1
   

What's your take on the War on Drugs?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 11:28 am
Joe you wrote:

Quote:
Your attempt to broaden the definition, beyond these bounds, is a cartoonish* distortion of the issue.


Quote:
*One of your favorite words, Craven: I've just been dying to use it.


To which Craven replied:

Quote:
Actually this is one of Frank's favorite words, he uses it to reference the Biblical god.

I usually use it when discussing things with Frank.


Well...I will discount the second of Craven's sentences --but the first one is correct.

I plead guilty!


But I feel compelled to use the word again.

Joe, for you to suggest that even a significant move like amending the constitution in order to restrict advertising and promotion of things like pot, alcohol, or tobacco...would be an unacceptable injury to the first amendment -- is itself a rather cartoonish distortion of the reality. Certainly, in my opinion, a good deal more cartoonishly distorting than Craven's remarks were.

Frankly, whether pot is eventually decriminalized or not -- I consider it to be an abomination for things like tobacco and alcohol to be encouraged or promoted through advertising -- and I see no real danger to the essence of the first amendment in setting up roadblocks to such advertising. The first amendment is not absolute already -- and if laws have to be enacted or constitutional amendments passed in order to severely limit such advertising -- I think it ought to be done.

In any case, we now all agree and have acknowledged that the "advertising problem" can be handled -- although I further acknowledge that you are of the opinion that a constitutional amendment prohibiting the advertisement of a certain class of product is too high a price to pay.

It's been noted.

Let's not get bogged down like you did with Bill over the word "hypocrisy."

Let's see what else is in your bag.

What is next?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 12:31 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Brazil does indeed have similar laws, the example illustrates that despite that some people's zeal in defending against the boogeyman that is marijuana leads them to disregard them thusly causing the controvery that you denied.

Look, Craven, it's very simple: if someone in Brazil can be arrested for merely advocating the usage of marijuana, then that is convincing proof that Brazil and the US do not have similar speech laws, since such an arrest would be unconstitutional here in the US.

Craven de Kere wrote:
If the fact that it comes from another nation is so much of an issue for you, then please note that I provided a US example as well, and that you choose to focus on the Brazilian example.

You mean the US example where the mayor of San Bernadino "complained" about a Cypress Hill concert? How does a "complaint" about a concert rise to the level of a constitutional violation of free speech?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Joe, you do not possess the right to arbitrarily determine what the discussion is about.

Sure I do. As long as two people are having a discussion, both must agree on the topic under discussion. Thus, either may unilaterally decide the topic of the discussion. If the other disagrees, the discussion is over. Just like this one soon will be.

Craven de Kere wrote:
An example of this is that I used two examples and one was from the US, and you choose simply to focus on the Brazilian example. Rolling Eyes

Sorry. Just to oblige you, next time I'll concentrate on your second weakest example.

Craven de Kere wrote:
What I said, and what you deliberately fail to acknowledge is that the first amendment is such that touting marijuana's benefits will always be legal.

I never failed to acknowledge it. Indeed, I said that this point was not controversial. Geez, Craven, it's hard to agree with you when you can't even recognize the agreement.

Craven de Kere wrote:
The First Amendment is a red herring of your creation, I was discussing marijuana.

I hardly think the First Amendment is a red herring in a discussion concerning free speech rights.

Craven de Kere wrote:
In the discussion of marijuana you tried to make a First Amendment issue. I noted that the first amendment does not prohibit one from promoting marijuana use.

But the government can prohibit advertising (i.e. the offering for sale) of an illegal substance.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Both definitions of advertising are relevant because both can be said to cause societal harm.

Nice reliance on the passive voice, there. "Can be said to cause harm?" Said by whom?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Now you are simply trying to continue to make this an issue about the First Amendment, ignoring the arguments that the First Amendment already protects the act of promoting drug use.

Just as it will protect marijuana advertisers, once marijuana is legalized.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Ok, Joe, let me pose a sincere question.

