2
   

Refer to the facts!

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2003 03:44 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:

It should. For it is the envy of my town.

Your town sounds like it is starved for entertainment.


I prefer to think that my testicle is simply of enormous entertainment value. I hope the other one develops as nicely.

Quote:
Then such statements were not "ad hominems" at all. Call them stereotypes or group libels or whatever, but an "ad hominem" attack can only be levelled against someone making an argument, not against a group of people to which the arguer might belong.


I disagree.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
I bet that decriminalization will happen in my lifetime. Do you really find it that unlikely?

I don't know. How healthy are you?


As my testicle attests I am of prodigious health.

Quote:
Then you would be unwise to make that bet with me, as I suspect I'm a member of that generation, and my will instructs my executors not to pay off on any hare-brained bets that I may have made during my lifetime.


I do not know what generation you are in. I suspect that the generation I speak of is the one prior to yours.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
If someone had challenged your statement about the comprehension of irony all you have to do is claim it was a joke and that they are illustrating their irony by their failure to comprehend the situation.

That's far too meta-ironic even for me.


Yeah, but maybe the pot heads would enjoy it. "You know.... I .. I think that the only reason we.. die... is because... we ... we ... accept it .. as an inevitability.. huh.. huh...."

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Come now joe! Do you also think that when trying to change the status quo politicians use the best arguments or do they speak to the lowest common denominator?

Being a reasonable voice is not as motivational to social change in a democracy as is a more extreme position.

By the nature of the masses the most effective stance in a polarized climate is an extreme one.

And what would the extreme position on the legalization of marijuana be?


The "legalize it now dammit I wanna get high this afternoon already" crowd. The crowd for which the cost/benefit is not as important as "it feels right, plus I'd get better weed if it were legal".

The ones who take obvious measures to selectively tout statistics.

You know the type, no?

Quote:
Many things are lost on the majority. If it were not thus, there would be no way to distinguish the extraordinary from the masses.


Yes, then again the ability to discern fallacy from fact really shouldn't be extraordinary. Extraordinary should really only be for truly amazing feats such as developing a banbag sized testicle.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
I took measures to make it not a specious argument.

And yet you failed.


LOL this made me laugh. I'd rather quip than contest so:

"I shall redouble my efforts in the future."

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
The downside of legalizing murder is apparent.

What is the downside of having criminal drug dealers be replaced by regulated distribution points?

Increased drug use.


I used "regulated" for a reason. with proper regulation it remains to be seen if increased marijuana use would be less preferable than the elimination of the criminal element to this issue.

Many people contend that the biggest danger of using marijuana is getting in touble because it is illegal.

There crtainly are downsides to increased use. What makes you think they outweigh the potential upside to decriminalization?

Quote:
Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
If the use is not something that you find dangerous to our society what exactly are the laws protecting against?

joefromchicago wrote:
Strawman argument. When did I say that I didn't find marijuana use to be dangerous to our society?


You most certainly didn't. I never said you DID. I am making a case that you SHOULD HAVE.

So when you said "If the use is not something that you find dangerous," you were not referring to me, but to some general, non-specific "you"?


Brainfart on my part. Read your reply to hastily and misread you.

So, do you find marijuana use to be dangerous to society? If so, why?

Quote:

Marijuana's dangers are not fully understood. I refer you to this link page: it is, on the whole, sympathetic to the legalization side, yet maintains a far more balanced view than is commonly found in this debate. The conclusion to the WHO study, in particular, states:

"There are health risks of cannabis use, most particularly when it is used daily over a period of years or decades. Considerable uncertainty remains about whether these effects are attributable to cannabis use alone, and about what the quantitative relationship is between frequency, quantity and duration of cannabis use and the risk of experiencing these effects. Using analogies with the known effects of alcohol and tobacco, the most probable of the health risks of chronic heavy cannabis use over a period of years are; the development of a dependence syndrome; an increased risk of being involved in motor vehicle accidents; an increased risk of developing chronic bronchitis; an increased risk of respiratory cancers; an increased risk of giving birth to low birth weight babies when used during pregnancy; and perhaps, an increased risk of developing schizophrenia among those who are vulnerable. Many of these risks are shared with alcohol and tobacco, which is not surprising given that cannabis is an intoxicant like alcohol which is typically smoking like tobacco.

"On existing patterns of use, cannabis poses a much less serious public health problem than is currently posed by alcohol and tobacco in Western societies. This is no cause for complacency, however, as the public health significance of alcohol and tobacco are major, and the public health significance of cannabis could increase if the prevalence of its heavy daily use were to approach that of heavy alcohol use among young adults, or the prevalence of daily cigarette smoking among adults."


With this I concur. There are dangers associated with marijuana that, frankly, we still either don't fully understand or cannot fully appreciate. And legalization has the potential for making these problems worse, not better. I, for one, don't think it's wise to legalize yet another drug before we understand its full implications for its users and for society at large.


Except in a Donnesque "Every man's death diminishes me" how is individual health representative of a societal danger?

Sure there is the public health cost factor but there are many activities that are KNOWN to have an immediate detrimental effet on health. Why the trepidation on the "possibility" of a futre discovery that pot is somehow more dangrous than currently thought.

If public health is your claim to societal danger should not twinkies be illegal?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2003 05:53 pm
farmerman wrote:
As far as I can tell, a projected pot market, including secondary markets that I originally reffered to , mostly in jest, would be enormous.


I don't doubt ya! Very Happy I'd think the market would be huge. I just question the idea of using a black-market street value in any sort of serious economic comparison. Any number would be a guess but there has to be a better way to come up with a number than that. The day any legislation on this got serious attention in the Congress the street price will start plummeting.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2003 06:31 pm
Craven said: If public health is your claim to societal danger should not twinkies be illegal?

Yeah, what about those damn twinkies!

What about all the poision they put in our food and dump in our water Joe? At least we should be able to decide what we put in our bodies instead of others. When I go shopping, they don't tell me what kind of poision they put on my fruits and veggies which is far worse than anything I ever smoked and that should be a crime.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2003 11:37 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
I prefer to think that my testicle is simply of enormous entertainment value.

It certainly seems to be keeping you amused.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I disagree.

Then you are wrong.

Craven de Kere wrote:
The "legalize it now dammit I wanna get high this afternoon already" crowd. The crowd for which the cost/benefit is not as important as "it feels right, plus I'd get better weed if it were legal".

And that's the kind of argument that's more "motivational to social change"?

Craven de Kere wrote:
I used "regulated" for a reason. with proper regulation it remains to be seen if increased marijuana use would be less preferable than the elimination of the criminal element to this issue.

I quite agree. Are you then willing to tolerate the consequences if increased marijuana usage is indeed less preferable than the elimination of the "criminal element" of its regulation?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Many people contend that the biggest danger of using marijuana is getting in touble because it is illegal.

