should marijuana be legalized??

Steve 41oo wrote:

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?

Yeah, except for the really cool guys, like you and me . . .

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

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.

Selection bias. Casual drinkers of wine and beer rarely spark the professional attention of doctors, health professionals, and policemen. And when they do, it isn't because of their casual drinking.

Steve 41oo wrote:

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.

No, I assume that legalization would raise the amount of casual pot smoking a lot, which is a benefit. It would also raise somewhat the number of pot addicts, which is a cost of legalization. On balance, I think a regime could be found in which the interests of casual users balance fairly the interests of addicts and potential addicts. I expect this regime would look much like the regulatoin of alcohol in the non-Scandinavian part of Europe. But expecting isn't knowing. The only way to know is by finding out through trial and error, which I'm willing to do.

Steve wrote:

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?

Current law has no problem setting an age of consent for sex. It has no problem setting an age of consent in contract law (where its technical name may be different). I don't see why the law couldn't set an age of consent for selling drugs. As to your question about drawing the line, I wouldn't. I would gradually legalize every drug and see what happens. I would decriminalize in small steps, and stop after each step to ask: Does the death toll and the crime rate connected to this drug go up or down? If they go down, let's push legalization a bit further. If they go up, let's stop, and may be take one step back. I don't think there's any line we can draw a priori.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

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.

All the more reason for legalization proponents to despair.

0 Replies

Quote:

As to your question about drawing the line, I wouldn't. I would gradually legalize every drug and see what happens. I would decriminalize in small steps, and stop after each step to ask: Does the death toll and the crime rate connected to this drug go up or down? If they go down, let's push legalization a bit further. If they go up, let's stop, and may be take one step back. I don't think there's any line we can draw a priori.

Well thats a bold experiment and I have some smypathy. But in UK where we reclassified cannabis from B to C, the govt quickly reversed it. That was partly evidence based and partly and this is a point you overlook...how would a government with such a bold program as you outline above ever get elected in the first place ? Pushing drugs to kids isnt popular amongs the kids' parents.

0 Replies

Some governments (e.g., in the Netherlands, in Canada) have already made steps in this direction. Obviously, it's not entirely out of the question, and as demographics change over time, I think it's entirely feasible that we could see experiments in varying degrees of decriminalization across North America and Europe.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

That was partly evidence based and partly and this is a point you overlook...how would a government with such a bold program as you outline above ever get elected in the first place ? Pushing drugs to kids isnt popular amongs the kids' parents.

In fact, our fellow member Montana, who I hope still follows this thread, had a rather ugly experience in which the elected government of Massachusetts was pushing a highly potent drug on her son. If she feels like it -- and I hope she does -- maybe she can tell you what happend when she refused to go along with it. I think that you, just as joefromchicago, profess an incredibly naive optimism about the actual people who run the government in a democracy. The two of you must be very optimistic about human nature, judging by your trust in the government preventing and enforcing the consumption of drugs.

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.

Admittedly, that was somewhat inartfully phrased. Let me put it this way: if alcohol were in the same situation as marijuana is today, i.e. illegal and not widely used, then I would favor the continued criminalization of alcohol usage.

stuh505 wrote:

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.

According to the latest statistics (2005), about 40% of the population aged 12 or older reported marijuana use at least once in their lifetime, so that doesn't constitute a majority, let alone a "strong majority." Furthermore, the "at least once in a lifetime" statistic is meaningless in terms of determining who actually uses marijuana on more than an occasional basis. According to the statistics, 10.4% of the population used marijuana at least once in the past year, and 6% used marijuana in the past month. That compares with 51.8% of the population that used alcohol within the past month. Regular alcohol usage, then, is roughly 8.5 times more common than regular marijuana usage.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

... you must be very optimistic about human nature, judging by your trust in the government preventing and enforcing the consumption of drugs.

