Drugs: Legalise or Prohibit?

[ballen0351]

Like cell phones with texting?

Great point thats why its illegal in alot of states now

 

[Steve]

So then why keep adding more things that are bad for us? We have already shown we cant handle alcohol look at the # of fatal accidents due to drinking. So why add one more thing to the mix?

Keep your government mits out of my personal life, you damned liberal.

Oh, sorry. I... ahem... just get so angry at you liberals trying to stick your noses where they don't belong.

Seriously, though, who are you to decide for me what is good for me or not? Or which vices I should be able to indulge in and which I should not?

Personally, I think that when considering whether a vice should be legal or not, we should consider the relative negative impacts based on what we already legalize. Heroin, Chrystal Meth, Cocaine, etc, lead to clear, inevitable downward spirals of addiction. Marijuana does not. Alcohol does not. Could they? For some people with a genetic propensity for addiction in general or for alcoholism in particular, they could be problems. But for most, they do not.

There are millions of high functioning people who smoke weed regularly. Just as there are millions of high functioning people who enjoy alcohol responsibly.

BTW, banning happy meals is idiotic.

 

[Steve]

Great point thats why its illegal in alot of states now

And studies are showing now that this has made driving even more dangerous as people aren't stopping. They're continuing to text, only now doing it below the level of their dashboard making it even more dangerous. Their eyes are off the road longer and they're dividing their attention even more.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

oint isn't that MJ is good for you. Point IS that it's much less bad for you than many things that are legal.

That's not actually a point, though.

This is the core of your argument:

X is legal and it is bad for you. Y is not legal and it is not as bad for you as X. Therefore, Y should be made legal.
​

This is a logical fallacy, even if all the statements in it are true.

If we make our laws on the basis of what is good for you are and what is not good for you, then the logic of your argument would dictate that X should be made illegal, not that Y should be made legal also.

If we acknowledge that the basis of our laws does not rest merely upon what is 'good for you' or 'bad for you', then the statements constitute a moot point. You might as well argue that Marijuana is green, and green is a nice color. True, but meaningless in the context of argument for or against legalization.

Again, all of the negative points for MJ are directly attributable to its being illegal. Were it legalized, all of these negative points would magically disappear.

I disagree.

Negative aspects of Marijuana:

* Property and personal crimes associated with supply. By this, I mean that some people who want marijuana steal and rob to get the money to buy it. Not all people who smoke pot do this - a small minority do. This is also true of people who steal and rob to get booze or hard drugs, etc. There is no reason to presume that this behavior will cease when and if marijuana becomes legal. It will still not be free, and a small percentage of people will still steal and rob to get it. That's a negative aspect, and it won't go away.

* Personal injury resulting from use. By this I mean people who get intoxicated and have accidents, such as crashing cars and walking off cliffs or whatever. Even if we assume that there will be no more pot-smokers after legalization than before, we will still have the same number of people doing these things. That is also a negative aspect, and it won't go away either.

* Drug-related violence. By this I am referring to the cartels that purchase, prepare, transport, and sell the drugs. These cartels, as we know, kill people and threaten government stability, not to mention funding terrorism and other negative causes. These people who currently specialize in marijuana, they're not going to quietly throw up their hands and go out of business if and when marijuana becomes legal. They're going to continue their other operations and/or get into other prohibited substance dealing; unless you legalize ALL drugs, the violence associated with them is not going to go away. That's a negative aspect, that won't change with legalization.

What may happen is that states will be able to raise revenues through taxes on a new cash crop. Prices will be set by taxation, and there will be a minor influx of black market dealers taking legal pot from one state into another where taxes are lower to earn a quick buck, not to mention those who will buy wholesale in states where it is legal and transport it to states where it is not legal, where they will compete with the illicit drug dealers. Crime and the associated violence could well go up, not down.

What may also happen is that legal pot dealers become targets for crime, since there are drugs and cash located there. This is an attractive target, very much like liquor stores, only liquor stores have had a long time to figure out physical security and countermeasures. For at least a period of time, these dope shops will be getting knocked over left and right by armed thugs; innocent people will get hurt. That's pretty much a given. By the way - this is already happening.

As well, the now-legal farms inside the US will be attacked, robbed, and raided by criminal organizations. Nobody steals corn or rustles cattle much anymore, but they do steal things that are small and valuable. A truck load of pot is worth a lot and isn't an armored fortress. A field of weed isn't very defensible without prices becoming stratospheric. And unlike the illicit pot crops grown now in the USA, the growers (now legal) won't be able to resort to man-traps and machine guns and murder to deter criminal attacks. Their fields will be on the map, not hidden away in some state forest.

About the only negative thing I can think of that goes away with legalization is that the guy who wants to smoke pot but currently has to buy from some kid in a bad part of town will now be able to buy it at the corner convenience store.

I can't really see a lot of negative things about pot getting suddenly better once it becomes legal.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Keep your government mits out of my personal life, you damned liberal.

Oh, sorry. I... ahem... just get so angry at you liberals trying to stick your noses where they don't belong.

