TheVat

Isn't most illegal activity around drug use a result of the drugs being illegal in the first place? If an addict can go to a safe and secure location to obtain pure, inspected drugs and hygienic delivery systems, without stigma, where will the crime come from? No need to mug someone for quick cash or fenceable goods, to buy your next fix from a dealer. No need for rival gangs to shoot each other over streetcorner turf. No cartels dumping bodies in the desert. Vast improvement, really, to legalize use and production (for clinical use, or in controlled facilities as described above).

Unenumerated rights don't exist because of SCOTUS decisions. They exist because the Constitution was amended to protect them, and that was ratified by 3/4 of the states, at minimum. Decisions clarify and make explicit what is already baked into the constitution. To articulate a right that is not articulated in the Constitution is sometimes the task of the Supreme Court. They are not creating rights, they are illuminating them. Or that was their assigned duty until recently.

Yes, I'm aware of the obstacles in having scientific expertise inform policy. Possibly every member of this forum is aware. (grin) I was expressing a wish, not suggesting that anti-scientism and post-truth memes will go away anytime soon. Regarding cellphone addiction, there does seem to be a growing consensus, insofar as the young folks are concerned, i.e. the cohort that averages nine hours a day on their smartphones. If we have a thread that more fits those problems, I can probably link some research (the documentary, "The Social Dilemma," is a good jumping-off point to get a sense of the problem). Suffice it to say that gigantic corporate forces of the social media variety are going to push back hard against the data showing cognitive and psychological problems arising from their coded-to-be-addictive algorithms. And, my guess is this particular addiction, where the tender and growing minds and personalities of teens are concerned, will make all of our legal and illegal drug cornucopia look like a tiny bowl of salty cashews by comparison. But I fear I'm taking this off on a tangent. Really, I'm just trying to find a broader perspective on the idea that nothing should be criminalized while much can be recognized as harmful and worthy of allocating therapeutic resources towards. But I'm still evolving on that one.

Hey, I'm still here! Maybe I'm not a Boltzmann brain. Man, I was really worried for a while there. No, wait, that's not quite right. I could still be a fresh Boltzmann brain and I only think that I've been around for a while due to bogus memories of having a prior existence that spans many years. All jesting aside, there's a related philosophic thought experiment called The Swampman, introduced by Donald Davidson in the eighties. From his book....

These findings seem almost self-evident. More contraception, either post hoc or prior hoc, means fewer babies born into situations of neglect and stress where developmental problems are more likely. We already know that women most at risk, due to poverty and educational deficits and gaps in the social safety net, are not getting the help they need for their children from government programs because those programs are dismissed and have funding pulled by the righteous conservatives who are also telling them they have to have that baby. (the exception are a sizeable group of Catholics, one of whom I'm married to, who actually walk their talk and work hard in their communities to promote pre-natal and post-natal help to mothers. It's sad to me that Catholic Social Services is getting out there and doing what we should all be doing through our elected representatives and our tax payments. Healthy and nurtured babies are in everyone's interest, whether or not they themselves have babies in their lives. If you cannot, for theological reasons, support abortion rights, then at least have the common decency to help support those resulting babies that find themselves in disadvantaged conditions, and maybe you won't be mugged at a bus stop in 2040.)

Dayum! Plus one! This thread generally seems to keep circling on evidence for various positives and negatives of drugs without delving into the philosophic issues enough, i.e. it's an ethics forum, and we should consider the bigger questions of personal freedom and autonomy where altering our consciousness and endorphins is concerned. FFS, any drug is potentially dangerous. The question is, as Peterkin homed in on, if we let paternalistic or "nanny" policies run our lives and mediate our personal seeking for what's good or bad for our little brains, biochemically or otherwise. Cellphones/social media might be, currently, the most harmful addiction on the planet, so we could just as well look at how they affect young people now and what laws should apply. We need experts, professionals in the cognitive sciences, not politicians, to address these addictions and help shed light on them.

