What's your take on the War on Drugs?

joefromchicago wrote:

You'll have to refresh my recollection. When did I concede the "hypocrisy" of the marijuana policy?

How about when you said:

joefromchicago wrote:

I am perfectly willing to concede, for the purposes of discussion, that marijuana is as harmful as tobacco and/or alcohol.

It seems to me you felt you were ill-prepared to argue this point at that time. No?

Do you really think you can mount an argument to demonstrate Marijuana being illegal while Alcohol is not; doesn't constitute hypocrisy?

Before answering, consider:
A) Over 100 thousand deaths annually are directly linked to acute alcohol poisoning… In 4,000 years of recorded history, no one has ever died from a pot overdose.

B) Alcohol has been proven physically addictive. Marijuana is only habit forming.

There is no shame in admitting you are wrong.

If you really think you can prove I'm wrong; start by demonstrating these first two points don't constitute proof of hypocrisy. I'll make a much longer list if you like. :wink:

I won't require you to make a longer list. I would, however, require you to explain the point you're trying to make. After all, your argument could be used either to advocate the legalization of marijuana or the criminalization of alcohol. Which is it?

Either way, hypocricy would be proved. My point is very simple. If one can be shown to be more harmful than the other; it is alcohol. Merely demonstrating they are equally harmful, however, would demonstrate hypocricy.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Either way, hypocricy would be proved. My point is very simple. If one can be shown to be more harmful than the other; it is alcohol. Merely demonstrating they are equally harmful, however, would demonstrate hypocrisy.

How so?

What criteria other than potential harm would you use to justify the difference in legal treatment?

(Joe, I've seen you do a brilliant job of arguing a preposterous position on another thread. I am purposely trying very hard not to let you obscure this issue.)

Frankly, I don't much think it matters whether or not marijana laws are hypocritical. I oppose them because they are an unnecessary infringement on the rights of individuals to use recreational drugs.

I happen also to consider them...counterproductive...or at very least, to lead to unintended consequences that exacerbate the problems of drug abuse, if only by using up so much of the treasury that could better be used to combat abuse problems in general.

And lastly, the rationales behind these laws really do not stand up to scrutiny.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you really think you can mount an argument to demonstrate Marijuana being illegal while Alcohol is not; doesn't constitute hypocrisy?

Yes.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Frankly, I don't much think it matters whether or not marijana laws are hypocritical. I oppose them because they are an unnecessary infringement on the rights of individuals to use recreational drugs.

Where does one find these rights?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I happen also to consider them...counterproductive...or at very least, to lead to unintended consequences that exacerbate the problems of drug abuse, if only by using up so much of the treasury that could better be used to combat abuse problems in general.

Of course, the drug abuse problems that society currently faces are, one would suppose, kept in check by the current drug prohibitions. We simply don't know what the extent of the drug abuse problem would be in the event that the current prohibitions are relaxed or lifted.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And lastly, the rationales behind these laws really do not stand up to scrutiny.

Sez you.

This is the issue Joe. This is the challenge you accepted. Accordingly; I will not allow the debate to be expanded until you either prove or concede this point. To prove or disprove hypocrisy, it is irrelevant whether I think alcohol should be legal. Thus far I've seen no attempt to disprove this hypocrisy. Do you give up?

In the same place one finds the right to eat oatmeal for breakfast, Joe.

Oops! You did what Bill has been accusing you of doing. Changing the subject.

We were talking about marijuana prohibitions -- not drug prohibitions in general.

In any case, your response really ducks the essence of my comment -- that the money spent dealing with marijuana could better be spent dealing with abuse problems in general (and I'll add, drug abuse problems in general!)

Yep, sez me.

Wanna discuss any of 'em?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you really think you can mount an argument to demonstrate Marijuana being illegal while Alcohol is not; doesn't constitute hypocrisy?

Yes.

My point is very simple. If one can be shown to be more harmful than the other; it is alcohol. Merely demonstrating they are equally harmful, however, would demonstrate hypocrisy.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In the same place one finds the right to eat oatmeal for breakfast, Joe.

Ah, Frank, you've finally come to accept the existence of natural rights. It took you long enough!

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oops! You did what Bill has been accusing you of doing. Changing the subject.

We were talking about marijuana prohibitions -- not drug prohibitions in general.

Well, you were talking about "the rights of individuals to use recreational drugs." If you're willing to confine the definition of "recreational drugs" to marijuana (and any legal drug, such as alcohol), then we can certainly confine the discussion to marijuana. But I won't admit to changing the subject when it's not clear what subject you're discussing.

Frankly, I don't much think it matters whether or not marijana laws are hypocritical. I oppose them because they are an unnecessary infringement on the rights of individuals to use recreational drugs.

