$1:
I'm quite serious. Once you head down the path of embracing the libertine then what is the justification for outlawing so much else?
Seriously, if you legalize marijuana then why not legalize heroin? The arguments to ban heroin and marijuana are pretty much the same so why allow one argument and not the other?
Hopefully you don't mind if I respond here? I'm sorry to once again bring up the first topic below (I'm really sorry, it's homosexuality as an example), it's just that it's come up a lot lately and I needed the example. I didn't mean to bang the drum in another thread and I apologize deeply for doing so, feel free to chastise me for it.
In a previous thread, we discussed something very similar, when the topic of homosexual marriage was broached. As a response to concerns that it would lead to other forms of marriage, I provided a few examples off the top of my head where things like polygamous marriage, contrary to the idea that the arguments for it and homosexual marriage are not the same, had indeed very different rationales behind them. So different that states in the US, England, and Canadian provinces have successfully and legally found large and distinct differences between them.
Here is that thread for reference.
There are many justifications which can be used to differentiate any number of issues, hence why there are words to describe them as different things. Indeed, your question as to why polygamy would not be allowed due to the beliefs of "libertines" is effectively answered in the above link (as was recently re-stated by court decisions in the last few years alone), as a series of specific arguments and logical conclusions can be effectively derived from the layman to argue against their inclusion -- not to mention a library of study to provide a basis for legal blocks. Hence why the legalize marajuana movement aims at a singular set of drugs, the phytocannabinoids -- it's difficult to argue for the full unrestricted access to drugs, as there are series of drug specific issues, social harms, and general impacts which must be discussed in each area.
The legal system, in how it should work, acts as a forum for disagreement that at times fails, sure, but also as a method of ensuring fair bargaining and pareto optimal outcomes (or similar equilibrium) when possible in negotiations. As such, the basis of the law is not nor should it be one of populism or moral belief, but one which defines specific economic and social harms and benefits and the lines around which they are blocked or supported. In my own opinion, whether or not the activities of any one group or another is considered repugnant by any sector of the country is largely irrelevant, regardless of religious, income, gender, or racial affiliation. The relevancy to the issue comes from definable social, societal and economic harms that may come from such a change in legislation and whether or not access to any potential benefits are worth such a change. The discussion should be framed in such terms as a result, rather than making use of personal moral stipulations, in my own opinion.
The fact that they are repugnant by one's own stance lacks merit under concerns of legal questions. What does stand is identifiable facts and the discussion thereof, and yes, that can include the reaction of those who do not partake and the social problems thereof. However, such considerations are only part of a much larger, diverse system from the initial writing of any such law in a legislature through to the interpretation of rhetoric in available legal forums.
I want to mention that I am sincerely concerned about the use of a slippery slope comment in this thread. As I've mentioned in the past, this is one of the fallacies that bugs me the most, since it removes the context of a discussion and instead considers each step to be the precipice to the inevitable decline into extremism available at the end of the political spectrum. Worst yet, it's one of the easiest one's to partake in accidentally, and I wish I wasn't so susceptible to it. This sort of discussion has lead to the degradation of political discussion the world over, as mild changes in policy to increase army size is considered a build-up for military control of a nation while relaxing a corporate tax rate is described as a slide into fiscal anarchy. The result is that the situation at hand is forgotten for overstated, hyperbolic commentary furthering nothing and encouraging a form of political deadlock and stagnation that helps no one, at least, so I believe.
An example I thought of was the shooting of a congresswoman some months ago, in which the actions of a young deranged man were taken as a greater remark on the "violent" tactics of the right and that the entire right wing was driving a violent view into American politics. I personally viewed this as a hyperbolic stance that slid farther away from reality than necessary, and I remember you answered the same. Such discussions where the "republican oppression of the left" was viewed as the inevitable next step made me uncomfortable, like comments that a relatively smaller change in the legal status of one item was going to lead to an existential shift in not just morality but legal reality in Canada.
I believe you have been part of the forum which is discussed with the current state of sensationalism and partisanship within modern media, and I feel such pushing of boundaries, descriptions of esoteric possibilities and skewed views by the media are a result of things like the slippery slope, and have lead to the sort of degeneration we have seen in discourse from many viewpoints across America, Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, Brazil, India and other nations over the past few years whose political problems have found their way onto our forum.
As for the failings of the Canadian legal system, those should be discussed, brought to light and pushed into the face of the politicians. The question as to whether or not those cases should have happened should be placed before the Canadian people and the legal system with greater and stricter rigor to make sure the needs of Canadians are met. I admit finding the connections otherwise between a discussion of Native and Muslims in Canada and the possibility of further liberalization of law to be a logical step beyond my grasp. Other than the obvious indication of a potentially weak enforcement and legal system, is that what you were going for? Sorry, I haven't slept yet.
Of course, this is all my own very silly opinion from a largely uneducated mind who is writing at 5:30 in the morning, so I could be talking large and copious amounts of bollocks. Hopefully nothing I sad was horrible or offensive!
CKA Moderator 
Forum Junkie 
