Off point, but still interesting:
Some of the arguments used in the Marijuana War are so absurd, you gotta wonder how intelligent people even try to offer them.
I saw a television interview with Robert Morgenthau, U.S. Attorney for New York City, a few years back. The question put to him by an obviously nervous young female television interviewer was:
Are there any circumstances under which you would back moves to legalize marijuana?
His answer went about like this:
"Back those moves??? Do you know how many calls I get each week from mothers and fathers complaining about people trying to sell drugs like marijuana to kids? They tell me their kids can't go to school, the playground, to a movie -- without someone stopping them right on the street and trying to sell them drugs.
How can any sane person possibly back the move to legalize these drugs?"
The interviewer left it at that -- and ended the interview.
I wish I had that microphone.
My next question would have been:
"So tell me, Mr. Morgenthau, how many calls do you get each week from parents complaining that people stop their kids on the way to school, the playground, or the movies -- trying to sell them booze or beer or cigarettes or any of the other things that we don't want kids using BUT WHICH ARE LEGAL?"
I wonder how he would have answered that question.
The guy gave a logical and compelling argument in favor of legalization -- and simply called it an argument against.
Go figure!
This is true. But determining one's position on that question doesn't only have to do with how detrimental they think the drug is, but also how they perceive the effectiveness and the side effects of the prohibition -- and part of that, I think, has to do with the economics of the problem.
I'd accept most of the prohibitionary detriments as relevant at least to the evaluation of the prohibition's effectiveness in a cost/benefit analysis, but not the price of drugs. The price of drugs is only an issue to those who do not think prohibiton is in any way justified (and who think that they are getting a bum deal at the dealers ;-) ). Originally that was the issue, you have strayed from it into much more defensible territory.
Suit yourself. I think that the violence associated with the drug trade (the main reason I think prohibition needs to be ended -- knowingly enacting policy that endangers citizens for the express purpose of protecting them from themselves is patently absurd) is a direct result of the economics inherent in its criminalization, but I'll let that be my final word on the subject.
You have a good point there, but I believe those dangers are not inherent to the economics but rather the criminalization itself. What I mean is that I believe the societal dangers and the inflated prices are both a consequence of criminalization as opposed to a series in which criminalization inflates and the economics brings about the detrimental criminal activity.
If they are viewed as seperate, if related, symptoms then it's easier to dissmiss pricing concerns. I don't deny that there is a relation criminalization creates the situation in which criminals will profit but I just see the inflated prices as an inevitable result (that is not a problem to those who are against the use of marijuana) of the criminalization. I think the criminalization in and of itself is the problem.
I am with you on the larger issue of pro/con. I don't support the criminalization of marijuana. I think it creates criminalz unecessarily.
But what I'm driving at is that "unneccessarily" is the operative word, and "creates criminals" is misleading. Any criminalization creates criminals because by definition they are not criminals unless the law creates the crime.
I competely agree with you about not criminalizing stupidity, my motto is "sin lies only in hurting unneccesarily, all other 'sins' are invented nonsense. Hurting oneself is not sinful, just stupid."
But at the same time I don't think this falls entirely within the realm of hurting oneself. There are some drugs that I'd not support the legalization of because of a greater societal harm.
But yeah, I agree that marijuana should not be illegal, and the rest is just nuance. Perhaps too nuanced a position to be worth the haggle.
Yeah, but if I don't haggle about something, I'll have to get down to writing this damn paper. And there's all those dishes in the sink...
Spark up the procrastinator...
