Thought for the Day

[broncofan]

Sensitivity towards religious beliefs and an attempt to consider religious custom in settling personal and family matters is useful and is not something I see as pernicious. I'm sure most people don't mind people arranging their affairs in a way that assuages their conscience, and asking for some leeway or accommodation from the state to do so in such matters seems reasonable.

One example of an objection I would have is to the movement in the United States for religious people to exempt themselves from anti-discrimination mandates against gay men and women. These don't touch a religious practice, but those who claim religious interests might say the desire not to "participate in sin" is at least based on their view that gay sex is sinful. After many hard-fought battles, it seems the state should be able to say it is worthwhile to require businesses to serve lgbt members whether the owners approve of gay marriage or not. This should be so even if they feel the state is compelling them to participate in sin and they believe so sincerely.

I agree with everything in your last paragraph and most of your post which provides a useful context for the role of the state to accommodate religious customs and beliefs. The meme of "creeping sharia" is a right wing scare tactic as you indicate.

But I think the example you gave in Judaism of incest is probably instructive in the same way the single mention of Aisha is. It may not be an instruction to followers of how they should behave or anything more from the historian or scrivener than a biographical fact. But is it possible that whoever codified the doctrine did not for instance wonder whether the reader might view the practice as somehow incompatible with a moral life or as behavior unbecoming of a prophet? If they did, perhaps an explanatory footnote was in order? Maybe the format of the presentation doesn't permit a footnote because it would be like breaking the fourth wall? But it cannot do anything but detract from the credibility of the doctrine as a scheme endorsed by God.

[Stavros]

Sensitivity towards religious beliefs and an attempt to consider religious custom in settling personal and family matters is useful and is not something I see as pernicious. I'm sure most people don't mind people arranging their affairs in a way that assuages their conscience, and asking for some leeway or accommodation from the state to do so in such matters seems reasonable.

One example of an objection I would have is to the movement in the United States for religious people to exempt themselves from anti-discrimination mandates against gay men and women. These don't touch a religious practice, but those who claim religious interests might say the desire not to "participate in sin" is at least based on their view that gay sex is sinful. After many hard-fought battles, it seems the state should be able to say it is worthwhile to require businesses to serve lgbt members whether the owners approve of gay marriage or not. This should be so even if they feel the state is compelling them to participate in sin and they believe so sincerely.

I agree with everything in your last paragraph and most of your post which provides a useful context for the role of the state to accommodate religious customs and beliefs. The meme of "creeping sharia" is a right wing scare tactic as you indicate.

But I think the example you gave in Judaism of incest is probably instructive in the same way the single mention of Aisha is. It may not be an instruction to followers of how they should behave or anything more from the historian or scrivener than a biographical fact. But is it possible that whoever codified the doctrine did not for instance wonder whether the reader might view the practice as somehow incompatible with a moral life or as behavior unbecoming of a prophet? If they did, perhaps an explanatory footnote was in order? Maybe the format of the presentation doesn't permit a footnote because it would be like breaking the fourth wall? But it cannot do anything but detract from the credibility of the doctrine as a scheme endorsed by God.

The phrase 'endorsed by God' is a gripping one that sets up all sorts of confusing claims and counter-claims that a court of law may struggle to reconcile. The core problem for me is Child Marriage because it is quite a different issue from discrimination because marriage in most religions should be for life without divorce, and is therefore a momentous decision that cannot and should not be imposed on a 12 year old girl, quite apart from the sexual abuse of that child that then takes place -and may have taken place before it.

Discrimination has thrown up an interesting twist with regard to 'religious custom' or belief and the law. You may or may not know of a case in Northern Ireland where a bakery run by two Christians refused to bake a cake for two gay men with the legend 'Support Gay Marriage'. The case went to court and the gay men won, but the point of interest is that the campaigner for gay rights in the UK, Peter Tatchell, having initially supported the men as a case of discrimination in a province notorious for its reluctance to extend rights to all, subsequently retracted and defended the bakers.

