Jump to content

Elections in 2012


BainIhrno

Recommended Posts

That's why states keep pushing their primaries and caucuses earlier in the election cycle. In order to have more of an effect on the decision there has been a shift resulting in Iowa and New Hampshire moving up their dates and a decision by both parties on when the other states can have their primaries.

 

It's given us Super Tuesday where 7 states have primaries on the same day and that vote usually decides the front runner for the rest of the season. Arizona Republicans moved the state's primary earlier to benefit Sen. John McCain back when he was running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 370
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally Posted By: Actaeon
Speaking of Canada... any interesting and potentially less screwed up election build ups going on abroad?
Not really. After a whole bunch of elections in a row, the 2011 election resulted in a majority government, so it will probably be 4-5 years before another one is called.

It was a pretty crazy election, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only do only a few states get the overwhelming advantage, but it is also the smallest representation. Of the 540 electoral votes apportioned out to the states, the primary field has been decimated by the first three states which represent only 19 electoral votes; only 3.5% of the population.

 

I also like the idea of randomized primaries, but there is one wrinkle to be considered. Large states vs small states. I know there are a lot of opinions regarding the electoral college. This was another one of those great compromises during the writing of the Constitution. This feature of our system ensures that every state will have at three votes in the presidential race, regardless of population. While that may not seem much considering the 55 votes apportioned to California, but without this buffer, Vermont, Montana, both Dakotas, etc might have no representation at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
I know there are a lot of opinions regarding the electoral college. This was another one of those great compromises during the writing of the Constitution. This feature of our system ensures that every state will have at three votes in the presidential race, regardless of population. While that may not seem much considering the 55 votes apportioned to California, but without this buffer, Vermont, Montana, both Dakotas, etc might have no representation at all.
If the electoral college were to be abolished entirely and the presidents chosen simply based on the results of the popular vote, then a citizen in Vermont would have exactly as much say as a citizen in California.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I fail to see the point of an electoral college that, rather than actually buffering against an uniformed populous (which I gather was the intent), just skews things enough to deprive us of a sense of control.

 

I am under the impression that many of these issues stem from a time when the individual right of the states had a good deal more emphasis than it does today (that is to say, before the Civil War put an end to the notion that the states could be relatively autonomous).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Tyranicus
Originally Posted By: Harehunter
I know there are a lot of opinions regarding the electoral college. This was another one of those great compromises during the writing of the Constitution. This feature of our system ensures that every state will have at three votes in the presidential race, regardless of population. While that may not seem much considering the 55 votes apportioned to California, but without this buffer, Vermont, Montana, both Dakotas, etc might have no representation at all.
If the electoral college were to be abolished entirely and the presidents chosen simply based on the results of the popular vote, then a citizen in Vermont would have exactly as much say as a citizen in California.
Deja vue all over again. I seem to recall the exact point made by you before. Taking the memory further, it seems you (or someone) pointed out the elimination of the electoral college makes all gerrymandering pointless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not entirely. Districts would still be important for Congressional representation. But without the electoral college, representation in presidential elections would actually be more fair. As it is, a Wyoming voter has, in some sense, almost twice the weight of a Montana voter, as the two states both have three electors but 570,000 and 1000,000 citizens, respectively.

 

—Alorael, who thinks the greater benefit would be avoiding situations like the 2000 recounts in Florida. The popular vote is less likely to be so close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Landmark Indecision
—Alorael, who thinks the greater benefit would be avoiding situations like the 2000 recounts in Florida. The popular vote is less likely to be so close.


Tell that to the Iowans who voted for Santorum or Romney in the primaries. Margins of victory of less than 50 where >120,000 ballots were cast? That's a pretty close popular vote!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to make sure everyone knows, while Santorum and Romney were very close in Iowa, the actual delegate spread is 7-7-7 for Romney, Santorum, and Paul. People always seem to forget about him. Even Dantius ignored Paul in his list of GOP frontrunners, while including Herman Cain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Master1
Just to make sure everyone knows, while Santorum and Romney were very close in Iowa, the actual delegate spread is 7-7-7 for Romney, Santorum, and Paul. People always seem to forget about him. Even Dantius ignored Paul in his list of GOP frontrunners, while including Herman Cain.


