Posts Tagged ‘laws’

‘gay rights’ are really ‘equality’ and ‘civil rights’

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009

This is an interesting point, one which I think I agree with… at least for the first two sentences.

” What’s with the label? Gay rights. Do they need seperate rights? Do they need a gay Bill of Rights, and a gay right to vote too? Please. Irony is not the fact that tolerant peoples do not want the legislation passed. Irony is the fact that Gays don’t want to be singled out and labeled, yet they have their own community (gay community), and they want Gay rights. Wow - I am going to start telling people I want White rights…i want a fair share and have people not worry more about minorities than me. I am an individual, just like everyone else. I want equal, white rights, too. Ironic…Don’t you think? ”

Gay-rights advocates press for change in N.D. law [bismarcktribune.com], comment by ‘Dante’s Inferno’

Kind of weird how he (apparently inadvertently) points out that the struggle for ‘gay rights’ is really a struggle for ‘equality’ and ‘civil rights,’ period - but then he immediately makes these sweeping generalizations about the ‘Gays’ (with a capital ‘G’) who ‘want Gay rights’, which he says is as ridiculous as ‘Whites’ wanting ‘White Rights’. Which is right - but he’s not saying it in a very considerate way. I wonder if one of my few concessions to political correctness is attempting to keep generalizations concerning characteristics of ‘groups’ of people to a minimum?

is the controlled substances act a popularity contest? [myspace]

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

So, I was kind of thinking about writing a quick letter to my state rep, Earl Blumenauer. From what I’ve read, he’s a pretty cool guy. But I’m not sure I really want to write him a letter. Maybe I will. I’ll try it out as a blog post first, anyway.

Salvia divinorum is a plant that contains a chemical called ‘Salvinorin A‘, which is a hallucinogen. It’s normally available in concentrations (5x, 10x, 20x, etc), and most often smoked (preferably at a higher temperature then normal lighters). It’s also legal in the state of Oregon. Sounds kind of weird, huh? Kind of inconsistent? Or even hypocritical? The thing is, if we choose, Oregon could keep it legal. And who gets to decide stuff like that? Our buddy Earl.

Hello there Earl -

I wanted to send you a quick note concerning the legality of ‘Salvia divinorum’, to see what your thoughts were on the subject, and on a broader scale, recreational drug use.

Do you think that that mind-altering substances can be used in a way that isn’t ‘abuse’? I suppose that’s the wrong question to ask, because there’s always the potential for them to be used responsibly (for entertainment, relaxation, or even spiritual exploration) but the issue to consider is whether citizens in general can be trusted to do so.

Legal alcohol consumption versus illegal use of marijuana is probably the most accessible example of this question. Although both are drugs with similar levels of effect on the people that use them, the former is legal, while the latter is not. There are plenty of mitigating factors for this disparity (economic and even religious) but demonization of marijuana in the media significantly influenced public opinion. Salvia is starting to experience some of the same negative attention - lately there have been headlines and news reports which are nowhere near neutral-sounding:

“Deadly Dangers Of A Street Legal High”
“Now, an exclusive I-Team investigation of a hallucinogenic drug that has begun to sweep the nation. What might amaze you is that right now the federal government is doing nothing to stop it”

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum)

The implication of the second quote is obvious - that hallucinogenic drugs are bad, and the federal government has a responsibility to protect people from them. What are your thoughts? Are such substances inherently dangerous? I would argue that Salvia, like most things, exhibits potential for abuse, but is not inherently dangerous. Poor judgment and character flaws might prompt a user to put themselves in a dangerous or harmful situation, but the drug itself is inconsequential - a slew of other things, legal and illegal, from firearms to fireworks, could just as easily become dangerous if used incorrectly or in a reckless manner. Should all citizens suffer because not everyone is as capable of exercising good judgment? I would advocate greater attention on education and utilization of existing rules (disturbing the peace, drunk and disorderly, driving under the influence, et cetera) to encourage people to make good choices and only punish those who fail to do so, rather then using blanket restrictions to control the minority of people who ‘ruin it for the rest of us’.

I’m not sure how much this issue (legality of Salvia divinorum in particular, but recreational use of mind-altering substances as well) is on your radar, but I thought it couldn’t hurt for me to voice an opinion. I’ll understand if you don’t want to get in to a protracted email discussion about it, but if you feel like conversing on the subject, I would love to talk.

sincerely,
Matt Lohkamp

On a related note, consider this Latin proverb - abusus non tollit usum, or “abuse is not an argument against use.” What do you think?

edit: on a related note: legal status of Salvia in Oregon [wikipedia]
‘nother edit: “firearms to fireworks” is a pretty good phrase, if I do say so myself. Gotta love those alliterations.