should marijuana be legalized??

rimchamp77 wrote:

The truth is hidden in plain view. Certainly, our good legisliars wouldn't ban a drug for no good reason!

Yes, please do ignore that "meth labs" produce an unreliable product through the use of highly toxic substances which are used in uncontrolled environments and present a fire hazard, a risk of explosion and put unacceptably high amounts of toxic chemicals into the ambiant atmosphere, an atmosphere which is often breathed by the children who have the misfortune to be the children of the lab operator, or an addicted woman who gets her drugs by trading sex for the product.

Where do you get your 4% figure? Even if that is so, how do you justify people putting ordinary residential neighborhoods at risk through the fire hazard and the exposure of toxic chemicals in the environment in which their neighbors live as well as they do? How do you justify the exposure of children to those environments?

You can rant about "legisliars" if you want, that doesn't alter that the home production of methamphetimines is dangerous for more reasons than just the danger posed by the drug itself. The Rural Assistance Center states that more than 16,000 meth labs were shut down in 2004. Their source is the Drug Enforcement Agency. I'm sure you'll sneer at them, but i'd rather accept their statistics than an unsubstantiated claim on your part.

If you cannot see what is wrong with Meth and with home-grown meth labs, than i'd say you're so blinded by your obsession as to have lost all sense of proportion.

I have smoked reefer, and likely will again at some point in the future. I don't consider it a harmful drug. I'm not so stupid, though, that i cannot see that cocaine, heroine and all forms of methamphetimine are dangerous, and ought to be controlled substances, not available to the general public. I can seen no good purpose served by legalizing drugs such as that.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I've addressed your first and second points elsewhere, so I'll just say that I think you are much too optimistic, which I've also said elsewhere. I think your third point relies upon a level of state intervention in the marketplace that, frankly, is uncharacteristic of you.

Except for anarcho-capitalists -- a group whose ideas I like to firt with but don't take too seriously -- all libertarians recognize that the state has some legitimate functions. Our standard one-line description of those functions is that government exists to protect people's lives, liberty, and property against force and fraud by others. Selling recreational drugs and mislabling the quantity is fraud, and endangers people's lives. Therefore we libertarians find it perfectly fair for the government to stop this by force.

Just out of curiosity, where are you getting your information about libertarians? I would guess it's either from the Libertarian Party, which is a bit of a clown show. (And I hate to admit you changed my mind of this in a much earlier thread.) Alternatively, most of your information could come from strawmen created by pundids who don't like libertarians. Given this impression, may I suggest that you brush up a bit on your Nozick, your Posner, and your Epstein? I know you've read them once, but your knowledge of their arguments seems a little rusty. The only problem I have with my old post is that I frequently confused the DEA and the FDA. I have no problem with the FDA testing and labelling drugs, but a big problem with the DEA enforcing the FDA's opinions against dissenting opinions of consumers.

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, at least you're no longer saying that hard liquor made up a higher percentage of alcohol consumption during prohibition because hard liquor was price inelastic, so I suppose that's a sign of some progress.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I stand by this statement, based on the same argument about vendors' monopoly profits I made about crack sellers vs. pot sellers.

Thomas wrote:

As for Mill, I disagree with him on so many points that it doesn't surprise me that I disagree with him on this one as well.

While I happen to agree with Mill, I didn't cite On Liberty because his side of our disagreement is correct. I cited it as evidence that our disagreement is old, and that nothing happened in the last 140 years to fundamentally change the arguments on both sides.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Just out of curiosity, where are you getting your information about libertarians? I would guess it's either from the Libertarian Party, which is a bit of a clown show. (And I hate to admit you changed my mind of this in a much earlier thread.) Alternatively, most of your information could come from strawmen created by pundids who don't like libertarians. Given this impression, may I suggest that you brush up a bit on your Nozick, your Posner, and your Epstein? I know you've read them once, but your knowledge of their arguments seems a little rusty.

In addition to the them, I've read some John Hospers and other "public intellectuals" who are either members of the Libertarian party or who are "fellow travelers." I will admit, however, that I haven't read as much in the (small l) libertarian literature as I would like. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I find libertarians to be weirdly fascinating.

Thomas wrote:

Sorry to disappoint you, but I stand by this statement, based on the same argument about vendors' monopoly profits I made about crack sellers vs. pot sellers.

And I stand by my previous assertion that I see no convincing evidence for price inelasticity of hard liquor before or during prohibition.