I dont think I'm naive at all. All the legislation in the world wont stop people doing silly/bad things. But I dont think govts. should give a signal that doing drugs is "ok". If anything I would say you have an over optimistic faith in the common sense of people not to over indulge in taking potentially dangerous recreational drugs. Well maybe people are more sensible in USA or Germany but they're all idiots here. (Except me of course.... Wink

0 Replies

I find the allegedly libertarian argument that government should not intervene in what people put in their bodies to be derived from either a naive or a disingenuous position. Government reasonably bans many activities involving substances which are reasonably deemed toxic because of the potential harm to others. You are legally enjoined from pouring waste paint solvent into the gutter; you are enjoined from open burning even on your own property. Both injunctions on your behavior are based not upon an allegation of immediate demonstrable harm to identifiable individuals, but upon the potential harm to others which would result if such actions were allowed, in the absence of sufficient social means to deal with the consequences of such actions if harm becomes apparently clear and present. Libertarians want the least government commensurate with reasonable social order--there are insufficient fire-fighters available to allow anyone who wishes to indulge open burning on their property, and therefore it is prohibited in a reasonable appeal to societal safety.

The unlicensed production of alcohol, and the sale of illegal drugs both entail a host of potential harmful consequences to other members of society without necessarily implying immediate, demonstrable harm to identifiable individuals. I don't buy the argument, and i don't buy the contention that it is a "libertarian" position.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

But I dont think govts. should give a signal that doing drugs is "ok". If anything I would say you have an over optimistic faith in the common sense of people not to over indulge in taking potentially dangerous recreational drugs.

Then what do you make of Montana's case? As I said earlier, the government didn't only send her a message that doing drugs is ok. It sent the message that her son, then about 10 years old was too jumpy in class. He would therefore have to be treated with Ritalin, a potent, addictive, psychotropic drug chemically similar to "speed". When she refused, the government threatened to withdraw her custody of her son. Montana emigrated to Canada before the Massachusetts government could execute its threat. I applaud her for making this choice instead of sheepishly confiding in the government's wise decisionmaking on drugs.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I don't buy the argument, and i don't buy the contention that it is a "libertarian" position.

In that case, it should be easy for you to find libertarians who support the war on drugs, and who oppose Marijuana legalization. How many have you come up with so far?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
But I dont think govts. should give a signal that doing drugs is "ok". If anything I would say you have an over optimistic faith in the common sense of people not to over indulge in taking potentially dangerous recreational drugs.

Then what do you make of Montana's case? As I said earlier, the government didn't only send her a message that doing drugs is ok. It sent the message that her son, then about 10 years old was too jumpy in class. He would therefore have to be treated with Ritalin, a potent, addictive, psychotropic drug chemically similar to "speed". When she refused, the government threatened to withdraw her custody of her son. Montana emigrated to Canada before the Massachusetts government could execute its threat. I applaud her for making this choice instead of sheepishly confiding in the government's wise decisionmaking on drugs.

We only have Montana's testimony that that were the sequence of events, and the substance of the situation. However, if one stipulates that this were the case, your reaction is still an oversimplification. Governments, such as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, create agencies to implement the legislation produced by elected representatives. It certainly is the responsibility of elected representatives to oversee the bureaucracy which is created by their legislation, but in practical terms, we all know that there aren't enough hours in the day to do this thoroughly--and therefore, ombudsmen and inspectors general are appointed.

Each agency of a bureaucracy ostensibly represents a body of people who possess sufficient expertise to discharge their duties with no more direct supervision than is implied by the existence of ombudsmen or inspectors general. If an agency is writing and implementing inappropriate policies, in the opinion of individuals deemed inexpert by government (if government is even aware of their existence), it may well take quite a long time for government to correct the errors arising from those policies--especially as "expert" opinion may have been responsible for them. Ritalin only became commonly available after 1970--it has now been more than 30 years that the drug has been commonly used, and it is only now that people are beginning to question generally its casual use by people in educational and child-welfare agencies, even though there have been those who have opposed its use throughout the last 30 years.

For as flawed as government oversight so often is, i know of no other plausible method consistent with good social order and keeping the peace which can be appealed to to avoid the negative consequences of drug use or abuse. Perhaps you can suggest one to me.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

For as flawed as government oversight so often is, i know of no other plausible method consistent with good social order and keeping the peace which can be appealed to to avoid the negative consequences of drug use or abuse. Perhaps you can suggest one to me.