Reading the OP, I have to ask if this is anything beyond an ontological word play which rules out pantheism and panpsychism. OK, god is confined to being god, so it can't be a goat or a 1964 Dodge Dart or a latent consciousness in water molecules. (Sure, god can don those guises as fun party costumes) It seems as if the assertion here is purely definitional, so there really isn't much to test or contest. God is a distinct being, somehow separate from goats and people and junk cars, which in a crude circular way just takes us back to western theism (or deism, if the god doesn't get up to much). The distilled version of my question is: so what? What are the theological consequences (or logical ones, for that matter) of this ontological stance of limited god-ness? I hope I've pinpointed my objection to purely ontological arguments. Start with St. Anselm and work forward. They just don't prove or even say anything meaningful.

The Ninth Amendment IS law. That's the whole point of having a Supreme Court - to ensure that state laws (like the one at issue in Dobbs v Jackson WHO) do not violate the Constitution, the highest law in the land. If there is no supermajority in the Senate to pass that fine piece of legislation you suggest, then we need Constitutional rulings on the laws that do, piecemeal, exist now. That is how our federalist system works here. What Alito is suggesting is ignoring the 9th amendment, which opens the door to tossing every decision like Griswold, Loving, Obergefell, and others that clarified the unenumerated rights guaranteed by the 9th. He is therefore acting in a radical mode which is contrary to his sworn duty as a justice to apply ALL of the Constitution to existing law and legal precedent. I'm not sure people outside this country (or many, inside this country) quite grasp how radical the draft proposal is.

On what planet are parents able to be so certain about this? Do Australian youth not sneak off and do things they never share with their parents? Crikey! Associated? I think researchers need to always bear in mind the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It may be that personalities that tend to self-medicate for psychological issues with MJ would also be more prone to self-medicate with opioids. If so, this would call into question the notion of MJ as a causal "gateway."

Though this forum does not require that linked articles need to be read, you really need to read the rest of the article and not just base your opinion on the pull-quote. For one thing, the rejection of unenumerated rights contradicts the 9th amendment. Many rights belong to the citizens and may not be disparaged, even if not specified in the Constitution. Oops, didn't see this had already been answered. I'm a bit late to the party. Well. I think this illustrates that some thread topics need some research before plunging in. Constitutional law seems to he one of them.

Anything's better than being a Boltzmann Brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

Is it okay to confess to the forbidden love between a man and chocolate-coated cashews in an almond forum? The spouse recently brought home a bag of them, and I was forcibly struck by two things: One, they were salted, underneath the dark chocolate coating, giving a simultaneous jolt of sweetness and saltiness that propagated through my body in what I can only describe as a mouthgasm. (perhaps some are wondering, was that really my only choice of nomenclature? I can only say, sometimes language must evolve and grow...) I have forgotten what the second thing was. Just as well, maybe. Here is a sculpture of Greg Almond. Or not precisely sculpture, but certainly within the boundaries of almond-based art...

My spouse expressed a similar opinion - at least about never seeing anything like that.

Alito’s Plan to Repeal the 20th Century If the conservative justice’s draft opinion is adopted by the Court, key advances of the past hundred years could be rolled back. By Adam Serwer https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/alito-leaked-roe-opinion-abortion-supreme-court-civil-rights/629748/ (Clip from the article) “Plessy is, at its absolute core, a states’-rights case, in which the Court envisioned a notion of federalism so weak, so toothless, so bereft of substance that the federal government had no legitimate role in protecting Black people from states imposing racial segregation upon them,” Aderson Francois, a law professor at Georgetown University, told me. “This draft does the same thing: It envisions a notion of federalism so weak, so toothless, so bereft of substance that the federal government has no legitimate role in protecting women from states imposing forced births upon them.”

I guessed Fiends of Depravity, but my guesses at initialisms are not always well thought out. Forces of Dogmatism? Founders of Delaware? Followers of Demiurge? Fans of Druids? Fearful of Dentures? Really not good at this kind of sleuthing. Help us, @Peterkin. ETA:. Thank you!

In some parts of the US, there are green demolition services becoming more popular. I joined in on one a few years ago, using my renovation skills to excise some decent windows, woodwork, and a couple doors. Most of that I donated to Habitat for Humanity, which sells used building materials. The full green demo (which that wasn't) takes the house down to the skeleton (removing and recycling all plumbing, copper wire, flashing, etc), then disassembles the frame so that intact studding and wood flooring may be denailed and resold. Some cities like San Diego have actually mandated green demolition, requiring at least fifty percent of the structure is kept out of landfill. Just flattening a house and then tossing everything in dumpsters is sickeningly wasteful.

