Should morality be legislated?

[Sacred Jellybean]

In the developed world, actually, populations are at best stagnant and most are dropping. The only exceptions are because of immigration. The US is in much better shape than most -- the US birthrate is about 2.0 or so (2.1 is replacement), meaning the population is about even, but because we allow in many immigrants, the national population is increasing. Most European nations and the developed nations of Asia (South Korea and Japan), though, are not so lucky, and some are facing serious problems over the next century -- since most of those nations do not like immigration because they have a sense of national identity that is tied to race, and not just 'anyone who lives here is an American eventually' like America, even Koreans who have lived in Japan for fifty years or longer are 'Korean', not Japanese. With very low to almost no immigration and some incredibly low birthrates (what is Japan, 1.3 or something?), Japan's population is currently expected to go from 125 million or so now to at most 100 million in just fifty years, and keep steeply dropping unless they can do something about the birthrate -- Japan has the longest life expectancy in the world and that slows down the rate of decline somewhat)

In Europe, Spain and Italy aren't much better off (I think Spain and Italy have two of the lowest birthrates in Europe, and I don't know if any of the Western or even Central European countries reach 2.1... maybe some in cental or eastern Europe. Maybe.)... France and England are doing a bit better, and England does allow more immigration, but other parts of Europe have trouble. Russia also has a dropping population, though there a relatively low birthrate is only part of the problem... Russia also has a very low life expectancy and some big public health problems.

As for the third world, that is where the nations with growing populations are. While much of sub-Saharan Africa has been decimated by AIDS, some African nations are growing rapidly, and South and Southeast Asia is exploding... in short, there is a looming population shortage in many of the nations that could use at least a stable population and can afford to deal with the problems of having more people, and a huge population crisis in nations that can't. It really is a big problem, and will get larger with time.

Interesting. Thank you for the information. :)

In that situation, of course, it should be illegal, like how it's illegal for teachers to have sex with their students even after they reach the local age of consent -- there's a clear inequity in the relationship there, and expectations of favoritism or something would be impossible to avoid.

That's a good point - I hadn't thought of that. Let me alter my example - a man proposes sex to a woman in a bar for cash. Should that be illegal? What if it were a place designated to meeting people to have sex?

I believe it shouldn't be illegal, but it should be considered harassment if the man doesn't take "no" for an answer and keeps bothering the woman. Establishments should be free on whether to prohibit sexual solicitation (and most would).

One of the main problems with legalized prostitution is that even legalized, I would expect that unfairness would continue to be a huge problem. I know it's legal in Nevada and don't know how well it works there, but it just seems like it's such as easy way to exploit people in, that making it legal would likely not help that much... perhaps it could, but I'm very, very sceptical.

Exploitation of women is wrong, but they will be exploited anyway by pornography. It's their choice to be exploited. Each woman is different - some want to be recognized for their intelligence, productivity, work ethic, etc., but others don't mind being recognized as sex symbols (Paris Hilton). Women are living contradictions sometimes; they want to be recognized for their beauty and sex appeal (especially younger women - look at this whole myspace debacle), but they also demand respect and equality (which they should have, but the brains of men and women work differently and will never be completely equal).

I'd say that abortion isn't really a moral issue anymore, it's a political one. As such morality or what is right really doesn't have much to do with it... (I, of course, support the right to choose)

It's a political issue rooted into morality.

Suicide isn't like euthanasia...

They're both death-by-choice.

there is no justification for suicide.

You could argue that, but I would personally never jump to be so presumptuous. Death-by-choice is appealing to those under extremely crestfallen circumstances, people who are constantly miserable and under emotional turmoil. It's depressing to think about, but I simply can't discount the idea that sometimes, nothing can help to alleviate a person's suffering.

Euthanasia? That's a little trickier, but I'm sceptical. What if sometime soon after some new treatment is developed that would have helped? Maybe that's unlikely, but if there's a chance...

Would you still want to live if you were blind, deaf, crippled, handless, etc.? Most people, I'm assuming, have a threshold for what they consider to be acceptable living conditions. It's another morbid topic, but I think that it's simply another personal choice that shouldn't be taken away from every person.

My opinion on this hasn't changed. I oppose the legalization of any illegal drugs and wish that we could make tobacco illegal too.

You're staunchly conservative (though it isn't the true conservative ideal for less government) when it comes to this, so I won't even argue with it (like Rtan with abortion). :)

Maybe more studies should look into whether marijuana actually makes a difference for specific cases of terminal illnesses that no other drugs will help alleviate, but beyond that, absolutely not.

There have already been countless studies proving marijuana's therapeutic properties. They conducted a study in the 70s that's still going on. Our federal government still distributes marijuana to 5 or so people in the United States for personal usage (as a medicine). That isn't a strong argument for medical marijuana legalization, but the fact that "studies must still be conducted proving marijuana's benefits as a medicine" is simply another myth. Marijuana has proven to be a useful medication, mostly by alleviating pain and giving people an appetite. If their illness or treatment (as in cancer) induces hard bouts of nausea, this person will have trouble keeping down things they eat. There are a few ways to get around this, IV and smoking being a couple of them. There are also sprays available, such as Sativex, the spray released in the UK based on THC, marijuana's psychoactive component. However, some may prefer smoking or vaporizing their medicine ("vaporization" turns the marijuana into a vapor without combusting it, relieving the user from any irritation of the bronchial tubes that may come from smoking).

Marijuana is frequently beneficial in the treatment of the following conditions:

* AIDS. Marijuana can reduce the nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite caused by the ailment itself and by various AIDS medications.

* Glaucoma. Marijuana can reduce interlobular pressure, thereby alleviating the pain and slowing -- and sometimes stopping -- the progress of the condition. (Glaucoma is the leading cause of blindness in the United States. It damages vision by increasing eye pressure over time.)

