Making a perfect Government

[Raider5678]

What about drugs would be punished more harshly? Producing, selling, taking? And especially in the last case, why harsher punishment?

 

Also, why is punishment a goal in and of itself? I would view punishment as a means to an end: That is, reducing the instances of behaviors that we don't want to see prevalent in society. But there may be other means that work better than punishment for some things.

 

It's like building a house and saying that one of the things you want for your house is to use at least 1,000 nails in its construction. That's kind of an odd goal to have as a foundational goal.

Drugs, in my opinion, are really not helping anyone. I'm not talking medical drugs, I'm talking Heroine, Cocaine, etc. People die from them, people have been ruined by them, innocent people also die because of them. They create a snowball effect, and it doesn't make a good one either. That's my opinion, and I've seen drugs not only destroy many people's lives, but end them many times.

 

Also, I'm thinking harsher punishments usually steer people away from doing things. If the penalty for stealing was getting your hand cut off, do you think many people would still do it, or even take it lightly?

 

And using at least 1,000 nails in the construction of a house doesn't really relate to this. If anything, we're trying to limit the use of them.

[Delta1212]

There are East Asian countries where the punishment for selling drugs is death and yet they still have a drug trade.

 

Severity of the punishment does not have a trivial correlation with how frequently people do something. We should also keep in mind that the United States is currently a close second to North Korea in terms of the percentage of our population that we have imprisoned due in large party to mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug users, which is creating a whole host of secondary problems both with our prison industry and the way law enforcement resources are expended.

 

You also have to decide what drugs you are talking about. Heroin you've said. Ok, how about marijuana? Alcohol? I've known people whose lives were derailed by both, and yet I doubt their lives would have been improved by being arrested for use of each.

 

Who gets to decide which drugs are ok for people to use and which ones a person will be punished for using? And if you're doing it to help people's lives from being ruined, how does harsher punishment than what we have now accomplish that? We have seatbelt laws to protect people, but you get a ticket for not buckling up, you don't get slapped with felony seatbeltlessness.

 

If this is meant to be setting goals, why is the goal to punish people for using drugs instead of decreasing the health and social damage that drugs do to people in society? There may be better ways of doing that than punishment, and I'm not sure that creating a government for the express goal of punishing a segment of the population as its reason for existing is getting off to a particularly auspicious start.

[Raider5678]

There are East Asian countries where the punishment for selling drugs is death and yet they still have a drug trade.

 

Severity of the punishment does not have a trivial correlation with how frequently people do something. We should also keep in mind that the United States is currently a close second to North Korea in terms of the percentage of our population that we have imprisoned due in large party to mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug users, which is creating a whole host of secondary problems both with our prison industry and the way law enforcement resources are expended.

 

You also have to decide what drugs you are talking about. Heroin you've said. Ok, how about marijuana? Alcohol? I've known people whose lives were derailed by both, and yet I doubt their lives would have been improved by being arrested for use of each.

 

Who gets to decide which drugs are ok for people to use and which ones a person will be punished for using? And if you're doing it to help people's lives from being ruined, how does harsher punishment than what we have now accomplish that? We have seatbelt laws to protect people, but you get a ticket for not buckling up, you don't get slapped with felony seatbeltlessness.

 

If this is meant to be setting goals, why is the goal to punish people for using drugs instead of decreasing the health and social damage that drugs do to people in society? There may be better ways of doing that than punishment, and I'm not sure that creating a government for the express goal of punishing a segment of the population as its reason for existing is getting off to a particularly auspicious start.

You may be right, but if you look back at the outcomes we decided on, we want public safety. Drugs, are in fact, not safe, no matter how much people say they aren't. If punishment is bad, then what would you suggest?

[Phi for All]

You may be right, but if you look back at the outcomes we decided on, we want public safety. Drugs, are in fact, not safe, no matter how much people say they aren't. If punishment is bad, then what would you suggest?

 

This same argument is used against abortions. Killing embryos is bad, punish those who participate. But in neither case is punishment a deterrent of any significance. Abortions and drug use still happen if you make them illegal, and this also feeds organized crime, and increases risks to safety greatly.

 

Education is one of the things that can make a big difference. And perhaps if your new government is so perfect, people won't have as many reasons to take drugs or abort unwanted children. This is one reason you should NOT focus on punishment at this point. People are supposed to like this new government, right?

