Well, you’re right, actually not much. It would just bug me is all.
So you’ve never broken the law once in your whole life? Is this a serious argument or are you just blowing smoke up our ass?
Also, I don’t really see where the debate is here. The contradictions ruling this country are completely ineffective and quite frankly, downright embarrassing. Claiming to be this great and free nation is really starting to get old. It’s complete bullshit and everyone knows it. Well I know it, but sadly most do not. Although as usual, the majority of dopers have this one right.
Have broken the law, am ashamed, don’t do it anymore.
Floyd13
Everyone knows it? Or most do not?
Maybe you could help me to know it.
See my attitude is: This country provides so much opportunity and so many freedoms that when it turns around and says “We need for you to obey these laws”, I say “You got it, no sweat, bring 'em on!”
Apparently nobody knows shit, including me. 
Anyway, the stance you’ve taken seems to be admirable, but maybe a bit misguided. Appreciating our freedom is nice and all, but to fall in line and not question the law because of this is not helpful. If everyone took this attitude, there wouldn’t be much freedom left to fight over.
Things can always be better.
First of all, Max, there are a number of sub-points being debated in this thread. My main argument so far has been, 1) Legalization is different than decriminalization, 2) Holland practices decriminalization, and 3) I balk at legalization because of a) irreversibility and b) anticipated ineffective regulation in the US, absent effective campaign finance reform. Post 74 gave the argument; the rest has been elaboration.
Excellent point: I was waiting for this to be brought up. Note though that it’s a controversial point: others here have denied that this is the case.
I agree: so what? Good policy would weigh the harms associated with increased usage against the benefits of having less incarceration, etc. Neither factor should be over-weighted: for example, the latter will be offset when gang-bangers shift to other illicit activities.
No. There are 2 barriers. One is sociological: prohibition is less effective following a spell of widespread, legal usage. Alcohol prohibition showed this. The second is political: once pot is made legal, there will arise a massive economic interest group that will try to stymie effective regulation, never mind prohibition. See post 141.
Since, in practice, there is no turning back after pot is legalized, it makes sense to proceed with caution.
Now, I’ve stated, “My point” more than once. But let’s extend the argument:
Oh, the usual liberal bullshit.
Permit medical marijuana. Study the Dutch experience: evaluate (I’m guessing favorably) their distinction between “hard” and “soft” drugs. Lower federal sentences on pot and attempt to pass the job off to the states, though if the weed is shown to actually cross state borders, the feds should be involved. Ditto if the crime is organized. Decriminalize pot in some states and see what happens. Discourage use of pot, whatever that means.
Eventually, some states / localities might experiment with the Dutch coffeehouse model. That might displace pot vendors who are willing to sell to kids. If it doesn’t work, we can always bring back prohibition: decriminalization, unlike legalization, is reversible, since it doesn’t create the same politically organized constituency. If it does work, the policy can be replicated in other states. Perhaps some Indian reservation will want to try legalization…
Then again, I don’t really feel sufficiently informed on this topic, so I’m not certain what I’d do. I know! I’d appoint a blue-ribbon commission!
And I did respond to it. If you want to debate it here, certainly, I’m just saying that it’s a larger argument.
Up until the point where the behaviour of the adults can influence children negatively–which is the theoretical base for outlawing it for adults.
“We can’t trust society (the general populace) to protect kids, so the government needs more money and power…”
And so we have a link to how legalising it for adults effects kids.
Adults keep unscrupulous dealers in business. Dealers in turn expand their market in the easiest area possible–kids and teens.
Your argument seemed to be that peer pressure isn’t an issue for the government or doctors to concern themselves with. So unless you believe that kids don’t do stupid things out of peer pressure or that the government and the medical community have no business in protecting society, then I’m not sure what argument you are trying to make. I assumed the latter.
If that was so, why should I care about stopping them?
It’s only a waste if I voted against the policy.
Alright, you just seemed to be singling me out as being personally depriving someone of their rights. As of yet the only suggestion I have personal made was to encourage a scientific approach to the legalisation/illegalisation. However, if I say “An argument like X is possible”, it means nothing more than that such an argument is possible and not that I necessarily support it.
