The Legalization of Marijuana

[Tgace]

I agree, though evil and illegal are not always one and the same, IMO.

Thats exactly my point. Legalizing MJ wouldnt have made that shooters proclivity to shoot cops any less IMO.

 

[Ray]

You inferred something that I neither stated or implied. I believe if you are not hurting someone else in the course of your actions, you should have the freedom to pursue that activity. Natural law. Kiddie porn is a crime against nature in which there are instrinsically victims. Murdering someone who might find your pot and prosecute you when they come over is a crime against nature. Growing or smoking pot? Not so much.

Nature has no published code book - you are doing no more and no less than a vigilante or other criminal by deciding which laws you're going to follow.

In our culture and in our day & age, we have collectively made certain things legal and illegal. Last semester I took a sociology class and an example of other cultures' practices included a rite of passage for a certain tribe - the rite was boys "coming of age" to perform oral sex on their elders (I don't have the book in front of me, but could probably cite the reference Friday night). Apparently these people don't think that this practice has "victims." If you judge that culture and there practices by your standards then you are guilty of "ethnocentrism." In our culture, that would be viewed as wrong by most people.

The point is that: you and I could decide that something in our culture that is currently illegal shouldn't be and then we could ignore it. Yes, we can decide which laws to follow, but we should be held accountable by the society in which we live.

And who says only crimes that have "victims" should be crimes? How in the heck did you arrive at that well-thought-out conclusion? And how does one assess the degree of victimization? And if we only hurt ourselves isn't there a cost to society (ref cigarette smoking)?

Cutting someone off and endangering their welfare while speeding is criminal behavior.

So is smoking/possessing pot.

Do you see the distinction I'm making?

Yes, I see your distinction, it is abundantly clear: what you do is okay, what other's do may not be and you get to decide rather than society deciding.

I think what I said above explains my rationale concerning this as well.

It certainly does.

 

[psi_radar]

Thats exactly my point. Legalizing MJ wouldnt have made that shooters proclivity to shoot cops any less IMO.

Gotcha. But it would have increased their motivation, right? If they weren't worried about getting prosecuted I doubt they would have shot the cops, though I don't know the full story.

 

[Tgace]

Gotcha. But it would have increased their motivation, right? If they weren't worried about getting prosecuted I doubt they would have shot the cops, though I don't know the full story.

If they werent worried about being prosecuted then the Cops wouldnt have even been there. Kinda "chicken and the egg" there.

I could probably avoid ever getting shot if I just sat in the office all day and didnt do my job too....appeasing criminals so they wont do violent things. If kiddy porn was legal than that guy who killed that Florida detective last year probably wouldnt have shot either. I dont think that argument is very substantial for legalization. There are other better ones that dont argue that we are going to turn bad people good....

 

[Tgace]

What about Cigarettes as an analogy. They admittedly cause more damage than MJ (due in large fact to their availability and number of users). The current trend is to demonize them and their manufacturers. Taxes go up. Lawsuits drive up costs, laws are passed against their use in public places. The blackmarket trade in them is skyrocketing in attempts to make $$$ by avoiding taxes. Im fairly certain that some of those smugglers would shoot a cop rather than be arrested too, and thats over a legal product. My point is that there are many holes in the "legalize it and cops wont get killed because of it" rationale.

 

[psi_radar]

So are you saying "break the law if it harms nobody"? and are you expecting LOE's to not enforce laws if they hurt nobody? You arent really making a clear statement there regarding the law and if you believe people should obey it.

I thought I was pretty clear. Use your own judgement and yes, if a law is unjust and victimless, then consider not abiding it. And I fully expect LEOs to enforce the law--though they are usually less enthusiastic about enforcing laws that are culturally and morally obsolete--like the sodomy laws, for example. I believe those are typically only used to increase the sentences in sex crimes, right?

This might seem contradictory, but it's not. Take the speeding example. I'm still going to do it, and I won't argue with the officer when I get ticketed, but I will tell my wife I think it sucks.

