The abstinence-harm reduction paradox

[kren]

Probably the wrong place to post; apologies in advance and please move as you see fit, mods.

I'm new to vaping so I am probably not seeing all the shades of gray (smoke). But here's how it seems to shake out to me:

Conservatives are all about abstinence-only sex education. No "harm reduction" education, like condoms or STD information. Liberals are all about harm reduction when it comes to sex ed -- they're all for sex ed, condoms, etc.

Now look at who's lined up on either side of the vaping issue. By and large, it seems to be liberals on the all-or-nothing (abstinence) side. No harm reduction, nothing in-between is good, certainly not vaping -- you must quit cold turkey. And it seems to be conservatives on the side of harm reduction, i.e. vaping.

What's up with this seeming paradox? How can you be for harm reduction on one issue and not on the other?
Anyone?

 

[erich]

Ah, inconsistency... the only thing consistent about politicians.

The liberals aren't defined by their unwillingness to ban things; SUVs, guns, oil of most any form, public display of religion, and the concept of personal responsibility are all targets for removal of the left.

The stereotypical conservative position on abortion and contraception aren't particularly conservative at all. A conservative position would be that such things are not the job of the government to decide... A conservative position would be that any individual's position on social issues is NOT a task for government. There should be NO conservative view on social issues... they fall outside of the realm of what a true conservative would believe the purpose of government to be. Two men want to get married? Go for it, because it doesn't hurt anyone else. The abortion one sticks around because some people seem to think that a fetus was leading a meaningful life prior to termination, which somehow subsumes any rights of the life of the mother.

Limited government, err, except when it agrees with me, then we want big government! Unfortunately, our system is set up such the winner is the guy vowing to fight to make everyone do as he believes (or claims to). Whichever one has the most people (or therabouts) in agreeance with his beliefs gets a term in office to attempt to live up to that promise. The other 150 million or so be damned. "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner," indeed.

There are groups on both sides trying to incite enough completely unqualified dimwits into an excited state long enough to get them to the polls.

I, for one, would love to give to the true liberals all of the social issues, in return for giving to the true conservatives all of the fiscal ones. Pass a gay marriage amendment, a law defining early term pregnancy abortion as a medical condition to be dealt with between the patient, her family, and her doctor. Then gut our current tax system in favor of one that doesn't need 16,845 pages to define. For energy, we split it. Conservatives get oil, Liberals get the 'green' energy... at the end of each year, we add up how much energy was produced and divide it by what was spent, and that's the percentage of the energy fund you get next year. You're never going to sway anyone's view on a social issue anyhow, and that would make it damned difficult to get more occutards for at least 10 years when you just handed them all of the social issues. The vast majority of these people haven't the slightest clue how petty and insignificant the social issues are when compared with the financial mess they're creating.

Oh, and to make sure there's one in there that none of them will like, an involuntary stripping of the ability to run for re-election for any members presiding at the end of a fiscal year with greater than a 3% deficit.

Anyhow, just the ramblings of a strongly fiscal conservative who leans to the left on pretty much all of the social issues.

 

[dlsw]

erich, you have just defined me politically: Social issues, leave us alone... fiscally conservative...

 

[erich]

One and the same in my view. Socially, leave me alone. Financially, leave me alone.

I haven't met a politician yet that I trust with my money or my morals.

 

[Luisa]

Ah, inconsistency... the only thing consistent about politicians.

The liberals aren't defined by their unwillingness to ban things; SUVs, guns, oil of most any form, public display of religion, and the concept of personal responsibility are all targets for removal of the left.

The stereotypical conservative position on abortion and contraception aren't particularly conservative at all. A conservative position would be that such things are not the job of the government to decide... A conservative position would be that any individual's position on social issues is NOT a task for government. There should be NO conservative view on social issues... they fall outside of the realm of what a true conservative would believe the purpose of government to be. Two men want to get married? Go for it, because it doesn't hurt anyone else. The abortion one sticks around because some people seem to think that a fetus was leading a meaningful life prior to termination, which somehow subsumes any rights of the life of the mother.

Limited government, err, except when it agrees with me, then we want big government! Unfortunately, our system is set up such the winner is the guy vowing to fight to make everyone do as he believes (or claims to). Whichever one has the most people (or therabouts) in agreeance with his beliefs gets a term in office to attempt to live up to that promise. The other 150 million or so be damned. "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner," indeed.

There are groups on both sides trying to incite enough completely unqualified dimwits into an excited state long enough to get them to the polls.

