Is this a serious post? Do you actually believe any of this or are these other people’s reasons? I’m having a really difficult time understanding this line of reasoning. It sounds like something from a fourth grade classroom or something.
It is a serious post. My comments are at the top and bottom. The middle bit is up to you to decide if it has any rationality to it, or as to whether it is actually believed by any real human. If desired I can advocate it against any pointed criticisms, but I don’t think it is really defendable nor attackable as a position beyond that you either do agree (with the flavor, if not the wording) or don’t agree (and think it’s just st00pid.)
As to whether I agree with it…I do like kicking ass and feel that drugs are a cop out.
Is that more important than anything else? Not really, at least not to me. Nor do I feel that I need to impose this viewpoint on others.
Is that the official and only acceptable American way? If it is official, I did not get the memo.
Is it an invalid point of view? No, but generally you would be hard pressed to convince me that any political view in the world is invalid. I have played devils advocate for genocide of all muslims as a peace measure (on a different board.) That I don’t agree doesn’t make something lose the rationale that convinced somebody to propose it.
My recommend course of action in this thread was to kick the FDA into shape, give marijuana an official look over by the official source of drug-testing for the country and see where we are at that point. Probably the actual results would show a sufficiently minimal threat level (smoke inhalation, lengthened period of minor motor coordination and concentration) as to make continued illegalisation untenable. And if that’s the way it goes, so be it.
Statistically, Mr 2001’s position kicks all kind of ass over the need to do this. So whether I seek for a scientific inquiry from the FDA previous to legalisation is a matter of prejudice or caution–some of it comes down on both, plus that I don’t think that it is a good precendence for public opinion to be able to trump the same testing that is used on every single other pharmaceutical and sun tan lotion and that we expect and want them to do, and declare something “safe” without it having to pass through the same testing procedures (well, same in the sense of determining harms and benefits, rather than determining whether it is “healthy”.)
So I would rate myself as being fairly non-influenced by the viewpoint.
Also–and as I know very few religious people, this is more of a guess than the previous–I would imagine that for many anti-marijuana Christians, the reasoning would largely be the same.
“Our goal as God’s children is to live honest and productive lives. Narcotics are methods to ignore our responsibilities in the world and to experience pleasure without effort. Cheating ourselves by popping a pill instead of working for our pleasures in life–thinking and allowing happines to be bought is at heart immoral and can only weaken the fabric of society as responsible Christians.”
Hm, came out a lot better worded though.
You could just as easily replace drugs in that statement with movies or TV. If those people want to give up everything easy and fun because they think God wants them to have hard lives, that’s their choice, but they have no business forcing that view on anyone else. This is not a theocracy.
And of course, if good Christians aren’t supposed to use mind-altering substances, then why did Jesus turn all that water into wine?
The entire “There can be only one!” approach of Christianity throughout history even though the Bible requires no such action and already states that the heathen are going to hell anyways, somewhat shows that Christians tend to be a bit domineering when it comes to their beliefs. (Bush vs. Stem-cell research being a good example of this.)
Buddhists in Japan can’t eat meat…so continuing until modern day, fish do not fall under the header of meat. I think that people are pretty good at figuring ways of finding loopholes to get the stuff that they don’t feel like accepting God’s stance on, allowed. Scott Plaid has a perfectly good collection of Bible quotes that quite specifically state that homosexual love is sinful–and yet there are a perfectly good number of practicing gay practicing Christians who don’t appear to be particularly worried about their afterlife.
So, debating whether God’s stance on the issue is pro- or anti-narcotics is going to be difficult–at least until he signs into his SDMB account and replies.
Disagree. Compare the incidence of licit and illicit drug use in both the Netherlands and the US. Legal drugs (alcohol, nicotine, caffeine) have far higher usage ones than illegal ones, including pot.
-
When economic interests are organized on behalf of a substance or activity, that substance or activity is much less likely to become outlawed. As stated before and unaddressed in your post.
-
The ability of a ban to repress and existing level of usage is weaker than the ability of that ban to discourage further increases in usage. A look at the cirrhosis rates during prohibition shows this.
-
(The way to attack this position, IMHO-BTW, is simply to say, so what? If legalization is unambiguously superior to decriminalization, then by all means we should legalize. Where there’s uncertainty though, irreversibility tends to weigh on the side of caution.)
If tobacco was regulated effectively, there would be substantially higher taxes on the stuff, revenue acruing to the government rather than (effectively) to the trial lawyers.
Revenue from the big tobacco lawsuit was originally suppose to go towards anti-smoking efforts. When effective anti-smoking advertising was discovered in California, it a) failed to spread to other states and b) was curbed after several years in CA.
Finally, tough anti-smoking policies would penalize Big Tobacco in direct proportion to the degree to which teens smoke. That is, it would be a pay-for-performance penalty. This framework was considered during negotiations – and successfully put to pasture by Big Tobacco and lawyers who wanted to get paid.