He did so on the grounds that the bakers were not objecting to the couple being gay, but objected to the slogan 'Support Gay Marriage' -in other words, they objected to an idea, and were thus not discriminating against the men themselves, and Tatchell realised they needed to have their right to express their religious beliefs protected without themselves being discriminated against. One could also argue that if a bakery refused to put those words on a cake, then the couple could have chosen another that agreed to it, but the principle here is that freedom of expression works both ways, and is probably less controversial than it at first seems. Tatchell explains his position here-
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ience-religion

I think that is different from refusing to serve gay people in a cafe, that would be little different from denying it to Black people, Jews, or Republicans.

Where 'religious custom' outside of the Child Marriage issue I have raised becomes problematic, is in two areas of current interest, namely Kosher and Halal butchery, and so-called 'Islamic dress' -where this only seems to apply to women. In the UK there has been a campaign, mostly in newspapers and social media to demonize Halal butchery as cruel and unnecessary, though when you trace the sources you end up with the usual suspects on the fringes of politics who when asked, 'would you also ban Kosher butchery' respond with a gleeful 'yes!' which pretty well sums up their heritage. But it does not resolve the issue, where there are claims that the methods used in Kosher and Halal butchery cause less distress to the animal than secular methods, an issue on which I don't think there can be any consensus unless one can prove that the animal is never hurt or distressed, which cannot be the case when most animals want to be left alone in a field to munch grass and don't like the smell of abattoirs.

As for dress, New Jersey provides two examples of Islamic dress being allowed in one case and not allowed in another -a woman in a shopping mall was asked to remove her face covering by a security guard who was then sacked from his post, but a woman working for a Camden County jail was sacked for refusing to remove hers at work. There appears to be some confusion over what is permitted as part of 'religious custom' where this conflicts with secular custom and law, but I doubt legislators will address this -not for fear of offending people, but because it opens up all the other issues we have discussed, but where in the case of Child Marriage there is enough evidence of harm to act to prevent it. The two different cases in New Jersey are in these links:

http://www.nj.com/somerset/index.ssf...all_guard.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...carf/96745940/

[bluesoul]

my thought for the day:

[broncofan]

I wonder whether the message from the U.S' inability to ban alcohol is that it is too difficult to ban toxic substances, whether the difficulty is directly proportional to the popularity of the substance, or whether there is something special about alcohol and the history of its use that made it difficult to ban. I think it's a bit of the second two. Alcohol is extremely popular and it's also been around in both western and eastern cultures for thousands of years. The history of its use as a recreational substance of choice can be seen in the fact that there are significant differences in the ability of different populations to metabolize alcohol that are either a product of its use or might dictate propensities for use.

What would happen if we banned tobacco products? We know chewing tobacco causes mouth cancer and esophogeal cancer, smoked tobacco causes lung cancer, emphysema, copd and probably a zillion other terrible conditions. But would it be as tough to ban as alcohol? Its use in the U.S. and most western countries is pretty broad, but as Fred said in the other thread, it's a stimulant with some other properties (at higher doses its stimulant effects do not ramp up linearly and it can be anxiolytic). But it has a substitute in caffeine, which is a mild stimulant, although most smokers would probably laugh at someone calling it anything of an adequate substitute.

I think alcohol is also kind of unique because it's an intoxicant and nicotine isn't. It produces delirium and amnesia and people drink to wind down or forget or relax or change perspective. I'm not sure there's any other legal substance that plays that role. Anyway I've exhausted what I know about the subject...just curious if anyone wants to weigh in about tobacco bans, marijuana bans etc...substances that are broadly use but might be prohibited. I think it is probably too popular to ban but not quite as difficult as alcohol.

