I noticed one glaringly obvious missing bit of information in this article. Are these changes, on the whole, beneficial or harmful to society?

I'm all for personal freedom, but in a society that tells me I must wear my seatbelt or face a stiff fine, and must not work for less than minimum wage, and is fast approaching the point where I will be told I cannot eat foods the government deems unhealthy and must purchase health insurance whether I want to or not (all for the good of society, of course) I would think that the question of whether or not these changes are good or bad for the social fabric would at least factor in.

Apparently not. I guess "the greater good" only comes into account when telling me what I can and cannot do with my money.

They are for the good.

Becase no one who truly wants a joint cannot get one now. And I for one am tired of seeing my tax money going down the rathole of enforcing laws against pot.

Keeping other drugs controlled can, to a degree be justified. But busting people for pot cannot.

And ther should be no laws regarding marriage between two consenting adults.

Beyond making them legal, that is.

Odd how you moan about having to wear a seat belt but are fine with keeping two homosexuals who love each other from marriage or putting millions of people in jail for smoking pot. That is what reveals those who call themselves "true conservatives" for the over reaching reactionaries they are.

Laws mandating seat belt use do indeed increase seat belt use which, every year, demonstrablely saves thousands of people from death in the US and tens of thousands from very serious injuries.

Most people regard saving lives and reducing injuries as a good—not only for society, but also for the affected individuals.

Laws forbidding smoking pot do not seem to reduce pot smoking to any significant degree, but do result in thousands of deaths from drug turf wars—just as happened with alcohol prohibition. Such laws also adversely affect millions of people who are prosecuted for their involvement with pot, divert and corrupt law enforcement, erode civil liberties and cost the taxpayers a tens of billions of dollars every year.

Most people regard producing excess deaths, ruining lives, encouraging corruption, reducing civil liberties and wasting resources as morally bad-- not only for society, but also for the affected individuals.

The 48 year old Cuban embargo has obviously not worked—unless one wants to credit the embargo for Fidel Castro’s recent removal from power. The only adverse effect I can imagine from a lifting of the embargo is that the weight of the millions of American tourists would who visit the island may cause it to sink.

If that problem were avoided, Americans would have a new and interesting place to vacation and the standard of living of Cubans would rise. How can that be bad?

There’s no evidence that laws against gay marriage have produced any good—for individuals or society. Such laws, however, clearly adversely affect a significant percentage of the population. How can it be good to hurt some people for no demonstrable reason?

So: these changes are very much for the good.

Bob

You won't ask yourself why, but I do, as to why this innocent substance called pot compels people to form gangs, kill each other, steal from each other, and cause them so much distress that they endlessly rally the government to allow them to partake in it so they won't have to worry about facing jail time.

My personal feelings, innocuous substances that aren't particularly important to me don't cause me to break laws in order to obtain them. On the other hand, addictive or enticing substances that compel further usage do cause me to entertain thoughts of breaking laws.

If this stuff is so innocent and harmless, why are you all so fricking desperate to get it?

People form gangs and kill each other over the money, not the drug. We’ve had the same problems with alcohol—and gold.

As for people who “endlessly rally the government to allow them to partake,” I am not aware of any drug users lobbying groups. But I am aware of people who do not use marijuana, but don’t think it’s wise to waste money, kill and imprison people, corrupt the justice system and erode civil liberties with nothing to show for it.

You don’t really believe that prohibition has reduced marijuana usage?

Marijuana prohibition doesn’t work and causes numerous very serious problems. So we should try something else--like with alcohol, tobacco and gambling.

Bob

Eigenvector:

You won't ask yourself why, but I do, as to why this innocent substance called pot compels people to form gangs, kill each other, steal from each other, and cause them so much distress that they endlessly rally the government to allow them to partake in it so they won't have to worry about facing jail time.

My personal feelings, innocuous substances that aren't particularly important to me don't cause me to break laws in order to obtain them. On the other hand, addictive or enticing substances that compel further usage do cause me to entertain thoughts of breaking laws.

If this stuff is so innocent and harmless, why are you all so fricking desperate to get it?

it is innocuous and lucrative. that it is lucrative and illegal makes it a boon for those who sell it. the crime isn't crazed potheads storming the local pizza parlor wacked out with muncies, but distributors warring with other distributors over turf...not some crackhead mugging someone for 20 dollars to go get high. see the difference? people would like it legalized in order to make distributors of the drug not be compelled to operate as criminal enterprises a la al capone and more like budweiser.

You aren't being accurate

You CONTRACTUALLY AGREE to wear a seatbelt. I thought conservatives liked contract based law

You won't be REQUiRED to purchase health insurance. You will just be required to not be a parasite on the general body politic in your failure to do so. So you willl have the CHOICE to NOT purchase it, and pay the premiuems via taxes, or purchase it YOUR CHOICE

You can eat foods that are deemed unheatlhy (odd that you don't have the same feeling about pot) - its just that the sellers - like with pot - will be regulated

But that said, net net all of those changes are good for the "fabric of society":

• having 75% of the prison population be there on "drug" (as though booze isn't a drug) related trafficking charges is a HUGE cost to society and the "social fabrik" of society
• Denying Constitutionally protected rights and removing the religious preferences for one style of belief is Good for society. and there is no harm associated with gay marriage
• Engagement with the PRC is a strong contributing factor to the expansion of a more liberal economy and more liberal politics. Why then do we treat Cuba in a manner that guarantees a repressive Governmet can remain in power

degsme:

So you willl have the CHOICE to NOT purchase it, and pay the premiuems via taxes, or purchase it YOUR CHOICE.

Yes, pay for it yourself, or we'll tax you. Only a liberal would call that "choice". 

Yes pay for it yourself or we will tax you. Only a conservative would call having someone else pay it for you freedom.

Forcing everyone to carry health insurance is like forcing everyone to carry auto insurance. The health costs of the uninsured will be paid in the absence of insurance and probably paid less efficiently than if health care wasn’t dispensed in the emergency room. It makes sense to make the people pay who get the benefit—especially if such a payment scheme improves efficiency.

Universal auto insurance is less important than universal health coverage, because injuries and damages associated with automobiles are far less likely and far less costly than health care related expenses. Nonetheless, nearly every state has mandatory auto insurance.

It seems to me that making people pay for what they get is a rather conservative principle.

Bob

There are things which can only be paid for before the fact by insurance because the actual costs are beyond the means of an individuals to pay so the risk has to be spread. When they are things which are often unavoidable and inevitably occur to some of us then all of us must be insured. Take the premium as a tax and let the government provide or self insure but since we all harbor a reasonable expectation of receiving medical care when we need it is is fair to mandate that all who can contribute to their insurance. Insurance is a conservative concept.

And ther should be no laws regarding marriage between two consenting adults.

Oh? Now that you mention it, my cousin does look kind of hot . .

'Course, I'm already married, but why should there be laws regarding how many consenting adults can get married at a time?

mark14:

Yes pay for it yourself or we will tax you. Only a conservative would call having someone else pay it for you freedom.

What if I want to self-insure?