Craven de Kere wrote:
It should. For it is the envy of my town.
Your town sounds like it is starved for entertainment.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Many things are lost on the majority. If it were not thus, there would be no way to distinguish the extraordinary from the masses.
Craven de Kere wrote:I took measures to make it not a specious argument.
And yet you failed.
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.
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"?
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.
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 prefer to think that my testicle is simply of enormous entertainment value.
I disagree.
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".
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?
So, do you find marijuana use to be dangerous to society? If so, why?
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?
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.
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"?
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?
As with most criminals, the biggest danger is in getting caught.
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.
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.
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.
joefromchicago wrote:It certainly seems to be keeping you amused.
You too. I saw you envying it.
Yep, pot heads are the reson laws will change on this. It's hard to underestimate society.
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.
I am in favor of cautiously repealling the laws then.
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.
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.
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?
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?
People differ on what is feckless and what isn't. What is rushed and what wasn't.
The legalisation/war comparison was an apples to donkeys analogy and both had value laden qualifiers.
You do not know that junk food presents a far greater health risk than marijuana does?
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.
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.
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.
If a strong case can be made for marijuana's "minimal" detriment to society, then what is it?
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?
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
Not true, it's the talk of the town.
Are we talking about heroin now? Because I do not support the legalization of heroin.
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.
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?
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.
"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."
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.
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.
Sorry if I was unclear. I consider the statement that marijuana poses a significant danger to society to be fallacious.
Support for.. your argument........ are you doing the horse tranquilizers again?
Do you include the cost for incarceration?
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.
Are there any other personal choices about everyone's lives that you'd like to legislate according to your preference?
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.
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...
Well you learn something every day. Pot heads consume a lot of junk food you know.
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.
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?
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?
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:Support for.. your argument........ are you doing the horse tranquilizers again?
Again? Do you think I ever stopped?
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.
Taxed marijuana could bring in billions of dollars. I'm not convinced that the societal effects of legalized marijuana outweigh the financial benefits.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No duh. But we know enough about marijuana to have a good idea where new discoveries will be.
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.
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.
I really don't like how you are always discussing my testicle. Is this not untoward?
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.
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.
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.
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: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.
"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:There have been "millions" of cases of health problems before without undermining society.
From purely avoidable causes?
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.
(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.
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 also think it is fair to say that the elements that make tabacco physically addicting are not as strong in the case of marijuana.
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.