[fred41]

Humans are social animals, many of which are introverted to a degree, and as such will probably always need something to help ease inhibitions and make it easier to interact. Coupled with that fact, and the fact that alcohol is already deeply ingrained in many cultures, it would be almost impossible to ban it. Marijuana does the same thing in almost a cleaner and less harmful way, but it has been demonized in such a way over the past few decades that I still know tons of people that see nothing wrong with alcohol, but put weed in almost the same category as heroin...which is, of course, ridiculous.
I would love for it to be illegal for a company to produce and market cigarettes, but one of the problems would be the huge amount of people that continue to smoke around the globe. It would be impossible. That isn't to say that I believe a ban on every vice carries the same weight as many people now believe. I'm perfectly happy to live in a gray area when it comes to many of my beliefs. For instance...I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, but I wouldn't agree to the same for heroin.
There was a time in my life when I abused most available drugs to a degree with the exception of heroin and crack...and smoked two and a half packs of cigarettes a day. I can honestly say, out of all those things cigarettes were both the most useless and unhealthy of the lot. I have no problem with some of the bans that are now in place in many large cities in regards to cigarettes. Interestingly enough I do think it's a bit ridiculous to not allow smoking in many mental hospitals...what else does a schizophrenic have to do to pass the time?But other than that...fuck it.

P.S...Caffeine serves a purpose..it can create alertness and helps in concentration and combined with a workout routine can help to burn calories. Cigarettes can help with some things but the negatives far, far outweigh the positives.

[Jericho]

One man's cofffee's another mans' heroin.
Where do you draw the line?
Should you draw the line?

[Stavros]

Humans are social animals, many of which are introverted to a degree, and as such will probably always need something to help ease inhibitions and make it easier to interact. Coupled with that fact, and the fact that alcohol is already deeply ingrained in many cultures, it would be almost impossible to ban it. Marijuana does the same thing in almost a cleaner and less harmful way, but it has been demonized in such a way over the past few decades that I still know tons of people that see nothing wrong with alcohol, but put weed in almost the same category as heroin...which is, of course, ridiculous.
I would love for it to be illegal for a company to produce and market cigarettes, but one of the problems would be the huge amount of people that continue to smoke around the globe. It would be impossible. That isn't to say that I believe a ban on every vice carries the same weight as many people now believe. I'm perfectly happy to live in a gray area when it comes to many of my beliefs. For instance...I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, but I wouldn't agree to the same for heroin.
There was a time in my life when I abused most available drugs to a degree with the exception of heroin and crack...and smoked two and a half packs of cigarettes a day. I can honestly say, out of all those things cigarettes were both the most useless and unhealthy of the lot. I have no problem with some of the bans that are now in place in many large cities in regards to cigarettes. Interestingly enough I do think it's a bit ridiculous to not allow smoking in many mental hospitals...what else does a schizophrenic have to do to pass the time?But other than that...fuck it.
P.S...Caffeine serves a purpose..it can create alertness and helps in concentration and combined with a workout routine can help to burn calories. Cigarettes can help with some things but the negatives far, far outweigh the positives.

A number of points to make here:

the first is that Heroin is, in a sense, already a legal substance, when it is used in medicine. The 'war on drugs' has been a total failure, with legalization and our old friend, regulation the only alternative left to try. It doesn't happen in places like the US for cultural and political rather than medical reasons.

While tobaccosis is a global problem, the trend in the UK over the last 50 years has with a few blips been all one way, to a significant reduction of smokers-
The statistics show that, bar two small blips, smoking prevalence has declined continuously and dramatically over the past 50 years by about two-thirds. In 1974, over 50% of men in Britain were smokers; that had fallen to just 19.1% in England in 2015. Similarly, just over 40% of women smoked back then; last year it was only 14.9%.
Health campaigners said that smoking’s continuing fall in popularity is due to a combination of tough measures, such as price rises and the introduction of plain packaging, and mass media campaigns urging people to quit
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...o-lowest-level

One of the curious aspects of all this is the extent to which humans appear to need, or enjoy stimulants which are derived from natural products, so one assumes in the distant past humans discovered what happens when you chew long enough on a tobacco leaf or a coca leaf. And leaves are also the main ingredient in tea, which gives me exquisite pleasure, especially first thing in the morning. Most drugs transformed into pills or liquids started out as leaves or plants, but one of the really interesting diversions, is into Plato's discussion of pharmacology and the way in which the root word, pharmakon can mean remedy or poison, and thus good/bad; it can also be used to mean charm, spell, recipe, and so on.
http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/pmahon/pharmakon.html

It begs the question: do humans need stimulants to cope with the stress of everyday life? Is alcohol a burden or a liberation, or both depending on the volume consumed? Does the State legislate the consumption of substances for psychological reasons, or is it the fact that in most cases, it is done through taxation to raise revenues? You pay the producers to make the stuff, and pay the state to receive permission to smoke it.