As with most criminals, the biggest danger is in getting caught.

Craven de Kere wrote:
There crtainly are downsides to increased use. What makes you think they outweigh the potential upside to decriminalization?

I'm not sure if the downsides outweigh the upsides (although I'm inclined to think that they would). I am, however, certain that I don't know what the consequences will be, nor does anyone else. That, I think, is reason enough for caution.

Craven de Kere wrote:
So, do you find marijuana use to be dangerous to society? If so, why?

Marijuana use is dangerous to society in the same way that alcohol or tobacco use is dangerous to society. I believe this because I have seen studies that support this conclusion (I have provided the links in a previous post).

Craven de Kere wrote:
Except in a Donnesque "Every man's death diminishes me" how is individual health representative of a societal danger?

This is a question-framing fallacy. If individual health effects are defined as something different from societal dangers, then obviously one does not "represent" the other.

Let me, however, try to address the general intent of your question. If, for instance, Hophead Hank develops lung cancer as the result of smoking marijuana, then some would argue (as some on this and its associated thread already have) that such a result is no one's business but Hank's. To which I respond: if Hank's medical treatments are being paid for through private insurance, there's a chance that those medical bills will boost my insurance rates. And if Hank is on Medicare or Medicaid or some other form of government assistance, it's my tax dollars at work trying to save Hank's miserable life.

Now, you might say that these effects are too remote, and, in analyzing any single case (such as Hank's), that would seem to be the case. But imagine a million Hanks, all acting the same way, and you start realizing that individual choices (and their consequences) can lead to public health crises.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Sure there is the public health cost factor but there are many activities that are KNOWN to have an immediate detrimental effet on health. Why the trepidation on the "possibility" of a futre discovery that pot is somehow more dangrous than currently thought.

I don't believe I ever expressed any concerns about the possibility that pot would be found more dangerous in the future, although I have certainly expressed reservations about the unknown societal effects that would accompany legalization. Rather, I think there's enough evidence right now to show that it poses a health risk.

Furthermore, I don't quite understand why we shouldn't be concerned with possible, and perhaps unknown, adverse effects of legalization. We've already embarked upon a war without fully appreciating -- or even acknowledging -- the possible adverse effects that would follow from such a war. Many people have justifiably criticized the Bush administration for acting in this kind of rash, precipitate manner. I'm not sure why we should rush heedlessly toward legalization in the same foolish fashion.

Craven de Kere wrote:
If public health is your claim to societal danger should not twinkies be illegal?

No, unless you know something about Twinkies that I don't.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2003 01:18 pm
Montana wrote:
What about all the poision they put in our food and dump in our water Joe?

What do you want to know about it?

Montana wrote:
At least we should be able to decide what we put in our bodies instead of others.

Your right to decide what you will or will not ingest is already highly circumscribed. In large measure, I think that's a good thing. And you'd probably agree, Montana, if you gave it a moment's thought.

Montana wrote:
When I go shopping, they don't tell me what kind of poision they put on my fruits and veggies which is far worse than anything I ever smoked and that should be a crime.

Then buy organic produce.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2003 02:05 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
It certainly seems to be keeping you amused.


You too. I saw you envying it.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
I disagree.

Then you are wrong.


Sometimes.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
The "legalize it now dammit I wanna get high this afternoon already" crowd. The crowd for which the cost/benefit is not as important as "it feels right, plus I'd get better weed if it were legal".

And that's the kind of argument that's more "motivational to social change"?


Yep, pot heads are the reson laws will change on this. It's hard to underestimate society.

Quote:

I quite agree. Are you then willing to tolerate the consequences if increased marijuana usage is indeed less preferable than the elimination of the "criminal element" of its regulation?


No, if it is less preferable.

Quote:
As with most criminals, the biggest danger is in getting caught.


It's one danger but this sidesteps the point. Criminal activity with oneself as the sole direct victim poses little danger to society other than to the individual (and that should only bother you in a Donnesque "every man's death diminishes me" way).

I believe crime should be employed with an emphasis on protecting society and not individuals from themselves.

A strong case can be made that marijuana's detriment to society is minimal. It's greatest detriment is to the individual and a casual comparison with other crime does not hold water.

Many other crimes have dangers to society. It's not as equal of a comparison as you make it out to be.

Quote:
I'm not sure if the downsides outweigh the upsides (although I'm inclined to think that they would). I am, however, certain that I don't know what the consequences will be, nor does anyone else. That, I think, is reason enough for caution.


I am in favor of cautiously repealling the laws then.

Quote:
Marijuana use is dangerous to society in the same way that alcohol or tobacco use is dangerous to society. I believe this because I have seen studies that support this conclusion (I have provided the links in a previous post).


There are many studies that suggest that TV is dangerous for society, violent movies, porn, automobiles, glass bottles, sharp objects......

There are known dangers to society that far exceed the "unknown" dangers that marijuana poses to society.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Except in a Donnesque "Every man's death diminishes me" how is individual health representative of a societal danger?

This is a question-framing fallacy. If individual health effects are defined as something different from societal dangers, then obviously one does not "represent" the other.


Of course it is. Just as I consider it fallacious to state that marijuana poses a significant danger to society.

Other than health issues you will have very little support for all the talk of an unknown element of danger.

Quote:
Let me, however, try to address the general intent of your question. If, for instance, Hophead Hank develops lung cancer as the result of smoking marijuana, then some would argue (as some on this and its associated thread already have) that such a result is no one's business but Hank's. To which I respond: if Hank's medical treatments are being paid for through private insurance, there's a chance that those medical bills will boost my insurance rates. And if Hank is on Medicare or Medicaid or some other form of government assistance, it's my tax dollars at work trying to save Hank's miserable life.


So you fall into the fallacy. Earlier you claimed it was not an issue that effects you because just a fraction of your money goes to enforcing this law.

Now a smaller fraction of your tax money is suddenly paramount?

Quote:
Now, you might say that these effects are too remote, and, in analyzing any single case (such as Hank's), that would seem to be the case. But imagine a million Hanks, all acting the same way, and you start realizing that individual choices (and their consequences) can lead to public health crises.


I am well aware of the potantial for public health issues. I am more concerned about the current societal issue of an incarcerating culture.

I believe the health costs would be less than the cost to enforce it and of taxed the nation would actually make a profit.

Do you contest that regulated sale of marijuana with an exhorbitant tax could easily cover the societal costs? And that coupled with the reduction in the cost of enforcement and incarceration the financial line is not as threatened as you made it sound?