What is the connection of the First Amendment issue to the drug debate?

You must have missed this when I posted it before:

(1) As the supreme court's constitutional jurisprudence now stands, a product that can be legally offered for sale cannot be subject to a total advertising prohibition.
(2) That is because, according to the First Amendment, the government cannot ban commercial speech (of which advertising is a prime example) without some overriding governmental interest.
(3) The government has an interest in regulating commercial speech in connection with certain potentially harmful products (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, gambling, etc.).
(4) It is clear, however, that the government cannot totally ban truthful advertising of even these products, despite the fact that they are potentially harmful. See the cases that I linked in my earlier post.
(5) If marijuana becomes legal, it will only be because it is perceived to be no more harmful than the most harmful legal substance (in this case, I presume that to be tobacco -- which is also the most stringently regulated product in terms of advertising).
(6) Under the First Amendment, it would be impermissible for the government to ban all tobacco advertising. It would, perforce, be equally impermissible to ban all marijuana advertising.
(7) The only way to institute a total ban on marijuana advertising, then, would be to amend the First Amendment.


Craven de Kere wrote:
What relevance does advertising have to the discussion of the merits of marijuana prohibition?

You tell me. You were the first one to express reservations about the legalization of marijuana in light of the possibility that it might be freely advertised.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Now the non-commercial definition of advertising can also be argued to increase use and cause societal harm.

Then why did you express reservations only about the commercial advertising of marijuana? Shouldn't you advocate a total ban on all marijuana-related speech?

Craven de Kere wrote:
So how is that a distortuion of the issue? I see it as directly on-topic. It references the societal harm that marijuana promotion causes.

You'll need to revise your initial position, then.

Craven de Kere wrote:
In that case the First Amendment discussions herein are moot, right? For by your own "non-cartoonishly distorted" definition of advertising, without the sale there is no advertising. Right?

For the sake of winding up this discussion, I'll even concede that the government could, consistent with the First Amendment, prohibit all advertising of marijuana, as long as marijuana was prohibited from being sold. So, in Craven's "brave new world," we'll end the costly, useless drug wars by making only the sale and advertising of pot illegal. Not a likely scenario, but, as I said before, theoretically possible.

Craven de Kere wrote:
[And like I said, no it is not. I have never advocated an alteration of the First Amendment for drug legalization and I have never advocated any position in which one would become necessary.

No, your position only makes it necessary to ban advertising and sales of legalized marijuana.

Craven de Kere wrote:
[And frankly you have very little notion of what my position is.

Finally, a point upon which we can both agree.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 12:41 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Joe, for you to suggest that even a significant move like amending the constitution in order to restrict advertising and promotion of things like pot, alcohol, or tobacco...would be an unacceptable injury to the first amendment -- is itself a rather cartoonish distortion of the reality. Certainly, in my opinion, a good deal more cartoonishly distorting than Craven's remarks were.

I suppose that makes me a First Amendment absolutist, then. I took the same stance with regard to the "flag-burning amendment," which also would have required a diminishment of free speech rights. I offer no apologies for that position, and I certainly don't regard an attack on free speech -- even a limited assault, such as is suggested by you and Craven -- to be "cartoonish," despite my high regard for that particular term.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Frankly, whether pot is eventually decriminalized or not -- I consider it to be an abomination for things like tobacco and alcohol to be encouraged or promoted through advertising -- and I see no real danger to the essence of the first amendment in setting up roadblocks to such advertising. The first amendment is not absolute already -- and if laws have to be enacted or constitutional amendments passed in order to severely limit such advertising -- I think it ought to be done.

Well, I'm glad someone has finally recognized that an absolute ban on advertising will necessitate a rewriting of the First Amendment.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Let's see what else is in your bag.

What is next?