Those were candidates who explicitly led in the polls at one point, and Paul can only manage a consistent third place on average (RCP average, to be precise, and Bachmann won that thingy. Straw poll).

Besides, it's not like Ron Paul isn't also crazy, so don't feel too left out. He just apparently isn't the unique brand of Republican-establishment crazy required to be a frontrunner! I hear he even disagrees with (*gasp*) Saint Reagan on some things!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that those delegate numbers are not set in stone. The way delegates are determined differ in each state (which is aggravating). Iowa recently had precinct caucuses. At precinct caucuses delegates are elected to the county conventions, and at the county conventions delegates are elected to the district conventions, and at the district conventions delegates are elected to the state convention, and at the state convention delegates are elected to the Republican National Convention, and at the Republican National Convention the delegates choose who the nominee is. So the delegates the state of Iowa sends to the convention may not actually reflect the popular vote at the precinct caucuses. Plus, as far as I know, the delegates can change their mind at any point in the process.

 

Edit: The Iowa Democratic Caucus is even more complicated than that.

Edit 2: Said Republican Iowa State Convention does not occur until June 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
And by denying Canada permission to build a pipeline to feed United States refineries, a prospect that not only would have reduced our dependence on oil from metastable countries that don't like us, it would have created a few thousand jobs involving a lot of unionized skilled workers.


There's a reason for that - the tar sands are abso-bloody-lutely
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Actaeon
Fair enough. Even so, the United States government (obviously milage varies where its citizens are concerned) does not tend to sanction, sponsor, or otherwise intervene in the politics of another country unless it is a direct threat or has a potential strategic or resource value.

Is it immoral that we look after our own well being first? No. But it's annoying when we use claims of stewardship to justify our military endeavors.

I would counter with Iraq. We invaded a sovereign nation without provocation. No threat. Of no more strategic or resource value than Saudi Arabia. Did I mention that the Saudis sponsor terrorism?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Yuna Corne
Originally Posted By: Harehunter
And by denying Canada permission to build a pipeline to feed United States refineries, a prospect that not only would have reduced our dependence on oil from metastable countries that don't like us, it would have created a few thousand jobs involving a lot of unionized skilled workers.


There's a reason for that - the tar sands are abso-bloody-lutely
.

Can we throw in the fact that the tar sands were to be refined in the US and then shipped elsewhere? Thus, no effect on dependence upon foreign energy sources.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Actaeon
But we're allied with the Saudis. We don't need to invade them to get their oil. And "of no more... resource value than Saudi Arabia" is like "of no more post count than Alorael".

So, are you saying that we agree that:
  • We are closely allied with a state sponsor of terrorism
  • We invaded a country that was no threat and for no benefit to US interests
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I agree with point one and the first half of point two. I DO think Iraq was beneficial to US interests, both strategically and in terms of resources. This is, I'll admit, a view espoused by a large percentage of liberals, plus Ron Paul. But hey, at least I'm not ranting about 9/11 being an inside job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Actaeon
... at least I'm not ranting about 9/11 being an inside job.

... and we all thank you. smile

As for Iraq's resources, I see oil as a zero-sum game. If Iraq's oil is going to a third party then the third party is not competing with the US for other sources of oil. Oil (both that currently produced and the potential world supply) is finite. We need to have an energy policy in the US. The President spoke of going after all possible energy sources last night. That's not as focused as I would like to hear, but it's tough to argue with. The devil is in the details.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit
As for Iraq's resources, I see oil as a zero-sum game. If Iraq's oil is going to a third party then the third party is not competing with the US for other sources of oil. Oil (both that currently produced and the potential world supply) is finite. We need to have an energy policy in the US. The President spoke of going after all possible energy sources last night. That's not as focused as I would like to hear, but it's tough to argue with. The devil is in the details.


