What's your take on the War on Drugs?

Joe, if I understand you correctly; you accept that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and your only argument is that it is controllable.

Can you give any example of its use being controlled? If anyone who wants some can get some, how is that less futile than alcohol prohibition?

I've already done that by telling him that the rationales behind these laws really do not stand up to scrutiny -- and asking him to discuss those rationales.

As you can see, he has declined.

I don't blame him!

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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.

Indians and their practices are part of Western culture?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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.

Is marijuana use as prevalent as alcohol or tobacco use?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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.

So what?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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

This is an odd assertion coming from someone who has already stated that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana. Of course, if neither is a problem, then you have to justify the existence of any laws regulating the sale or consumption of alcohol.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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.

It was never my burden to substantiate that alcohol is a problem. Remember, I conceded that marijuana is as harmful as alcohol. Consequently, its harmfulness is not in need of substantiation; rather, it is a given. Now, if you think that harmful products are not problems, then say so. Likewise, if you think that marijuana and alcohol are completely innocuous, then you should also make that clear..

Frank Apisa wrote:

I've already done that by telling him that the rationales behind these laws really do not stand up to scrutiny -- and asking him to discuss those rationales.

As you can see, he has declined.

I don't blame him!

Frank, I didn't decline to discuss any rationales behind the drug laws; seeing as how you never bothered to mention a single one, there was simply no discussion to decline. Since you seem to think that all the rationales are flawed, surely you could specify one that you'd be willing to discuss. Or, failing that, you could follow up on Craven's advice: it didn't do him much good but maybe you'll have better luck with it.

You are the one who seems to think there is a rationale behind the laws against marijuana.

Pick one or two -- and we'll discuss 'em.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You are the one who seems to think there is a rationale behind the laws against marijuana.

Pick one or two -- and we'll discuss 'em.

Frank, I'm sure that I'll get around to discussing my reasons for opposing legalization of marijuana, just as soon as I dispense with Bill's argument about "hypocrisy." You can then jump in when you see something you don't like. The way I see it, you have just as much right to do that as you do to eat oatmeal.

joefromchicago wrote:

Indians and their practices are part of Western culture?

3,000 BC is parallel to your alcohol for thousands of years. Native Americans smoking during religious ceremonies is parallel to Western culture's religious ceremonies using wine. Especially when you consider freedom of religion and the separation of... issues. Effectively, these two parallels nullify your attempt at separation.

joefromchicago wrote:

Is marijuana use as prevalent as alcohol or tobacco use?

No, but very significant none the less.

Are you asserting that the current prevalence of alcohol is just above the point of no return? And if so; where did you get that criteria and what is it exactly?

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.

joefromchicago wrote:

So what?

If you are contending it is easier to prohibit, these differences are relevant because they clearly show that it is not.

No Joe, I don't. Not for this debate anyway. You have to show why our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy. We can discuss anything you wish after that.

Neither of those answers are relevant to the debate at hand. You have agreed to demonstrate that our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy. Please stop evading the issue and just do it if you think you can.

If your only remaining argument is: marijuana can be controlled; then please provide some proof that it is being controlled. This burden of proof is yours, since you agreed to demonstrate why our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Indians and their practices are part of Western culture?

3,000 BC is parallel to your alcohol for thousands of years. Native Americans smoking during religious ceremonies is parallel to Western culture's religious ceremonies using wine. Especially when you consider freedom of religion and the separation of... issues. Effectively, these two parallels nullify your attempt at separation.

So your answer is "no."

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Is marijuana use as prevalent as alcohol or tobacco use?

No, but very significant none the less.

Actually, in terms of percentages, marijuana usage is rather insignificant. According to the statistics (2000) found at this pro-legalization site, 8.6% of Americans used marijuana in the past year (occasional users), while 4.7% used marijuana in the past month (regular users). This compares with 62% of the population that used alcohol within the past year, and 46% that used it within the past month. Regular users of alcohol, then, outnumber regular users of marijuana by about 10 to 1. (More recent figures can be found at this website).

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Are you asserting that the current prevalence of alcohol is just above the point of no return? And if so; where did you get that criteria and what is it exactly?

Yes, I assert that alcohol use is at the point where it can no longer be eradicated, or even effectively suppressed. My proof is the Volstead Act.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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.

joefromchicago wrote:

So what?