I happen also to consider them...counterproductive...or at very least, to lead to unintended consequences that exacerbate the problems of drug abuse, if only by using up so much of the treasury that could better be used to combat abuse problems in general.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, your response really ducks the essence of my comment -- that the money spent dealing with marijuana could better be spent dealing with abuse problems in general (and I'll add, drug abuse problems in general!)

I think that there are many things that the current drug policy does wrong, including misallocating resources. That, however, is a policy enforcement question. What we're dealing with is the existence of the policy.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yep, sez me.

Wanna discuss any of 'em?

Did you have any particular rationales in mind?

I'll restate this point in an attempt to clarify it for you. I will not, however, expand on it in order to provide you additional wiggle room. Please abandon that strategy.

POINT: Since Marijuana is not more harmful than Alcohol, current laws that make Marijuana illegal while Alcohol is legal constitute hypocrisy. END POINT

How could I possibly be any clearer?

Do you wish to concede now?

If you've come to that conclusion, Joe, you've looked in the wrong place for the right to eat oatmeal, Joe.

Well, perhaps you can get help for that problem, Joe.

My comments were very, very specific. Allow me to cut and paste them again. Perhaps you can tell what I was discussing from a re-reading:

You may be! But only because it suits your purposes for the moment. If you read my comment over again, however, you will see I was right on point.

Bill is right about you, Joe.

You do tend to try to cloud these discussions by getting into petty minutia about peripheral matters -- rather than trying to argue the essentials of what is being discussed.

Why don't you stop that playing around -- and discuss the essentials? You apparently have lots to offer -- but you screw things up with all this nonsense.

Now, here we are, faced with roughly equivalent problems.

One has become ineradicable, the other has not yet reached that point. Would it, then, be hypocritical to say that we should manage the first and eradicate the second?

As I see it, we face a similar situation with alcohol/tobacco and marijuana.

Alcohol, for instance, has been around for thousands of years, and has become engrained in Western culture -- to such an extent that major religions incorporate it into their ceremonies.

As we discovered in the 1920s, alcohol has become, for better or worse, ineradicable. We can do no more, at this stage, than manage it as a social problem. In contrast, marijuana has not yet become so engrained in Western culture that it cannot be eradicated, or at least suppressed to the point that it remains a low-level problem.

Alcohol, in sum, is a problem that can only be managed, whereas marijuana can be eradicated or suppressed. As such, I don't think it is inconsistent to suggest divergent approaches to similar problems that are susceptible to different solutions. Rather, it would be falling prey to a foolish consistency to say that, just because we have one problem, we shouldn't object to having two.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you wish to concede now?

Mmmm . . . no.

Bill and Frank,

If you guys get to the core of the debate (the validity of proscription itself) you will make Joe have to defend the societal cost of criminalization by making a case for the societal damages caused by marijuana.

In the past Joe has focused on a "we don't know yet" argument. And that is an easily assailable position.

I suggest you guys change pace and stop defending legalization and ask Joe to try to defend the criminalization.

LOL, 1 in 3 people high school age has tried Marijuana at least once. 1 in 5 people overall in the country have tried it at least once, and the number of people who admit to using has increased 50% in the last decade. I would bet the vast majority of Americans knows at least one person they can get it from and no person is more than 3 persons removed. Avid smokers will tell you there may be an occasional "dry" period, but most of the time it is readily available. In other words, we have utterly failed to even curb it, let alone eradicate it.

Pretty damn close to conceding I see.

According to my encyclopedia: Marijuana has been known to have been used as early as 3,000 BC. Native Americans were smoking it before any Chinese Junk-boats, Vikings or Spaniards ever showed up. In fact, some Native Americans still smoke it regularly for ceremonial purposes and recreation (as they always have), perfectly legally. So much is it part of their religious beliefs; they are even allowed to smoke it in Prison during regular Religious Ceremonies.

The 18th Amendment, or Volstead Act began in 1920 . 14 years later came the 21st amendment forever abolishing the 18th. 14 years of this hopeless foolishness. Obviously we've tried to get rid of Marijuana for a hell of a lot longer than that. Same result; utter failure. Hypocrisy.

Secondly, it is easier to grow marijuana than it is to make bath tub gin. It is more easily concealed at border crossings, and harder to detect on a user. So that doesn't work.

Not only is alcohol not a "problem", but even if it was you have still shown nothing to separate it from marijuana.

That was an interesting angle… I'll give you that. But ultimately, it proved useless even if alcohol was considered a problem, which you never substantiated anyway.

Don't bother for the time being, since I've already demonstrated it wouldn't help. Anything else you'd like to try? We could probably have a far more interesting conversation once you concede this feeble position.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you wish to concede now?

joefromchicago wrote:

Mmmm . . . no.

How about now?