I always hate when Iraq is framed in the lens of oil. If the "goal" of a nefarious Exxon-sponsored US shadow government invasion of Iraq was to get oil, then we have done a terrible job doing so- since we still haven't managed to get oil production back up to what it was in 2001 before we invaded.

No, I think we were dealing with some old-fashioned Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld megalomania- and when you look at the total lack of planning that went into the whole thing, that becomes more and more apparent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is the country to blame for drug violence in Mexico (as well as Central America, South America, and the Caribbean) - creating a situation where illegal drugs are highly profitable will always create drug runners, and that will always cause drug wars. We tried prohibition before, and it didn't work, whose to say it'll work this time? The answer is to create a viable, legal option to he drugs being sold on the black market, but let's face it - there's too much profit in suppression to make that happen any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forgot that Saddam Hussien tried to assassinate Bush's daddy. I guess the kid was still trying to get daddy's respect considering how much he screwed up in business. smile

 

Drove his oil company into bankruptcy.

Was investigated by SEC over accounting irregularities while on the board of directors of the company that bought his bankrupt company.

Governor of Texas that left his state with a massive debt problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dantius
I always hate when Iraq is framed in the lens of oil. If the "goal" of a nefarious Exxon-sponsored US shadow government invasion of Iraq was to get oil, then we have done a terrible job doing so- since we still haven't managed to get oil production back up to what it was in 2001 before we invaded.

No, I think we were dealing with some old-fashioned Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld megalomania- and when you look at the total lack of planning that went into the whole thing, that becomes more and more apparent.

Agreed 100%. I was just trying to ferret out what Actaeon was going on about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Yuna Corne
The US is the country to blame for drug violence in Mexico (as well as Central America, South America, and the Caribbean) - creating a situation where illegal drugs are highly profitable will always create drug runners, and that will always cause drug wars. We tried prohibition before, and it didn't work, whose to say it'll work this time? The answer is to create a viable, legal option to he drugs being sold on the black market, but let's face it - there's too much profit in suppression to make that happen any time soon.

We've gotten to the point where the US is 50/50 on legalization of marijuana (and even higher for medical uses.) Progress is slow, but sure. I'm intentionally ignoring the fact that Congress lags behind public opinion. I can't imagine that our Congress being rife with Corporatists has anything to do with it. Thanks for the link. It's both informative and amusing (in a dark way.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a reason I usually prefer to ask questions rather than making statements. My opinions are, while not precisely parroted, usually based on little better than a laypersons's understanding and assessment. I have my hand in too many pots, probably. (insert Anthropology joke here)

 

I state my perception in the hope that those better informed than me will correct and enhance it. In this case, I guess that I would rather believe that our government was deceptive than that it was petty and inept. The "megalomaniac" theory seems hard to swallow. And, if our leaders are really that inept, it's a bad sign for our long term trajectory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yipes, but this thread is busy!

 

Originally Posted By: Nutrient Paste Ochre
Not entirely. Districts would still be important for Congressional representation. But without the electoral college, representation in presidential elections would actually be more fair. As it is, a Wyoming voter has, in some sense, almost twice the weight of a Montana voter, as the two states both have three electors but 570,000 and 1000,000 citizens, respectively.

 

—Alorael, who thinks the greater benefit would be avoiding situations like the 2000 recounts in Florida. The popular vote is less likely to be so close.

The popular vote would be more ==equal==, but fairness is a matter of perspective; e.g. is it fair to the predominantly rural states with low population to be governed by states where the bulk of the population is urban?

 

Re the Canadian oil pipeline; Which is more filthy, oil being transported by underground pipeline, by truck, or by tanker ship? The oil is going to find a market somewhere.