If you are contending it is easier to prohibit, these differences are relevant because they clearly show that it is not.

The relative ease with which bathtub gin or weed is produced is largely irrelevant. After all, sniffing glue is even easier than growing weed. What is more important is that the use of marijuana among the general population is at a level where it might still conceivably be eradicated or effectively suppressed.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

No Joe, I don't. Not for this debate anyway. You have to show why our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy. We can discuss anything you wish after that.

Sorry, Bill, but that's exactly what you must do. You've been crying "hypocrisy" all through this discussion, but you've never actually spelled out what it is about the differing legal treatments of alcohol and marijuana that actually constitutes "hypocrisy."

Since I'm fairly confident that you'll continue to avoid this issue unless given some firm guidance, I will make it easier for you. Below is what I consider to be an exhaustive list of the reasons why such disparate legal treatment might be considered "hypocritical:"
(a) both alcohol and marijuana are harmless, and therefore the law should not treat one as more harmful than the other;
(b) alcohol is more harmful than marijuana, and therefore the law should not treat a less harmful substance more harshly than a more harmful substance;
(c) alcohol and marijuana are equally harmful, and therefore the law should not treat equally harmful substances differently;
(d) it doesn't matter how harmful marijuana and alcohol are, the law has no business regulating either of these substances.

NOTE: "all of the above" is not an option, since the above choices are mutually exclusive. Your task, Bill, is to stop whining about "hypocrisy" in the abstract and pick one reason for labelling the current laws "hypocritical."

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.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Neither of those answers are relevant to the debate at hand. You have agreed to demonstrate that our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy. Please stop evading the issue and just do it if you think you can.

Bill, I can't defend the laws against the charge of "hypocrisy" if I don't know why you're calling them "hypocritical." That's the purpose of the foregoing exercise. If, on the other hand, you want to continue making vague accusations of "hypocrisy" without explaining the nature of the charge, then I suppose I will henceforth be entitled to answer "you're wrong" without providing any explanation for my response.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

If your only remaining argument is: marijuana can be controlled; then please provide some proof that it is being controlled. This burden of proof is yours, since you agreed to demonstrate why our current laws don't constitute hypocrisy.

Presently, regular marijuana use is ten times less prevalent than alcohol use. That strikes me as pretty persuasive evidence that usage is being controlled by the current drug laws.

My answer clearly nullifies your attempt at separation of alcohol and marijuana, based on how long it's been used and as whether it is used in religious ceremony. Your introduction of "Western Culture" as a parameter; is yet another transparent attempt to obscure the issue. Your have shown no separation with that point.

For the purposes of this debate; I accept your statistics. 8.6% of Americans equates to 22,360,000 marijuana smokers. 22,360,000! In what twisted reality would 22 million people be considered an insignificant number?

I've already drawn similarities between the two prohibitions… But your stats make it even clearer. 734,497 people were arrested for marijuana in the year 2000. According to your own statistics; that is only 3.3% of marijuana smokers. If 8.6% should be considered insignificant; than surely 3.3% should be considered even more insignificant.

The point remains valid as a rebuff of your assertion that marijuana can be more easily eradicated or controlled.

I've neither whined nor cried about "hypocrisy". I've merely reminded you what the debate is about. Here it is again:

joefromchicago wrote:

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.

Nowhere in your answer was a condition that I provide you with a mountain of peripheral positions attack. Furthermore; I've already clarified my point as much as is necessary, and you even thanked me for doing so.

Surely you jest. You are suggesting that if I don't indulge in each of your tangents that that somehow relieves you of the burden you originally accepted without condition.

You are excellent at using these diversionary tactics, but ultimately you have still done nothing to demonstrate the lack of hypocrisy you said you could. If you choose to resort to answering with "you're wrong" without providing any explanation, I will consider that a total failure of the challenge you accepted.

In order to make that conclusion, you would first have to demonstrate that there is a similar number of people who wish to use marijuana and alcohol. Do you have any other "proof" that marijuana is being controlled?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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?

(1) "Hypocrisy" is the holding of mutually inconsistent positions simultaneously.

I like pot, peyote, cocaine, MDA, quaaludes, and LSD.

I don't have any though. I can't afford it.