Or at least not be surprised when they get punished for breaking it. When the police found out that your friend was (growing?/possessing?) marijuana, with the law as it is, what did you EXPECT them to do???

I'm expecting them to do their jobs, but I don't think there's justice in taking the life savings of an old lady for a victimless crime. And if her lawyer wasn't good, she would have done jail time. That could be expected, she knew it was a risk. It's a possibility and could easily happen, but I don't think it's right. I don't blame the LEOs themselves for what transpired, rather the system that created this chain of events.

 

[Tgace]

That could be expected, she knew it was a risk. It's a possibility and could easily happen, but I don't think it's right. I don't blame the LEOs themselves for what transpired, rather the system that created this chain of events.

As cold as it sounds...if you are going to play the game you should accept the risks. She had a choice and she made it...

 

[psi_radar]

Nature has no published code book - you are doing no more and no less than a vigilante or other criminal by deciding which laws you're going to follow.

In our culture and in our day & age, we have collectively made certain things legal and illegal. Last semester I took a sociology class and an example of other cultures' practices included a rite of passage for a certain tribe - the rite was boys "coming of age" to perform oral sex on their elders (I don't have the book in front of me, but could probably cite the reference Friday night). Apparently these people don't think that this practice has "victims." If you judge that culture and there practices by your standards then you are guilty of "ethnocentrism." In our culture, that would be viewed as wrong by most people.

The point is that: you and I could decide that something in our culture that is currently illegal shouldn't be and then we could ignore it. Yes, we can decide which laws to follow, but we should be held accountable by the society in which we live.

And who says only crimes that have "victims" should be crimes? How in the heck did you arrive at that well-thought-out conclusion? And how does one assess the degree of victimization? And if we only hurt ourselves isn't there a cost to society (ref cigarette smoking)?

Actually, when you take another class or two, you might hear about "Natural Law" --it's a fine american tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law


Here's the page:

In law, natural law is the doctrine that just laws are immanent in nature (that can be claimed as discovered but not created by such things as a bill of rights) and/or that they can emerge by natural process of resolving conflicts (as embodied by common law). These two aspects are actually very different, and can sometimes oppose or complement each other, although they share the common trait that they rely on immanence as opposed to design in finding just laws. In either case, natural law is considered to be something that exists independent and outside of the legal process itself, rather than simply being a principle whose origin is inside the legal system.

The concept of natural law was very important in the development of Anglo-American common law. In the struggles between Parliament and the monarchy, Parliament often made reference to the Fundamental Laws of England which embodied natural law since time immemorial and set limits on the power of the monarchy. The concept of natural law was expressed in the English Bill of Rights and the United States Declaration of Independence -- and by 19th-century anarchist and legal theorist, Lysander Spooner.

The Roman Catholic Church understands natural law to be immanent in nature; this understanding is in large part due to the influence of Thomas Aquinas(1225-1274 A.D.), often as filtered through the School of Salamanca.

Natural law is intended to function as a non-theistic standard by which laws may themselves be judged. One classic example is that of the Nazi final solution: the laws which permitted the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Poles, Communists, etc. may have been formulated and ratified within the legal structures of Germany, but they violated natural law.

Natural law is currently undergoing a period of reformulation. A number of American philosophers, including Germain Grisez, John Finnis, Robert George, and Canadian Joseph Boyle, have constructed a compelling new version of this venerable tradition. Besides utilitarianism and Kantianism, natural law theory is with virtue ethics, a live option for a first-principles ethics theory in analytic philosophy. "New Natural Law" theory as it is sometimes known, is the theory originating with Grisez; it focuses on “basic human goods”, such as human life, which are self-evidently intrinsically worthwhile and states that these goods reveal themselves as incommensurable with one another.

One problem with this "basic human goods" approach is that there is no way to decide which among the basic human goods is to be favored in a particular action. If knowledge and human life are two "basic human goods," which one helps decide whether the question of whether a life can be taken in the pursuit of knowledge? As there is no priority among the goods, there is no way to decide this question. If one takes the life to pursue knowledge, then one is acting against the good of human life. If one does not take the life, one is acting against the good of knowledge, which may save millions of lives.