 

And please remember, that the greatest bulk of petroleum products are *not* burned as fuel, but are used in the manufacture of plastics and pharmaceuticals. And does anyone have any idea how much capital is going to be required to replace and offline our currently aging, outdated, and increasingly unsafe and unclean refineries? Any idea where that money is going to come from?

 

Re Iraq; At the time G.W. decided to invade them, the U.S. was not the only country with bad intelligence as to its WMD capability or its ties to Al-Quaida. Saddam, IMHO, was hanging onto power by a thread, and could only maintain control by making a show of standing up to the big bully United States. All his bluster, and evasion to the U.N. investigation bought him was suspicion that he had WMDs. BTW, I've said it before, I doubted at the time that he had them, and that sanctioning him would have been more than effective. It had worked with Libya, I saw no reason it wouldn't have worked with Iraq. G.H.W.Bush made the wise decision that after liberating Kuwait, to not go the next step. Regime change is messy, costly and never appreciated anyway.

 

Originally Posted By: Dantius
I always hate when Iraq is framed in the lens of oil. If the "goal" of a nefarious Exxon-sponsored US shadow government invasion of Iraq was to get oil, then we have done a terrible job doing so- since we still haven't managed to get oil production back up to what it was in 2001 before we invaded.

 

No, I think we were dealing with some old-fashioned Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld megalomania- and when you look at the total lack of planning that went into the whole thing, that becomes more and more apparent.

 

As for the reason of invading Iraq for it's oil... If that were they case, when do we get back the $300 billion we spent of taxpayor revenue on rebuilding their country? As to your next poin, Dantius, I tend to agree.

 

Re oil exporting countries that do not like the U.S. You are so correct in pointing out that the muslim sect of Wahabism, which is the most antithetic to the U.S. is predominantly a Saudi cult. 8 of the 9 terrorists of 9/11 were Saudi. The U.S.S. Cole was attacked by Yemini terrorists. Yet for some reason I cannot fathom, no action in word or deed was taken against them. And not all countries that export oil to the U.S. are middle eastern. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has made it clear that he is no friend of the U.S. either.

 

As to the idea of the U.S. annexing Mexico...

Click to reveal.. (!Warning!Toxic sarcasm)
That would solve the illegal immigration problem. Then maybe we could build up their job market so they wouldn't have to cross into the U.S. for work. Unfortunately, I don't think the U.S. taxpayers can bear the burden, and the families and drug cartels that run that country would have to lose their grip on power. (Please be advised, this last remark is dripping with sarcasm.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
The popular vote would be more ==equal==, but fairness is a matter of perspective; e.g. is it fair to the predominantly rural states with low population to be governed by states where the bulk of the population is urban?


states don't have feelings, so how can one be unfair to a state? what's important is what's fair to the largest number of actual people
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is such a thing as the tyranny of the masses. A fully democratic society is entirely capable of precipitating terrible injustice on the 49% if it's sufficiently in their interests. With regards to the presidency, I don't think that would be a terrible risk. If you started putting everything to a popular vote, however, a series of minorities outside the classic range would quickly become apparent. For starters, I am reasonably confident that the majority on the other side of the 100th meridian would be far more friendly to extractive industry in the West than those of us who live here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want a conspiracy theory about business interests profiting from us invading Iraq, it's not the oil itself. It's the private security contracting and the rebuilding costs. Halliburton, etc.

 

I don't know enough to say for sure how beneficial it was to them, but I was under the impression that they made out like bandits. By kind of acting like bandits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Kelandon
If you want a conspiracy theory about business interests profiting from us invading Iraq, it's not the oil itself. It's the private security contracting and the rebuilding costs. Halliburton, etc.

I don't know enough to say for sure how beneficial it was to them, but I was under the impression that they made out like bandits. By kind of acting like bandits.


A doco called "Iraq for Sale" covers the Halliburton fraud fairly conclusively.

War is a for-profit action. Robert (McNamara) stated in an interview that the war in Vietnam was never meant to be won - only sustained.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one am glad Sadam was routed.