Thomas wrote:

While I happen to agree with Mill, I didn't cite On Liberty because his side of our disagreement is correct. I cited it as evidence that our disagreement is old, and that nothing happened in the last 140 years to fundamentally change the arguments on both sides.

Well then, I guess that means the opponents of legalization are on a 140-year winning streak. That's pretty impressive.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

The only problem I have with my old post is that I frequently confused the DEA and the FDA. I have no problem with the FDA testing and labelling drugs, but a big problem with the DEA enforcing the FDA's opinions against dissenting opinions of consumers.

Sorry for appending this to the wrong paragraph. It belongs after the next of course. Oh well, this is your post on drugs...

0 Replies

The entire foundation of Joefromchicago's "debate" is the false assumption that we are banning certain drugs because they have been shown to be inherently harmful. Yet nobody has ever devised measurable standards to ban any drugs. On the DEA website at http://www.doj.gov/dea in a section called "speaking out against legalization" the DEA all but states that alcohol is exempted from the standards of the Controlled Substances Act. Early November of 2004, acting on the information stated in their own website I made a formal request from the DEA through my congressperson Defazio's office requesting a full list of exempted substances - and was blithely ignored as would any heckler by any scam artist. It was only later when I read and reread the Controlled Substances Act that I found that "potential for abuse" was the only standard specifically listed - although, like all scam artists, they do imply that drugs are subjected to standards even though none are publicly listed.

To be fair joefromchicago concedes that he believes that alcohol should be banned - a view not currently shared by a large majority of legisliars. Would he also include Viagra or Ciallus to the list? After all its effects are similar to cocaine and are used exactly like cocaine in the nineteenth century. I know that joefromchicago lacks the resources to devise viable standards, test all the drugs according to his standards. and devise a list of harmful drugs that are based on real standards. However, our legisliars do have access to taxpayer resources and have shown no interest in devising real measurable drug specific standards to implement a real drug policy that ignores all social factors and zeroes in on harmful drugs. After all a sports car is harmless in the hands of middle aged outdoorsperson who wants a car to visit nature - but an accident waiting to happen in the hands of a daredevil thrillseeking teenager or young adult in arrested development. I'd be interested in hearing drug specific standards joefromchicago would like to be included in measurable drug standards. Or is joefromchicago - like our legisliars - not at all interested in honesty in legislation either?
I should remind joefromchicago that the overwhelming majority of hard liquor users seriously dilute their liquor and the effective drug damage is not much greater than that of beer drinkers. In fact - left to their own devises - upwards of 95% of people who use drugs make sensible choices. The standards have to be about inherently harmful drugs and not second guessing about bad choices that could be made by users. A good candidate for this would be inhalants like the glue used by inhalant sniffers that could cause instant death if inhaled in a closed environment. This type of glue would have a relatively small margin of error even though the number of deaths is small. So far, I haven't heard an outcry for banning glues that can be sniffed. Hey, joefromchicago: want to ban sniffable inhalants?
I would strongly suggest that joefromchicago - if he honestly believes that dangerous drugs should be banned - find someone with resources, or pool his with other likeminded people and devise drug specific standards to impose on the rest of us [for our own good] and separate himself from the legisliars who promote the current scam and taxpayer boondoggle. I have to admit that there is honest disagreement on this issue and it's shameful that people like joefromchicago feel that they have to defend scams like our drug war when he should be promoting honest standards.

0 Replies

rimchamp77 wrote:

The entire foundation of Joefromchicago's "debate" is the false assumption that we are banning certain drugs because they have been shown to be inherently harmful.

It's true that I assume that marijuana (to confine the discussion solely to that drug) is inherently harmful, but I wouldn't call it a "false assumption." Rather, I simply accept as true the assumption of those advocates of legalization who compare marijuana usage to alcohol and tobacco usage. And since alcohol and tobacco are assumed by legalization advocates to be harmful, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to conclude that marijuana is equally harmful.

rimchamp77 wrote:

To be fair joefromchicago concedes that he believes that alcohol should be banned - a view not currently shared by a large majority of legisliars.

No, that wouldn't be fair at all. I would only advocate banning alcohol if it were in the same position as marijuana currently is, i.e. illegal and not widely used.

rimchamp77 wrote:

Would he also include Viagra or Ciallus to the list? After all its effects are similar to cocaine and are used exactly like cocaine in the nineteenth century.