Quote:
Furthermore, I don't quite understand why we shouldn't be concerned with possible, and perhaps unknown, adverse effects of legalization. We've already embarked upon a war without fully appreciating -- or even acknowledging -- the possible adverse effects that would follow from such a war. Many people have justifiably criticized the Bush administration for acting in this kind of rash, precipitate manner. I'm not sure why we should rush heedlessly toward legalization in the same foolish fashion.


People differ on what is feckless and what isn't. What is rushed and what wasn't.

I think the war in Iraq is going exactly as expected (it's going exactly as I expected).

I also do not think legalization is foolish, rushed or rash.

The legalisation/war comparison was an apples to donkeys analogy and both had value laden qualifiers.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
If public health is your claim to societal danger should not twinkies be illegal?

No, unless you know something about Twinkies that I don't.


You do not know that junk food presents a far greater health risk than marijuana does?
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2003 02:15 pm
Actually, idiocy is the greatest threat to society. Too bad more people don't realize that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2003 02:25 pm
GIven the prevelance and prominence of idiocy, both private and public, in human history, i'm afraid i have to demur from endorsing your position Cav. Eliminate idiocy from the human race, and you'll likely eliminate society altogether.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2003 02:52 pm
Hmm...you may be right there, Setanta. I prefer nonsense to idiocy any day. Maybe nonsense can replacify idiocy and saveth the humans?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2003 03:05 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
It certainly seems to be keeping you amused.


You too. I saw you envying it.

What you interpreted as envy was actually bored indifference. I am, I think, on fairly solid ground when I say that no one is as enamored of your giant testicle as you are, Craven.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Yep, pot heads are the reson laws will change on this. It's hard to underestimate society.

But easy to overestimate pot heads. The day they legalize marijuana is the day I'll march down the middle of Michigan Avenue in one of Woody Harrelson's hemp suits.

Craven de Kere wrote:
It's one danger but this sidesteps the point. Criminal activity with oneself as the sole direct victim poses little danger to society other than to the individual (and that should only bother you in a Donnesque "every man's death diminishes me" way).

I believe crime should be employed with an emphasis on protecting society and not individuals from themselves.

The line between protecting society and protecting individuals from themselves is not as bright as you seem to think. If every heroin addict, for instance, would behave decently and just curl up in a ball until merciful death overcame them, then I would think differently about heroin laws. Unfortunately, heroin addicts tend to selfishly interact with society, often in anti-social ways. Drawing a line, therefore, between purely social problems and purely private behavior is not a simple proposition.

Craven de Kere wrote:
A strong case can be made that marijuana's detriment to society is minimal. It's greatest detriment is to the individual and a casual comparison with other crime does not hold water.

If a strong case can be made for marijuana's "minimal" detriment to society, then what is it?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Many other crimes have dangers to society. It's not as equal of a comparison as you make it out to be.

I don't think I equated it with any crime. I merely pointed out the similarities among criminals.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I am in favor of cautiously repealling the laws then.

Explain.

Craven de Kere wrote:
There are many studies that suggest that TV is dangerous for society, violent movies, porn, automobiles, glass bottles, sharp objects......

Your point being?

Craven de Kere wrote:
There are known dangers to society that far exceed the "unknown" dangers that marijuana poses to society.

How would you know, if the unknown dangers of marijuana are indeed "unknown"?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Of course it is. Just as I consider it fallacious to state that marijuana poses a significant danger to society.

What?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Other than health issues you will have very little support for all the talk of an unknown element of danger.

Support from whom? What are you talking about?

Craven de Kere wrote:
So you fall into the fallacy. Earlier you claimed it was not an issue that effects you because just a fraction of your money goes to enforcing this law.

You misunderstand, my enormously gifted friend. As we speak, today, the amount of my tax money that goes to the war on marijuana is indeed a pittance, a mere trifle. In that respect, the fight to eradicate marijuana and prosecute its growers, dealers, and users affects me, at most, in a John Donne "every man's death diminishes me" kind of way. And as long as the number of hardcore marijuana users remains a tiny percentage of the population, it will remain thus. On the other hand, if marijuana is legalized, and there are millions of cases of marijuana-related diseases (as was posited in the example that I used), then my interest is elevated from the merely tangential to the palpably real.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Now a smaller fraction of your tax money is suddenly paramount?

Your feeble attempt to find a fallacy where none exists does no credit to your prodigious reproductive gland.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I am well aware of the potantial for public health issues. I am more concerned about the current societal issue of an incarcerating culture.

That's certainly something about which to be concerned.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I believe the health costs would be less than the cost to enforce it and of taxed the nation would actually make a profit.

I am less concerned about the number of dollars that could be generated off of marijuana than I am interested in the number of lives that would be affected by it. Sometimes things just can't be measured in dollars and cents.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Do you contest that regulated sale of marijuana with an exhorbitant tax could easily cover the societal costs? And that coupled with the reduction in the cost of enforcement and incarceration the financial line is not as threatened as you made it sound?

I never mentioned anything about weighing the financial costs of continued enforcement against legalization. For all I know, the legalization of marijuana would be an enormous financial windfall for the country. Of course, a lot of states and municipalities felt the same way about legalized gambling. Just because it makes financial sense, however, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.

Craven de Kere wrote:
People differ on what is feckless and what isn't. What is rushed and what wasn't.

Then we disagree.

Craven de Kere wrote:
The legalisation/war comparison was an apples to donkeys analogy and both had value laden qualifiers.

I would be quite surprised if any discussion of drugs or war was not value-laden. Indeed, I don't know how any intelligent discussion of these issues could dispense with values.

Craven de Kere wrote:
You do not know that junk food presents a far greater health risk than marijuana does?

No, I don't know that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2003 03:22 pm
I'm with you, Boss, let us promote nonsense as a cure for human idiocy--lots less retraining needed, although inculcating a sense of humor may prove to be very, very difficult . . .
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2003 03:40 pm
You people would all make more sense if you'd put down that joint (or beer...or joint and beer).
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2003 03:44 pm
I'll never forget the one Christmas when we were all sitting around getting stoned after doing some serious shopping. We had bought about five containers of various mixes of caramel corn from the local Laguna Beach Kettle O'Corn shoppe (sic) as Christmas gifts. Oh, well, you think you know the rest. Yes we ate all of it and the host (in his robe, yet) tooled back down to the Kettle O'Corn shoppe (sic) to replace the gifts.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2003 03:44 pm
(So pot is also good for the economy...)
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2003 04:19 pm
joefromchicago wrote:

What you interpreted as envy was actually bored indifference. I am, I think, on fairly solid ground when I say that no one is as enamored of your giant testicle as you are, Craven.


Not true, it's the talk of the town.

Quote:
But easy to overestimate pot heads. The day they legalize marijuana is the day I'll march down the middle of Michigan Avenue in one of Woody Harrelson's hemp suits.


