nanny government. What till the State takes over healthcare. Did you know that under Obamacare, doctors are required to ask if you have a gun in the home? If you do, guess what? You pay a higher premium.

Your barking up the wrong tree with me. I believe that choices have consequences. If you choose to smoke, you should be responsible for the consequences of those actions, not the rest of society. If you choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle, then you should be responsible for the consequences of your actions, no one else. I should be responsible for my healthcare, no one else.

 

[Brendan_64]

doctors are required to ask if you have a gun in the home? If you do, guess what? You pay a higher premium.

But surely all this is merely assessing risk? If there is a gun in your house then it increases the risk of injury or death due to gunshot wound (intentional or accidental). It’s the same with any type of insurance policy, the more risk factors, the higher the premium.

 

[freeRadical]

But surely all this is merely assessing risk? If there is a gun in your house then it increases the risk of injury or death due to gunshot wound (intentional or accidental). It’s the same with any type of insurance policy, the more risk factors, the higher the premium.

I don’t get what you are arguing with me about. I stated that you should pay a higher premium if you engage in activities that are a risk to your health, and you should be responsible for your own healthcare.

 

[nmgauss]

I don’t get what you are arguing with me about. I stated that you should pay a higher premium if you engage in activities that are a risk to your health, and you should be responsible for your own healthcare.

How about activities that endanger public health? Second hand smoke has been identified as a health hazard. If you smoke only in your isolated home or car, there is no harm to others except for others in the enclosed space. Would you endanger the health and well-being of others in your home or car?

 

[Brendan_64]

I don’t get what you are arguing with me about. I stated that you should pay a higher premium if you engage in activities that are a risk to your health, and you should be responsible for your own healthcare.

Previously you criticised the fact that people who own guns would have to pay more for healthcare. Surely having a firearm in your home increases the risk of death or injury due to gunshot wounds? Therefore it would seem reasonable to have to pay more if you have a firearm in your home.

 

[nmgauss]

Previously you criticised the fact that people who own guns would have to pay more for healthcare. Surely having a firearm in your home increases the risk of death or injury due to gunshot wounds? Therefore it would seem reasonable to have to pay more if you have a firearm in your home.

How about pay more for liability insurance? How is it that increasing the probability of death or injury to others is their responsibility? Public safety trumps any right to have guns in a space occupied by others. Just look what happened to the Olympic athlete in South Africa. Because of his possession of a gun and fear based actions, his girlfriend is dead. Also, look what happened with the man who reflexively shot into a car full of young people because he thought he saw a gun pointing at him.

 

[freeRadical]

Previously you criticised the fact that people who own guns would have to pay more for healthcare. Surely having a firearm in your home increases the risk of death or injury due to gunshot wounds? Therefore it would seem reasonable to have to pay more if you have a firearm in your home.

I didn’t criticize that. We seem to have a misunderstanding going on here. I asked Skadi if he was okay with being responsible for the consequences of his drug use, including providing for his own healthcare, which might include higher premiums. You then asked me if we should extend that to all choices people make that influence their health, like unhealthy eating. I then replied that that is already happening in the US and it will get worse once the State fully takes over healthcare. When your healthcare is provided by the public, your health is public. Your choices affect others in that situation and more than likely there will come a point will you will have to routinely exercise or pay higher premiums.

Like I said, I believe that everyone should be responsible for the consequences of their own choices, including providing for their own healthcare. If insurance companies want to charge higher premiums for owning a gun that’s fine with me, they can do what they want. Doesn’t mean I’ll purchase insurance from them.

 

[Brendan_64]

I didn’t criticize that. We seem to have a misunderstanding going on here.

Fair enough, you have my apology.

 

[freeRadical]

How about activities that endanger public health? Second hand smoke has been identified as a health hazard. If you smoke only in your isolated home or car, there is no harm to others except for others in the enclosed space. Would you endanger the health and well-being of others in your home or car?

I don’t think healthcare should be provide by the public, or the government, to begin with. What I was saying was, if I smoke, I have higher health risks. Society should not be responsible for paying for my poor choices. Any medical costs that arise from my smoking should be borne by me and me alone. It’s morally outrageous to have others pay for people’s poor choices.

I wasn’t talking about endangering others, that’s a whole different discussion. I was saying that I should be responsible for my own choices, no one else.

 

[freeRadical]

Fair enough, you have my apology.

No apology needed. It was just a simple miscommunication.

 

[nmgauss]

Society should not be responsible for paying for my poor choices. Any medical costs that arise from my smoking should be borne by me and me alone. It’s morally outrageous to have others pay for people’s poor choices. I was saying that I should be responsible for my own choices, no one else.

I assume that if you decide to commit suicide out in the woods and let the animals have at your corpse, that should be your choice without having any taxpayer money spent. I agree with this. The same goes for sleeping overnight on the beach within the tidal zone and having you carried out to sea. Human derelicts sometimes sleep in gutters. Being run over and injured while intoxicated in the gutter should not have taxpayer money spent for hospital and doctor care. The same goes for purposely engaging in hazardous solitary activities such as back country skiing and rock climbing while depending on taxpayer funded search and rescue services to find you and take you to the hospital.

 

[Skadi]

If you cause an accident, it cannot be undone. It is a fait accompli. Isn’t it better to opt for safety? If you drive recklessly, is that your privilege? Punishment after the fact will not undo the damage. Here are many cases showing the fallacy of “doing your own thing” without regard for others:

drphil.com/uncut/page/archive/

The ends do not justify the means. The government uses the threat of force to collect taxes (just try not paying them) to pay for anything it does, including fund public police forces. If a community such as a town were to come together and all sign a contract creating a voluntarily formed government then they could agree to be taxed to pay for police, and choose to limit what they allow on their roads. But that’s not how our system works, none of us except immigrants have voluntarily submitted to he US government in contract, so its taking of taxes constitutes theft, no matter how noble the cause.

 

[christopher_r]

It was not a legitimate law in that it violated a basic human tradition of several thousands of years and actually encouraged its violation.
It actually came about due to pressure by one of the earliest feminist political groups, namely the Womans Christian Temperance Union, and anti-immigration anti-Catholic forces.
Early in the 20th Century, before WW I, a huge wave of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe came to the USA. The vast majority came from Poland and Italy and were about 70% Catholic and 30 % Jewish. This really upset the largely fundamentalis Protestant political majorities in the Midwest and South. Prohibition was sold to these people that since Catholic immigrants had a cultural affinity for alcohol (horror upon horrors, the Italians drand wine with their meals instead of milk! and the Poles drank hard spirits on a daily basis, and the Jews had religious meals on Friday evenings with wine) if there was no alcohol allowed in the US, they would not come and those already here would leave.
It sounds naive today, but it made a lot of sense to the inexperienced women voters of that time.