So your premise is faulty. I could go on by repeating some of the advantages unique to pot, but why bother?
You have a point but…
I disagree, as do the Dutch. The problem with this libertarian line of thinking is that, in practice, if you screw up your life others will pay a price. Your family will suffer emotionally. Don’t care? Ok, then I’ll be paying your medical/ family support/ incarceration bills either though my insurance company or through big government, when your little world falls apart.
That said, I’m really arguing for a the intrinsic legitimacy of regulating hard drugs in this post. And I concede that curbing the freedom to get stoned etc., does represent a cost.
I seriously doubt whether this sub-point will be settled in this thread: I just wanted to lay out some of the issues.
Sounds fine. I, for one, am happy to pay my share of those costs for others, knowing that they’ll be paying part of my costs if I ever need help.
Now, if you don’t think you should have to pay for the risks of others, that’s a valid stance too… as long as you apply it fairly. That means withholding your help not just from people who use drugs, but also from anyone who
[ul]
[li]smokes[/li][li]drinks (or doesn’t drink enough red wine to get the heart benefits)[/li][li]eats red meat or salty foods (or whatever else the FDA decides is unhealthy this year)[/li][li]drives a car instead of taking the much safer bus (or airplane)[/li][li]drives a small car instead of a big safe SUV[/li][li]plays any kind of sport[/li][li]lives in a polluted or smoggy city[/li][li]works in law enforcement, fire protection, or other dangerous fields[/li][li]uses sharp scissors when the plastic kindergarten scissors would work instead[/li][li]doesn’t wear a helmet when they go walking outside[/li][li]…and so on[/li][/ul]
It seems simpler just to admit that everyone takes unnecessary risks to some extent, and pool everyone’s risk together.
Indeed, here you’re just getting into what insurance plan you want to buy into. If medicaid/medicair/social security/etc. were treated as insurance plans (or privatised), living a high-risk lifestyle would simply mean that you would only be eligible for the high-risk plans and would have to pay a larger chunk of taxes. And such taxes could be imposed as sales taxes on the high-risk items, while as income taxes would be for a minimum safe-living-style insurance plan.
Or such. Regardless of what method is used, there is no real need to deprive high-risk people of medical use, nor to be forced to pay extra for them, dependent on how you set up the system.
Not quite. I for one don’t want to be in the same risk pool as someone who shoots heroin and juggles knives while riding a motorcycle without a helmet. I’m cool with those adults who forgo kindergarten scissors.
Prescription: cover everybody but also restrict[sup]1[/sup] certain unacceptably risky / stupid / dubious behavior. Admittedly, this applies to the marijuana case only tenuously, IMO. Hard drugs are another matter.
[sup]1[/sup]Ah, but what is the best method of restriction? We again circle back to the main issues in this thread.
Someone who uses kindergarten scissors, wears a helmet when he walks to the mailbox, and only drinks distilled water might not want to be in the same risk pool as you.
The problem with that is it’s an invitation to ban everything, because “unacceptably risky/stupid/dubious” means something different to everyone. If you can ban heroin, why not football, cars, or candy bars?
In principle, nothing. In practice, many things.
We live in a democracy. There is a marked tendency to set protections with respect to the median voter.[sup]1[/sup] Heroin and plutonium are banned because they’re a lot riskier than bacon cheeseburgers with fries. Nicotine and aspirin are a special cases.
Government does not -and should not- operate with respect to simplistic principles. Rather, it reflects the preferences and prejudices of the governed. (Wise administrators will apply fact-based analysis, but that’s a separate matter.)
Furthermore, the level of safety is bounded from below: you can’t drop below zero. So the gap between “ridiculously safe” and “reasonably safe” is likely to be a lot smaller than the gap between the average Joe and the would-be heroin user. Thus our scissorphobic friend really isn’t paying that much of a premium over Joe Average.
[sup]1[/sup]a. Actually, I’d argue that similar processes work in oligarchies as well owing to humanity’s social nature. b. Appropos nothing, the West permits greater risks to be taken at one’s place of work, OSHA notwithstanding.
I guess this is a good time to point out that, like a lot of other drugs, most of heroin’s risks are caused by its illegality. Crime is caused by the high cost; overdose and poisoning are caused by the unknown purity and cutting agents; and if I remember my Dr. Drew correctly, the other health risks are minimal.
Just to add to what Mr2001 said, heroin is legally prescribed to addicts in Britain, Netherlands and Switzerland, and recently in Vancouver, Canada. The risks of heroin itself are mainly addiction. There are peripheral effects like constipation, but which can be avoided by opioid antagonists, especially methylnaltrexone, which can’t cross the blood-brain barrier, hence not disrupting heroin/opiate’s CNS effects.