Natural law theorists often portray a deep need for their teachings in modern Western societies. Natural law affirms the worth of all members of the human species, and proposes that sexuality should always be "open" to the goods of unity and procreation.

For complete theories of law based on natural law, see libertarianism and particularly anarcho-capitalism. For theories of law which reject the concept of natural law, see legal positivism.

There is also a political Natural Law Party.

And please drop the insulting tone, I'm playing nice with you. I have thought this out quite well, I just came to a different conclusion than you have.

So is smoking/possessing pot.
Yes, I see your distinction, it is abundantly clear: what you do is okay, what other's do may not be and you get to decide rather than society deciding.
It certainly does.

If what I believe is just and according to natural law and harms no one else, then yeah, what I do is ok, though it may not be legal and I might suffer the ramifications of that.

 

[psi_radar]

As cold as it sounds...if you are going to play the game you should accept the risks. She had a choice and she made it...

Do the crime, do the time. Yep, I understand. And I'm saying it sucks.

 

[Tgace]

Do the crime, do the time. Yep, I understand. And I'm saying it sucks.

Then we are in agreement here.

IMO if you dont like the rules of the game, you go through the process of changing the rule books. Until then, when the flag gets thrown you take your penalty. Stamping your feet and swearing at the ref. isnt going to change anything. Thats the way civilization is held together.

 

[psi_radar]

What about Cigarettes as an analogy. They admittedly cause more damage than MJ (due in large fact to their availability and number of users). The current trend is to demonize them and their manufacturers. Taxes go up. Lawsuits drive up costs, laws are passed against their use in public places. The blackmarket trade in them is skyrocketing in attempts to make $$$ by avoiding taxes. Im fairly certain that some of those smugglers would shoot a cop rather than be arrested too, and thats over a legal product. My point is that there are many holes in the "legalize it and cops wont get killed because of it" rationale.

True, not the best example (canada killings). The cigarrette analogy--you're talking about money-making through illegal smuggling of a legal product, that's kinda similar to moonshining. When a product's value is increased through an illicit trade, there is inherently increased risk on both sides of the law.

 

[Tgace]

True, not the best example (canada killings). The cigarrette analogy--you're talking about money-making through illegal smuggling of a legal product, that's kinda similar to moonshining. When a product's value is increased through an illicit trade, there is inherently increased risk on both sides of the law.

True..my attempted point is there will always be people willing to do violence. Changing law because people may commit violence to prevent being arrested is wrong IMO. Almost on par with dealing with terrorists to keep them from committing murderous acts.

 

[psi_radar]

Then we are in agreement here.

IMO if you dont like the rules of the game, you go through the process of changing the rule books. Until then, when the flag gets thrown you take your penalty. Stamping your feet and swearing at the ref. isnt going to change anything. Thats the way civilization is held together.

We pretty much agree. I'm not dissing the LEOs for doing their jobs (the Refs), I think the laws are the real problem for creating this problem. Public criticism of these laws as unjust is within my rights and I feel my duty because the seeds of public dissent often fuel change.

 

[Ray]

Actually, when you take another class or two, you might hear about "Natural Law" --it's a fine american tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law

Natural law, as you call it, is one of man's philosophical creation. It has nothing to do with Nature, (e.g.) contrast with natural physical forces like gravity that are describe by mathematics.

And please drop the insulting tone, I'm playing nice with you. I have thought this out quite well, I just came to a different conclusion than you have.

It was a legit question. How do you assess the degree of victimization; why do you get to decide which laws to follow and which ones are wrong for me? The intended tone was not insulting; sometimes it's hard to transmit tone in print (so I apologize).

If what I believe is just and according to natural law and harms no one else, then yeah, what I do is ok, though it may not be legal and I might suffer the ramifications of that.

I agree that you might suffer the ramifications of your actions...we all must suffer the consequences of what we do. I don't agree that smoking dope is victimless; anymore than I believe that prostitution, etc is victimless.