Seriously, though, who are you to decide for me what is good for me or not? Or which vices I should be able to indulge in and which I should not?

I'm a conservative. I don't think I have the right to tell you what's good for you or not. I only think I have a vested interest in what's good for our society. I see pot as a dangerous problem, and pot smokers as damaging to the core institutions of our society. I don't think it should be allowed on that basis.

Arguing that X or Y or Z is worse for society doesn't cut it for me. That's not in debate right now, marijuana legalization is. I won't shift the topic; the discussion is pot legalization, I think it damages our society, I think we have a perfect right to proscribe things that are inherently dangerous to our society, and that is pretty much that.

People in favor of legalization (left and right) like to make the argument that I am trying to tell them how to live, or what they can put in their bodies. I'm not. But I absolutely agree that society has a right dictate how it will be ordered and run; so long as basic civil liberties are not infringed. Do I care what you do to your body? No. But I care what you do to mine. A dope smoker is a threat to my safety, my family, my community. Put whatever you like in your body; but if it threatens me, I'll cut it out roots and all.

And frankly, although I do not personally subscribe to this belief, I have pointed out many times that socialized medicine means that the government does actually have a say in what you do to your body; because it costs taxpayers money. One could argue that this is true of private insurance as well, but private insurance is not mandatory (well it kind of is now, but will be declared unconstitutional). When it is paid for by the government (meaning tax dollars), then the government will have a perfect right to tell you want you can and cannot put in your body. Meh, I'm not in favor of that, but there it is.

Personally, I think that when considering whether a vice should be legal or not, we should consider the relative negative impacts based on what we already legalize.

By what means would you compel people to consider this? Isn't personal choice a perfectly acceptable reason to be for or against a law? I am under no such compunction; and I'm not sure how you'd go about compelling me to make such a consideration before entertaining an opinion pro or con.

Heroin, Chrystal Meth, Cocaine, etc, lead to clear, inevitable downward spirals of addiction. Marijuana does not. Alcohol does not. Could they? For some people with a genetic propensity for addiction in general or for alcoholism in particular, they could be problems. But for most, they do not.

Debatable, but side-issues having nothing to do with what we as citizens want for our society.

There are millions of high functioning people who smoke weed regularly. Just as there are millions of high functioning people who enjoy alcohol responsibly.

BTW, banning happy meals is idiotic.

No one said that laws had to be non-idiotic. They only have to be constitutional.

 

[Tez3]

Being a British Liberal I don't care what people do, they can take drugs, drink to excess or feed their faces but and this is where it gets 'restrictive' I take exception when someone who drinks too much gets behind the wheel of a car and kills other people. If they just kill themselves that's fine by me. It's the same with drugs, if someone is just feeding their own habit I don't see it as a concern however again if they drive while drugged it again becomes everyones business. If a drunk or drug addict tries to convert others such as children it agian becomes a public problem.

Bill is correct, when what people do in private impinges on others or puts their lives in danger we have the collective right to do something about it.

A paedophile may enjoy looking at obscene pictures of children in private but the public would be very quick to call for action if he started preying on children in schools etc.

 

[Steve]

That's not actually a point, though.

This is the core of your argument:

X is legal and it is bad for you. Y is not legal and it is not as bad for you as X. Therefore, Y should be made legal.
​

This is a logical fallacy, even if all the statements in it are true.

The crux of my argument is simply that we shouldn't invite government intervention where it actually has a detrimental effect on society and is unwarranted. In this (and, believe it or not in most things) I agree very much with a conservative, libertarian position. There is ample evidence to suggest that the criminalization of drugs, specifically in this situation Marijuana, is doing nothing positive. It's costly, ineffective, and pointless. Why do we have this unenforceable law on the books? Why do you support some (these) and rail as conservatives against others?

 

[Steve]

Bill is correct, when what people do in private impinges on others or puts their lives in danger we have the collective right to do something about it..

You guys understand that the statement was tongue in cheek. Right? I was trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to point out in a lighthearted way that the conservatives are arguing a liberal position and that the liberals are arguing what would objectively be viewed as a conservative position.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The crux of my argument is simply that we shouldn't invite government intervention where it actually has a detrimental effect on society and is unwarranted. In this (and, believe it or not in most things) I agree very much with a conservative, libertarian position.

Note: emphasis mine above...

The conservative and libertarian viewpoints are very different in this case.

Libertarian planks call for the abandonment of all drug laws, period. The Libertarian Party opposes all drug laws.

Conservatives, on the other hand, run the gamut; but they tend strongly towards supporting the rule of law. Even when conservatives speak in favor of smaller federal government and more state's rights, they do not deny the right of society to set standards in the form of laws; this includes traditional laws on 'morality' such as prohibitions on sex for profit, liquor sales on Sundays, and so on. The conservative point of view concerns who may properly set such rules; not what rules may be set for the preservation of an ordered and safe society.

So I don't think you can claim the 'conservative' mantle as a pro-legalization point of view; it simply is not one.