Alright, I’ll see what I can do:
- An individual is best able to choose what is right for himself.
- We can assume #1 to be true, because the individual is a rational being
- The goal of the government is to see to the wellbeing of individuals
- As the individual knows what is best for himself–the government need only concern itself with the interaction of individuals and otherwise can trust each individual to his own dealings
- Mind altering substances cause a person to cease (if only temporarily) to be a rational being
If an individual ceases to be a rational being, then we have two issues:
- He is not currently rational
- He chose to leave a state of rationality. If the only reason the individual can trust himself to be looking out for his own good is his own rationality–choosing to leave a state of rationality has to be equal to choosing not to look out for his own good. If he was rational and looking out for his own good, it would be physically impossible to chose to cease being rational.
So, he is not currently rational, and the choice to become so indicates that he wasn’t rational to begin with.
Given that, the government cannot trust him to make the best decisions for himself, and it must impose itself where needed to see to his wellbeing–in spite of himself.
Assuming that Big Pharma has more influence than the general public. I wouldn’t agree with that–nor that they would be inclined to keep the FDA a politicized and unscientific body. It isn’t in their interest as businessmen nor as doctors to encourage emotionalism nor politics and red-tape into the process.
If you have a criminal maniac who has two people captive, and gives you the option that:
- He kills his two hostages, or
- You kill one person and he will turn himself in without harming either of his two hostages
Option 2 results in fewer deaths, but that still doesn’t mean that all you have achieved is to work complicitly with the murderer. And I think you will find most Hollywood films to show option 1 as being the more moral.
To an extent. But I am making “the counterargument” not advancing my own agenda in this area. Other than to say that it is equally valid and I have no issue with it as a moral founding.
I don’t think so. Bars and liquor stores don’t generally expand their market to kids and teens, do they? There’s plenty of adult demand for alcohol (just as there is for drugs), and since as they can make money legally and openly by sticking to adults, that’s what they do.
Everyone acts irrationally from time to time, due to strong emotions, fatigue, forgetfulness, or other factors. You can’t start out with this idealized concept of human behavior and then insist on banning something that causes people to deviate from that impossible ideal.
I’d say the goal of the government is to protect individuals from each other and pool resources to help individuals in need, not to keep people from harming themselves.
This is an oversimplistic view of any drug’s effects, especally marijuana. A stoned person is impaired in certain ways, but still within a normal human range of cognition. If you want to keep everyone at peak mental alertness 24 hours a day, you’ll have to ban strenuous exercise, force everyone to get 8 hours of sleep, and confiscate all their Enya CDs.
This is a huge leap for those of us who don’t buy your assumption #3. I don’t think the government needs see to each individual’s well-being (however you define that) over his own protests. Boxing, football, skiing, swimming, and pretty much every other optional activity carry some risk, but I don’t want the government telling me I can’t swim because I might drown, or because I might tire myself out and be unable to act rationally in an emergency.
I’ve heard that if you watch 24, you’ll find that torturing prisoners to extract information is moral. Perhaps Hollywood isn’t the best place to look for moral guidance.
This analogy is ridiculous (and I think I know ridiculous analogies ;)). Murder is inherently immoral, and it’s what you’re trying to prevent. But adults and kids are two separate groups, and if you’re trying to keep pot away from kids, letting adults smoke it doesn’t interfere with that goal.
You keep asserting this. But the fact is that it was legal and widely available before 1937 and was ineffectively banned. So your points are offbase.
Obviously, substances can be made illegal after they are legal. In addition if you’re concerning about ineffective later bans, then how would that be different than the already existent ineffective ban?
As to your second point, if tobacco, a much larger industry, cannot stymie effective regulation and widespread social bans, how would an upstart pot industry be more obstructionist?
Theoretically, kids will be more inclined to want to try things that are limitted to adults. And, inded, though it may be easier to get pot, kids are getting drunk a lot more often then they are getting high.
