Legalization of Marijuana

DrewDad wrote:

So you have some real evidence of the harms of marijuana?

The studies are readily available on the web, and I've linked to some of them in a previous post.

But why should I bother? You'll simply dismiss any study that points out the dangers of marijuana as being politically motivated, just as I have little faith in the objectivity of the studies that you post. Indeed, I'm dubious of all the research on marijuana, since both sides have a vested interest in the results of the studies. That's why I rely on the assumptions made by the advocates of marijuana legalization: I don't need to sort through all of the competing scientific claims to understand what the political debate is really all about.

I'm honestly surprised at the level of argument you are presenting here, Joe.

First of all, a million hits on google is nothing. Practically any search term will number you a million hits.

Second, this phrase -

Quote:

The harm or potential harm to others I assume to be similar or identical to the harm or potential harm to others that is posed by alcohol.

Is not countered in any fashion by saying 'marijuana is no worse then alcohol.' That sentence does not imply equivalence, but in fact points out that much more inimical substances are legally regulated, so why not this one? To build your argument off such a weak point is not recommended.

Joe, should all new drugs which are discovered from this point forward be illegal? Certainly given modern medical technology and the exploration of the remote areas of the world, we will discover plants and substances which have drug-like effects upon the body. None of these substances will have a 'cultural history' with the Western world. Should they be illegal?

Why do you believe this is true?

I have a real problem with your standard of legality relying upon cultural history. Also, this line -

Quote:

Only if you believe that marijuana and alcohol are alike in all respects.

Is patently ridiculous. No two things are alike in all respects, yet many things are treated alike. Tobacco and Alcohol are not alike in all respects, yet both are treated essentially the same by our society - legal, but limited in certain ways.

Your 'alcohol is too widespread' argument is bullsh*t. Laws deserve to stand or fall upon their own merits, not upon cultural history. You haven't shown in any way that marijuana should be illegal.

On what pragmatic rationale do you base your view of at most favoring a decriminalization of marijuana usage if you are unable to quality and quantify the overall harm done in the present circumstances versus circumstances in which marijuana was legal?

Your links mostly seem to suggest "we don't know what will happen."

If you have no hard data, then just say you have no hard data. Basing your argument on the assumptions in someone else's argument is just plain dumb.

I posted a comparison of recent drug statistics in the Netherlands versus the US, and they do not show that tolerating marijuana use will result in harm to society; quite the opposite in fact. Mainly from keeping the "soft drug" population away from the "hard drug" population.

In other earlier threads, you have agreed with the notion that America has a free society and a limited government. You wouldn't push this idea as far as I would, but you agreed with the principle. Is this still the case?

Assuming that it is, I suggest to you that as a consequence of this principle, there ought to be a presumption of liberty. "We don't know what will happen" ought to inhibit the government's zeal to criminalize; in other words, the burden to prove a danger to the public should be on whoever seeks to prohibit a particular conduct. If we had acted on this principle from the beginning, we would never have burnt wiches or hung people for disbelieving in god and participating in oral sex. It's a good principle, and it should apply to drugs too.

If you disagree with this, where do I get it wrong? If you agree with it, how does it not follow that recreational drugs should at least tentatively be legalized? Why shouldn't they be re-criminalized only when there's clear and persuasive evidence of serious harm to third parties -- serious enough to render "sin taxes" impractical?

It's not surprising that you disagree with me on this point. You, and libertarians in general, tend to view people as being risk-acceptant, whereas I tend to view people as risk-averse. In my opinion, libertarians see people as risk-acceptant because it accords with their social and economic theories; I view people as risk-averse because it accords with the real-life actions of real people.

When a substance is potentially harmful, libertarians resort to the argument that "when in doubt, make it legal" because they think that people will gladly accept the risk that the substance will not be as benign as hoped. I, on the other hand, tend to adopt the argument that "when in doubt, restrict it or prohibit it" because I think that people will not accept that risk.

Yes, and I'm pretty sure you also want this principle applied to the approval of new drugs.

It's not surprising that you disagree with me on this point. You, and libertarians in general, tend to view people as being risk-acceptant, whereas I tend to view people as risk-averse. In my opinion, libertarians see people as risk-acceptant because it accords with their social and economic theories; I view people as risk-averse because it accords with the real-life actions of real people.

Admittedly, I don't have as much faith in the overall rationality of people as do libertarians, but then I also haven't bought into a grand socioeconomic theory that is based on that assumption.

When a substance is potentially harmful, libertarians resort to the argument that "when in doubt, make it legal" because they think that people will gladly accept the risk that the substance will not be as benign as hoped.

Quote:

When a substance is potentially harmful, libertarians resort to the argument that "when in doubt, make it legal" because they think that people will gladly accept the risk that the substance will not be as benign as hoped. I, on the other hand, tend to adopt the argument that "when in doubt, restrict it or prohibit it" because I think that people will not accept that risk.

Isn't it up to people, individually, to decide whether or not to take that risk? Why do you need to decide it for them? I submit that your 'rationality' is not absolute, yet you seek to brand anyone who does not follow your risk-averse plans as 'irrational.'

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

When a substance is potentially harmful, libertarians resort to the argument that "when in doubt, make it legal" because they think that people will gladly accept the risk that the substance will not be as benign as hoped. I, on the other hand, tend to adopt the argument that "when in doubt, restrict it or prohibit it" because I think that people will not accept that risk.

Isn't it up to people, individually, to decide whether or not to take that risk? Why do you need to decide it for them? I submit that your 'rationality' is not absolute, yet you seek to brand anyone who does not follow your risk-averse plans as 'irrational.'

Cycloptichorn

You mean like seat belts, helmets, lead paint, asbestos, tainted meat and vegetables? Why bother even having an FDA if it's up to people, individually, to decide whether or not to take that risk?

Or, better written, You view people as risk-averse b/c it accords with your social and economic principles.

Surely you realize that the risk of damage or danger has rarely if ever stopped humans from doing something. I have a hard time understanding why, knowing the risk of lung cancer, significant amounts of people smoke; significant amounts drink; and significant amounts smoke pot. Their real-life actions do not meet your standard of being 'risk-averse.'

Isn't it up to people, individually, to decide whether or not to take that risk? Why do you need to decide it for them?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Or, better written, You view people as risk-averse b/c it accords with your social and economic principles.

Not really. People just aren't very risk-acceptant, possibly because they're so bad at evaluating risk. Check out the work of Daniel Kahneman.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Surely you realize that the risk of damage or danger has rarely if ever stopped humans from doing something. I have a hard time understanding why, knowing the risk of lung cancer, significant amounts of people smoke; significant amounts drink; and significant amounts smoke pot. Their real-life actions do not meet your standard of being 'risk-averse.'

On the contrary. People who smoke either don't consider the risk, or else they tend to think that other people get lung cancer. That's because they will reconcile their own desires to fit with their perception of the likelihood of risk. In other words, the more a person wants something, the less risky it will be perceived. Given a more value-neutral problem, however, and people will tend to show just how risk-averse they really are. For instance, give people a choice of either receiving a dollar or a 20% chance at winning $5, most people will take the dollar, even though, over the course of five iterations, the payoffs will, on average, be exactly the same.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Isn't it up to people, individually, to decide whether or not to take that risk? Why do you need to decide it for them?

I'm not deciding for them. The legislature has decided for them. And the people decided that they want the legislature deciding for them. That's called "democracy."