As for the war on drugs, it truly is folly. If the US truly wanted to stop drugs from being brought state side they would have gone with a simple break the market technique of selling drugs so cheap it would no longer be worth wile to import it.

For example 1Kg of heroin must be sold for 1 dollar (and 10 grams for 1 cent) or all piles will be confiscated with an automatic search warrant for the dealer's quarters for the search and patriotization of any illegal substance found (if for example they find a bloody knife they can't seize it or enter it into evidence for a murder trial) and a 5 year sentence. Any person not licensed to redistribute the drug caught with an X amount of drugs which today comes with the mark of "intent to sell" will be punishable.

Build distribution centers for the substances captured (distributed after the trial) so users would rather go to the government than to the dealers.

This will create a harmonic state where dealers constantly try to restart their business only to find out the government confiscated all their valuables and is now selling it dirt cheap. (Drug addicts will still have no rights for any claim for legal import as what they are doing is still viewed by the majority of the populace as wrong or immoral).

Of course they will never dream of doing anything remotely like this because many of the substances that are considered "illegal" are in fact used by medical companies in the manufacturing of "legal" drugs.

Sure this sounds harsh and might bring with it its own level of corruption but it will severely reduce the profitability of drugs and the number of drug plant growers.

 

Simple legalization will just cause the States to look like 18th century China (re opium wars). There has to be a clause making trade unprofitable which bypasses people's nack for corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't want low-population states ruled by high-population states? That's what state government is for. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The president is already elected by a population-based mechanism and always has been; it's just not a very good one.

 

—Alorael, who envisions some major problems with flooding the market with cheap drugs. One is the cigarette problem: if you make drugs cheap, people will buy them and use them. A wave of drug addictions and overdoses is not good. Another is the expense to the US of having to constantly import and sell, at a loss, drugs. As soon as it ends, the black market picks up again, now with all those new addicts as a market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our society is quite used to being told how to behave. I am not confident that, as a whole, we still have the ability to discern between what is right and what is legal. We're forced to weave intricate webs of legality just to keep people from suing everyone else for their own mistakes.

 

That's not to say there aren't some drugs that are overregulated or regulated imperfectly.

 

In a related note, could someone explain why deregulation of drugs and deregulation of firearms are on opposite ends of the political spectrum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Actaeon
We're forced to weave intricate webs of legality just to keep people from suing everyone else for their own mistakes.

But it still took the Supreme Court to rule a few days ago that the government couldn't fine companies for the accidental death of birds that happened during the normal course of business when it's the bird's fault. Citing that it would create a precedent to sue all owners of building's with windows and owners of cats since those caused the most bird deaths.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add in that legal purchase will only be allowed through registration that will be accompanied by a presentation trying to dissuade you from starting and if accepted will be accompanied by a social stigma akin to mental illness (but of course without the same legal premise that mental incapacity makes a person unaccountable for his actions) or an ex-con.

 

And again there will be no import outside of medicine, only the narcotices that will be seized from illegal distributors will be given out (which at the moment I believe is several megatons). Import will be illegal, if you decide to be an addict you should know there might be a time when your addiction will not be satisfied. Problem is what would you do with all the crack addicts aching for another fix to the point they are willing to kill for it when the stockpiles run out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Nutrient Paste Ochre
Don't want low-population states ruled by high-population states? That's what state government is for. That's what the House of Representatives is for.
I think you mean the Senate. By definition, the House gives more votes to states with higher populations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
We're forced to weave intricate webs of legality just to keep people from suing everyone else for their own mistakes.


I'm dubious on this point. A lot of the stories of frivolous personal injury lawsuits are either seriously exaggerated or entirely apocryphal. If you have actual statistical evidence that the current population of the US is more litigious than other countries, or time periods, I would be happy to see it. If not, I call BS on this claim.

