should marijuana be legalized??

Joe:-From a theoretical or philosophical point of view are you guilty of receiving stolen land?T&P points of view are not conditioned by the passage of time or,if Nuremburg is anything to go by,a governments's right to do anything.
Or are they?
If they are then you are going with "might is right" and once you go with that,which is fair enough,this debate is,as you suggest,pointless.But then so are all debates outside of the circles who have the might.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Joe:-From a theoretical or philosophical point of view are you guilty of receiving stolen land?T&P points of view are not conditioned by the passage of time or,if Nuremburg is anything to go by,a governments's right to do anything.
Or are they?

What?

spendius wrote:

If they are then you are going with "might is right" and once you go with that,which is fair enough,this debate is,as you suggest,pointless.But then so are all debates outside of the circles who have the might.

I have no clue what you're trying to say.

0 Replies

I need to smoke some weed. Today is a bad day and I am really stressed. It would be nice if I could just pick some up when I go to the pharmacy to get my other meds today.
Laughing

0 Replies

Joe:-

Neither have I.It's too long ago.I'll see if I can check it out when I get a minute.Something to do with aborigines I think.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

But the whole topic is about application of policy - we can hardly discuss whether or not marijuana should be legalised without considering the potential actions which might flow from the policy change.

I don't see why not. We can discuss whether murder is right or wrong without discussing the best means of catching murderers. The war on drugs is an enforcement of policy, it is not the policy itself. An admirable system of enforcement cannot make an unjust policy just, nor can a flawed system of enforcement make a just policy unjust. There may be better ways of enforcing the policy, just as there may be better ways of catching murderers, but we need not concern ourselves with the specifics of policy enforcement in order to discuss the justification of the policy.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Mathos wrote:
Joe, one may feel justified in considering your smoking far too much of the plant. They put the seeds in bird food, hence budgies sing so much!
Rosborne979, :- Of course the drug wars are failing. They cannot possibly allow the production and sales to drop. 60% of the worlds police would be redundant without the game! Considering they verge on the finer point between law and lawlessness, we cannot possibly allow them to be un-employed. Imagine that lot going bent ! Full time!

Speaking as one of them I can reassure you there's plenty to do without bothering harmless users of recreational drugs - no need for layoffs at all - we can be gainfully employed dealing with the crime that emanates from irresponsible use of alcohol

I neither know your country of office or your rank Officer. However, on a one to one basis I have total respect for law and order along with the enforcing bodies. Be as it may, there are always bad, even rotten apples in every barrel. We had a problem with cattle in The UK a few years since. To rectify the problem the government sanctioned mass slaughter. End of problem. The toying with criminal fraternitites throughout the occidental world especially is a sign of balance equivalence, it keeps the looms operating. If the chappies in Detroit for example were to create a solar/cloud/rain driven vehicle, which needed no maintenance for 200,00miles redundancy would be the name of the game in that sphere also. The cattle farmers received handsome compensation for their herds and retired to Florida.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
But the whole topic is about application of policy - we can hardly discuss whether or not marijuana should be legalised without considering the potential actions which might flow from the policy change.

I don't see why not. We can discuss whether murder is right or wrong without discussing the best means of catching murderers. The war on drugs is an enforcement of policy, it is not the policy itself. An admirable system of enforcement cannot make an unjust policy just, nor can a flawed system of enforcement make a just policy unjust. There may be better ways of enforcing the policy, just as there may be better ways of catching murderers, but we need not concern ourselves with the specifics of policy enforcement in order to discuss the justification of the policy.

But the question was "should marijuana be legalised?" The question wasn't "is smoking marijuna right or wrong?" Anyway never mind.

0 Replies

Mathos wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
Mathos wrote:
Joe, one may feel justified in considering your smoking far too much of the plant. They put the seeds in bird food, hence budgies sing so much!
Rosborne979, :- Of course the drug wars are failing. They cannot possibly allow the production and sales to drop. 60% of the worlds police would be redundant without the game! Considering they verge on the finer point between law and lawlessness, we cannot possibly allow them to be un-employed. Imagine that lot going bent ! Full time!

