Legalization of Marijuana

Precisely my point. There are products much better for me than bacon and eggs, yet we are not required to deal with the meatlegger when we want something tasty.

To me the bottom line with the "so-called" drug war, is the govt has no business regulating what I put in my body.....So long as it does interfere with the rights and safety of others.

If I want to smoke a joint in my home, it is not the Govts business. If I then drive a car and hurt someone, then the penalty must be severe.

woiyo wrote:

To me the bottom line with the "so-called" drug war, is the govt has no business regulating what I put in my body.....So long as it does interfere with the rights and safety of others.

If I want to smoke a joint in my home, it is not the Govts business. If I then drive a car and hurt someone, then the penalty must be severe.

The government regulates all sorts of private behavior. In general, the government tends to regulate private behavior to the extent that such behavior either threatens the safety and welfare of others or of the persons who engage in that behavior. Thus I am not allowed to counterfeit money as a hobby, even if I have no intention of passing off those counterfeits to others. The test is whether the private behavior has the potential for harm. Why should drug usage be any different in this regard?

The government regulates all sorts of private behavior. In general, the government tends to regulate private behavior to the extent that such behavior either threatens the safety and welfare of others or of the persons who engage in that behavior. Thus I am not allowed to counterfeit money as a hobby, even if I have no intention of passing off those counterfeits to others. The test is whether the private behavior has the potential for harm. Why should drug usage be any different in this regard?

I would agree with you if there was consistant policies in this regard. Govt "regulates" private behavior in some cases by taxing the product (Booze and tabacco). Some products are illegal (pot, heroin etc...).

While some drugs, both legal and illegal, alter behavior (anti-depressents/pain killers for example), who and how does one MEASURE the potential for harm to the general public?

So my question you you is HOW do your measure the potential and WHO should be making that decision?

Probably because pot doesn't have the potential to ruin he economy, and making counterfeits does (if the counterfeits are stolen etc).

The same way that we, in a democratic society, measure the potential for harm of any substance or activity: through the process of passing legislation. Granted, that may be an imperfect way of evaluating risk, but it's the way that we've settled upon, for better or worse.

Depends on how you evaluate the potential for harm. A lone hobbyist crafting counterfeit money in his basement poses about the same amount of risk to the economy as the solitary pothead smoking in his basement poses to society.

joefromchicago wrote:

The same way that we, in a democratic society, measure the potential for harm of any substance or activity: through the process of passing legislation. Granted, that may be an imperfect way of evaluating risk, but it's the way that we've settled upon, for better or worse.

That's circular reasoning in the context of whether the current legislation ought to be changed: "We oughtn't legalize Marijuana because marijuana is harmful. It's harmful because legislators made it illegal."

I think that's a bad example since it doesn't really make it obvious that smoking pot is a danger to society.

And why would somebody want to create counterfeit money that could potentially be used like real money? If the hobbyist had some fascination with money he could just stamp the words 'invalid' or something similar on it, and it would be legal.

Bacon and eggs may be "bad" for you, but not in the same way that marijuana and alcohol are "bad" for you. I've never heard of anyone strung out on bacon or wasted on omelettes.

According to the American Heart Association (AHA), more than 870,000 Americans die from heart disease each year, making it the leading killer of both men and women.

DrewDad wrote:

Precisely my point. There are products much better for me than bacon and eggs, yet we are not required to deal with the meatlegger when we want something tasty.

There your analogy fails. Bacon and eggs may be "bad" for you, but not in the same way that marijuana and alcohol are "bad" for you. I've never heard of anyone strung out on bacon or wasted on omelettes. We don't have meatleggers, therefore, because meat doesn't pose the same sort of risks as drugs or alcohol.

The law must encompass both the lone hobbyist counterfeiter and the criminal counterfeiter, just as it must encompass both the reclusive pot smoker and the gregarious one. If a behavior is judged to be too risky to be permitted, then it doesn't matter if there are some people who would engage in that behavior without posing any actual risk to the public.

The law must encompass both the lone hobbyist counterfeiter and the criminal counterfeiter, just as it must encompass both the reclusive pot smoker and the gregarious one. If a behavior is judged to be too risky to be permitted, then it doesn't matter if there are some people who would engage in that behavior without posing any actual risk to the public.

Had your cholesterol checked lately?

Bacon and eggs are more likely to kill a lot of us, than alcohol or marijuana.

"not the same way" - worse.

And so you make the point that if alchohol is legal, then pot should be legal unless one can show that its potential for harm is significantly greater than alchohol. (Or, conversely, that alchohol should be made illegal.)

Thank you for coming over to our camp.

That would only be true if I accepted the argument that, if I am satisfied with having one potentially dangerous substance being legal, I should not object to having two potentially dangerous substances being legal. But I don't, so it's not.

Not so. The law does provide for combinations of behaviors that together form illegal activities.

Drinking and driving, e.g.

1. Are you satisfied with the legality of alchohol, or do you believe it should be made illegal?

2. If you are satisfied with the legality of alchohol, and if pot and alchohol are equally dangerous, then you would be satisfied with making alchohol illegal and pot legal, n'est pas?