Nothing. I'm tired of this discussion. I'm quite confident that "anything else in my bag" will likewise be hung up on endless quibbles, distortions, and misunderstandings, and I've grown increasingly tired of them all. And it's not that I have a lot of interest in the topic, either -- I'm certainly not obsessing, bongstar-like, over the fate of marijuana. I've got other things to do, and right now there are some other discussions that, honestly, I find much more interesting. This one, on the other hand, has run its course. I leave it to you and Craven to deliver the final word.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 01:01 pm
joefromchicago wrote:

Look, Craven, it's very simple: if someone in Brazil can be arrested for merely advocating the usage of marijuana, then that is convincing proof that Brazil and the US do not have similar speech laws, since such an arrest would be unconstitutional here in the US.


It's was unconstitutional there too, and yet it happened.

This leads me to believe that your belief that something unconstitutional can't happen is not founded in reality.

Quote:

You mean the US example where the mayor of San Bernadino "complained" about a Cypress Hill concert? How does a "complaint" about a concert rise to the level of a constitutional violation of free speech?


I never once claimed it was a contitutional violation of free speech.

I did claim that the controversy whose existence you denied does , in fact, exist.

That you continue to try to frame it aan attempt to illustrate a violation of free speech is a credit to your willingness to completely disregard one's argument and try to apply their post to ajn argument of your own choice, which you subsequently set out to disprove.

So if you feel better about arguing against a position I had never taken that's fine, but if you can also find the time to argue against what I actually say I would appreciate it.

Again, the example was posed for one sole purpose, to illustrate the controvery whose existence you denied.

Quote:
As long as two people are having a discussion, both must agree on the topic under discussion. Thus, either may unilaterally decide the topic of the discussion. If the other disagrees, the discussion is over. Just like this one soon will be.


A real pity that you prefer this to getting to any points you may have but you are right, it is, indeed your prerogative.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
An example of this is that I used two examples and one was from the US, and you choose simply to focus on the Brazilian example. Rolling Eyes

Sorry. Just to oblige you, next time I'll concentrate on your second weakest example.


Feel free to deride it as weak. I will note that your inability to address it within the context that it was given speaks volumes about you if it is, indeed, so weak.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
What I said, and what you deliberately fail to acknowledge is that the first amendment is such that touting marijuana's benefits will always be legal.

I never failed to acknowledge it. Indeed, I said that this point was not controversial. Geez, Craven, it's hard to agree with you when you can't even recognize the agreement.


Yes Joe, you did fail to acknowledge it. The fact that you say it's not controversial is to avoid the issue.

Yes, it's legal. But it's also controversial. And the point that you fail to acknowledge is that said controversy exists regardless of whether marijuana is legalized.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
The First Amendment is a red herring of your creation, I was discussing marijuana.

I hardly think the First Amendment is a red herring in a discussion concerning free speech rights.


It's not a discussion of free speeach any more than it is one on teh constitution.

The issue of free speech was a red herring of your own creation so that you can avoid having to actually argue why marijuana should be illegal.

Which I predict you will continue to do, despite the fact that Bill, Frank and myself have all asked you to try to make a case for the validity of the proscription.

Quote:
But the government can prohibit advertising (i.e. the offering for sale) of an illegal substance.


Yes, and as I note it can also prohibit the sale of a legal product. Hence making this an irrelevant point in a discussion about its legality Joe.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Both definitions of advertising are relevant because both can be said to cause societal harm.

Nice reliance on the passive voice, there. "Can be said to cause harm?" Said by whom?


The passive voice is not needed or relied on at all, this is just another example of you being willing to do anything to avoid discussing the issue. It's another red herring.

Here, I will remove the passive voice and consequently your excuse.

Here ya go Joe:

"Both definitions of advertising are relevant because both cause societal harm through the increase of marijuana use."


Craven de Kere wrote:
Ok, Joe, let me pose a sincere question.

What is the connection of the First Amendment issue to the drug debate?

You must have missed this when I posted it before:[/quote]

Nope, saw it and argued its irrelevance. You must have missed it.