Speaking as one of them I can reassure you there's plenty to do without bothering harmless users of recreational drugs - no need for layoffs at all - we can be gainfully employed dealing with the crime that emanates from irresponsible use of alcohol

I neither know your country of office or your rank Officer. However, on a one to one basis I have total respect for law and order along with the enforcing bodies. Be as it may, there are always bad, even rotten apples in every barrel. We had a problem with cattle in The UK a few years since. To rectify the problem the government sanctioned mass slaughter. End of problem. The toying with criminal fraternitites throughout the occidental world especially is a sign of balance equivalence, it keeps the looms operating. If the chappies in Detroit for example were to create a solar/cloud/rain driven vehicle, which needed no maintenance for 200,00miles redundancy would be the name of the game in that sphere also. The cattle farmers received handsome compensation for their herds and retired to Florida.

It's wise to take people as you find them I always think. I was just making the point that wholesale generalisations aren't helpful.

0 Replies

Point taken Officer goodfielder, and my apologies for any distress I may have caused. Back to the original question though:- Should marijuana be legal. Yes or No?

I rather think,( perhaps Officer goodfielder could help us here) it is legal.

Just a question of keeping it low key and using it with sense.

0 Replies

Yes it should be legal. Got to head off to work now.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

But the question was "should marijuana be legalised?" The question wasn't "is smoking marijuna right or wrong?" Anyway never mind.

Rosborne and I were discussing whether the state has any right to regulate drugs at all: that question certainly must be answered before we get into a policy-focused debate over the merits of specific drug legislation proposals. And once the discussion heads in that direction, I will most likely exit the thread.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
But the question was "should marijuana be legalised?" The question wasn't "is smoking marijuna right or wrong?" Anyway never mind.

Rosborne and I were discussing whether the state has any right to regulate drugs at all: that question certainly must be answered before we get into a policy-focused debate over the merits of specific drug legislation proposals. And once the discussion heads in that direction, I will most likely exit the thread.

I have to apologize ahead of time if I'm slow to respond to things. I started a business recently, and now find that there are barely enough hours in a day to get everything done.

So I'll have to make this quick...

I actually take my view of state involvement in private affairs beyond just drug use. For me, the issue in question has more to do with privacy than it does with drugs. I don't think the state has a right to restrict any private activity (unless it harms others or has a reasonable possibility of harming others), whether it be sexual activity, drug use, eathing habits, TV Viewing habits, or even suicide.

I wish I had more time right now to debate the esoteric little details of this, but I don't, so I think a general understanding of my position will have to suffice as my answer to the original question. Any ambiguity will have to be dealt with in a court of law Smile

0 Replies

Ah joe, far better, why didn't you spell it out in the first place like you were telling a ten year old?

I rather think both drugs, alcohol & narcotics plus sexual deviances are looked upon as being capable of having diverse effects on possible third parties. Consequently the ruling is rather personal if any of the aforementioned habits are kept to an agreeable formation between consenting adults. It's difficult to control that point, unless of course the agreeable partakers can go to the local nick, tell them their intentions and be freely admitted to a secure room to indulge in whatever takes their fancy !

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
But the question was "should marijuana be legalised?" The question wasn't "is smoking marijuna right or wrong?" Anyway never mind.

Rosborne and I were discussing whether the state has any right to regulate drugs at all: that question certainly must be answered before we get into a policy-focused debate over the merits of specific drug legislation proposals. And once the discussion heads in that direction, I will most likely exit the thread.

Fair enough. Well the bad news is that the state has decided it has that right - that authority. For example, Indonesia is trying an Australian woman who has been charged with importing marijuana into Bali. If she's convicted she could face the death penalty. Now I know it's another country and not the US but I thought that might help.

But, should the state have right to regulate drugs at all? Well yes it should have the right. Happy to go with that one.

Back to the original question. Marijuana should be legalised if only on the basis that the prohibition is ignored on a spectacular level. It is widely used despite being prohibited. That demonstrates a general contempt for the law. And if anyone wants to dispute that, go ahead but resist using traffic laws as an example of spectacular passive civil disobedience, reasoning by analogy is always a bit suspect and using that analogy is downright loopy Very Happy

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I actually take my view of state involvement in private affairs beyond just drug use. For me, the issue in question has more to do with privacy than it does with drugs. I don't think the state has a right to restrict any private activity (unless it harms others or has a reasonable possibility of harming others), whether it be sexual activity, drug use, eathing habits, TV Viewing habits, or even suicide.