They used cocaine in the nineteenth century to induce erections? Clearly, medical science has progressed tremendously since those days.

rimchamp77 wrote:

Hey, joefromchicago: want to ban sniffable inhalants?

In many places, inhalants are already restricted for sale to adults. And, I would add, if someone could figure out a way to make a superior adhesive out of marijuana, I would be willing to favor the sale of marijuana -- in its adhesive form.

rimchamp77 wrote:

I would strongly suggest that joefromchicago - if he honestly believes that dangerous drugs should be banned - find someone with resources, or pool his with other likeminded people and devise drug specific standards to impose on the rest of us [for our own good] and separate himself from the legisliars who promote the current scam and taxpayer boondoggle.

Thanks, but I already have a day job.

0 Replies

Hey! Um...what are we talking about?

0 Replies

Quote:

No, that wouldn't be fair at all. I would only advocate banning alcohol if it were in the same position as marijuana currently is, i.e. illegal and not widely used.

You would only ban alcohol if it were illegal? That doesn't make sense.

I don't have any statistics, but marijuana seems to be in pretty wide use. I would guess that it's a strong majority of people that have used it at least once.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Quote:
No, that wouldn't be fair at all. I would only advocate banning alcohol if it were in the same position as marijuana currently is, i.e. illegal and not widely used.

You would only ban alcohol if it were illegal? That doesn't make sense.

I don't have any statistics, but marijuana seems to be in pretty wide use. I would guess that it's a strong majority of people that have used it at least once.

So you're cool with the current system of having a high level political appointee arbitrarily banning drugs based totally on politics? So you're not for banning inherently harmful drugs - just supporting authority figures who make choices for all of us with no basis whatsoever? Shocked

Yes, I did believe you had some principles and were making reasoned arguments based on those principles. I had no idea that you were a scam artist shill Confused

I do have a friend who wants to ban cigarettes and alcohol based on the harm done by those drugs as reflected in incidences of high blood pressure, diabetes, asthma and other medical problems. I can respectfully disagree. It seems that you have no problems with this and no other qualms. You just trust big government to look after the rest of us.

0 Replies

rimchamp77,

Are you talking about me? If you are, then no, no,no, no, no to every single thing you said.

I did not say ANY personal views in my post. But for the record, my personal views are:

1) The government should not have the right to proclaim any drugs as being illegal. This infringes on personal rights. If a person wants to put something into their body, they should have that right. I do not agree with a bunch of selfish greedy morons making decisions about how other people should live their lives.

2) I think marijuana is approximately as debilitating as alcohol is. Thus it should be treated exactly the same was as alcohol.

0 Replies

Amen!

0 Replies

Oh, but alcohol is far, far more dangerous than grass ;-)

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
While I happen to agree with Mill, I didn't cite On Liberty because his side of our disagreement is correct. I cited it as evidence that our disagreement is old, and that nothing happened in the last 140 years to fundamentally change the arguments on both sides.

Well then, I guess that means the opponents of legalization are on a 140-year winning streak. That's pretty impressive.

Yes, but one should never give up hope. You're a Cubs fan, I'm sure you'll understand.

0 Replies

Well of course its a complete anomaly that alcohol and tobacco are legal and other substances not. Most people agree that if they came along now, as opposed to several hundreds (thousands in case of alcohol) years ago they would indeed be banned.

However I am attracted to the argument that the govt. has no right to tell an individual what he can or cannot injest into his own body. (Adults of course). And its an attractive proposition that if recreational drugs were legal (and regulated), the price would drop and the purity could be controlled, thus reducing incentives to steal and giving the consumer safer products.

In an ideal world, all such substances would be legally available, AND in an ideal world there would be very few people stupid enough to get addicted.

But we do not live in an ideal world. Some recreational drugs are extremely addictive. That is the whole point of them, they create their own market. Moreover many people are not sensible enough to leave well alone...the young in particular. If they are made legal at what age?

The fact is if you allowed crack cocaine to be legally sold, you would soon end up with hundreds of thousands more crack heads. Is that a good idea?

Doesnt society as a whole and the government they elect have a duty of care to protect people from predator drug pushers who would assume the role of respectable businesses?

Whilst its true of course that marijuana is not as dangerous as heroin, studies have shown a significant link to psychosis among long term users, particularly of stronger blends such as skunk.

In the UK pot was down graded from a class B to class C drug, and police were instructed to ignore smokers who acted responsibly. But the medical evidence showing the health risks associated with cannabis use, coupled with the feeling that downgrading it was tantamount to legalisation, forced the govt to re grade it back to class B.