Quote:
And again there will be no import outside of medicine, only the narcotices that will be seized from illegal distributors will be given out (which at the moment I believe is several megatons). Import will be illegal, if you decide to be an addict you should know there might be a time when your addiction will not be satisfied. Problem is what would you do with all the crack addicts aching for another fix to the point they are willing to kill for it when the stockpiles run out?


That doesn't address Alorael's point, or a variety of other related problems. Yes, in the long term it would destroy drug cartels, but in the short term it would vastly increase rates of drug abuse and addiction. Your plan regarding social stigma would fail: there already is a major social stigma surrounding drug use, especially hard drugs like heroin and meth, and yet many people use them.

My take on the subject is that there is no miracle cure for America's drug woes. We have many options, but none of them stand out as obviously superior in the way that various of their advocates say they are. I favor legalizing and regulating the majority of currently illicit drugs, and probably keeping the hardest drugs illegal but shifting focus from punitive to rehabilitative measures. This would have a negative impact in some ways, e.g. it would most likely lead to increased rates of drug abuse. But I think the issues of principle (people have a right to determine what they put in their bodies) and of pragmatic ethics (drugs would turn from a huge drain on the government to a revenue source, most cartels would go out of business, and there would be far fewer incarcerations of nonviolent drug offenders) make this the best solution.

Quote:
In a related note, could someone explain why deregulation of drugs and deregulation of firearms are on opposite ends of the political spectrum?


I think this comes down more to demographics and political history than to any strong reasons of principle. I will say that I don't think drug law divides up nearly as cleanly along left/right lines as gun law (or abortion, school prayer, etc.). A large portion of the left wing opposes loosening drug laws, while much of the more libertarian part of the right supports it. It's probably more popular on the left overall, but I'm not sure it's enough so to be a party line issue like the above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really concerned about the actual prevalence of litigation. What I'm responding to is the energy our society puts in to avoiding it. We ban tree climbing, remove merry go rounds from parks, label hot drinks as hot and require extensive waivers for the most mundane activities.

 

I don't believe I claimed we were any worse than other places or times. Unless those societies have chosen to completely deregulate drugs, they're irrelevant to my point (which is, to reiterate, that our society isn't ready to remove its training wheels).

 

 

Edit: Wow... my first edit severely screwed this up... see my comments later on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw on the tv recently, that they've stuck a trial "legal" heroin injecting room somewhere in Sydney. While the drug and it's sale remain illegal, the logic behind it was to decrease the rates of hospitalisations and deaths of overdoses, and used needles laying around the street. While it did work, they apparently found that the crime rate around that area fell a small, but noticeable amount during that trial period. Also, the amount of people using this room only a daily was quite shocking, being a bit over 200 people a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Erasmus
I for one am glad Sadam was routed.


Why?

Originally Posted By: Erasmus

As for the war on drugs, it truly is folly. If the US truly wanted to stop drugs from being brought state side they would have gone with a simple break the market technique of selling drugs so cheap it would no longer be worth wile to import it.
For example 1Kg of heroin must be sold for 1 dollar (and 10 grams for 1 cent) or all piles will be confiscated with an automatic search warrant for the dealer's quarters for the search and patriotization of any illegal substance found (if for example they find a bloody knife they can't seize it or enter it into evidence for a murder trial) and a 5 year sentence. Any person not licensed to redistribute the drug caught with an X amount of drugs which today comes with the mark of "intent to sell" will be punishable.
Build distribution centers for the substances captured (distributed after the trial) so users would rather go to the government than to the dealers.
This will create a harmonic state where dealers constantly try to restart their business only to find out the government confiscated all their valuables and is now selling it dirt cheap. (Drug addicts will still have no rights for any claim for legal import as what they are doing is still viewed by the majority of the populace as wrong or immoral).
Of course they will never dream of doing anything remotely like this because many of the substances that are considered "illegal" are in fact used by medical companies in the manufacturing of "legal" drugs.
Sure this sounds harsh and might bring with it its own level of corruption but it will severely reduce the profitability of drugs and the number of drug plant growers.