 

[Tgace]

We pretty much agree. I'm not dissing the LEOs for doing their jobs (the Refs), I think the laws are the real problem for creating this problem. Public criticism of these laws as unjust is within my rights and I feel my duty because the seeds of public dissent often fuel change.

Sure, thats always been your right and more power to ya if you can get things changed, if thats what the majority of our citizens want and our system works, then thats democracy...the only issue I have with some of the legalization crowd is the "in you're face" I dont have to abide by "your rules" attitude and the shock, anger and disbelief when they are made subject to the law.....

 

[psi_radar]

Sure, thats always been your right and more power to ya if you can get things changed, if thats what the majority of our citizens want and our system works, then thats democracy...the only issue I have with some of the legalization crowd is the "in you're face" I dont have to abide by "your rules" attitude and the shock, anger and disbelief when they are made subject to the law.....

Right, I'm talking about the justice of those laws, not the known potential for punishment by breaking them.

 

[Tgace]

Right, I'm talking about the justice of those laws, not the known potential for punishment by breaking them.

Right, but as devils advocate, you "could" do up to 1 year for stealing a candy bar in NY. Would that be justice? The potential punishment isnt really the barometer for justice. I do have issues with mandatory sentencing though because it takes human judgment out of the process, where true justice really resides IMO.

 

[psi_radar]

Natural law, as you call it, is one of man's philosophical creation. It has nothing to do with Nature, (e.g.) contrast with natural physical forces like gravity that are describe by mathematics.

Well, democracy and our system of laws are just constructs based on philosophy. The Natural Laws are the larger body of mores that those laws are generally compared against when justice is considered. Take the Nazi reference in that quote I put up. The Final Solution was perfectly legal in Germany but against Natural Law. Most people would agree that that behavior SHOULD be prohibited, but it wasn't. Of course there are sickos out there that would disagree. But most wouldn't. Natural Laws are those internal beliefs that have protected man, allowed him to survive, and to create societies that benefit him.

It was a legit question. How do you assess the degree of victimization; why do you get to decide which laws to follow and which ones are wrong for me? The intended tone was not insulting; sometimes it's hard to transmit tone in print (so I apologize).

No problemo. Perhaps I was reading into your tone as well. It's a good question. I can decide to follow any law I want, or not. I do suffer the consequences of disobedience. It's about belief. I can believe my actions are right or wrong. That may not parallel illegal and legal. Coincidentally, it usually does. Laws don't make good people. Laws make obedient people. It's in our capacity for choice that allows us distinction. Just because I choose not to do something because of the associated risk, doesn't mean I think it's necessarily wrong.

I agree that you might suffer the ramifications of your actions...we all must suffer the consequences of what we do. I don't agree that smoking dope is victimless; anymore than I believe that prostitution, etc is victimless.

This is one of those choices. I don't feel anyone is victimized through pot smoking, we simply diverge there. However, almost anything we do carries a price tag on society. I can't stop you from eating that extra cheeseburger, though it might hurt me down the line a little. With MJ, its illegality hurts more than helps. That's my opinion.

Ok, gotta work. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Ray]

Right, but as devils advocate, you "could" do up to 1 year for stealing a candy bar in NY. Would that be justice? The potential punishment isnt really the barometer for justice. I do have issues with mandatory sentencing though because it takes human judgment out of the process, where true justice really resides IMO.

Mandatory sentenaces are still determined by human judgment; it's just that the humans making the judgement were lawmakers and/or voters.

 

[Tgace]

Mandatory sentenaces are still determined by human judgment; it's just that the humans making the judgement were lawmakers and/or voters.

True, but people and human activity are too varied to be jammed into mandated extremes. Laws should be impartial. Sentencing should take each individual and their history into account. There are some people who "should" be locked up for a year because they stole (again for the 75th-100th time with no serious consequence) and then there is some kid or "normal" person who just made a bad decision. The concept of "everybody does the same time" just dosent really apply where "the rubber meets the road". The real problem is that there are some nutty judges who slap really bad people on the wrist and lock up some kid for a dime bag of weed.