How do you reconcile the statements:
1)The harm caused by marijuana prohibition exceeds that caused by marijuana’s other attributes
2)Marijuana should continue to be prohibited
(I am assuming that your standard of what “should” be done is based on avoidance of harm.)
I don’t deny it. That’s why I freely admitted that it was a gut feeling, and that I was open to arguments to change my mind.
Easily. The question is: does the harm caused by marijuana, considering only “intrinisic” harm, not the harm caused by its classification as contraband, outweigh any good effects it has?
If it does - if it’s more harmful than helpful, then it should be prohibited.
I think it is. But I’m willing to be convinced I’m wrong, especially since my view is based on a gut feel, not any solid research or the result of any compelling argument on the issue.
I still don’t see it. If Jim loses $100 at a casino, $50 of it goes to salaries for the casino workers, $20 of it goes to taxes, $20 of it goes to the casino’s overhead, and $10 goes to profit, or something like that. There’s still $100 in the economy, it’s just in different people’s hands. Nothing was created.
However, if Jim takes his $100 and spends it on wood and tool rental to build a house worth $300, he’s added $200 to the economy through his labor. It’s tempting to argue that the $200 only represents market value (and a lot of non-material things have market value), but the house has an intrinsic value that the tools and wood don’t have, regardless of whether Jim sells it on the market or lives in it himself. Tools and wood are not worth anything unless someone is in the business of using them to build houses. But everyone has to live somewhere, so the house always has value. (Not that anyone would want to live in a $300 house, but you get the idea.)
[QUOTE=Bricker
Easily. The question is: does the harm caused by marijuana, considering only “intrinisic” harm, not the harm caused by its classification as contraband, outweigh any good effects it has?
If it does - if it’s more harmful than helpful, then it should be prohibited.
I think it is. But I’m willing to be convinced I’m wrong, especially since my view is based on a gut feel, not any solid research or the result of any compelling argument on the issue.[/QUOTE]
Putting aside the recreationsal use, can you point to any intrinsic harm that outweighs the benefit of hemp fibers, hemp pulp, the medical use of cannabis to relieve the symptoms of chemotherapy, glaucoma and other medical uses (many of which were common before 1937)?
Back to recreational use: Compare any “intrinsic” harm to the harm from alcohol or tabacco use. Why does the one with lower intrinsic harm deserve prohibition while you don’t want to prohibit the others?
If you want to argue that any instrinsic harm is enough for prohibition, then gambling is right out, as is alcohol, tobacco, fried foods, ice cream and countless other little pleasures in life.
Study a bit of the history of cannabis and you’ll recognize the racial bigotry behind the Marijuana Tax act of 1937. In fact you’ll find the term “marijuana” itself is a result of that racist drive.
You do know that the credit card companies get a piece of every transaction, that’s where the bulk of their money comes from. Your not paying your bill on time is gravy, but they don’t “rely” on it to be profitable. The profit is already built in, paid by the vendor; once they accept your card.
A good example would be American Express “proper”, which doesn’t allow you carry a balance, the profit comes from the yearly fee and their percentage of every transaction from the vendor. However all credit cards use this model. The difference is of course, credit cards allow you carry a balance… while they may hope you do; they don’t need you to. It’s additional income, but not their main source. At least I don’t believe it is.
Bricker, I consider the credit industry a serious problem, for reasons i stated earlier; not credit cards in and of themselves; the same way I would consider the Gambling Industry a problem and not Blackjack itself. You will note, that the term “social ill” was your term, not mine; if you go to my quote that starts this thread, I said I consider gambling to have a negative effect on society, I’m not sure that instantly translates to a social ill, just not the entertainment and good memories that you consider it to be. There are real negatives that occur when legalized gambling is allowed and Bennett knew that, that’s why he gave his disclaimer. Why separate himself from other types of gamblers?
I know you wanted to leave Bennett out, but I think it’s appropriate that I close with a quick mention, since it was the spawn of this tread and the other thread is dying…forgive my hijack.
Judging from the amount of condemnation from what ironically appears to be from a majority of religious cites; who I believe were Bennett’s targets, he should have known what their feelings on the matter were, even if he didn’t agree with them; as he gave his speeches. It wasn’t like they hid them, but Bennett hid his gambling; he didn’t rail against gambling, when he railed against other issues that he claimed were damaging the country, home and family. Well gambling is one of those things and he never said a word against it.