Simple legalization will just cause the States to look like 18th century China (re opium wars). There has to be a clause making trade unprofitable which bypasses people's nack for corruption.


The issue I have with your plan is that I think it is muddling the purpose of the War on Drugs (the explicit one, at least). I don't think there is anything wrong with getting imports from other countries; I don't think anyone, besides isolationists, think so either. The issue is that American society, and the government reigning over it, generally disapproves of drug usage in the first place. Your solution seems to go the opposite direction from that.

Legalization, taxation, and continued rehabilitation seems like the more logical option to me, rather than trying to shut down the foreign drug trade as a whole.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Actaeon: Gotcha. I thought you were taking that point in a different direction. In any case, to address the point you're actually making:

 

I'm not sure the 'training wheels' culture you describe is all that relevant to the drug war. People can pop all the wheelies they want with alcohol if they're 21+, and alcohol is overwhelmingly and objectively more dangerous than marijuana on a variety of levels (potential for OD, addictiveness, tendency to induce dangerous lapses in judgment). It's a harder call when comparing alcohol to the drugs that are between cannabis and the harder drugs, e.g. hallucinogens, MDMA and its analogues, and dissociatives like ketamine and nitrous oxide. They tend to have less potential for physical harm than alcohol, but more potential for psychological harm. While many of the stories about people doing crazy things under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs are apocryphal, one doesn't see many bad trips in people under the influence of alcohol, and hallucinogens can trigger latent schizophrenia and related mental illness. Still, I think it would be hard to argue that these drugs are objectively more dangerous than alcohol. It's not until one gets up to the level of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines that one can reasonably make such an argument.

 

None of this is in itself an argument for the legalization of these drugs: while hypocrisy is a moral failing, rooting it out is not a very good reason to change the law. That said, alcohol has been legal for nearly a century (and a long time before that) without the fabric of society coming apart, and I think that the same would happen with various 'soft' drugs that are currently illegal.

 

Quote:
Also, I wasn't aware gun control was even more political than drugs. Most of the gun owners I know are Democrats.

 

The point isn't whether people own guns: few advocates of gun control actually argue for banning private gun ownership outright. The issues relate more to things like mandatory waiting periods and trigger locks, assault weapon bans, and concealed weapon laws. To take the last as an example: the fact that a person owns a rifle and shotgun for hunting doesn't mean they necessarily approve of the idea of people carrying concealed handguns without a permit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had some problems with editing, so I'll respond to Kelandon here:

 

Originally Posted By: Kelandon
Originally Posted By: Actaeon
In a related note, could someone explain why deregulation of drugs and deregulation of firearms are on opposite ends of the political spectrum?

Because there's a difference between harming other people and harming yourself.

 

Point taken. I don't think drugs are entirely off the hook for harming others, though. Many drugs can result in agression or violence, while almost any drug inhibits your ability to pilot an automobile or care for a child.

 

Obviously our society isn't terribly concerned with that fact, as one of the leading substances in both cases is legal. I'm actually not entirely sure how we decide these things. I, for one, prefer potheads to alcoholics (though I am neither).

 

In an unrelated note... are firearms really that political most places? Most of the gun owners I know are democrats.

 

Edit: Okay, so SOMEONE saw the old edit. I'm terribly confused and am going to just leave things alone before I make them worse.

 

However, to respond: I don't think society would go all to hellI DO think we've come to rely on the government to tell us what is safe. If something is legal, many people will assume it is appropriate to use for that reason. Other drugs may not necessarily be worse than alcohol, but they each come with their own risks, and they're not mutual exclusive.

 

With respect to gun control? I didn't realize the right was arguing against concealed carry permits and trigger locks. That seems like common sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Actaeon
I don't think drugs are entirely off the hook for harming others, though. Many drugs can result in agression or violence, while almost any drug inhibits your ability to pilot an automobile or care for a child.