I don't overestimate pot heads. Like I said, there has to be a passing of a generation. Lagalization in America is far off.

Quote:
The line between protecting society and protecting individuals from themselves is not as bright as you seem to think. If every heroin addict, for instance, would behave decently and just curl up in a ball until merciful death overcame them, then I would think differently about heroin laws. Unfortunately, heroin addicts tend to selfishly interact with society, often in anti-social ways. Drawing a line, therefore, between purely social problems and purely private behavior is not a simple proposition.


Are we talking about heroin now? Because I do not support the legalization of heroin.

Quote:
If a strong case can be made for marijuana's "minimal" detriment to society, then what is it?

I'm in a bit of a hurry so I'll make this short:

The fact that you had to use heroin as an example is a strong argument toward the notion that marijuana's dangers are minimal.

Quote:

I don't think I equated it with any crime. I merely pointed out the similarities among criminals.


Yes, you are pointing at the most casual similarity to avoid the dissimilarity. Do you disagree that pot heads are not a significant criminal danger to society?

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
I am in favor of cautiously repealling the laws then.

Explain.


Caution is as caution does. You are trying to paint the legalization as feckless and since these are value laden statements they can be used interchangably.

e.g.

"With so much at stake I do not support the reckless and ill-thought status quo and think we should opt for caution and legalize marijuana."

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
There are many studies that suggest that TV is dangerous for society, violent movies, porn, automobiles, glass bottles, sharp objects......

Your point being?


That yours was weak. You referenced a link as an argument that an activity was dangerous to society and should be criminal. I noted that many activities are dangerous to society and the criminality of the act is usually justified with additional criteria.

Quote:
How would you know, if the unknown dangers of marijuana are indeed "unknown"?


We know that one of the unknown dangers is not that marijuana will make the individual a crazed raping feind. We know that the unknown elements are most likely to be found in long term effects of heavy use and the effect on the complex structure of society.

Youse play word games a lot.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Of course it is. Just as I consider it fallacious to state that marijuana poses a significant danger to society.

What?


Sorry if I was unclear. I consider the statement that marijuana poses a significant danger to society to be fallacious.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Other than health issues you will have very little support for all the talk of an unknown element of danger.

Support from whom? What are you talking about?


Support for.. your argument........ are you doing the horse tranquilizers again?

Quote:
You misunderstand, my enormously gifted friend.


Testicled.

Quote:
As we speak, today, the amount of my tax money that goes to the war on marijuana is indeed a pittance, a mere trifle.


Do you include the cost for incarceration?

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Now a smaller fraction of your tax money is suddenly paramount?

Your feeble attempt to find a fallacy where none exists does no credit to your prodigious reproductive gland.


It is a fallacy. It's called slippery slope fallacy. You are asserting that legalization would cause a slippery slope without any substantiation whatsoever.

I can do that too:

If marijuana is legalized the whole world will become peaceful, wars will end and testicles will swell to many times their normal size....

Besides the slippery slope fallacy you conveniently ignore the compelling argument about the profitability of legalization.

Do you contest the notion that legalization could bring in substantial revenue? And note that if tied to the actual sale of marijuana in the form of taxation it might provide sufficient revenue to preclude the dire health care crisis?

Instead of the profits going to inefficiency and dealers would you not rather it all go to the easing of the burden on your wallet? I really hope this is not one of those times you are not concerned about your wallet when I mention it again. I seem to never be able to catch you in a thrifty mood.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
I believe the health costs would be less than the cost to enforce it and of taxed the nation would actually make a profit.

I am less concerned about the number of dollars that could be generated off of marijuana than I am interested in the number of lives that would be affected by it. Sometimes things just can't be measured in dollars and cents.


Are there any other personal choices about everyone's lives that you'd like to legislate according to your preference?

Quote:
I never mentioned anything about weighing the financial costs of continued enforcement against legalization. For all I know, the legalization of marijuana would be an enormous financial windfall for the country. Of course, a lot of states and municipalities felt the same way about legalized gambling. Just because it makes financial sense, however, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.


See, it's hard to keep up with your concern for the budget. Earlier you alled it palpably real and now it's not a concern?

Once I get your timing down I shall shuffle as fast as this here enormous testicle will permit and try to pin you in a thrifty mood.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
People differ on what is feckless and what isn't. What is rushed and what wasn't.

Then we disagree.


Someimes

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
The legalisation/war comparison was an apples to donkeys analogy and both had value laden qualifiers.

I would be quite surprised if any discussion of drugs or war was not value-laden. Indeed, I don't know how any intelligent discussion of these issues could dispense with values.


Indeed hard to divest entirely, but avoidanc of rhetorical comparisons would be a start. It's kinda like a guy comparing oranges to really huge freaking donkeys.

Rhetorical analogies are the scum in a dicussion, the kryptonite to the Superman the...

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
You do not know that junk food presents a far greater health risk than marijuana does?

No, I don't know that.


Well you learn something every day. Pot heads consume a lot of junk food you know.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2003 10:42 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Not true, it's the talk of the town.

Your town is easily impressed.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Are we talking about heroin now? Because I do not support the legalization of heroin.

I use heroin merely as an example.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I'm in a bit of a hurry so I'll make this short:

The fact that you had to use heroin as an example is a strong argument toward the notion that marijuana's dangers are minimal.

In your haste to make an argument you failed to make a point. But since you think my use of heroin as an example was somehow a concession to your position on marijuana, let me amend my previous comment: If every marijuana user, for instance, would behave decently and just curl up in a ball until merciful death overcame them, then I would think differently about marijuana laws. Unfortunately, marijuana users tend to selfishly interact with society, occasionally in anti-social ways. Drawing a line, therefore, between purely social problems and purely private behavior is not a simple proposition.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Yes, you are pointing at the most casual similarity to avoid the dissimilarity.

If I understood what you were trying to say, I might be able to respond to this statement.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Do you disagree that pot heads are not a significant criminal danger to society?

A criminal danger? When marijuana isn't legal? Well, I suppose that marijuana users are, by definition, a criminal danger to any society where marijuana use is a criminal offense. Or are you asking about non-marijuana related criminal offenses?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Caution is as caution does. You are trying to paint the legalization as feckless and since these are value laden statements they can be used interchangably.

What?

Craven de Kere wrote:
"With so much at stake I do not support the reckless and ill-thought status quo and think we should opt for caution and legalize marijuana."

Is this your position?

Craven de Kere wrote:
That yours was weak. You referenced a link as an argument that an activity was dangerous to society and should be criminal. I noted that many activities are dangerous to society and the criminality of the act is usually justified with additional criteria.

Justified with additional criteria? I don't understand. Are you suggesting that activities have to be dangerous plus something else in order to be declared illegal?