I know you don’t agree and you know my opinion of Bennett’s hypocrisy and whether or not gambling is part of the problems with our society; so I suppose we gonna have to agree to disagree.
YMMV, of course.
See you on the flip side.
I’m not familiar enough with the Marijuana Tax act of 1937, the benefit of hemp fibers and hemp pulp, or the ddocumented medical benefits of cannabis to relieve the symptoms of chemotherapy and glaucoma to really have an educated opinion.
I’d welcome cites or recommended reading on the subject.
Perhaps not in this thread, though.
Er, no. To justify prohibition on a utilitarian basis, the total harm must be weighed. The total harm on the “prohibition” side of the scales, obviously, includes both the harm caused by prohibition itself and the “intrinsic” harm; the total harm on the “no prohibition” side of the scales includes only the latter.
No, you have made an assertion that is transparently not based on a principle or reasoning that you can even articulate, much less defend. I attempted to point out that rather fundamental flaw and all you have done in reply is make accusations of “hallucinations”. If you don’t have an argument, it’s best not to offer it. Word to the wise, okay?
I await, with more bemusement than anticipation, your final definiton of “social ill”.
No, interchange fees typically represent only about 15% of a credit card company’s profits.
You really can’t have anything like a modern economy without credit, as the Catholic Church and Islam have discovered over the centuries (revoking or getting around their prohibitions on charging interest on loans). I’d definitely call a modern economy a social good that outweighs the problem of people getting into debt.
Now this I find downright offensive, as a non-elite person. It makes us sound like we automatically imitate anything we see the rich doing, and are somehow less able to decide for ourselves if we want to gamble, etc. Monkey see, monkey do.
[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
No, interchange fees typically represent only about 15% of a credit card company’s profits.
I stand corrected, I didn’t realize it was that bad:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/more/cement.html
Okay, now I’m really out of here. Thanks for the eye-opener Anne Neville
All we need is a gut feeling and then the burden shifts to the opposition. Shoot that makes this thread a lot easier for the anti side. I have a gut feeling that gambling would cause enough problems that by your standards it should be illegal. Now it is up to you to prove me wrong.
Bricker, you gonna touch mine?
Whoa, there, Chuckles. I didn’t say the burden shifted. I agree that the burden is on me to show that marijuana should be illegal, not on anyone else to rebut a gut feeling. I jyst said this wasn’t the thread to do it in.
I never said that.
You lied. You lied about what I said.
You posted that I claimed an activity only becomes a social ill if it is outlawed. I never said that. Why don’t you admit that you lied?
You lied. You told an untruth. You deliberately misquoted me.
Because you didn’t use the quote feature, what you did is not against the rules of the board.
But I have decided on an appropriate response.
That is to identify, repeatedly, your habit of lying in this way.
You lied. You lied when you posted:
You have lied.
Lied.
Admit it.
You absolutely did shift the burden. Lets break down exactly what you said:
You take the position that Marijuana should be illegal.
The justification you give for your position is that its your gut feeling that marijuana is sufficiently harmful that it should be illegal.
You admit that your justification is basically founded on nothing yet you still want to impinge on my liberty.
I didn’t bring this up to shift the debate to marijuana but to establish some sort of standard to which we can judge what is a social ill and what is not. It seems to me that, at least in the case of marijuana, your test is if you have a “gut feeling” and haven’t been proven wrong. If thats the standard we are using then gambling is a social ill becuase I have a “gut feeling” that it is and you haven’t proven me wrong yet.
Hm, wildly wandering thread. (I liked the ‘lied lied lied lied’ post. Not that I’m taking a stance on wether anybody lied or not; it was just amusing to see.)
On what I believe to be the topic, let’s see. The question is wether gambling is a ‘social ill’ - apparently defined as something that is defined as doing more detriment overall than good.
Also, we are clearly talking about the actual gambling industry. Because this is obviously not a question of wether it’s a social ill to get with the buds in the backroom and play a hand of poker. This is a question of wether casinos and horsetracks represent a social ill.