 

The positive benefits of legal abortions are evident. And Portugal has made possession of small amounts of most drugs legal, with generally positive results. This is the kind of forward thinking a "perfect government" should have. If it's going to happen anyway, educate people about the effects, and start the teaching as young as possible. You'll minimize the problem instead of making more problems via prohibition.

[iNow]

Also, I'm thinking harsher punishments usually steer people away from doing things.

They don't. They just make you better at getting away with things and avoiding being caught. >> http://thescienceforum.org/topic187.html

[StringJunky]

There are East Asian countries where the punishment for selling drugs is death and yet they still have a drug trade.

 

Severity of the punishment does not have a trivial correlation with how frequently people do something. We should also keep in mind that the United States is currently a close second to North Korea in terms of the percentage of our population that we have imprisoned due in large party to mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug users, which is creating a whole host of secondary problems both with our prison industry and the way law enforcement resources are expended.

 

You also have to decide what drugs you are talking about. Heroin you've said. Ok, how about marijuana? Alcohol? I've known people whose lives were derailed by both, and yet I doubt their lives would have been improved by being arrested for use of each.

 

Who gets to decide which drugs are ok for people to use and which ones a person will be punished for using? And if you're doing it to help people's lives from being ruined, how does harsher punishment than what we have now accomplish that? We have seatbelt laws to protect people, but you get a ticket for not buckling up, you don't get slapped with felony seatbeltlessness.

 

If this is meant to be setting goals, why is the goal to punish people for using drugs instead of decreasing the health and social damage that drugs do to people in society? There may be better ways of doing that than punishment, and I'm not sure that creating a government for the express goal of punishing a segment of the population as its reason for existing is getting off to a particularly auspicious start.

It seems plain that if a law does not have the consensus and consent of the vast majority it is unenforceable, in a democracy.

Edited May 24, 2016 by StringJunky

[Raider5678]

 

This same argument is used against abortions. Killing embryos is bad, punish those who participate. But in neither case is punishment a deterrent of any significance. Abortions and drug use still happen if you make them illegal, and this also feeds organized crime, and increases risks to safety greatly.

 

Education is one of the things that can make a big difference. And perhaps if your new government is so perfect, people won't have as many reasons to take drugs or abort unwanted children. This is one reason you should NOT focus on punishment at this point. People are supposed to like this new government, right?

 

The positive benefits of legal abortions are evident. And Portugal has made possession of small amounts of most drugs legal, with generally positive results. This is the kind of forward thinking a "perfect government" should have. If it's going to happen anyway, educate people about the effects, and start the teaching as young as possible. You'll minimize the problem instead of making more problems via prohibition.

Good idea. Though I'm also against abortions......

Either way, I'm not big on the idea of simply making a small amount of drugs legal so people wont do it, but if it works, then I guess I can't argue. My only problem is what would happen in america if drugs were suddenly all legal?

Edited May 25, 2016 by Raider5678

[Phi for All]

Good idea. Though I'm also against abortions......

Can you make the distinction between what you support or not personally, and what rights you support in general for the welfare of the people? Because historically, just as many abortions happen whether they're legal or not. It just depends on how safe you want these women to be.

 

My only problem is what would happen in america if drugs were suddenly all legal?

 

Um, probably much like what happened in Portugal. Or what happened in Colorado, Washington, and several other states and marijuana.

[Raider5678]

Can you make the distinction between what you support or not personally, and what rights you support in general for the welfare of the people? Because historically, just as many abortions happen whether they're legal or not. It just depends on how safe you want these women to be.

 

 

Um, probably much like what happened in Portugal. Or what happened in Colorado, Washington, and several other states and marijuana.

Well then, it shouldn't matter if we make them illegal then eh?

 

http://www.newsweek.com/unexpected-side-effects-legalizing-weed-339931

If thats whats going to happen, we better make sure it NEVER becomes legal, or if it does, it does extremely slowly.

 

http://katv.com/news/local/new-report-examines-marijuana-legalizations-impact-on-colorado

It seems to be having an opposite effect. There's higher than ever marijuana use in kids, teens, and adults, as well as an 8% increase in traffic fatalities.

 

http://www.rmhidta.org/html/FINAL%20NSDUH%20Results-%20Jan%202016%20Release.pdf

This is a study by the NSDUH.