Of course, other countries experiments have showed the reverse happening. The question there is whether that is to be trusted in the long run.
That’s my point. At minimum, the existence of recreational drugs disproves the idea that people look out for their own good. That isn’t because drugs are “bad,” but because logically it doesn’t work given even an ideal situation. Adding in the rest of real life and the point becomes even more pronounced.
Would you support cigarette companies being able to use cartoon characters in their advertising and advertising near school again?
It may be the individual who puts the cigarette in his mouth, but that doesn’t mean that he was the one who made that decision. The government is meant to protect us from each other, and one of they ways we are prey to others is in our ability to be influenced and make irrational decisions.
Companies who send out spam are, theoretically, making a profit. And I imagine they do that by finding a sucker. Certainly we can say that a sucker is a sucker and he deserves what he gets–but having an uncle who is the kind of guy to be suckered, I don’t feel that way. So if someone says that they’re going to illegalise spam, I’m not going to have any issue with it.
Is that going to cause anything to happen except for it to move into being taken over by Eastern European mafioso with servers in the sub-shara? Probably not, but that’s an issue of effectiveness not whether or not I have to right to deprive my uncle of the right to be a sucker.
Certainly, but the catch-22 argument is a “study in logic”, where everything has been derived down to their most intrinsic forms–so only drugs, government, and the individual remain and those only as general ideas.
…And no Enyaing and driving kids! 
Those industries are still probably regulated if and where the government feels it needs to be done–and can get away with it, like in boxing. At beaches or public pools there are required (?) to be life-guards. Driving without chains to your favorite ski-resort may be a fine dependent on the state of the roads–and certainly there were many accidents every year where I lived because of some bravado idiot without them. Etc.
I wouldn’t say the analogy is ridiculous, just that smoking pot isn’t on the level of badness as killing a person. Maybe slicing off the tip of someone’s left pinky.
Given the murderer sitation, I would vote for Option 1, personally. But scaling that to marijuana where the options are a half of a pinky vs. a quarter of one, I’m willing to say what the heck. I would just want to make sure that we had done a proper job verifying for ourselves exactly how much finger loss we are talking here. Once that’s done if the vote is to go for a quarter of a pinky, sure whatever.
However, the argument that “since we have smoking (a full finger) and alcohol (two fingers) legal, and pot is marijuana is less than that, it should be legal” doesn’t strike me as making much sense. Having new and interesting ways to legally chop smaller bits off of our bodies doesn’t strike me as a good sales point.
Hell, I like two fingers of Whisky every once in awhile. But comparing ingestion of substances to permanently disfiguring your body doesn’t even make stupid sense.
Last I looked smoke inhalation wasn’t a good thing
Alcohol isn’t terribly benevolent either.
Not necessarily end of the world stuff admittedly, but still not in the singing and dancing area.
Conversely, moderate consumption of alochol seems to have benefits. Nobody said drugs cannot be abused. But moderate usage is in no way similar to dismembering yourself.
Alright I searched down a source for years of live saved versus years lost.
It appears that more lives are saved by alcohol than are lost, but the number of potential years of life lost is much greater than saved so in these terms, alcohol is detrmental.
Lives Saved 1992 in Canada: 7,401 lives
Lives Lost 1992 in Canada: 3,129 lives
Years of Potential Live Saved: 88,656 years
Years of Potential Live Lost: 186,257 years
So dependent on which you prefer, more old people alive or just more people alive period, alcohol is good or bad.
How does me smoking a joint, alone, in my own home, harm a child in any way?
Government is an extension of society. Currently, the government is trying to prevent the use of marijuana among the general population, and is failing spectacularly, despite having effectively unlimited money and resources. And you think the answer is to pour even more money down the same hole? At what point do you admit that the entire thing is an exercise in futility? When do you say, “If they can’t get it done with the money and power they have now, they are never going to be able to get it done, no matter how much more money and power we give them?”
You have no such thing, because if it were legalized, those unscroupulous drug dealers would be out of a job.