The pain sidebar seems to distract from the thread topic, which is about the law, and a reading of the 14th amendment that goes back half a century. If our laws were really focused on mitigation of pain and suffering of sentient creatures, no matter their developmental level, then we would all be vegans with access to euthanasia booths in every neighborhood and we would demolish many of our prisons. Up to 24 weeks a fetus is not viable outside the womb and is legally considered an extension of the mother's body. Few favor third trimester abortion (I do not, either). I am not aware of any counter to this viability standard that is not driven by conservative Christianity trying to impose its doctrines on the rest of us. As @Genady pointed out, in some nations not controlled by Christian would-be theocrats, abortion is legal and safe and accessible to all who need it. America was not founded as a theocracy, nor should it become one, so why would we derive laws from religious doctrines?

Quick note: taking a part of one sentence as a quote, stripped of context and of the primary point I was making in a longer paragraph, is not an approach I respond to. Sorry.

I'm not aware of pain meters for fetuses or evidence that the methods presently used are inherently painful. IIRC, almost all of those latter stage abortions are for fetuses with severe congenital defects, so any regulating should take into account what later suffering is being compassionately spared. Some latter stage abortions are also done where the mother's life is in danger from continued pregnancy, so that weighs in as well. So I'm unsure what stricter controls you have in mind and what their scientific basis would be. As these things play out, I am keenly reminded of that famous Robert Heinlein quote about man not being a rational animal but rather a rationalizing animal.

This being a politics forum, I figure the thread here is looking at how we balance competing societal notions of legal rights rather than taking on metaphysical questions that concern theologians. For lack of supernatural devices that detect souls, I guess the law must settle on using fetal viability as the standard. AFAIK that has been determined at around 24-26 weeks. A society that provides young women with all the information they need about their bodies, strong legal protection against exploitative treatment from partners, free (or sliding scale) access to contraception, and safe prompt judgement-free access to either medicinal abortion (mifepristone) or surgical abortion when accidents happen, would be one where abortion was rare and would be done long before the latter part of pregnancy. The third trimester abortions that seem to fire up many of the appeals to emotion are already rare, under one percent. One source (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) puts the totality of abortions after 21 weeks at around one percent. I feel like my country is returning to the dark ages.

Plus one, @zapatos. It's worth noting that disproportionate arrests and convictions for pot possession among American Blacks was a longstanding pillar of the prison labor system in the South.

No, not so much a smokescreen as a more palatable nucleus around which to crystallize. Expanding the base around de facto segregation would have been a much harder sell. The real irony, to me, is that a large number of the babies they were claiming they wanted to save were (owing to the demographics of abortion) Black or Hispanic -- those babies that conservatives were so loathe to provide any post-natal assistance to. We're pro-life, at least until you're born. After that, you're on your own, kiddo.

Laws can drive the basic human desire to relieve boredom or tension or fatigue underground, but it will always find its way out. And a drug's negatives (from dosing, or inherent distortions it induces) are so much more addressable when the drug is legal and its quality regulated and there is no legal consequence for seeking help. Drugs like acid or pot or shrooms probably have less social stigma in societies where power and productivity and a fast pace are less valued. In America, drugs that led users to more focus on expanded perception and introspection tended to be strongly interdicted, while drugs that stoked the engines of capitalism and power were practically sacraments. It's actually rather amazing that MJ legalization got as much traction as it did here. Arthritic joints in baby boomers probably helped. Also the growth of libertarian factions in American politics.

The real reasons that the Evangelicals took up the anti abortion banner and made it their hot button issue.... https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

https://www.vice.com/en/article/akvm5b/scientists-discover-method-to-break-down-plastic-in-one-week-not-centuries If this is scalable, it could be a game-changer. Of course, we still need to get the plastic waste into recycle bins. So it would help if the enzyme also acted rapidly on human stupidity and laziness.