Craven de Kere wrote:
We know that one of the unknown dangers is not that marijuana will make the individual a crazed raping feind. We know that the unknown elements are most likely to be found in long term effects of heavy use and the effect on the complex structure of society.

If we know an unknown danger -- or when we know something isn't an unknown danger -- it can no longer be considered "unknown."

And I certainly have never suggested that pot users are destined to be crazed raping fiends: frankly, I don't think they could muster the energy to be either crazed or raping or a fiend.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Youse play word games a lot.

I'll occasionally do the crossword puzzle in the Sunday Tribune.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Sorry if I was unclear. I consider the statement that marijuana poses a significant danger to society to be fallacious.

OK.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Support for.. your argument........ are you doing the horse tranquilizers again?

Again? Do you think I ever stopped?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Do you include the cost for incarceration?

Yes.

Craven de Kere wrote:
It is a fallacy. It's called slippery slope fallacy. You are asserting that legalization would cause a slippery slope without any substantiation whatsoever.

A slippery slope argument is not a logical fallacy, although some people think it is (they're wrong). There is nothing logically invalid about positing the possible consequences of a given position: indeed, it is unthinkable to ignore consequences when discussing legal and political issues.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I can do that too:

If marijuana is legalized the whole world will become peaceful, wars will end and testicles will swell to many times their normal size....

For your sake, I hope your last prediction is true.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Besides the slippery slope fallacy you conveniently ignore the compelling argument about the profitability of legalization.

I haven't ignored it. I consider it unpersuasive.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Do you contest the notion that legalization could bring in substantial revenue? And note that if tied to the actual sale of marijuana in the form of taxation it might provide sufficient revenue to preclude the dire health care crisis?

Taxed marijuana could bring in billions of dollars. I'm not convinced that the societal effects of legalized marijuana outweigh the financial benefits.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Instead of the profits going to inefficiency and dealers would you not rather it all go to the easing of the burden on your wallet? I really hope this is not one of those times you are not concerned about your wallet when I mention it again. I seem to never be able to catch you in a thrifty mood.

As I said before, there are other policy considerations to take into account besides money.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Are there any other personal choices about everyone's lives that you'd like to legislate according to your preference?

Yes.

Craven de Kere wrote:
See, it's hard to keep up with your concern for the budget. Earlier you alled it palpably real and now it's not a concern?

Once I get your timing down I shall shuffle as fast as this here enormous testicle will permit and try to pin you in a thrifty mood.

I think I see the cause of your confusion. I originally mentioned the costs of enforcement in response to bongstar's statements regarding the expense of prosecuting and incarcerating pot users. Subsequently, you asked how individual health decisions would affect society in some substantial, non-John Donne "every man's death diminishes me" type of way. In response, I laid out some possible costs.

Now, it appears you think that I'm being inconsistent when I say that the financial aspects are not the only considerations regarding legalization. Admittedly, had I laid out my position all at once, rather than parcelling out my position in responses to specific questions, I would have made this clearer. But let me take this opportunity to make it clear: (1)individual health decisions can have a societal effect, when considered in toto; (2) some of those effects take the form of increased economic costs for society; (3) with regard to legalization of a previously illegal activity, economic considerations are not the only, nor indeed the principle, consideration for society.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Indeed hard to divest entirely, but avoidanc of rhetorical comparisons would be a start. It's kinda like a guy comparing oranges to really huge freaking donkeys.

Rhetorical analogies are the scum in a dicussion, the kryptonite to the Superman the...

What's a "rhetorical analogy"?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Well you learn something every day. Pot heads consume a lot of junk food you know.

That's something I've often heard.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2003 11:59 pm
joefromchicago wrote:

In your haste to make an argument you failed to make a point. But since you think my use of heroin as an example was somehow a concession to your position on marijuana, let me amend my previous comment: If every marijuana user, for instance, would behave decently and just curl up in a ball until merciful death overcame them, then I would think differently about marijuana laws. Unfortunately, marijuana users tend to selfishly interact with society, occasionally in anti-social ways. Drawing a line, therefore, between purely social problems and purely private behavior is not a simple proposition.


Thanks, but my point stands. When you use the "curl up" argument about pot heads it sounds decidedly forced. You claim they interact selfishly with society but I'd like to know what group can't be accused of that.

See, when you said it about heroin it made more sense. Heroin is a drung that frequently causes people with no predisposition to do so to become problematic in society.

You can try to make that case for pot heads but, as in the above example, it sounds contrived and rings hollow. You borrow imagery from smack addicts to make a point about marijuana. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Yes, you are pointing at the most casual similarity to avoid the dissimilarity.

If I understood what you were trying to say, I might be able to respond to this statement.


Translation:

I noted that as far as criminals go pot heads are largely innocuous, you chose to focus on the most casual and irrelevant similarity as a way of avoiding the argument.

Quote:
A criminal danger? When marijuana isn't legal? Well, I suppose that marijuana users are, by definition, a criminal danger to any society where marijuana use is a criminal offense. Or are you asking about non-marijuana related criminal offenses?


Yes.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Caution is as caution does. You are trying to paint the legalization as feckless and since these are value laden statements they can be used interchangably.

What?


Let me try to be clearer. You repeatedly make statements to the effect that marijuana shouldn't be legalized because it would not be cautious and like I said, the word is simply a value-laden bit of rhetoric. The very dispute is whether it would be a wise choice.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
"With so much at stake I do not support the reckless and ill-thought status quo and think we should opt for caution and legalize marijuana."

Is this your position?


No, it's the converse of yours. I'd be displeased to be caught with that kind of an argument.

Quote:
Justified with additional criteria? I don't understand. Are you suggesting that activities have to be dangerous plus something else in order to be declared illegal?


Not that they have to be but that they generally are. Sex is dangerous, driving is dangerous, playing football is danerous.....

Lots of things are dangerous. Marijuana's dangers are almost entirely to the individual who uses it.

Quote:
If we know an unknown danger -- or when we know something isn't an unknown danger -- it can no longer be considered "unknown."


No duh. But we know enough about marijuana to have a good idea where new discoveries will be.

Quote:
And I certainly have never suggested that pot users are destined to be crazed raping fiends: frankly, I don't think they could muster the energy to be either crazed or raping or a fiend.


I disagree, I have seen many a motivated pot head, your use of stereotypes undermines your arguments.

My suggestion was that we obviously ruled out many of the touted : potential dangers". What remains unknown will most likely be a discovery about social fabric or long term heavy use.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Support for.. your argument........ are you doing the horse tranquilizers again?

Again? Do you think I ever stopped?


Yes.