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/316148-marijuana-related-deaths-injuries-study/

And another study. Now please note, most of these are literally just the first results that came up, I'm not cherry picking.

 

http://www.nccpsafety.org/assets/files/library/Legalized_Marijuana_Practical_Guide_for_Law_Enforcement.pdf

And another one, this one done by the police. I haven't gotten a chance to read it all, so I'm not sure what the outcome they think has resulted.

 

AND then theres this......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-way/colorado-and-marijuana-le_b_6397664.html

https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Colorado_Marijuana_Legalization_One_Year_Status_Report.pdf

 

Now these guys both supported it, and they seem to be saying the government, studies, math, science, are all wrong. Any ideas?

 

Also, the point of this legalization was mainly "to bring money to our economy" which apparently it did. In taxes, but it has cost them a whole ton more for law enforcement costs.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Raider5678

[iNow]

Legalization aside, decriminalization and emphasis on rehabilitation is clearly a better path.

[Raider5678]

Legalization aside, decriminalization and emphasis on rehabilitation is clearly a better path.

Agreed.

[Ken Fabian]

Raider, I think the laws a government might make and the system itself are different subjects and you appear to be more focused on changing specific government policy and laws - and on many of those you mention I and others will hold very different views.

 

I think that crime and punishment is an area where we need to do what can be shown to work rather than what is popular; an independent judiciary does seem to be a necessary part of preventing responses that are more about pleasing the public than providing recompense or preventing recidivism. Crimes like sexual assault of minors evoke very strong responses - I don't exclude myself from that - however when my outrage is spent and I reflect on the kinds of imagined punishments that seemed most satisfying I find myself thinking appropriate responses to such acts and perpetrators are best not decided on the basis of satisfying the urge to violence most people are capable of when they think someone has done something horrific and therefore deserves it. Unfortunately that innate emotional response requires no weighing of evidence - just the accusation, or even confronting someone who looks a lot like the accused, or of the same ethnicity or religion can be enough for the mob.

 

Rather than get too sidetracked here - the effectiveness and appropriateness of punishments, imprisonment and or rehabilitation, like the gun and drug debates, belongs in it's own thread - good government, in my opinion, has to mitigate against a lot of popular but destructive, impulsive and inappropriate sentiment that is easy to provoke.

 

Good government isn't the same as popular government. Direct representation in my view has serious problems by (even more than we have now) turning serious, complex issues that require expert knowledge into simplistic popularity contests, with emotive messaging, including calling on those destructive and inappropriate impulses, used as voter attracting features rather than flaws, especially when the primary means of being informed are themselves engaged in a popularity competition (or persuasion for hire aka advertising and PR) and have no obligation to be impartial or even accurate.

 

I suspect good government needs more independent professionalism rather than partisan populism and needs stronger obligations to seek and heed expert advice.

[John Cuthber]

Drugs, in my opinion, are really not helping anyone. I'm not talking medical drugs, I'm talking Heroine, Cocaine, etc. People die from them, people have been ruined by them, innocent people also die because of them.

More people get killed by anti drug legislation than by drugs.

Were you not aware of that?

[Raider5678]

More people get killed by anti drug legislation than by drugs.

Were you not aware of that?

Mmmm.. Proof?

 

You know, you seem to love starting controversies, and joining them too. What would you have us do? Make drugs legal, decriminalize them 100%? We already discussed that. Now are you're telling us, saying drugs are bad and making them illegal, results in more deaths than just letting them go? Your including driving accidents, murders, overdoses, gang wars, innocent people, etc?

[Delta1212]

Just to point out, gang wars are the result of drugs being illegal. The same wars existed around on the alcohol trade during Prohibition. Those organizations lost a lot of power when Probition ended and in many cases fell apart completely.

 

Organized crime thrives on black market vices, but to have a black market, something needs to be unavailable on the regular market.

 

I'm not saying full legalization does not have its own issues, but you do have to keep in mind that a lot of the problems, not all but a lot of them, especially the more social issues, are as much or more a result of the way legislation treats drugs as anything. They're not necessarily an inherent problem of the drugs themselves the way that health and behavioral issues might be.