I, for one, would love to give to the true liberals all of the social issues, in return for giving to the true conservatives all of the fiscal ones. Pass a gay marriage amendment, a law defining early term pregnancy abortion as a medical condition to be dealt with between the patient, her family, and her doctor. Then gut our current tax system in favor of one that doesn't need 16,845 pages to define. For energy, we split it. Conservatives get oil, Liberals get the 'green' energy... at the end of each year, we add up how much energy was produced and divide it by what was spent, and that's the percentage of the energy fund you get next year. You're never going to sway anyone's view on a social issue anyhow, and that would make it damned difficult to get more occutards for at least 10 years when you just handed them all of the social issues. The vast majority of these people haven't the slightest clue how petty and insignificant the social issues are when compared with the financial mess they're creating.

Oh, and to make sure there's one in there that none of them will like, an involuntary stripping of the ability to run for re-election for any members presiding at the end of a fiscal year with greater than a 3% deficit.

Anyhow, just the ramblings of a strongly fiscal conservative who leans to the left on pretty much all of the social issues.

You should have been around to vote for Goldwater---he was the type pf conservative we all love--strong on fiscal policy,strong on keeping the US safe,and felt the social issues were not the business of government. He received a bad rap because he was perceived as a right wing extremist. He truly was not an extremist--just a sensible American who ran at the wrong time.

 

[Bill Godshall]

kren's observation is spot on, and I've been exposing that hypocrisy for the past decade.

While Henry Waxman has been a harm reduction activist to reduce STDs, he's long been an intolerant abstinence-only activist when it comes to reducing smoking diseases.

Except for Utah, all state and local legislation seeking to ban the sale and indoor use of e-cigarettes has been sponsored and championed by liberal Democrats, while Republicans have helped us defeat these bills.

If kren (or anyone else) would like more info and insight into this issue (and the legislative battles we face), please send an e-mail to me at smokefree@compuserve.com

Also, please check out the Legislative News thread.

 

[woolfe99]

Not a libertarian here, though I do agree with libertarians on many issues. I want the state to respect zones of privacy for individuals. What we put into our bodies, who we have sex with, what kind of sex we have, who we marry, what we watch on TV or read on the internet, whether we can end our own life, what we do with what's growing inside our own bodies.

To me, if the government regulates a corporation for the public benefit, that is a different matter. There, it turns on the cost-benefit of the regulation. While that regulation might indirectly affect my consumer choice - for example, the choice between an incandescent and a fluorescent light bulb - that is a utilitarian and economic choice. Not a personal and life-defining choice.

Sometimes liberals cross over these lines when they go after violence on TV or video-games, or talk about taxing sugary drinks, or banning tobacco or e-cigs. So there is fault in both sides. However, I don't subscribe to an ideology that prescribes the same solution for every problem because every problem is not the same and the state's role can be better in some situations and worse in others. Libertarianism holds that government can do no right. That is over-generalizing, and that is the constant flaw in basically every political paradigm. While libertarianism seems logically consistent in the internal sense, it over-simplifies reality and hence it fails the test of empiricism.

- wolf

 

[toothboy]

Erich's post is perhaps the most intelligent thing I have read in a loooooooooooooooong time.

 

[erich]

Only a small faction of Libertarians proscribe all government function... the problem is that Libertarianism has far too many definitions and little recognition of any of them in the general population. As you can find the party itself in direct opposition to other factions of the same party, you can find a group with views contrary to your own and denounce the whole philosophy as a result. A completely contrived example:

I really like the ideas of the libertarian candidate.
---
Oh? What do they believe in?
---
They're all about reducing government and expanding individual freedoms.
---
Oh. That sounds nice... but then who is going to build roads?
---
Hrmm... gee, I'm not sure. I don't think Libertarians believe in roads.
---
Oh. Well I use roads. I don't think I like this Libertarianism.

It's interesting to note that the two main parties aren't particularly well defined either. Republicans are generally in favor of personal financial freedom and expansion of the state's role in social issues, and Democrats are generally in favor of individual social freedom and expansion of the state's role in financial issues. An increase in the role of the state is directly in opposition to the power (and responsibility) of the individual in either case. It's easy, however, to find examples of both deviating from these tendencies. Given our long history of a two-party state, the rise of third party is going to require a clear message from a charismatic figurehead, and as yet there has been no such champion.

 

[erich]

Erich's post is perhaps the most intelligent thing I have read in a loooooooooooooooong time.

Why thank you.