Quote:
A slippery slope argument is not a logical fallacy, although some people think it is (they're wrong). There is nothing logically invalid about positing the possible consequences of a given position: indeed, it is unthinkable to ignore consequences when discussing legal and political issues.


A slippery slope is not inherently a logical fallacy. Neither is an appeal to authority, a loaded question, an appeal to pity... I could go on forever.

What makes these arguments fallacious are certain criteria.

In the case of a skippery slope fallacy what makes it fallacious is when the substantiation of the argument is lacking.

Anything can be argued with a slippery slope, to separate the fallacious slippery slopes from the valid ones substantiation is required.

You posited cases of "diseases" related to marijuana in the "millions" without substantiatiion about why that would be a bane.

There have been "millions" of cases of health problems before without undermining society.

To illustrate that the end of this slippery slope of yours is so detrimental you need to substantiate it. Why would it be a problem? You already waffle of the issue of cost. To keep the argument from being an unsubstantiated and fallacious claim you need to demand a higher criteria for yourself.

Let me show you what I mean by creating a fallacious slippery slope of my own:

The war on drugs will lead to tyranny. Law enforcement is already using heat sensing equippment to pry into people's homes looking for growers.

The culture of incarceration is growing and we are steps away from oppression.

That, my friend, was a fallacious slippery slope argument.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
I can do that too:

If marijuana is legalized the whole world will become peaceful, wars will end and testicles will swell to many times their normal size....

For your sake, I hope your last prediction is true.


I really don't like how you are always discussing my testicle. Is this not untoward?

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Besides the slippery slope fallacy you conveniently ignore the compelling argument about the profitability of legalization.

I haven't ignored it. I consider it unpersuasive.

Fair enough. See, you do not substantiate your slippery slope argument so I am left probing the possible arguments.

You implied that the financial detriment of legalization outweighed the financial burden of criminalization and to counter that implication I bring up profitability.

Profitability preempts the arguments about the financial burden on the health care system.

Quote:
Taxed marijuana could bring in billions of dollars. I'm not convinced that the societal effects of legalized marijuana outweigh the financial benefits.


I agree, but you earlier implied that the financial burden would be a problem.

What societal detriment do you see in the poor health of those who choose an unhealthy lifestyle except for the financial burden on our society?

There are deriments, I am waiting for you to name them and preempting the common ones.

Quote:
As I said before, there are other policy considerations to take into account besides money.


And as I said I am waiting for these unamed banes to materialize to substantiate your slippery slope arguments.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Are there any other personal choices about everyone's lives that you'd like to legislate according to your preference?

Yes.


Same here.

Quote:
I think I see the cause of your confusion.


Having read ahead I agree.

Quote:
I originally mentioned the costs of enforcement in response to bongstar's statements regarding the expense of prosecuting and incarcerating pot users.


Yup, and I agree with the argumenst you put forth then.

Quote:
Subsequently, you asked how individual health decisions would affect society in some substantial, non-John Donne "every man's death diminishes me" type of way. In response, I laid out some possible costs.


Yup, then you concurred in that legalization could easily be profitable thereby negating the financial cost argument.

Quote:
Now, it appears you think that I'm being inconsistent when I say that the financial aspects are not the only considerations regarding legalization.


No, I think you were inconsistent for implying that financial cost would be a detriment and then turning around to say it would be profitable.

I agree wholeheartedly in that financial cost is not the only consideration. Frankly if it were a reasonable consideration it would still take a back seat to the arguments you hint at and that I am waiting for.

Quote:
But let me take this opportunity to make it clear: (1)individual health decisions can have a societal effect, when considered in toto;


I agree. This is why I do not support legalization without redoubling our efforts to restrict the use of marijuana.

Quote:
(2) some of those effects take the form of increased economic costs for society;


Increased cost that is overshadowed by increased revenue (in the "billions") is not a scarey slope.

Quote:
(3) with regard to legalization of a previously illegal activity, economic considerations are not the only, nor indeed the principle, consideration for society.


I agree. To avoid further confusion can you specify your concerns? As it stands it's just a vague slippery slope.

Quote:
What's a "rhetorical analogy"?


I used several to make my comment ironic. An analogy that uses rhetorical ploys that overshadow the appropriateness of the analogy is what I refer to when I say "rhetorical analogy".

See, I dislike rhetorical analogies, they are like icing on the cake when the grass is greener and they confound by being a murky pond that others mistake for depth and they are about as useful as a three-legged cat icefishing on a pond on a day when hell freezes over.....

Look, you used an analogy that had more rhetorical value than otherwise. I ribbed you by criticizing the use of rhetoric in a statement that consisted almost entirely of rhetoric. Twas a funny. At least for me.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Well you learn something every day. Pot heads consume a lot of junk food you know.

That's something I've often heard.


I have heard of a governmental grant given to a study that concluded that pot gives the munchies.

See, the unknown factors you reference might be far away. What with the studies being used as an excuse to get high and all.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2003 09:45 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
Thanks, but my point stands. When you use the "curl up" argument about pot heads it sounds decidedly forced. You claim they interact selfishly with society but I'd like to know what group can't be accused of that.

Quite right. I expect everyone to interact in a self-interested, or even selfish manner with the rest of society (a purely altruistic person would, rightly, be regarded as something of a freak). It's just that, in most cases, those people aren't habitual marijuana users.

Craven de Kere wrote:
You can try to make that case for pot heads but, as in the above example, it sounds contrived and rings hollow. You borrow imagery from smack addicts to make a point about marijuana. Rolling Eyes

Only on your prompting. In the future, I will reject any similar suggestions made by you.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I noted that as far as criminals go pot heads are largely innocuous, you chose to focus on the most casual and irrelevant similarity as a way of avoiding the argument.

You were making an argument? I must have missed it.

Quote:
joefromchicago wrote:
A criminal danger? When marijuana isn't legal? Well, I suppose that marijuana users are, by definition, a criminal danger to any society where marijuana use is a criminal offense. Or are you asking about non-marijuana related criminal offenses?

Yes.

Marijuana users right now commit any number of criminal offenses, simply by using pot and engaging in the pot trade. As to how much non-pot related criminal activity goes on among pot users today, I have no clue. I imagine it is somewhat higher than the national average, but that's largely because people who use marijuana are already breaking the law, so that puts them in a class of persons who are, all things considered, more likely to break other laws. If pot were legalized, that would, of course, no longer hold true.

As for the inherent criminal propensities of pot users -- considered in vacuo, I have no idea. Similarly, I have no idea what the criminal tendencies of pot users would be in the event that pot were legalized. And I suspect neither do you, Craven.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Let me try to be clearer. You repeatedly make statements to the effect that marijuana shouldn't be legalized because it would not be cautious and like I said, the word is simply a value-laden bit of rhetoric. The very dispute is whether it would be a wise choice.