You're entirely right, of course. Second-hand smoke is an obvious enough example of drug use that harms others, and some people do use guns to shoot themselves, not others. This is why fairly left-leaning people who generally want to legalize drugs can still push for restricting the areas and contexts in which people use them, and fairly right-leaning people who generally want people to be able to have guns can approve of gun safety training.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
states don't have feelings, so how can one be unfair to a state? what's important is what's fair to the largest number of actual people
No, but the residents of those states do. Take the issue of water rights along the Colorado River. You have cities like Las Vegas ans Los Angeles, with huge appetites for water. Then you have all the farm land in the Imperial Valley, which is an equally thirsty region. The cities have far more people to out-vote the rural farmers, if all votes are equal. What is fair?
Originally Posted By: Nutrient Paste Ochre
Don't want low-population states ruled by high-population states? That's what state government is for. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The president is already elected by a population-based mechanism and always has been; it's just not a very good one.
You almost hit the mark. Again, Representatives are apportioned based on population, with the guarantee that every state would have at least one member in the House. Another compromise in the Constitution is that everry state gets two and only two Senators. The Senators from Nevada represent far fewer people than those from California, yet they get just as many votes as them.

Originally Posted By: Erasmus
I for one am glad Sadam was routed.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, but it was hellacioiusly expensive in dollars and blood.
Originally Posted By: Erasmus
As for the war on drugs, it truly is folly. If the US truly wanted to stop drugs from being brought state side they would have gone with a simple break the market technique of selling drugs so cheap it would no longer be worth wile to import it.
You almost sound like a Libertarian, there. I'll let the Constitution itself speak for me.
Originally Posted By: Nutrient Paste Ochre

—Alorael, who envisions some major problems with flooding the market with cheap drugs. One is the cigarette problem: if you make drugs cheap, people will buy them and use them. A wave of drug addictions and overdoses is not good. Another is the expense to the US of having to constantly import and sell, at a loss, drugs. As soon as it ends, the black market picks up again, now with all those new addicts as a market.
In this you make a good point. When prohibition was repealed, the Mafia found other black markets to exploit. And I see no reason why the U.S. government should get into the business of subsidizing reckless behavior. Not with my tax dollars, if I can help it.
Originally Posted By: Actaeon
I'm not really concerned about the actual prevalence of litigation. What I'm responding to is the energy our society puts in to avoiding it. We ban tree climbing, remove merry go rounds from parks, label hot drinks as hot and require extensive waivers for the most mundane activities.
I miss the days of freedom as well, when people learned that if you do dumb stuff, bad things may happen to you, and you had no one to blame but yourself. By contrast, you learned by watching others to avoid doing dumb stuff, and become successful in all your endeavors in life.

As to the Second Amendment to the Constitution, I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled on that already. But with all things of a contentious nature, I am sure it will have to be tried again.

I've already said my piece on the statistics of second hand smoke. Think Saccharine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
Take the issue of water rights along the Colorado River. You have cities like Las Vegas ans Los Angeles, with huge appetites for water. Then you have all the farm land in the Imperial Valley, which is an equally thirsty region. The cities have far more people to out-vote the rural farmers, if all votes are equal. What is fair?

That we stop encouraging the development of metropolises and doing irrigation-intensive farming in the middle of a desert? That we find ways to cut down on water usage from the river (water catchment, redesigning sewage systems, cutting back on the golf courses that are absolutely everywhere)? That we redo the water allotment so that it's based on average or low flow levels instead of exceptionally high flow levels so that states, cities, and landowners aren't constantly at each others' throats trying to claim water that doesn't exist? That we leave enough clean water in the river so that it flows into Mexico so that those citizens have access to water too? That we leave enough water in the river for functional ecosystems both for their own sake and because functioning ecosystems benefit us in hard to quantify but nevertheless real ways? That's the beginning of what fair is. But it doesn't really have a lot do to with voting.

Dikiyoba.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...