* Cancer. Marijuana can stimulate the appetite and alleviate nausea and vomiting, which are common side effects of chemotherapy treatment.

* Multiple Sclerosis. Marijuana can limit the muscle pain and spasticity caused by the disease, as well as relieving tremor and unsteadiness of gait. (Multiple sclerosis is the leading cause of neurological disability among young and middle-aged adults in the United States.)

* Epilepsy. Marijuana can prevent epileptic seizures in some patients.

* Chronic Pain. Marijuana can alleviate the chronic, often debilitating pain caused by myriad disorders and injuries.

Each of these applications has been deemed legitimate by at least one court, legislature, and/or government agency in the United States.

From WAMM, and a few testimonials. Admittedly, that's a site dedicated to medical marijuana advocacy, but the facts still stand.

From http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/scienc...ates.html:

Cannabis has been recognized for centuries as a valuable therapeutic agent. Folk uses of Cannabis include treatment of insomnia, inflammation, various psychoses, digestive disorders, depression, rheumatism, migraine, neuralgia, fatigue, constipation, diarrhea, parasites, appetite disorders and it has also been employed by women to facilitate childbirth, stimulate lactation, and relieve menstrual cramping (Mechoulam 1986). These traditions continue in every region where Cannabis is available. Modern Wester n Cannabis users also frequently claim relief from many of these same medical complaints.

Cannabis or THC have been used experimentally to effectively lower the elevated intraocular pressure of glaucoma (Adler and Geller 1986) and have shown potential for the treatment of alcoholism (Rosenburg 1976) and drug dependence (Hine et al. 1975). THC has been used as a bronchodilator for the relief of asthma symptoms (Graham 1986) and may also be effectively used as an analgesic for pain relief (Segal 1986). It has even been shown to have antibacterial properties (Van Klingeren and Ten Ham 1976).

Cannabis has been used for millennia:

The complex interplay of cannabis use with physiology and psychology challenges research. Outcomes are combinations of pharmacology, expectations, setting, personal and social forces. The contemporary ambiguity, a product of ignorance from deprivation of contemporary clinical experience, may be somewhat assuaged by two facts: Firstly, cannabis has been used for millennia by numerous cultures without serious adverse consequences. Secondly, neither the composition of cannabis nor the physiology of humans have changed since the drug was taken from the armementarium of medicine.

Here's an actual marijuana timeline.

This is written by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, a physician and medical marijuana advocate:

In every life there occur seminal events that modify the seemingly established trajectory of one's personal history. For me, three of the four big ones were, in chronological order, the decision to go to medical school, the extraordinary good fortune of meeting the woman I married, and the gift of children. The fourth was my improbable encounter with cannabis, an event that divided my life into two eras; the before cannabis era, and the cannabis era (my son David refers to these phases of my life as BC and AD for before cannabis and after dope). My cannabis era began to unfold in 1967. As the senior author of a book on schizophrenia, I found myself with what I estimated would be two to three relatively free months before my co-authors would finish their chapters. Because I had become concerned that so many young people were using the terribly dangerous drug marijuana, I decided to use the time to review the medical literature so that I could write a reasonably objective and scientifically sound paper on the harmfulness of this substance. Young people were ignoring the warnings of the government, but perhaps some would seriously consider a well-documented review of the available data. So I began my systematic review of the medical and scientific literature bearing on the toxicity -- mental and physical -- of marijuana. It never occurred to me then that there were other dimensions of this drug that warranted exploration.

During my initial foray into this literature I discovered, to my astonishment, that I had to seriously question what I believed I knew about cannabis. As I began to appreciate that what I thought I understood was largely based on myths, old and new, I realized how little my training in science and medicine had protected me against this misinformation. I had become not just a victim of a disinformation campaign, but because I was a physician, one of its agents as well.

Marijuana may block Alzheimer's (ironic, huh?)

(And even in that case, it would be incredibly hard to manage that... sell it how, pharmacies? As if the number of places robbed for their OxyContin isn't enough...

The answer to stop the spread of drugs is NOT to restrict it from those who need it. That's not very compassionate, for a liberal. ;)

those ridiculous 'medicinal marijuana' laws that just say 'you can have it' without having a system for getting it beyond illegal means that help drug traffickers are bad laws, something else would have to be done.

No system? What are you talking about? Marijuana is prescribed through physicians. It's not like anyone can just walk up to a generic government building and get a card. What if the patient received multiple opinions? Would you still be willing to be a hard-ass about it?

But first there would actually need to be proof that it helps and nothing else can in those cases, and I'm not so sure that that proof actually exists or could, so it's all hypothetical anyway.

You've never heard of the story of Montel Williams? Marijuana is the only drug that effectively alleviates the pain from his multiple sclerosis of the feet and legs, and doesn't turn him into a zombie. This case isn't exactly isolated, either... I would guess there are hundreds, if not thousands of people in this country who, if ill, would get the best results from marijuana. If it works, why argue with it? Also, as far as I know, patients who smoke marijuana on enough of a regular basis reportedly stop getting high. As someone with experience with cannabis, I can safely say that if I smoke it too much, it becomes boring, and my desire to smoke dwindles. Usually, at that point, I'll quit for a week (or longer, if I'm too busy from school to smoke).

The controls for making sure that it's actually a legitimate incurable illness that has no better option would also be quite difficult to maintain I'd think.) No, just keeping it illegal is best.

Sorry, but prohibiting a medication just because there exists a subset of people who actually ENJOY the substance recreationally is no reason to drive ill people into the hands of the criminal market, where they can get ripped off or harmed.

I'll tackle your other guys' posts later. :)