Well, let’s see. You have an industry that is entirely devoted to separating people from their money for no material return but potential entertainment. Fair enough, that’s the same for every entertainment industry. Compare to the movie industry.
For reasons unbeknownst to me, my father has recently become addicted to watching movies in the cinema. He goes to like four movies out a week. But, let’s assume the worst. Even if he say ten movies a week, which he doesn’t, and was paying ten dollars a movie, which he’s not, he’d still only be paying $100 a week. This is for 15-20 hours of entertainment. And it’s a solid cap. There’s simply a limit to how much one can spend on movies in any fixed amount of time.
Gambling has no such limit. Even a moderate gambler could evaporate that $100 in an hour. In fact, it’ll take as much as you can give it. From what I can see, the ‘industry’ (breathing, sentient thing that it is) would be thrilled if you came and burned your entire life savings in one evening. It can literally destroy your life. And apparently, it does. Apparently, it is a significant problem to at least 5% of the people who participate. (It seems rather silly to focus on its effect on those who shun it.) If it was a living thing, it’d be percieved as a rather dangerous predator.
Given that it’s a ‘stupidity tax’, it would also seem to be most dangerous to those least able to handle it. The lure of large payouts for nothing is, I should think, better bait for one who has little money than lots of it. (Though the rich are not entirely immune either.)
The gambling industry, then, could be equated to a large ‘tame’ beast that follows society around, picking off mostly its weak and sickly. Sort of a pet predator that gnaws a finger off now and then. It’s not going to do enough damage to bring society down, of course. But it’s doing damage nonetheless.
Based on all this, I’d say that yes, organized gambling is a social ill. It does more damage than good. And for all those of you who manage to milk your ten dollars for an entire evening and therefore think that the predator is work keeping it around because it’s a fun ride, good for you. Me, I’ll just go to a movie now and then. Perhaps less fun, but it’s never going to turn around and bite me (or anybody else).
I said, “So far, it’s only my gut feeling that marijuana use is more harmful to more more people than gambling is.”
That’s hardly drawing a line in the sand.
But to clarify: I withdraw my earlier comments, and I take no position on whether marijuana should be legal. I am not sufficiently informed on the effects of marijuana to hold an opinion.
Well its drawing a line in the sand when you say marijuana is a social ill and should be illegal while gambling is not and should remain legal.
Fair enough but lets talk about what if anything differentiates between recreational drugs like marijuana and gambling. I think social ill is a term thats bandied about so much that it is all but meaningless. It basically comes down to something that you don’t like that has a detrimental effect on society. No one would say that football is a social year yet by any definition it counts. People die playing football each year, countless are injured, people spend a lot of money on it and “waste” their weekends watching it. I would suggest that this is the reason you consider pot an ill but not gambling. Gambling costs a lot of money and has ruined many peoples lives but you enjoy doing it so you don’t consider it bad.
The standard that I use and the test I suggest should be used is a significant direct harm resulting from the action on the rest of society. For example Meth addicts are dangerous to be around and will resort to crime to get their fix. Meth is also very addictive and is extremely hard to use responsibly. I would argue that Meth users have a significant direct harm on the rest of society and can be justifiably banned.
Now the effects that I don’t count are effects on the user and oppurtunity costs that have indirect harm on society. For example if gamblers lose their savings and have to work until their 80 thats their problem. If a guy smokes pot and drops out of school and goes to work at a gas station robbing society of an engineer then thats his perogative. I don’t think in either case society has a great enough interest to step in and ban the activity.
And that is the problem, isn’t it? You made an assertion about the existence of a principled distinction, without (still) pointing out what the principle you assert could be, other than legality. I pointed out that that is what the principle would have had to be for you to make that distinction, and asked if you really meant that. Instead of either supporting or exploring the issue, you’ve chosen to provide us with the most hilarious tantrum this forum has seen in quite a long while.
Sure, right after you admit you once again don’t have an argument. 
Nope. You lied. You didn’t say, “Do you mean X?” You said, “Bricker, interesting that you would claim X.”
When I objected, pointing out I never said it, you offered up a post that had nothing to do with it.
Other people have identified my argument and have responded to it.
The fact that you, as a poster that has lied, cannot identify any argument is of absolutely no worry to me.
You see, you lied.