I will await the day when you will have more time to expand upon your notions of privacy. In particular, I'd be interested in knowing why it makes a difference that an action is private (and thus protected) or public (and thus subject to regulation). In my hypothetical concerning the drunk driver on the deserted highway, his action is public but he does not transgress anyone else's rights. So why should we consider his action to be different from the drunk sitting alone in his own home?

rosborne979 wrote:

I wish I had more time right now to debate the esoteric little details of this, but I don't, so I think a general understanding of my position will have to suffice as my answer to the original question. Any ambiguity will have to be dealt with in a court of law

I wish you luck on your new business. By the way, will you be conducting drug tests on your employees?

0 Replies

Mathos wrote:

Ah joe, far better, why didn't you spell it out in the first place like you were telling a ten year old?

I usually try to pitch my posts to the average twelve-year old. I'm sorry if you can't keep up.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Fair enough. Well the bad news is that the state has decided it has that right - that authority. For example, Indonesia is trying an Australian woman who has been charged with importing marijuana into Bali. If she's convicted she could face the death penalty. Now I know it's another country and not the US but I thought that might help.

Help with what?

goodfielder wrote:

But, should the state have right to regulate drugs at all? Well yes it should have the right. Happy to go with that one.

What is the basis for the state's right to regulate drugs?

goodfielder wrote:

Back to the original question. Marijuana should be legalised if only on the basis that the prohibition is ignored on a spectacular level. It is widely used despite being prohibited. That demonstrates a general contempt for the law.

So what? If the laws are being ignored, then that is just as much a reason to make the laws more stringent as it is to make them less. You'll have to explain why, when laws are being widely ignored, that necessarily means that we should abandon those laws.

goodfielder wrote:

And if anyone wants to dispute that, go ahead but resist using traffic laws as an example of spectacular passive civil disobedience, reasoning by analogy is always a bit suspect and using that analogy is downright loopy

You attempt to reason by analogy in your first paragraph and then claim that "reasoning by analogy is always a bit suspect." Really, goodfielder, that is just too ironic.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Then why regulate drugs at all?

Gee, that's a very good question ....
(In other words: bookmark.)

0 Replies

I believe that marijuana ought to be legalized. M position as a libertarian is that that every individual owns himself, and that this gives him (at least if he's grown up) the natural right to do with his body whatever he wants. From that position, I conclude that the state violates people's natural rights when it forcibly prevents them from drinking booze, or taking Dr.Quack's patent medicine, or auctioning off their kidneys on Ebay. It's about our bodies, and we have a right to do with them whatever we want. If you're a libertarian too, that settles it.

Alas, most people aren't natural-rights libertarians. Hence, for the purpose of making the case to non-libertarians, I usually resort to utilitarianism and empirical evidence. (Not everybody is a utilitarian either, but most people accept it as their second-best system of ethics, so can usually agree on it.) The empirical evidence shows us several things.

1) Prior to World War 1, marijuana, cocaine, and morphine were all well known, and legal in most states of North America and Europe. So there is a historical record of what the social consequences of legal drug use are. They were adverse, but not terribly so. Certainly not worse than the Chicago booze mafia in the 1920s, or the drug dealer gangs we observe today.

2) There is good econometric evidence that the supply of drugs is quite responsive to price, and that demand for drugs is not; the more addictive the drug, the more irresponsive the demand. A heroine addict will do whatever it takes to get his shot, but no more. Therefore, If the price of heroine is high, addicts will prostitute themselves, mug their neighbors, and commit all kinds of other crimes. Conversely, if the price of heroine is low, they can afford to pay for their heroine like they can now pay for cigarettes, continue destroying themselves, but leave others alone.

The econometric evidence also allows us to make confident predictions about the consequences of legalization: it predicts that drug prices will fall a lot; as a result consumption will rise -- but not by much, and most of the growth will be in soft drugs such as marijuana. Because prices are low, drug cartels are no longer in a position to keep private armies, and to bribe and corrupt judges and politicians. And because drug dealers are free to compete, it is no longer profitable to addict people with free samples, then exploit their monopoly position to demand astronomical prices. After legalization, addicts will be able to short-circuit this strategy by simply changing dealers.

Even for the majority of non-libertarians, the above arguments should be convincing enough to legalize drugs in general, and marijuana in particular.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
Fair enough. Well the bad news is that the state has decided it has that right - that authority. For example, Indonesia is trying an Australian woman who has been charged with importing marijuana into Bali. If she's convicted she could face the death penalty. Now I know it's another country and not the US but I thought that might help.

