After reading New View 22.1 on Prohibition (page 401), please comment on the following:
Should the federal government make laws that impact what many view as private, personal behavior?
Libertarians have argued that it is an intrusion on personal liberties and have used the same argument to justify legalization of marijuana and other controlled substances.
What behaviors should or should not the government regulate, and to what extent?
What costs do these rules impose on society?
The government should not pass laws that limit the people's personal behavior because that only leads into trouble for the government. When the government is involved in people's personal behavior, they think the government is spying on them to make sure they do not do the the things the government had prohibited them from doing in the first place. They think the government has no right to see what each one of us is doing because it is own own lifes and we should do whatever we like and if we make a bad decision that we can learn from it without the government trying to force us to do something we do not want to do. The governemnt has certain duties they have to do, but monitoring people's personal behaviors is not one of them. The government has no right to see what we do with our personal behaviors because it belongs to us and no one needs to know. The costs will be great because the government has to search for the people that are setting up the "black markets" that are selling the things the government has prohibited. If the government would allow what they prohibited we would not have this problem.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think the government should past laws dictating personal behavior, just because it’s too hard to control personal behavior. While laws should limit personal behavior that is destructive to the rest of the public, like illegal drug use, it’s unnecessary to regulate behavior that is a matter of personal chose, and it’s a drain on local authorities, to try to control those behaviors. How would they regulate something like the ban on incandescent light bulbs? They can’t go into every person’s house to see what kind of light bulb their using, and it’s the same with other personal behaviors, like prohibition, it’s just not realistically enforceable, and to pass more laws limiting personal behavior like this would just be a strain on local police, who have to deal with behaviors, that are destructive to the public, like illegal substances.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, let me clearly state that, yes, it is obvious that Prohibition did not work, no matter what the motives were of the original backers.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I am glad that the US Constitution is no longer used to regulate personal behaviors.
Thirdly, I do agree that drinking and drunkenness are and should be a personal choice. Having said that, in all honesty, I think that when drunks, such as my late grandfather abuse their wives and children either violently or sexually, I can at least understand why people are upset and wish that the government or someone could do something to help. To say that only religious bigots, fanatics and weirdos have these kind of concerns, is just not honest or reasonable. Yet though I understand and sympathize with these poor people, I still agree that drinking is essentially a personal choice.
As far as drugs go, my Chinese-American wife and I taught English in China where both the people and the government remember the ill effects of Opium in the 19th century that brought a once prosperous nation to it's knees. Not everyone drinks to get drunk, but there is only one use for illicit drugs, and often the victims are children. Also, as the Chinese found out, there are indeed economic reprocutions. Yes there will be economic costs for drug laws, but if the costs are too high, maybe that's a big clue that the consequences are not stiff enough. Same goes for any type of crime or criminal. I don't think we have to cave in every time some kind of crime becomes popular.
Oh, as far as the government goes, I do not always know the right balance when government should get involved, but I do think that in general, citizens should try to help ourselves as much as possible because as Eisenhower once said, The government that is powerful enough to give us all, is powerful enough to take away all - not a verbatim quote. Generally I think that our government has and is doing a good job on these matters. Also, I don't think that economics are the only costs and values to consider, but for this class, it may be.
ReplyDeleteActivities that do not harm others should not be outlawed. The effects of such prohibition tend to be more deleterious than those of the prohibited activities. When abortion is banned women don't have less abortions; they simply become more dangerous. Prohibition was obviously a mistake. That marijuana, a much less harmful drug than alcohol, should be prohibited when alcohol is not, seems ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteShould the federal government make laws that impact what many view as private, personal behavior? If it truly doesn't effect others than no, but if it effects others as alcohol and marijuana do, it is no longer private and personal behavior, so yes.
ReplyDeleteLibertarians have argued that it is an intrusion on personal liberties and have used the same argument to justify legalization of marijuana and other controlled substances.
What behaviors should or should not the government regulate, and to what extent? I think this is a simple answer, anything that negatively effects a society, as does alcohol and other drugs, should be regulated. If it can be done without negatively effecting society than I don't believe it is the governments right to control. The purpose of a law, essentially, is to protecting ones rights against infringement of another.
What costs do these rules impose on society? Well, unfortunately it can be the cause of violence and crime, but not really the cause, its just the effect of a rule on human nature, which, we will never change another's nature, only they can. So why compromise what is right and enable someones behavior when they should be expected to develop self-discipline.
Riley G.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of substances that have harmful consequences when abused, I think there needs to be an underlying control of consumption. In the case of prohibition we see that when the government banned alcohol, the market was then controlled by risk-takers causing; crimes, homicides, along with poisonings increased. If the people decide that there is a need for a good (alcohol) then we need to ensure that there are regulation and consumer protection laws implemented, to avoid unwanted consequences. For instance: “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) seeks to reduce alcohol smuggling and contraband cigarette trafficking activity, divest criminal and terrorist organizations of monies derived from this illicit activity and significantly reduce tax revenue losses to the States”. (http://www.atf.gov/alcohol-tobacco/) Our current government has implemented this sector of law enforcement to protect the consumer.