 

Even then, it's also important to keep in mind that, as bad as many drugs are for your health, most of them are also made worse by the fact that there are no regulations surrounding their quality, which means that they are often cut with even worse chemicals in order to increase potency or decrease costs by lowering purity, and a good number of overdoses are the result of people taking drugs if inconsistent strength or quality, either because they get a high quality dose when they are used to ones that have been diluted and take too much, or because they are actually taking something that is an entirely different drug or chemical than they were told they were getting because of what it has been cut or replaced with.

 

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of social ills and negative health effects associated with drugs, but you have to consider whether people taking drugs is actually the root problem that you want to address, or whether it's the associated negative effects (public health, violence, poverty, etc) that are actually the problem.

 

It's easy to say that something is associated with negative behaviors and say "Ok, let's make that illegal" and the. forget about it, but that's a simple solution and simple solutions aren't always the same as good solutions. You need to figure out whether that actually solved the problem(s) and, if not, whether there is a more direct way to tackle those issues.

 

When it comes to make policy, you need to be a little more nuanced than simply making things illegal and must look at what the consequences, intended and unintended, of any policy actually are and then select what will most effectively accomplish your goal. Often the goal of a ban on most things is to make people feel like something is being done about it, rather than doing anything to solve the root of the problem, whatever that may be.

 

I think a perfect government would be more focused on outcomes than on putting band aids on things to make it seem like something is being done.

[Phi for All]

All the things citizens have to fear from drugs and alcohol are already illegal. You can't be under the influence and drive a vehicle. If you're in public being obnoxious, we have laws against that. If you're of age, just having these things, or even being under their influence, shouldn't be illegal.

 

Plenty of folks (most, I would guess) can handle these substances without disturbing the public. When they're abused, we have the legal framework to handle them. If all the money spent punishing users and enforcing prohibition were spent on education and rehab, you'd remove much of the criminal element, and have a more positive downstream set of benefits, like improved health, and fewer families ruined not only by alcohol and drugs, but by avoidable incarceration as well.

[Delta1212]

A government, especially when speaking of a hypothetical one like we are right now, is fundamentally a set of rules for organizing society, including rules for how rules are created, abolished, amended and enforced.

 

If you really want to take a stab at an ideal government, I don't think you can take any of the laws that presently exist wherever you live or any of the government structures for granted.

 

If you think a rule should exist, I think you need to address the following:

 

What problem does this rule solve?

Is that the actual problem or am I really attempting to solve a different problem by proxy?

Is there evidence of this rule actually being effective at solving this problem?

Is there evidence of any more effective way of solving this problem?

What are the potential consequences of this rule beyond its effect on the problem it is intended to solve?

Is there any way mitigate potential negative consequences?

Are there any alternatives with fewer or less serious consequences?

 

You need to go through that list of questions for everything, from murder and theft to drug laws and economic regulations to voting and civil rights.

 

Anything you assume is a good thing without analysis is a potential point of failure, source of negative externalities and missed opportunity for something better.

 

That's why I think it's important to dig down to what you fundamentally want your government to accomplish. Do you want a happy society? A healthy society? A productive society? A moral society? An educated society? What are your priorities? What is most important? Is it better for people to be happy but ignorant or educated but miserable? Productive but unhealthy or healthy but unproductive? What values are important? Which ones take precedence when there is a conflict between them? And how do the rules you put in place accomplish your objectives?

 

There is no rule that is good simply for its own sake. We have it drilled into us that democracy is good for its own sake, but is it really? Why is democracy a good thing? What does it accomplish that other forms of government do not? Why do we have prisons instead of some other form of punishment? Why do we have fines? What are these things meant to accomplish and what do they actually accomplish? What are the pros and cons?

 

These are all things you need to analyze in a serious way if you want to design an ideal ruleset. You can't take for granted that because you are familiar with a certain way of doing things that it is the best way. You need to figure out why it is the best way, and if it is not the best way, what can be improved upon. You can't do that until you think about why something is the way it is and what the benefits and drawbacks of that way of doing things are.

[Raider5678]

All the things citizens have to fear from drugs and alcohol are already illegal. You can't be under the influence and drive a vehicle. If you're in public being obnoxious, we have laws against that. If you're of age, just having these things, or even being under their influence, shouldn't be illegal.

 

Plenty of folks (most, I would guess) can handle these substances without disturbing the public. When they're abused, we have the legal framework to handle them. If all the money spent punishing users and enforcing prohibition were spent on education and rehab, you'd remove much of the criminal element, and have a more positive downstream set of benefits, like improved health, and fewer families ruined not only by alcohol and drugs, but by avoidable incarceration as well.