I believe there is no set of institutions, including the ones that we now have, that meets your specification. Of all the unsatisfactory solutions that are available, "legalize it" is the one that I think sucks the least. That's the one I suggest to you, knowing full well you won't buy it.

Meanwhile, how is your search for pro-drug-prohibition libertarians coming along?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I don't buy the argument, and i don't buy the contention that it is a "libertarian" position.

In that case, it should be easy for you to find libertarians who support the war on drugs, and who oppose Marijuana legalization. How many have you come up with so far?

It does not follow that because "libertarians" might not have a contention that any adult can put any substance they like into their bodies that "libertarians" would therefore support "the war on drugs." Being a libertarian does not oblige one to support governmental incompetence on the basis of principle. Conversely, you should be able to show that "libertarians" in significant numbers opposed the criminalization of marijuana. How many have you come up with so far?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Setanta wrote:
For as flawed as government oversight so often is, i know of no other plausible method consistent with good social order and keeping the peace which can be appealed to to avoid the negative consequences of drug use or abuse. Perhaps you can suggest one to me.

I believe there is no set of institutions, including the ones that we now have, that meets your specification. Of all the unsatisfactory solutions that are available, "legalize it" is the one that I think sucks the least. That's the one I suggest to you, knowing full well you won't buy it.

Actually, that is not something you know. Personally, i think marijuana should be decriminalized for simple pragmatic reasons--but i don't for a moment believe that it will eliminate crime associated with marijuana use, nor end the illegal market. So, in fact, i do agree with the legalization of marijuana, faut de mieux.

However, one member in particular in this thread, whom i don't think i need to name, has dragged in references to a host of other "controlled substances" and illegal drugs other than marijuana, and i have been addressing (or at least attempting to address) the broader topic of recreational drug use and the question of legality. Note that you have quoted me in a response to a post of yours which had no direct reference to marijuana, but rather to "trust in government." I certainly place more trust in government than in narco-terrorists, or the organized crime leaders of drug cartels. Is there someone whom i have left out of the question of whom to trust on the issue of drugs which are currently illegal?

Quote:

Meanwhile, how is your search for pro-drug-prohibition libertarians coming along?

Apparently, it is enjoying as much success as your search for libertarians who opposed drug prohibitions. (Hint: that's a game i'm not playing, but you have big fun, i don't want to rain on your parade.)

0 Replies

Thomas, I have to get ready for work, but I am following along and will be back with my story as soon as I get the chance.

0 Replies

"Evidence from Switzerland suggests that prescribing heroin can reduce crime and increase levels of employment among addicts."

Check out the article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/4075235.stm

It must be noted that decriminalizing drugs throughout Europe has significantly reduced the crime rate.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

"Evidence from Switzerland suggests that prescribing heroin can reduce crime and increase levels of employment among addicts."

Check out the article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/4075235.stm

Why would anyone need to check out the article? You reproduced verbatim the only substantive statement made in an article otherwise devoted to a fictional program.

NickFun wrote:

It must be noted that decriminalizing drugs throughout Europe has significantly reduced the crime rate.

No doubt it would. Decriminalizing anything would reduce the crime rate.

0 Replies

Perhaps I should ahve said the "violent" crime rate. Parks in Switzerland which were formerly havens for drug abusers have since been cleaned up and they are now safe places to take children. Neigborhoods have been cleaned up and people have taken back control of their lives. I see nothing wrong here.

0 Replies

Of course, legalizing pot would lower the crime rate, in part because people might steal to buy pot and because if it is a crime to buy and use pot the crime rate will be up.

Nietzsche asserts that a government is well within its right to control substances.
But is there a limit, Nietzsche? Can that include sugar or water? Obviously not, but where do we draw the line and on what grounds?

I would prefer to decriminalize recreational drugs and have the government produce and sell it under controlled conditions in order to drive the drug lords out of business and reduce our law enforcement costs. That will not happen, of course, as long as our "morality" overrules our reason.

0 Replies

should marijuana be legalized??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know