I'm not sure why "caution" is a value-laden word. I consider it to be fairly neutral. Certainly pot opponents and pot advocates can both endorse a "cautious" approach.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Not that they have to be but that they generally are. Sex is dangerous, driving is dangerous, playing football is danerous.....

And those are all equivalent to marijuana use?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Lots of things are dangerous. Marijuana's dangers are almost entirely to the individual who uses it.

I disagree, as I will explain below.

Craven de Kere wrote:
No duh. But we know enough about marijuana to have a good idea where new discoveries will be.

I disagree. We actually know surprisingly little about marijuana usage.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I disagree, I have seen many a motivated pot head, your use of stereotypes undermines your arguments.

And your use of anecdotal evidence is hardly persuasive.

Craven de Kere wrote:
My suggestion was that we obviously ruled out many of the touted : potential dangers". What remains unknown will most likely be a discovery about social fabric or long term heavy use.

For the most part, I agree with your second point.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Anything can be argued with a slippery slope, to separate the fallacious slippery slopes from the valid ones substantiation is required.

"Substantiation," in this context, is largely meaningless. Since slippery slope arguments deal with future consequences, the most that anyone can do is argue on the basis of current evidence and the logical inferences that can be drawn therefrom.

Craven de Kere wrote:
You posited cases of "diseases" related to marijuana in the "millions" without substantiatiion about why that would be a bane.

See below.

Craven de Kere wrote:
There have been "millions" of cases of health problems before without undermining society.

From purely avoidable causes?

Craven de Kere wrote:
To illustrate that the end of this slippery slope of yours is so detrimental you need to substantiate it. Why would it be a problem? You already waffle of the issue of cost. To keep the argument from being an unsubstantiated and fallacious claim you need to demand a higher criteria for yourself.

I don't see you providing any evidence for your position, so I don't think I'm somehow obligated to meet some kind of "higher criteria" than is required of you. However, to demonstrate that I am arguing in good faith, let me set forth my position on the future consequences of marijuana legalization:

(1) Studies on the widespread use of marijuana (i.e. the type of usage that might be expected in the event that pot were legalized) have never been attempted, and, indeed, are practically impossible. As a result, any conclusions about the widespread effects of marijuana usage based upon current research studies are, at best, guesswork (source)

(2) Consequently, when attempting to predict the widespread social effects of pot legalization, we are forced to rely upon analogies to currently legal and somewhat comparable substances. Pot has characteristics in common with both tobacco and alcohol, (source) so analogies to alcohol and tobacco usage can be employed to form some idea of the possible social effects of legalized marijuana (all the while acknowledging, of course, the limitations of such an approach).

(3) Habitual marijuana users experience many of the same health problems found in heavy tobacco users (source), including an increased risk of pulmonary cancers (source), although much more work needs to be done to determine the nature and extent of these problems (e.g. whether pot usage can lead to emphysemasource).

(4) Marijuana usage has many parallels to alcohol usage (source). Although there are differences (e.g. pot usage is less likely to lead to violent behavior), it seems clear that pot causes some of the same cognitive and psychological problems as alcohol, including psychological dependence (ibid.).

(5) Based upon the above, there is evidence to suggest (although not prove) that marijuana has similarities to both alcohol and tobacco. We can therefore surmise (on the basis of analogical reasoning) that the widespread use of legalized pot will have some of the same, or similar, effects on society as are currently found with the widespread use of tobacco and alcohol.

(6) Alcohol and tobacco have many widespread negative societal effects, including: overall increased health care costs; risks to minors; public safety risks (particularly with alcohol); and problems associated with substance dependence.

(7) We simply do not know if legalized marijuana will have all, some, or none of the same kinds of risks that are now associated with tobacco and alcohol usage. I don't know, and I strongly suspect that advocates of pot legalization do not know either. At worst, advocates of legalization don't acknowledge any of the potential risks. At best, they recognize the risks but take a "let's hope for the best" type of approach to those risks.

(8) I do not favor a "let's hope for the best" approach to pot legalization. Too much is unknown for that to be an acceptable strategy. Consequently, I oppose legalization.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I really don't like how you are always discussing my testicle. Is this not untoward?

I would have been blissfully unaware of your testicle (except in a purely academic sense) had you not brought up the subject yourself, Craven. If discussion of your monumental testicle is untoward, then I suggest you stop discussing it.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2003 10:36 am
joefromchicago wrote:

Quite right. I expect everyone to interact in a self-interested, or even selfish manner with the rest of society (a purely altruistic person would, rightly, be regarded as something of a freak). It's just that, in most cases, those people aren't habitual marijuana users.


Probability indicates that most of them are not gay either. As such it's not a great argument, it can be used on so many things.

Quote:
Only on your prompting. In the future, I will reject any similar suggestions made by you.


I do not recall prompting you to use exagerrated imagery in your arguments against marijuana.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
I noted that as far as criminals go pot heads are largely innocuous, you chose to focus on the most casual and irrelevant similarity as a way of avoiding the argument.

You were making an argument? I must have missed it.


I agree. But you come close to getting it in your subsequent quote.

Quote:
Marijuana users right now commit any number of criminal offenses, simply by using pot and engaging in the pot trade. As to how much non-pot related criminal activity goes on among pot users today, I have no clue. I imagine it is somewhat higher than the national average, but that's largely because people who use marijuana are already breaking the law, so that puts them in a class of persons who are, all things considered, more likely to break other laws. If pot were legalized, that would, of course, no longer hold true.


We are talking about legalization. This is the argument you missed.

Quote:
As for the inherent criminal propensities of pot users -- considered in vacuo, I have no idea. Similarly, I have no idea what the criminal tendencies of pot users would be in the event that pot were legalized. And I suspect neither do you, Craven.


I suspect that it would remain higher than non-pot heads despite decriminalization. But at the same time removing a large segment of the population from contact with the criminal underworld is a good thing.

Quote:
I'm not sure why "caution" is a value-laden word. I consider it to be fairly neutral. Certainly pot opponents and pot advocates can both endorse a "cautious" approach.


Certainly, after all, I advocated a "cautious" legalization.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Not that they have to be but that they generally are. Sex is dangerous, driving is dangerous, playing football is danerous.....

And those are all equivalent to marijuana use?


No, some of them are far more dangerous and pose a far greater risk to society. They are also legal activities and the suggestion I am making is that marijuana's dangers to society are inordinately touted by persons such as yourself.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
I disagree, I have seen many a motivated pot head, your use of stereotypes undermines your arguments.

And your use of anecdotal evidence is hardly persuasive.


Your generalization was based on anecdotal evidence. At least I did not present my anecdotal evidence as axiomatic.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
My suggestion was that we obviously ruled out many of the touted : potential dangers". What remains unknown will most likely be a discovery about social fabric or long term heavy use.