Quote:
(1) As the supreme court's constitutional jurisprudence now stands, a product that can be legally offered for sale cannot be subject to a total advertising prohibition.


Perhaps you yourself do not remember conceding that legalization of marijuana use does not have to mean legalization of its sale Joe.

I can refresh your memory by providing a quote of your own in which you say so. Just let me know if it is needed.

Quote:
(2) That is because, according to the First Amendment, the government cannot ban commercial speech (of which advertising is a prime example) without some overriding governmental interest.


Yes, another irrelevant point since the government can prohibit the commercialization of it althogether.

This is no way addressed the issue of the legality of production and consumption.

Quote:
(3) The government has an interest in regulating commercial speech in connection with certain potentially harmful products (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, gambling, etc.).
(4) It is clear, however, that the government cannot totally ban truthful advertising of even these products, despite the fact that they are potentially harmful. See the cases that I linked in my earlier post.


Again, this is no way addressed the issue of the legality of production and consumption as long as the commercialization ios prohibited. A possibility you acknowledged in the past.

Quote:
(5) If marijuana becomes legal, it will only be because it is perceived to be no more harmful than the most harmful legal substance (in this case, I presume that to be tobacco -- which is also the most stringently regulated product in terms of advertising).


In the past you argued against the harm being the only factor. Do you not remember? You argued with Bill saying that prevalence of its use is a factor.

I find it hillarious that you now suddenly argue for exclusivity in the arguments of legalization.

By your own previous argument marijuana may well be legalized simply on the basis on its future prevalence Joe, and I will again point out your very selective memory of your own arguments.

Quote:
(6) Under the First Amendment, it would be impermissible for the government to ban all tobacco advertising. It would, perforce, be equally impermissible to ban all marijuana advertising.


Wrong, through the proscription of its sale it can do so without any violation of the First Amendment. This again is something you ceded earlier and exhibit selective memory about now.

Quote:
(7) The only way to institute a total ban on marijuana advertising, then, would be to amend the First Amendment.


Another way is to prohibit its sale while allowing for its consuption, this would not reflect on the First Amendment at all and is a position whose possibility you ceded earlier and that you again display your selective memory about now.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
What relevance does advertising have to the discussion of the merits of marijuana prohibition?

You tell me. You were the first one to express reservations about the legalization of marijuana in light of the possibility that it might be freely advertised.


More selective memory Joe.

You spoke of it before me. To refresh your memory you were speaking of "Marijuana Man" advertising before I had said a word about it.

While this selective memory is convenient it's best used in less obvious ways Joe.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Now the non-commercial definition of advertising can also be argued to increase use and cause societal harm.

Then why did you express reservations only about the commercial advertising of marijuana? Shouldn't you advocate a total ban on all marijuana-related speech?


Nope. And my reasoning is that I seek only to curb the advertising that is financially motivated, as opposed to more "principled" speech on it.

Hopefully you now understand why I do not seek to restrict free speech about drugs but rather the commercially motivated speech.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
So how is that a distortuion of the issue? I see it as directly on-topic. It references the societal harm that marijuana promotion causes.

You'll need to revise your initial position, then.


Incorrect, I will need to do no such thing.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
In that case the First Amendment discussions herein are moot, right? For by your own "non-cartoonishly distorted" definition of advertising, without the sale there is no advertising. Right?

For the sake of winding up this discussion, I'll even concede that the government could, consistent with the First Amendment, prohibit all advertising of marijuana, as long as marijuana was prohibited from being sold. So, in Craven's "brave new world," we'll end the costly, useless drug wars by making only the sale and advertising of pot illegal. Not a likely scenario, but, as I said before, theoretically possible.


Well at least the selective memory problem has cleared up, that is progress and I will applaud that.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
[And like I said, no it is not. I have never advocated an alteration of the First Amendment for drug legalization and I have never advocated any position in which one would become necessary.