Help with what?

Techy!

Move the debate along of course - it was getting stuck in abstracts.

goodfielder wrote:

But, should the state have right to regulate drugs at all? Well yes it should have the right. Happy to go with that one.

Quote:

What is the basis for the state's right to regulate drugs?

Refer Leviathan. Okay just kidding. "Because it can" probably won't satisfy you.

And now we'll go chasing rabbits down holes as to whether or not the state has the moral right (we know it has the legal right) to prohibit anything and then we'll get tangled up in normative arguments etc etc. Scuse me if I fall asleep at that point. I mean how many Angels will actually fit on the head of a pin?

The state has the moral right to regulate drugs on the basis of personal safety. For example - now this is an example not an analogy - in my jurisdiction the legislation that prohibits the possession, use and sale of certain substances (included in them is cannabis/marijuana) is also the same legislation that regulates the production and distribution of other substances. The neat thing is that the legislation is called the Controlled Substances Act. Its basic premise is that the state can identify (by proclamation) that certain substances are to be "controlled". So none of us can possess or otherwise deal with such substances as diacetylmorphine (heroin) or cannabis sativa (marijuana).

But some of us can, in certain circumstances, deal with these substances quite legally. That's the beauty of this legislation. We import tonnes of opium (a controlled substance) because we have here a pharmaceutical manufacturer that uses opium as the raw product to produce drugs which are used in cancer therapy (basically painkillers).

Now the state hasn't said that it will prohibit anyone and everyone from dealing with opiates, but it has said that it reserves the right to licence some. It has laid out a strict regulation and inspection regime.

The philosophical position I suppose is utilitarian. To minimise harm and to maximise wellbeing. And funnily enough that's the whole idea that runs through the legislation. So on the "legal" side they allow that the opiates can be imported, processed and distributed and administered and used for medicinal purposes.

Yet they expressly prohibit the same thing for some others. On what basis?

The basis is that you can't use opiates for recreation?

Why not? I suppose it's because misuse can lead to physical harm or death.

So what? Shouldn't anyone, as the old saying has it, be allowed to decide their own path to Hell? Well yes but we live in a society where each one of us is influenced by and influences the rest. Whatever we do affects others. We're not hermits living in a desert. If that was so then I suppose you could do whatever you liked. But since you are happy to live in an organised society and accept the benefits then you have to accept that you have obligations and one of those obligations is to adhere to the democratically produced laws of the society. Yes, the good old social contract with a bit of Leviathan thrown in for good measure.

But what if any of us don't accept that? Bad luck. Modern states - and I mean nations - tend to have adopted a territorial imperative. If you live in their landmass they assume sovereignty over you - democratically of course. So like it or not Leviathan will out . Anyway in a democracy the moral right of the state is derived from the consent of the governed.

goodfielder wrote:

Back to the original question. Marijuana should be legalised if only on the basis that the prohibition is ignored on a spectacular level. It is widely used despite being prohibited. That demonstrates a general contempt for the law.

Quote:

So what? If the laws are being ignored, then that is just as much a reason to make the laws more stringent as it is to make them less. You'll have to explain why, when laws are being widely ignored, that necessarily means that we should abandon those laws.

Disueteude. Any law exists as long as it's observed - not enforced. When a law falls into contempt it's time for it to get the boot.

goodfielder wrote:

And if anyone wants to dispute that, go ahead but resist using traffic laws as an example of spectacular passive civil disobedience, reasoning by analogy is always a bit suspect and using that analogy is downright loopy

Quote:

You attempt to reason by analogy in your first paragraph and then claim that "reasoning by analogy is always a bit suspect." Really, goodfielder, that is just too ironic.

Not at all, because that wasn't an analogy, it was a statement of actuality -an example.

Now let me get back to basics. The question was "should marijuana be legalised?"

You have the right of course to spin the debate in any way you like but don't be offended if someone comes along and asks why a practical question, a question that might be appreciated by people who one day may have to consider the question in a referendum, is being discussed at such an abstract level.

If you want to debate the moral right or absence of moral right of the state to pass laws prohibiting anything then fine, go ahead, I'll be interested to join in because it's fun. But don't get snippy if someone reminds you of the purpose of the thread in the first place.

0 Replies

should marijuana be legalized??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know