[broncofan]

I think an important initial argument to make is that there are some substances that should be prohibited. A good place to start is with the opiates, which exist in natural form and have probably been consumed for centuries for their analgesic properties and which now have synthetic analogues that hit the same brain receptors and are many times stronger. Even where their use is possibly beneficial, they should be carefully regulated with an eye towards their hazards.

The libertarian argument for not banning substances is that each individual has a unique set of values and preferences. It would follow that the person who uses a drug that harms his long-term health values present pleasure over future consequences. As a libertarian professor of mine put it, he has a very steep discount rate for future experience. As a result, there is no basis for assuming his decision to take something that eventually kills him is not rational. Of course, this is tautological nonsense and there is no basis for heeding this view.

I've watched a couple of documentaries about the opioid crisis and the most striking thing you hear from people who are stuck in the throes of addiction is that they wish they never touched the substance. The libertarian riposte would be that they say this only after they've received the pleasurable effects and are at a new set point where their only goal is to avoid the consequences. But the truth is that they had no way of valuing the consequences in advance, they had no way of anticipating the misery, and most importantly no way to anticipate the way the substance would hijack the parts of their brain involved in self-regulation. The person assumes they will be the same person in the throes of addiction that they were previously but the drug has attacked an intergral part of their "self".

Anyhow, if you allow widespread use of opioids, synthetic and natural, into a population based on a misconception of their hazards or possible beneficial use, you will see an epidemic. By the time you see the consequences across a population you know people have not made a rational choice, whatever their very personal values are.

I agree that people want to use stimulants and they can benefit people in the short-run but the body's need for rest eventually neutralizes a lot of their benefits. But when they're mild like caffeine people can get some use from them. The history of cocaine and amphetamine as performance enhancers though indicates that the drugs are better at producing euphoria than enhancing performance.

[bluesoul]

One man's cofffee's another mans' heroin.
Where do you draw the line?
Should you draw the line?

depends: is this a line of heroin or coke?

i realized my previous thought was not political, but should it? that's the thought i had and looking back, it was an amazing thought.

then i had another thought and it wasn't a good one. and it had to do with this. your thoughts?

[Stavros]

I've watched a couple of documentaries about the opioid crisis and the most striking thing you hear from people who are stuck in the throes of addiction is that they wish they never touched the substance. The libertarian riposte would be that they say this only after they've received the pleasurable effects and are at a new set point where their only goal is to avoid the consequences. But the truth is that they had no way of valuing the consequences in advance, they had no way of anticipating the misery, and most importantly no way to anticipate the way the substance would hijack the parts of their brain involved in self-regulation. The person assumes they will be the same person in the throes of addiction that they were previously but the drug has attacked an intergral part of their "self".

The view in the UK is that the opioid crisis in the US while not unique to the country has its roots in a mixture of poor training among doctors -until recently medical students had little or no training in pain management-; the pill-obsessed medical culture that makes it convenient for a doctor to prescribe opioids when they may not be necessary; the money pumped into the health industry by drug companies directly targeting doctors persuading them to prescribe their product, and through tv adverts so their patients assume the best remedy for their pain is a pill when it might be some other form of therapy, probably of the kind their insurance won't cover.

The BBC has a useful view on the link below. I think the opioid issue is different from that of recreational drugs, where the exclusion of some makes them appear exciting even if dangerous (Ketamine, for example) and is crucial for the illegal sales that maintain syndicates of organized crime. Legalising and then regulating and controlling substances is the best way to reduce the crime associated with them, but it takes a politician of courage these days to declare the 'war on drugs' a failure and to promote alternatives.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41701718