No, your position only makes it necessary to ban advertising and sales of legalized marijuana.


Correct, glad to have you with us Joe.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
And frankly you have very little notion of what my position is.

Finally, a point upon which we can both agree.


Three cheers for common ground. Now before this discussion ends I would like to advise you against repeatedly commenting about the validity of a position of which you have little notion.

Now like all the others, I will ask you to cut to the chase, and to state your reasoning for the validity of marijuana prohibition. I have my utmost confidence in your ability to do so, if not your willingness.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 01:05 pm
Well that was posted before your last post. I was indeed, correct about your unwillingness to attempt to formulate your support for marijuana prohibition.

Like most here suspected, you are willing to engage in red herrings galore, and quibble over the most insignificant things. You are not, however, willing to support the validity of marijuana criminalization itself.

And like I said earlier, a damn pity. This is why I suggested that others get you to do so earlier. I had predicted you'd cop out in such fashion once your red herrings were out of the way.
0 Replies
 
Hank Rearden
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 10:59 pm
the whole war itself is unconstitutional.

it doesnt say anything in the constitution about defending people from their own choices ;or about spending such a ludicris amount of money a responsability issue .
0 Replies
 
Hank Rearden
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 11:01 pm
and joefromchicago , restricting any speech as such is unconstitutional .
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 11:34 pm
All the 'Occum Bill said," "Joe from Chicago said," and the logical forays by Craven have become very dizzying. My main concern is the terrible harm the so-called war on drugs has caused to good citizens who are removed from society by unfair, hysterical laws.

http://www.mpp.org/arrests/arrests.html

There isn't an easy solution, but the laws can certainly be made more relevant to the crime!
If I want to smoke a joint, I should be able to do so without the worry that my ownership of my house might be taken away by the local police.

Although I've only had a couple of joints since the 60's, I would love to be able to indulge once in a while since alcohol gets me drunk almost immediately. Pot is much more fun for me.

The problems with the harder drugs are much more difficult to solve, but treatment should by at the very top of the list instead of jailing the poor, burned out users. It seems as if the laws are ass backwards to what should be an effective way to help people overcome life threatening addictions.

The real crooks are getting richer and the children are out pimping themselves for drugs. Isn't it pretty obvious that something is terribly wrong?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2004 01:11 pm
Tiny sidebar: Craven; the respondent "Hank Reardon" has chosen yet another character from Atlas Shrugged (who is John Galt?) as his avatar name. READ IT!
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2004 02:50 pm
Yeah, but the member went and touted it, and given the posts by this member I can not think of a better reason not to (simply because I have yet to see a single post with which I'd want to identify or agree).
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2004 02:57 pm
Craven, no two people ever get the exact same thing from a meaningful book. And no person is wholly representative of same. Like I said before; no one can adequately condense its meaning for you. You will have to experience it for yourself.
I don't mean to morph the threadÂ… Just wanted to point out the prevalence.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2004 03:11 pm
Ok, lemme put it this way. EVERYONE who touts this book to me are people with very different ideology than mine.

And EVERYONE who has called it a crock of **** that I have seen, are closer in ideology.

I did take the initiative to read exerpts from it and essays about it and I could not be more convinced that it's a crock myself either.

But that doesn't mean I won't read it. I would love to, but I probably won't get around to it any time soon.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2004 03:18 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Ok, lemme put it this way. EVERYONE who touts this book to me are people with very different ideology than mine.

And EVERYONE who has called it a crock of **** that I have seen, are closer in ideology.

I did take the initiative to read exerpts from it and essays about it and I could not be more convinced that it's a crock myself either.

But that doesn't mean I won't read it. I would love to, but I probably won't get around to it any time soon.
Fair enough. I read King James and the New Edition for the same reasons. That didn't stop me from taking portions of both to heart. I submit that I've never heard anyone adequately describe the contents of those books either. Idea
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/06/2021 at 04:23:31