I think the individual should be able to make his own decision on how he treats his body and the goverment should have no say. However when the individuals behaviors bears an economic cost on society then certan steps should be taken in order for that person to bear the economic cost. For example if marijuana was legal it could be taxed and regulated therefore the money retained by the goverment could be put to use in treating health and liabilities related to the use of the drug. Also legalization of this kind would lower the crime rate as was seen after prohibition in relation to alcohol.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government has no right to dictate our behavior and what substances we choose to put into our bodies. Although I do agree that it could be dangerous to let certain people get a hold of and use these substances I think it is their choice not mine as long as they are not putting me in harms way because of it. Putting laws in to place to make alcohol or marijuana illegal cost too much money and they are a drain on the economy. We have to pay more for the police force and the laws themselves contribute to more violence and crime. If substances were regulated to protect the consumers, rather than banned altogether the crime rate and violence would decrease and there would be more money pouring into our economy instead of walking across the borders.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government should not make laws to inhibit private personal behaviors. This would take away several daily rights making for several new ideas and inventions not possible because of so much control. I think that making laws that impact personal affairs are unconstitutional. They should not be able to tell you what to think or do. That takes away personal unalienable rights that should not be taken away. I believe that certain drugs and certain alcohol should be illegal. They take away peoples sense of reality. With the text messaging bill in Utah that would’ve made access to all information I thought that it was an intrusion of certain “personal rights.” As long as people can act like adults and responsibly use their personal privacy to their advantage and to the betterment of those around us, then it should be ok that we have personal, private behaviors. Rules are put into place for the people who have lost a general sense of direction or moral compass.
ReplyDelete-Trevor Smith
i believe the government should never pass laws limit personal behavior because that is what makes up for every person out their, if they cant be themselves then what's the point? although then again it isnt completely avoidable when it comes to other things such as drugs. Marijuana is just as destructive as alcohol, so i dont look at that as a big deal. Then there's other things out there that are 10x as deadly and i do believe need to be regulated to prevent such destructive behavior.
ReplyDeleteSO basically i think marijuana should be regulated nearly the same as alcohol use, but the rest should be as illegal as they are now.
I would amend the first question to not just be what many view is private, but instead to be explicitly confined to a private residence or location. If the effects of said behavior extend past ones property, smell, crime, safety, etc, then that behavior should be against the law when that behavior extends beyond the property line. If my hypothetical neighbor enjoys smoking marijuana, I have no problem if they are not where I can smell it, or if they come by to visit soon after they are done smoking and still smell of it. However if they smoke it in their own house and do not smell of it when the come to visit or take a walk, then I have no problem. Same problem I have with cigarettes and similar.
ReplyDeleteOne of the big problems is that be cannot enforce the restrictions on most of this stuff effectively and all that it does is pass on both the costs of failing to enforce it and all of the hidden costs associated with it. If a person is affecting another person who has not consented to be affected and refuses to stop, that is illegal, otherwise leave it alone.
One of the reasons that marijuana is often considered to be a gateway drug, is because to get it you have to start associating with people who are not on the good side of the law and many also provide the other drugs. Remove that need for association and it will not anywhere near as great of a gateway drug. Another big cost to think about are those of dealing with explosive booby-trapped basements and sheds run by amateur chemists.
No, the government should definitely not pass laws that control people's personal behaviors because then what is the point of "personal" behaviors, the term will disappear. If you choose to pollute your body with some kind of a harmful substance then do so, you don’t need the government to baby-sit you to the extent of controlling your life. However, if you make that choice and abuse the use of this substance well then you will pay for it, either by destroying your health or by having the law come after you. I know nothing about marijuana but it is said its as harmful as alcohol so maybe it should be legalized but the other illegal more dangerous drugs need to remain illegal. There are so many things the government can concentrate on bettering in our society than controlling personal lives. For instance a few days ago a man broke into a friend of mine's house and the police refused to take fingerprints and the reason they gave for not doing so was that they didn’t know the man's intentions of breaking in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the police decided to leave the case as it is instead of investing more time and money into it. there are other things the government can work on instead of making more laws that I'm not sure will do any good.