For the five-thousandth time, we’re not talking about children. We’re talking about adults. You want to start a government program to combat peer pressure among teenagers, knock yourself out. But it has no bearing on the availability of recreational drugs for adults.
Don’t take it so personally. If you can’t take the heat, stop playing devil’s advocate.
Agreed.
Very, very debatable, but I’ll go with it for now.
Okay.
Some mind altering substances do this. Not all, and certainly not marijuana.
And here’s where your argument goes entirely off the rails. First, the decision to temporarily enter a non-rational state of mind was made while in a rational state of mind, and it is that initial state that should be respected: it is possible to make a rational assessment of the risk associated with using a mind-altering substance, and to make arrangements to limit possible harmful outcomes thereof. Second, choosing to enter a non-rational state of mind is not the same as having no concern for your well-being. Fuck, we all enter a non-rational state of mind when we go to sleep every night. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong, or even especially dangerous, about making this decision.
How many pharmaceutical companies are run by doctors and scientists? I suspect that the vast majority are run by businessmen, and it is very much in their interests to have as much control as possible over the regulating agency that determines wether or not their products can come to market or not.
And Lord knows, I take almost all of my moral cues from Hollywood. :rolleyes:
Sorry, but this analogy is so thunderously stupid that I can’t even conceive of how to respond to it. Maybe I’ll come back and try later, after the shock has worn off.
But all that necessarily means is that it has become untenable to maintain marijuana as an illegal substance, not whether it should or shouldn’t be legal (limitting should to a moral decision, rather than a practicable one.)
Well, off peddling other stuff at least.
So then the question becomes whether legalised marijuana (for adults) in the US would cause marijuana to take off or die away among youth. And then, from there, if it grows, whether it’s potential as a gateway drug would give unscrupulous dealers more access to kids interests–having now sampled a real, quick high.
Except that legal acceptance is viewed as condoning recreational drug use.
Of course, laws are set up with adults in mind where the expectation is not that you have to play reverse psychology to coerce people. But that modern kids are working in the majority off of a desire to spite their mentors is because of all those pot-smoking hippy liberal parents these days, not expecting their kids to have to bear any responsibilties for their own decisions.
Eh, it’s close enough.
:dubious:
All people that were high (off of marijuana) that I have encountered were not at their best, at least. Of course, I have heard that people start acting drunk and bravado before alcohol could have set in as well–so this may have been a similar effect.
Agreed. If the person feels that the physical pleasure and de-stressing ability of the drug are more important than possible health risks, and makes certain to be in a safe place while high–the argument stops working.
My guess would be all. The CEO of Pfizer at least is a Phd. And I can’t see very many people studying biochemistry and biology, then putting in an application at a pharmaceuticals company if they weren’t principally interested in creating medications to help people.
“Businessman” and “Doctor” are not mutually exclusive.
The analogy itself isn’t stupid, just whether or not it has any hope of being applicable. To anti-marijuana advocates, it would probably be viewed as being fairly well applicable.
I strongly suspect that “its potential as a gateway drug” is strongly linked to illegality. While there are dealers who only deal in pot (I knew a few in high school), I don’t think those are facilitating the “gateway drug” thing.
No, what facilitates that, to the extent that it exists at all, is that the guy who deals pot may also have a line in heroin, crack, PCP, or whatever else. And for the most part, his profit margin is better on harder drugs – because the risk is seen as higher so the black market markup is better, because they provide more hit for their volume and thus more doses for the same risk-markup that depends on smuggling size, and so on. Not to mention that he’s much more likely to get repeat cusomers on the more strongly addictive stuff. Which means these guys have a business interest in moving pot smokers to other drugs – they make more money that way.
The kid who is illegally getting pot through begging adults to snag a packet at the corner store is not going to be having the same pressure to try something harder as the kid who is illegally getting pot by going to a black market drug dealer. J. Random Grownup ducking into 7-11 for a packet of smokes isn’t going to have crack to offer, let alone a strong reason to persuade the kid standing begging outside to try some.
Yes… to others. Not to ourselves. The government can legitimately regulate advertising, which is one person trying to convince another to buy or do something, but it can’t legitimately regulate what one person may do to himself.