For the most part, I agree with your second point.


Please refrain from that if the future. Makes for boring discussion.

Quote:
"Substantiation," in this context, is largely meaningless. Since slippery slope arguments deal with future consequences, the most that anyone can do is argue on the basis of current evidence and the logical inferences that can be drawn therefrom.


Please do that then. See, I happen to think increased marijuana use to be the sticking point. I do not want increased marijuana use and discussion about what makes you think that slope will lead to ruination is appropriate.

I am willing to bet that legalization will inevitably lead to an increase. My proposal to legalize marijuana would take steps to curb it that I find more appropriate to the circumstances than incarceration.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
There have been "millions" of cases of health problems before without undermining society.

From purely avoidable causes?


Depending on the lengths one is willing to go, yes "avoidable". This is a dicussion on the lengths to which our society is willing to go to regulate marijuana use.

Quote:
I don't see you providing any evidence for your position, so I don't think I'm somehow obligated to meet some kind of "higher criteria" than is required of you.


I urge you to make me uphold the criteria I impose on others. I did not use a slippery slope argument to support my position and if I were to do so I would think it intellectually dishonest for you not to call me on it.

Quote:
(1) Studies on the widespread use of marijuana (i.e. the type of usage that might be expected in the event that pot were legalized) have never been attempted, and, indeed, are practically impossible. As a result, any conclusions about the widespread effects of marijuana usage based upon current research studies are, at best, guesswork (source)


Perhaps nations that have less strict laws against marijuana can be used to remove some of the guesswork?

Quote:
(2) Consequently, when attempting to predict the widespread social effects of pot legalization, we are forced to rely upon analogies to currently legal and somewhat comparable substances. Pot has characteristics in common with both tobacco and alcohol, (source) so analogies to alcohol and tobacco usage can be employed to form some idea of the possible social effects of legalized marijuana (all the while acknowledging, of course, the limitations of such an approach).


I think the limitations are crucial. The comparison of pot to both alcohol AND tabacco has a large downside.

Marijuana has elements of both but not all elements of both.

For example I find marijuana's effect on the individual to be far far lass dangerous to society than alcohol's.

But at the same time marijuana is far easier to develop a psycological dependency on.

Marijuana is more harmful to one's health than is tabacco but the nature of the substances suggests that except in extreme cases consumption of marijuana will be less than with tabacco.

Despite the unknown factors you reference I think it is safe to say that alcohol is a far greater health risk to the individual.

I also think it is fair to say that the elements that make tabacco physically addicting are not as strong in the case of marijuana.

As such I find this to be a fatally flawed comparison. I consider it valid in that it's as comparable of a set of vices that can be made but I reject the implication that marijuana would post the same societal danger as alcohol and tabacco. Perhaps similar but marijuana is nowhere near as physically delibating as alcohol and is less physically addictive than tabacco (though it lends itself to phycological dependency more so than alcohol).

Quote:
(3) Habitual marijuana users experience many of the same health problems found in heavy tobacco users (source), including an increased risk of pulmonary cancers (source), although much more work needs to be done to determine the nature and extent of these problems (e.g. whether pot usage can lead to emphysemasource).


Indeed. And I propose legalization because the very methods that can be used to reduce the health risk are difficult to impossible while it is illegal.

Oral ingestion would eliminate nearly all the currently identified health hazards.

An increase in the potency of marijuana would be simple if legalized but with the current status it is often cut.

In America it is less often "cut" than elsewhere but elsewhere the "cutting" is hugely detrimental as the dealers frequently use amonia (sometimes they piss on the marijuana) and other harmful methods to sell low quality marijuana that needs to be smoked in greater quantities to deliver the desired effect.

Quote:
(4) Marijuana usage has many parallels to alcohol usage (source). Although there are differences (e.g. pot usage is less likely to lead to violent behavior), it seems clear that pot causes some of the same cognitive and psychological problems as alcohol, including psychological dependence (ibid.).


Psycological dependence is what I consider the greatest bane of marijuana. I agree with your statement.

But I disagree with the notion that the cognitive effects are similar. I have substantial anecdotal evidence to back it up and can only remember one study (involving spiders and the way the spin their webs when high) that is scientific but can't cite.

When marijuana tolerance is built up the dissimilarity is far more evident.

Tolerance of alcohol does not preclude cognitive impairment. Tolerance built up against marijuana can.

Quote:
(5) Based upon the above, there is evidence to suggest (although not prove) that marijuana has similarities to both alcohol and tobacco. We can therefore surmise (on the basis of analogical reasoning) that the widespread use of legalized pot will have some of the same, or similar, effects on society as are currently found with the widespread use of tobacco and alcohol.


I disagree, but it's moot. I do not propose "widespread" use. In fact, I believe much should be done to curb it.

Quote:
(6) Alcohol and tobacco have many widespread negative societal effects, including: overall increased health care costs; risks to minors; public safety risks (particularly with alcohol); and problems associated with substance dependence.


I agree.

Quote:
(7) We simply do not know if legalized marijuana will have all, some, or none of the same kinds of risks that are now associated with tobacco and alcohol usage. I don't know, and I strongly suspect that advocates of pot legalization do not know either. At worst, advocates of legalization don't acknowledge any of the potential risks. At best, they recognize the risks but take a "let's hope for the best" type of approach to those risks.


With this a disagree emphatically. I think you overstate society's ignorance about marijuana. i also find the comparison of marijuana to cigarettes and alcohol to be fatally flawed.

I believe widespread use of marijuana would be comparable to cigarettes but not both cigarettes and alcohol.

In any case I do not think widespread use to be attractive. And I do not have a "hope for the best" approach. I think legalization should only be considered as part of a revolutionary new approach to the efforts to curb use.

Quote:
(8) I do not favor a "let's hope for the best" approach to pot legalization. Too much is unknown for that to be an acceptable strategy. Consequently, I oppose legalization.


I do not favor a "let's hope for the best" approach to pot legalization. You have made a very forceful argument against those who do.

Quote:

I would have been blissfully unaware of your testicle (except in a purely academic sense) had you not brought up the subject yourself, Craven. If discussion of your monumental testicle is untoward, then I suggest you stop discussing it.


I have tried, but you seem to have fixated on it.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2003 10:52 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
I also think it is fair to say that the elements that make tabacco physically addicting are not as strong in the case of marijuana.


From Tuesday's NYT:

Quote:
According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science, 32 percent of people who try tobacco become dependent, as do 23 percent of those who try heroin, 17 percent who try cocaine, 15 percent who try alcohol and 9 percent who try marijuana.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/30/health/30BROD.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/04/2025 at 05:39:57