ReplyDeleteVeronika Dimitrova
I know that rules exist to protect us but i believe that the government should not restrict or dictate our personal behavior. It is not just a matter to do the right thing but it is a matter to do the right thing in the right way. History has shown that society grows and learns faster through experience and by trying to restrict a behavior it is just a downfall like marijuana is a clear example, the us is only able to stop 10 % of marijuana trafficking and spends 14 billion dollars a year in trying to control it. Which money could be allocated in education or any other thing. Government should only try to regulate personal behavior, going back to the marijuana example the government could regulate it so it would be safer for the people who already consume it and it can protect the no smokers by establishing some regulations for example the government can protect the no smokers by establishing places where people is able to smoke, that will prevent second hand smoking
ReplyDeleteIf prohibition worked then the federal government wouldnt need prohibition. But since it doesnt they feel the need to outlaw some products. And outlawing products just creates and underground market that the government tried to control in the first place, then causing violence not because of the substance but to control the market of the underground substance. The Government also spends money on trying to regulate the trafficking spending millions on dollars trying to keep it illegal when that money could be used for roads, neighborhoods and schools. The government should also Regulate the substances or whatever is illegal because without regulation you get chaos. I think you should get a license that is hard to get and easy to lose, that should be their regulations. And if these rules are applied and regulated then i dont think it would be a big deal to society because we are the consumers not the producers. People are always looking for quick ways to get rich, and to stay rich, scams will always be out there and right now the biggest scam are products that are illegal in this country. If the government tried to control it then i dont know the government will keep getting richer i guess.
ReplyDeleteFundamentally, the government should not legislate in areas of behavior. Currently, we see excessive regulatory restrictions in the form of the seat belt law, the helmet law (for motor cyclists), and the child seat law; to name a few.
ReplyDeleteThe government, whom we the people elect, seems to deem it necessary to come into our private places and hold our hand by specifically mandating how we should behave.
This intrusion by the government has occurred with our complete knowledge so there is some responsibility with us as citizens. However, this does not take away from the fact that there are some legitimate areas for legislation. For instance, if someone is raped, that should be punishable through the full extent of the law. The argument can go both directions in that government seems to over regulate petty behavior while easing up on more significant grotesque behavior. Rapists many times are given short prison sentences with potential for early parole for “good behavior.”
This is further proof that governments, whether federal, state, or local rule with double standards. The Prohibition presents us with historical proof that despite restrictions on behavior, someone will always find a way “around” the law. Therefore, it can be argued equally that some regulation is necessary for individuals that operate better with parameters; while excessive regulation will only foster resentment and motivation to bypass parameters however and whenever possible.
The authors of the Constitution are very mindful that legislating behavior is not the job of government; rather something that begins within the heart and conscience of every human being. The founders were men of high integrity and morals so their assumption was that the common American citizen would bear the personal responsibility of allowing a government bigger than any earthly government to guide their convictions; thus resulting in self-governing of one’s behavior.
~Sandra Maki
Drugs and alcohol are regulated for a reason. My brother-in-law, a policeman, explained it to one of my nephew like this:
ReplyDeleteDrugs increase the activity and amount of hormones produced in our bodies. Then, the hormones trigger emotions, by reacting with the hormone receptors in our body. We naturally do this on a smaller, safer scale with adrenaline. What makes drugs or alcohol so harmful is that the flood our body with hormones, and they trigger our emotions far more than we are able to cope with, physically. So, the body begins turning off the receptors (which trigger emotions when they encounter hormones), so that our emotions won't overpower our ability to think and make decisions rationally. However, our receptors cannot be duplicated, reproduced or reactivated after being destroyed.
So, each time you subject yourself to drugs, or drink, you destroy these receptors, which means that your ability to feel emotion, is reduced. But, because we remember how much we were able to feel our emotions when we were on the drug induced emotional high, we turn to the drugs again, because our bodies crave the ability to feel emotion. Frequently people will turn to new drugs, or commit crimes, in their desperation. We don't realize that what we are really after is to return to the state we were in before we began to take drugs.
So, I would say, that since things like this can be so destructive, there are some things that ought to be regulated. Will it be effective? In some ways it will,however it also drives those who are truly desperate to commit crimes that they might not have otherwise. However, it also prevents many who are merely curious about drugs, from taking a path that they would regret later.
Self government is fine, however, sometimes we don't realize the full consequences of our actions. What we really need is a limited, but still effective, government.
-Joseph Barnes
I've got to agree with others that say the government should not be permitted to control our behavior although some of our behavior affect others and its only then that it(the government) should step in and take action preventing citizens to be at the risk of harm. In cases of Alcohol and Marijuana which I believe is our choice and does not put others in danger, only moderating it should be of government's duty, specially when it can gain profit from it for the publics better good.
ReplyDeleteI always find it funny when the people in government seem to know what's best for Rick. Funny I don't seem them helping me when I need help, but they are johnny on the spot when it comes to telling me how to live my life.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what laws government comes up with people will always find a way to get around under or above it.
People say to legalize marijuana I say go ahead and then tax the heck out of it, yes as I stated there will be those that will get around it, however I think that those that need it will, just like those that smoke cigarettes will buy it legally.
I could argue many a point on this, but suffice it to say, no I don't want the people elected by the big corporations to tell me how to live my life.
I think that the government is way to strict on such laws, and I for one fully agree with the lbretarian view point on such issues. I think it would be very helpfull to the government and citizens to pass such laws that allow more personal freedoms.
ReplyDeleteThe society will grow financially i do believe but then there are the bad the things such as people not just using marijaunna but ones like the heroin junkies going around robbbing everyone blind just to get there fix. So i think that the good will come with the bad but I personally think that should be up to me!