Again, spam is comparable to advertising, but not to smoking pot.
OK, so regulate the marijuana industry, just like tobacco is regulated now. Problem solved, right?
Remember, all those activities carry some risk, and they are still legal. Lifeguards can’t save everyone, protective boxing equipment can’t prevent all injuries, etc. If the government really wanted to look out for everyone’s well-being over their protests, they’d ban boxing and swimming entirely… but that’s ridiculous.
We all know that people who choose to participate in those activities are accepting some risk of harm (acting irrationally, at least from the point of view of someone who doesn’t understand the mental benefits of recreation), and we’re fine with it because that’s their choice. Extending that to drug use makes sense.
You’re still presuming that smoking pot is inherently immoral. I can’t take you seriously if you’re going to compare putting a drug into one’s own body with deliberately injuring or killing another person.
And so the argument falls back to the secret reason that people are against drugs.
Puts on–for the first time ever–his asbestos suit
There’s no such a thing as a free lunch
Is it my moral responsibility to support people on welfare for years, even though I know that if I don’t support them they’ll end up homeless?
Is it my moral responsibility to pay for the medical bills for a smoker, for a boxer or x-gamer–someone who chose to do something above the accepted level of reasonable danger?
The foundation of America is on the idea of the new invention and the great idea. The French work hard so that they can stop working and spend the rest of their lives pinching butts in the South of France. Yeah they live longer, but America still kicks their ass: Why? Because America exists to kick ass.
Americans argue over social security all the time, even though no European nation can see how a 100% coverage for all citizens could possibly be in any way a debate. Why? Because the idea of America is that an individual is up to looking after himself. Why? Because Americans need to kick ass.
There is no such thing as a free lunch–and we don’t want one.
A drug is a way to stimulate your brain–to make yourself happy, to ignore problems, to cheat your brain without having had to spend any effort to do it. You want to be happy, read a book. You want to relax after a stressful day, what’s wrong with looking up at the stars? Yeah it takes energy, you have to train yourself to be able to drop stress without aid. Or yeah, you have to actually read something with words and expand your brain while getting your enjoyment. Cheating that is a cop-out. Americans don’t cop out.
You tell us that tall buildings can’t be built in earthquake areas? Screw that, we’ll build a skyscraper on rollers.
You tell us that man can’t fly? Screw that, we’ll kick your ass to the moon.
American’s don’t need to cheat, we don’t want to, and condoning it goes against the goals of this nation as it has always been intended.
I don’t believe you will find any one who will admit that this is the real reason that as many people are against drugs as there are. Perhaps I’m incorrect in that belief–but even though no one might be able to put it into such succint words, I do think this is what the “bad taste” is that people get which has made them consistently approve anti-drug laws since the early 1900’s.
And of course, there really isn’t any succint way to state it that doesn’t sound pompous out the ass. Similarly, debating numbers is easier than whether or not drugs are “American.” Thus, it remains the secret reason.
Do you know anyone who has never chosen to do something to put himself in more danger than he otherwise would’ve been?
No, sorry, that’s cheating too. You’re just reading someone else’s words without putting in a lick of effort. If you want a book, write it yourself.
So, ban television and movies too? After all, isn’t it “cheating” to watch a movie about, say, the Civil War, when you could be outside in the fresh air, making your own uniforms and replica weapons to stage your own reenactment, learning something about craftsmanship and history while getting your enjoyment?
I’ll agree with you here - I think there are a lot of people who believe more or less what you just said, that life is meant to be hard and anything fun is evil if you don’t have to work all day for it. They hate sex (especially masturbation) for the same reason. And they’re wrong.
That’s because it is pompous, and that should make you think twice about it.
No one is or should be obligated to do anything the hardest way possible. I don’t grow my own wheat, grind it up, and make bread over a bonfire; I go to the store and buy a loaf that’s already sliced. I don’t write, direct, and act in my own movies; I watch movies that other people have created. It’s not your place or anyone else’s to chastise me for taking advantage of convenience.