should marijuana be legalized??

I can't understand the argument made by most drug legalization advocates that, because illegal narcotics are no worse than tobacco and alcohol, we should legalize them. Does anyone argue that illegal narcotics are inherently good? If not, why should we want to legalize narcotics that pose as many problems as alcohol and tobacco? Just to maintain some sort of consistency? Why is that important?

I have very little patience for arguments that emphasize the common negatives of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal narcotics. Just because we tolerate something that's bad it doesn't follow that we have to tolerate something else that's equally bad. So can someone tell me what are the potential positives of illegal narcotics? Not the societal "positives" of cutting down crime associated with the illegal narcotics trade (that's a bogus argument, as I've explained earlier in this thread), but the positives associated with the consumption of those narcotics themselves.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
That's not how I understand the concept of the "**** state." But then that may simply be a definitional misunderstanding.

We probably do. Here is Wikipedia's definition of a **** state:

Wikipedia.org wrote:
The night watchman state or the minimal state is the state with the least possible amount of powers...

I want to reassure everyone who goes back through this thread that Thomas and I were not describing the state in obscene terms (although we both may have wanted to, for different reasons). But I can't understand it: why did the filter catch "night_watchman?" Is there some obscenity that can be formed out of that word? Is it an anagram? Anyone with more imagination want to help me out here?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I can't understand the argument made by most drug legalization advocates that, because illegal narcotics are no worse than tobacco and alcohol, we should legalize them. Does anyone argue that illegal narcotics are inherently good? If not, why should we want to legalize narcotics that pose as many problems as alcohol and tobacco? Just to maintain some sort of consistency? Why is that important?

I have very little patience for arguments that emphasize the common negatives of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal narcotics. Just because we tolerate something that's bad it doesn't follow that we have to tolerate something else that's equally bad. So can someone tell me what are the potential positives of illegal narcotics? Not the societal "positives" of cutting down crime associated with the illegal narcotics trade (that's a bogus argument, as I've explained earlier in this thread), but the positives associated with the consumption of those narcotics themselves.

Then you admit that there are no standards for criminalization? If the legisliars would just admit that the designations of "criminal" and "restricted" are arbitary and that historically the prohibited drugs are that way solely because of the people who used them I'd be OK with that. Nobody else would!

But if you type in the words "drug abuse education" or "drug addiction problems" in Google you will go to sites that try to tell people that all the problems with drug abuse and drug addiction have to do with use of specific banned drugs. The use of certain drugs can cause addiction and abuse. So when you see people responsibly using alcohol, heroin, cocaine, or marijuana you attribute that phenomena to "being lucky". Trouble is that well over two thirds of users are "lucky".

As I state in my book "drug war advocates represent the atypical as typical" while "pharmaceutical ads represent the typical as atypical". When the ad states "rare but serious side effect" the only reason that this side effect is rare is because the drug has only been on the market a short while. The more chronic the use of any drug is, the less benefit and more problems one encounters. If you mislead people into believing that this problem only applies to alcohol and other stigmatized drugs you are lying. If you use tax dollars to say this it is theft.

The bottom line is that drug war advocates have to have an exceptionally high tolerance for deceit in order to continue their support. While you may contend that it is a "matter of opinion" remember this fact: there is NOBODY in law enforcement nor any elected or appointed public official who will stand up to defend this absurd policy in a public forum. What are they afraid of? See John 3:20 for why this is so.

0 Replies

Anybody else want to try and actually answer my question?

0 Replies

Only if it is used for a hookah Laughing

.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Waterpipe.jpeg/250px-Waterpipe.jpeg

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I can't understand the argument made by most drug legalization advocates that, because illegal narcotics are no worse than tobacco and alcohol, we should legalize them. Does anyone argue that illegal narcotics are inherently good? If not, why should we want to legalize narcotics that pose as many problems as alcohol and tobacco? Just to maintain some sort of consistency? Why is that important?

I have very little patience for arguments that emphasize the common negatives of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal narcotics. Just because we tolerate something that's bad it doesn't follow that we have to tolerate something else that's equally bad. So can someone tell me what are the potential positives of illegal narcotics? Not the societal "positives" of cutting down crime associated with the illegal narcotics trade (that's a bogus argument, as I've explained earlier in this thread), but the positives associated with the consumption of those narcotics themselves.

This is somewhat of a hypocritical line of reasoning. If drugs are illegal 'for our own good' (hence the comparison of other things that can be harmful, yet are still legal - alcohol, smokes, etc) that leads down a slippery slope until /everything/ that is potentially harmful (knifes, cars, stairs, etc) should be illegal. It's complete bullshit.
Nothing that does not infringe apon the socially and politically given rights of a citizen should be illegal in my not humble at all opinion.

0 Replies

I hear that!

Puff, puff Cool

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

So can someone tell me what are the potential positives of illegal narcotics? Not the societal "positives" of cutting down crime associated with the illegal narcotics trade (that's a bogus argument, as I've explained earlier in this thread), but the positives associated with the consumption of those narcotics themselves.

They make you feel really good. Geez, that was easy.

0 Replies

People enjoy them, and sometimes, just sometimes it gives people an escape in a world that is nothing but closed doors and bills and notices and deadlines and....

Point is, what the hell is so bad about marijuana that should make it outlawed?

Makes people feel good.
Opens up the creative mind in A LOT of cases.
Doesn't hurt others when enjoyed just relatively responsibly. It's hard to really injure somebody just by getting high.