So in a nutshell no, I dont think cannabis should be legalised. Or rather it could be legalised once you have educated people not to abuse it, which is sometime never.

And if you say but people abuse alcohol, well thats true they do. But is that an argument for increasing the consumption of other dangerous substances as well? As I said its a complete anomaly that alcohol is legal in the first place.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

And if you say but people abuse alcohol, well thats true they do. But is that an argument for increasing the consumption of other dangerous substances as well?

Yes -- but not as a matter of equality for drugs, as some people seem to be implying. Rather, the experience with alcohol teaches us a different lesson: We know this addictive recreational drug can be legal, and can be regulated to strike a sound balance between the casual users' pleasure and the addicts' pain. This gives us good reason to believe the same approach can work for other addictive recreational drugs too. Good enough reason, I am sure, to merit that we try and find out.

0 Replies

Is there a "sound balance" in our consumption of alcohol? It doesnt seem so if you listen to the messages screamed at us by doctors health professionals and police.

You might be right that cannabis use would even out. But that kind of assumes people would switch from alcohol to cannabis, the rise in one would be offset by the decrease in the other. But I think people would just smoke and drink which is really bad.

And if I did accept that cannabis can be legalised without much cost, where do you draw the line regarding stuff far more dangerous crack cocaine for example? Would you allow it to be sold to children? If you say no because its dangerous, how can you justify selling it to adults?

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

However I am attracted to the argument that the govt. has no right to tell an individual what he can or cannot injest into his own body. (Adults of course). And its an attractive proposition that if recreational drugs were legal (and regulated), the price would drop and the purity could be controlled, thus reducing incentives to steal and giving the consumer safer products.

This ignores the evidence of experience, at least in the United States. "Moonshine" whiskey is still widely available in the United States, and not simply among "hillbillies" as the stereotype would suggest. It is often (i'd say usually, but have no statistical substantiation) of a higher alcohol content than legal booze, and is much cheaper, absent the state and federal taxes. It is also often mildly to poisonously toxic. In addition to being usually cheaper, and providing a bigger "kick," it has the cachet of being moonshine.

Additionally, in the United States, many states have "ABC"--although the name of the agency many differ, basically, that's alcoholic beverage control. For a few years, i lived in North Carolina, which is an ABC state. Beer and wine were available in bars and privately-owned stores, but "hard liquor" was only available from the "state store," where one purchased the booze from a uniformed employee of the state. The state stores were closed on Sundays--and "bootleggers" abounded. These bootleggers not only sold moonshine, they sold "bottled and bonded" which had "fallen off the truck" as well as cigarettes with similar tumbling propensity. The appeal of the moonshine and cigarettes was the low price--the labelled spirits, however, sold at a premium, and sold quickly, being offered during the hours when the state stores were closed, and on Sunday.

I'm not trying to beat up on you here--i just have never accepted the argument about "quality" and price and availability which is advanced by the advocates of drug legalization. When i was in university in Illinois, in McClean County, which went dry on Sundays (at least it did in the 1960s), bootleggers sold booze at the back door. When i was in Maine, i was discretely informed that moonshine was available to the friends of friends. With the example of this sort of illegal market for alcohol despite that drug being legal, i doubt claims made by drug legalization proponents about the likely consequences of legalization.

Quote:

And if you say but people abuse alcohol, well thats true they do. But is that an argument for increasing the consumption of other dangerous substances as well? As I said its a complete anomaly that alcohol is legal in the first place.

I agree with our arguments, and was glad to read your other observations which preceeded this paragraph. This paragraph contains the most telling argument you have advanced, which is that one is hardly encouraged to legalize other drugs by the history of alcohol.

0 Replies

Actually, I was referring to joefromchicago and marijuana is NOT anywhere as debilitating as alcohol if long-term health consequences are a standard. However, in terms of short term impairment it is - except that marijuana doesn't increase risk taking behaviors nearly as much. If long-term bodily destruction is a cornerstone for restriction alcohol beats all banned drugs with the possible exception of cocaine.

0 Replies

My last paragraph in my last post ought to have read: "I agree with your arguments . . . ", but i did not notice the error in time to edit before another response was posted.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

My last paragraph in my last post ought to have read: "I agree with your arguments . . . ", but i did not notice the error in time to edit before another response was posted.

thats ok, i read our as your anyway...damn nuisance other posters sometimes eh?

0 Replies

should marijuana be legalized??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know