There may be a more recent poll, but this serves to illustrate my point:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/who-supports-marijuana-legalization.aspx

I believe that MY position is the traditional conservative position with regard to the legalization of marijuana. It is, in fact, one of the few areas where I seriously differ from the Libertarian Party, such that I cannot call myself a "Libertarian" with a capital "L." I like many things about the libertarian ideal, but I can't reconcile myself to the concept of legalization of drugs.

There is ample evidence to suggest that the criminalization of drugs, specifically in this situation Marijuana, is doing nothing positive.

Side-issue, and not germane to the point. Societies get to decide what is legal and what is not, based upon majority rule and elected representative votes, barring infringement of civil liberties. It doesn't matter if marijuana helps grow strong bones twelve ways - if the people don't want it to be legal, then it should not be legal. Banning it infringes on no one's rights, so it is within the rights of society to control the use of it if society wishes to do so; and society does wish to do so.

It's costly, ineffective, and pointless. Why do we have this unenforceable law on the books? Why do you support some (these) and rail as conservatives against others?

Why? I think I have made my feelings clear. I am against legalization of marijuana because I personally dislike it, dislike many potheads (including family members), dislike what it does to people and to our society. I see it as a threat, a clear and present danger to our way of life. That's purely subjective, based on my life experiences, and I sincerely doubt my opinion of pot will ever change.

On a (hopefully) more objective note, I have stated in this thread why I do not agree with you that pot is harmless to society. I don't care if it is harmless to the individual or not. I think people have the right to drink poison if they want to; but not to put my society in jeopardy.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You guys understand that the statement was tongue in cheek. Right? I was trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to point out in a lighthearted way that the conservatives are arguing a liberal position and that the liberals are arguing what would objectively be viewed as a conservative position.

Um, no, I didn't get that. Oops. Yes, you are correct that this is role reversal of a sort. Except that my position (anti drug-legalization) is the traditional conservative position. Many conservatives who are anti-government have now jumped onto the idea of legalizing pot as a way to bring in revenue to the states and reduce the power of the government, but it's not a traditional conservative point of view. It's not conservative at all.

 

[Tez3]

You guys understand that the statement was tongue in cheek. Right? I was trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to point out in a lighthearted way that the conservatives are arguing a liberal position and that the liberals are arguing what would objectively be viewed as a conservative position.

Ah but here the liberals and conservatives are in government as they aren't opposites, the opposite to conservatives here would be the labour party.

 

[Steve]

Ah but here the liberals and conservatives are in government as they aren't opposites, the opposite to conservatives here would be the labour party.

Yeah, but you're British. You guys barely speak English anymore.

 

[Tez3]

Yeah, but you're British. You guys barely speak English anymore.

Eh by eck lad, you'll get a skelping for that.

 

[Steve]

Um, no, I didn't get that. Oops. Yes, you are correct that this is role reversal of a sort.

As I said before, I clearly didn't do it right if it wasn't funny. The material was good, but my comedic timing was lacking.

Except that my position (anti drug-legalization) is the traditional conservative position. Many conservatives who are anti-government have now jumped onto the idea of legalizing pot as a way to bring in revenue to the states and reduce the power of the government, but it's not a traditional conservative point of view. It's not conservative at all.

And that's exactly what makes this so funny. The traditional conservative position is actually liberal, calling for sustained government intervention into our personal lives. And the traditional liberal position is for less government intervention.

The conservatives who are anti-government are actually being consistent when support legalization. Makes sense to me, particularly if one leans libertarian.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

That's not actually a point, though.

X is legal and it is bad for you. Y is not legal and it is not as bad for you as X. Therefore, Y should be made legal.
​

This is a logical fallacy, even if all the statements in it are true.

Only out of context. Part of the fundamental contract between the US Government and "we the people" is that our freedom of action and choice is only supposed to be restricted when there's a clear danger.

If something is x dangerous and legal, then making something that's x-1 dangerous illegal flies in the face of that basic precept.

 

[Archangel M]

Why is it that when the question of legalizing DRUGS comes up the conversation centers around marijuana?

What about coke? Meth? Heroin? Or prescription drugs like Oxy? Lortabs?

 

[granfire]

Why is it that when the question of legalizing DRUGS comes up the conversation centers around marijuana?

What about coke? Meth? Heroin? Or prescription drugs like Oxy? Lortabs?

Are legal. Restricted, but legal.
I think that is to the point that 'legal' does not equate 'freely available'
After all, there are restrictions on who can buy alcohol and tobacco as well.

(and I think we all can agree that something that is akin to rat poison does not need to be legal, no matter the buzz it gives you)

 

[Archangel M]

But is it really? The conversation always seems to devolve into recreational weed smoking.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I suspect that's because it's what the dialog is really about. Whichever side of the fence you sit on, I don't think anybody believes that there's a realistic chance of getting anything but marijuana legalized any time soon.

Everything else is just theory. Marijuana's status might actually change during our lifetimes.

 

[Archangel M]

Prescription drugs are "legal" as it is. And addicts doctor shop to get them "legally" or buy them illegally off the streets. These "legal" drugs are at the heart of a large addiction problem.