I have no interest whatsoever in the use of any of the recreational drugs and I have no medical need for any of them, but like Professor Machan says, that isn't the issue.  The government hasn't the right to tell us what we can or can not put in our bodies.

We once had prohibition of the use of alcohol - in the constitution no less - and that was repealed.  I understand that the repeal was proceeded by people refusing to abide by the law, and then by forms of state nullification.  I suspect that is what we will see for marijuana.  One state after another will legalize it... not just for medical usage, but as Colorado recently did, for any use.  And finally the Federal government will modify their laws to exclude any criminal mention of marijuana.

While that is a better state of affairs then we have now, it is still a far cry from recognizing that the government has no powers not granted by the constitution and that the moral right to use drugs is with the individual who owns their body.  Anything else is an implicit acknowledgement that the government is the owner of our bodies and just allows us to use them so long as we use them in ways they approve of enough to not outlaw.

Many on the far left recognize that the government has no right to regulate drug use, but have no problem with regulating health care.  Many on the religious right recognize that government shouldn't regulate health care but have no problem with regulating drug use.  Both share the same basic premise which is that some elite should be the moral authority over others, using force to impose their control over the bodies of others, and only differ in what body functions they "allow" the individual to exercise.

Eva, How about you try to think like an Objectivist, post your best conclusion on what we might respond with to your questions.

Matthews,

On a more abstract note ( which certain fisslies cannot understand!), individual rights always need to be redressed against the laws which, by having elected a government in the first place, we accept.

No, you have it totally backwards.  The laws must be made to conform to individual rights, whose protection is the only proper purpose of the law.  Your worship of unfettered democracy, this embarrassing need to bow before the majority as if right would always be a matter of counting heads is something you don't seem to be able to get past.  I fear your thinking will always be warped in this fashion.

----------

This is a forum of people who are Objectivists.  Why do you want to come here to argue that we should adopt other views?  The people here, for the most part, understand that products that purposefully and intentionally harm others fall under the fraud or initiation of force aspect of individual rights and such sales would be criminal acts.  But, if they aren't intended to harm the purchasers, but do, then the recourse would be civil court.

People here don't tend to want the government to step in and tell them what they can or cannot buy or sell or manufacture or grow.  You most certainly are NOT a libertarian unless you subscribe to the theory that words are whatever you want them to be at the moment.

----------

In other words, yes, certain laws are clearly unfair and unjust. But it's incumbent upon an individual to demonstrate unfairness. In this case, pro-cannibis fails miserably.

No, it is encumbent on politicians to not pass unfair law... laws that are outside of the power the constitution granted, and outside of any common sense understanding of liberty and freedom.  Your idea of "unfair and unjust" is that an elite in Washington decide what is best for us, and as long as a majority voted for them, then whatever they pass is fair and just.  How is that different from Progressivism?  If they passed a law that said it was okay to rape 20 year old college students, that would most certainly be unfair and unjust, but would it be incumbent upon an individual to demonstrate unfairness?  I shouldn't have to say it, but I will.  An objectively derived moral code is the only answer to the many confusions you so frequently bring to your posts.  Without it, you will be lost trying to hold together a relationship between concepts like "fair and just" and laws and what government should and shouldn't do.

Wolfer,

Yes, laws should be made to conform to one an individual feels that 'individual rights' should be because everyone wants to have his/her own way.

Yet the reality--present, past, future, everywhere-- is that the society at large decides what's 'individual' and what's not. In a democracy, we all get to decide via representation.

So your on-line hissyfit only makes things worse. That's because what you're not doing is participating in any kind of open debate with others.

Moreover, as a political ally in the cause to get taxes lowered, you're worse than useless. Even if you lived in Atlanta, i would not bring you to a tax-forum debate because you'd embarrass me: everything disagreeable would be labeled 'socialist'.

Newsflash: Although I think Rand's ideas are interesting, six billion people out there not named 'Wolfer' also cherish their own particular version of individual rights. I would also guesstimate that half of those do a better job of explaining than you.

In other words, no one is really interested in reducto ad absurdam arguments that compare unfriendly tax rates to legally permitting rape. But that's the best you have; how juvenile.

EM

Matthews,

...laws should be made to conform to one an individual feels that 'individual rights' should be because everyone wants to have his/her own way.

You either don't understand, or don't agree that there are such things as individual rights. As I've said before, without an understanding that an objective, universal moral code can be discovered and that elements of it will provide a basis for a moral government, you will never be able to escape from your self-adopted trap of society makes 'right' and majority equals moral. It is no wonder that you became so incensed with Fred's gang rape metaphor.  It instantly ruins what little there is to your intellectual understanding of what government is really about.
-----------

Instead of an intelligent argument you say the following:
- I'm just having a hissyfit
- I'm not participating in any kind of open debate
- I'm worthless as a political ally in the cause to get taxes lowered
- Individual rights are subjective, everyone has their own version, and most of them do a better job of explaining theirs than I do
- My arguments are absurd and I am juvenile

And absolutely no evidence, no reasoning is presented, just ugly ad hominem attacks. I'd make some comment at this point about who is the juvenile, but, wait.... you are the one who was a teenager last year.
------------

Given that you are okay with the government doing whatever the majority wants, then you will be okay with higher taxes if that is the way they vote. Why not? You have no moral basis for your politics, that I've seen, except that a majority rules.

Matthews,

You can continue to believe that there are no universal values. Or you can say that they have yet to be discovered (but I doubt that anyone would believe that you are sitting there, open-mindedly waiting and hoping that such will be discovered). You can find nits to pick and points to ignore on any and all attempts to point out what universal values are already clear. All of these tactics work well for progressives.

You say that society makes right but put 'right' in single quotes. I take it you don't believe that there is such a thing as an ethical right... apart from subjective beliefs.  Again, another reason that you get your knickers in such a twist when anyone points out that a majority vote will not make gang rape right.

I'm not the one getting pissy at the notion of a workable moral law that can serve as a recipe for a moral government.  I have such a recipe and I'm quite happy with it. You are the one who gets all pissy at the idea that I could believe in such a thing. And you fall back on claims that society makes 'right' and that that a majority vote should be accepted. Then you get all pissy anew over the issue of gang rape.

You say that a prerequisite for talking morals with others is an acceptance that compromise is what you have to do. So, if you are the lone female who is about to be gang raped by a majority who say there is nothing immoral with 'a little bit of fun' and that there aren't any universal moral principles anyway, and why are you getting all pissy, what do you do?  Do you compromise and say it is okay if only half of them get a turn?

You see, I think morality is universal and absolute and there should be no compromise on basic principles and that you are the sole property owner of your body and that's something I'd fight quite ferociously to defend. But then you said you wouldn't even want me to be with you when arguing before the Atlanta City Council on tax issues, you don't believe in property rights, individual rights, moral principles, universal morality, etc., etc.

Matthews,

I wrote that you are the sole property owner of your body - a universal moral principle.  You called it rhetorical trick and then, in the next sentence, said I haven't yet explained what any of these principles are!!!!!

You are opposed to gang rape aren't you?  If so, on what principle?