They tried using the money they used regulating drugs in colorado for rehab and education. To do this they made small amounts legal. It has shown it hasn't even come close to decreasing the cost even a little, but instead raised it quite considerably. This, is a bad consequence. While the other idea to make drugs illegal isn't the ideal one, its better than the one your proposing. Maybe we can find a way to make your plan work, and when we do, I say we do it. But for now, this idea didn't work when tested, so why would we try it again? Imagine a Number line. The idea you proposed, resulted in -10. The current idea, which is have drugs illegal, results in -8. Either one, while not ideal, has different results. And the current idea, is doing better.

[Phi for All]

They tried using the money they used regulating drugs in colorado for rehab and education. To do this they made small amounts legal. It has shown it hasn't even come close to decreasing the cost even a little, but instead raised it quite considerably. This, is a bad consequence. While the other idea to make drugs illegal isn't the ideal one, its better than the one your proposing. Maybe we can find a way to make your plan work, and when we do, I say we do it. But for now, this idea didn't work when tested, so why would we try it again? Imagine a Number line. The idea you proposed, resulted in -10. The current idea, which is have drugs illegal, results in -8. Either one, while not ideal, has different results. And the current idea, is doing better.

 

I don't want to go off-topic with this, but you need more accurate sources. Colorado's legalization has been a success in virtually every way.

 

Even conservative sources like FOX News agree.

[Raider5678]

 

I don't want to go off-topic with this, but you need more accurate sources. Colorado's legalization has been a success in virtually every way.

 

Even conservative sources like FOX News agree.

As I pointed out, and multiple people agreed, The link you gave me seems to spit in the face of almost EVERY SINGLE other study. I already showed this link, as I looked at it too.

[Phi for All]

As I pointed out, and multiple people agreed, The link you gave me seems to spit in the face of almost EVERY SINGLE other study. I already showed this link, as I looked at it too.

 

You may want to mention this to the other four states that will be decriminalizing in 2016. One wonders how they were able to convince the voters if what you claim is true.

[Raider5678]

You may want to mention this to the other four states that will be decriminalizing in 2016. One wonders how they were able to convince the voters if what you claim is true.

Doesn't matter. I used the same argument against you before, and to say what you said.... It doesn't matter what they think.

 

The fact is as it is. The experiment failed, multiple studies show it, in fact, most of them do.

[Delta1212]

As I pointed out, and multiple people agreed, The link you gave me seems to spit in the face of almost EVERY SINGLE other study. I already showed this link, as I looked at it too.

I think you may mean "fly in the face."

 

"Spit in the face" is rather hostile language.

 

Also, I'm going to go dig around for some numbers and see if I can figure out what the actual results are based on various stats. I find that when I look for articles, they're usually looking to push a narrative, one way or the other, so I'm going to see if I can get us a better organized list of raw numbers we can look at and discuss. I'm going out to dinner tonight, so I'm not sure what time I'll be done with it, but I'll try to post something before I go to bed at least.

[Unity+]

I think you may mean "fly in the face."

 

"Spit in the face" is rather hostile language.

 

Also, I'm going to go dig around for some numbers and see if I can figure out what the actual results are based on various stats. I find that when I look for articles, they're usually looking to push a narrative, one way or the other, so I'm going to see if I can get us a better organized list of raw numbers we can look at and discuss. I'm going out to dinner tonight, so I'm not sure what time I'll be done with it, but I'll try to post something before I go to bed at least.

Yes, a publication can have bias, but if multiple studies from various publications says one thing, then the likelihood of bias is decreased. If you only one present one study against a multitude, claiming that the group of articles are all bias to one agenda is somewhat irrational.

[John Cuthber]

Now are you're telling us, saying drugs are bad and making them illegal, results in more deaths than just letting them go? Your including driving accidents, murders, overdoses, gang wars, innocent people, etc?

That's pretty much the opposite of what I said.

What I said was "More people get killed by anti drug legislation than by drugs."

and that's what I meant.

People die of overdoses because the drugs are not subject to legal control of their quality. People die in gang fights because the gangs deal in drugs because there's a lot of money in drug dealing because you have to bribe or otherwise evade the law.

And so on.

If the anti-drug legislation were not there much of the direct reason for the deaths would go away.