0 Replies

yes it should, have I chimed in on this question previously> I can't remember.......

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Does anyone argue that illegal narcotics are inherently good? If not, why should we want to legalize narcotics that pose as many problems as alcohol and tobacco? Just to maintain some sort of consistency? Why is that important?

It isn't -- preserving liberty is important. And in a free society, as a general rule, all actions ought to be presumed legal until somebody demonstrates a compelling need to criminalize them.

Is there a compelling need to criminalize Marijuana consumption? Americans lack recent domestic experience with legal Marijuana consumption. But they know from experience that there is no compelling need to criminalize alcohol and cigarettes. We know from medical studies that Marijuana is no worse than those. Hence, we have good reason to believe that there is no compelling need for Marijuana to be criminal either, which it currently is. The version of the argument you opposed can be interpreted as a shorthand of the longer version I just sketched out.

Another reason why people may want to make the argument you attack is to counter an assertion that's popular among the opponents of legalization: that to legalize Marijuana is to surrender to the mobsters who currently sell it. Here, the analogy with alcohol suggests that it ain't necessarily so: It suggests that more probably, after the end of Marijuana prohibiton, the mobsters would soon exit the Marijuana business -- just as they left the alcohol business after the 21st Amendment ended alcohol prohibition.

0 Replies

The problem with legalizing drugs is wehre do you stop? If you legalize soft drugs, as most of you seem to be in favor for, should punishment for hard drugs users also be lessened? Should they be punished at all? They just seek a more extreme way of pleasure as compared to those who use legal substances to that same effect.
The problem with drugs lies in their addictiveness. I know this is a biased view, coming from a mind indoctrinated by school campagins against drugs and also a mind that cannot talk from experience.
But I remember seeing the 2000 movie Requiem for a Dream. And I feel sorry for anybody who suffers the same effects as the actors in those movies had. Should adults be protected against themselves?
Why not?

0 Replies

najmelliw wrote:

The problem with legalizing drugs is wehre do you stop?

On the other hand, the problem with criminalizing drugs is: where do you stop? If legalization has a slippery-slope-problem, so does criminalization. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. (Both of which, I'm sure, Congress will soon criminalize under pressure from some rabid anti-cholesterol-lobby).

As a general matter, I think you should stop where the danger to liberty from enforcing drug laws outweighs the benefits to public health from those laws. Personally, I place a high value on liberty, and I find that politicians greatly exaggerate the purported health benefits from the DEA's existence. Consequently, I'm perfectly fine with not stopping anywhere at all. At the same time, I realize that practical politics happens in incremental steps. Hence, I think the best way to go pragmatically is to legalize Marijuana first, see what happens, and legalize the harder stuff if and when people realize the sky is not falling. That's my direct answer to your question.

najmelliw wrote:

If you legalize soft drugs, as most of you seem to be in favor for, should punishment for hard drugs users also be lessened? Should they be punished at all?

As I said, I'm fine with not punishing them at all. Whatever problem I do have comes from practical politics, not from first principles.

najmelliw wrote:

Should adults be protected against themselves?
Why not?

You conveniently state your first question in the passive voice. Who does the protecting? And even if you can't trust the adults being protected, what makes you think the protectors, adult or not, are any more trustworthy?

0 Replies

Blah blah blah.....weed is no more dangerous than cigarettes. So why aren't cigarettes illegal?

Or alcohol?

I see a far worse problem with those two than I do with weed.

As for "hard drugs". Make them legal and tax the sh!t out them like we do cigarettes...decrease our deficit. People will use them despite them being legal or illegal so....why not make some money?

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

Blah blah blah.....weed is no more dangerous than cigarettes. So why aren't cigarettes illegal?

Some of us have tried to answer this question within the last page. You might try reading the answers before jumping into a thread and dismissing them as "blah blah blah".

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:
Blah blah blah.....weed is no more dangerous than cigarettes. So why aren't cigarettes illegal?

Some of us have tried to answer this question within the last page. You might try reading the answers before jumping into a thread and dismissing them as "blah blah blah".

I wasn't dismissing anyone in particular. Just the whole argument in general. We will discuss this til we're all blue in the face and nothing will change.

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Bella Dea wrote:
Blah blah blah.....weed is no more dangerous than cigarettes. So why aren't cigarettes illegal?

Some of us have tried to answer this question within the last page. You might try reading the answers before jumping into a thread and dismissing them as "blah blah blah".

I wasn't dismissing anyone in particular. Just the whole argument in general.

I have no problem with your dismissing the argument. Only with your showing no evidence of having read what people actually wrote.

0 Replies

What's been written in the last 3 pages that hasn't already been written in the first 13?

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

What's been written in the last 3 pages that hasn't already been written in the first 13?

I don't know, and I see no reason to look it up. I don't report to you. If you don't like this discussion, you are very welcome to remove yourself from it. If you find it lacking in content, you are just as welcome to contribute some. Until that happens, however, this will be my last response to you. After all, we both agree we are wasting each other's time.

0 Replies

BD wrote-

Quote:

We will discuss this til we're all blue in the face and nothing will change.

We discussed it and it has changed. Marijuana is effectively legal in most,if not all, of Europe provided quantities are small enough to be obviously for own use.

The "addiction to oil" not only kills and injures more people than all the drugs put together but also the victims are often passers-by.

It's all about puritans hating seeing people have a good time and getting their picture in the paper.

0 Replies

should marijuana be legalized??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know