# Drugs:  Legalise or Prohibit?



## Sukerkin (Dec 17, 2010)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...orth-is-right-the-war-has-failed-2162491.html

This article in the Independant is one of several doing the rounds today after a former minister responsible for the 'war on drugs' made his feelings known.

I have to say that I am in agreement with the major thrust of the article. It is a position I have held pretty much since my teenage years and I have never seen any evidence to convince me that the present approach does any good at all.

Given that the (no doubt exaggerated) international perception is that America is afloat on a tide of illegal narcotics, what do our trans-Atlantic cousins think on this issue?


----------



## elder999 (Dec 17, 2010)

Legalization is inevitable-and inevitably profitable, from both a monetary and public health standpoint. Whether it's a "solution" or merely trading one set of problems for a smaller set of others is debatable.

As an aside, the Netherlands just got underway abolishing drug tourism. Only citizens will be allowed into the hash cafes, after they're issued special licenses.


----------



## Steve (Dec 17, 2010)

I think that if they're legal they should be regulated.  Some should remain illegal, such as meth.  Others, like mary jane, should be legalized and controlled much as we currently control alcohol.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 17, 2010)

Worked great for Portugal.  The economic growth in Colorado since Medical Marijuana has become acceptable is another great argument.


----------



## cdunn (Dec 17, 2010)

Most of the current prohibited crop should remain prohibited. However, a series of designed and reasonably safe competitors should be introduced to the market: we would be better off opening up LSD and Adderall than we would meth and crack.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 17, 2010)

Prohibition of anything where there is a demand for it does not work, and it creates a criminal class where none existed previously.  It also (as your linked article states) creates and feeds a criminal network, with the attendant violence (beheading in Mexico) and untaxed revenue that can also be used against the state which funds it (drug money going to fund terrorist organizations).

I will compare two popular activities here.  Recreational drug use and illegal immigration.  They are actually quite comparable on many levels, even though I draw different conclusions with regard to my own opinions on the respective issues.

With regard to illegal immigration, it is clear that prohibition does not work.  It is also clear that it is in demand, since illegal immigrant workers find work quickly once in the USA.

There is a criminal network that supports illegal immigration, and it brings with it both violence and avoidance of government revenue through taxation.

One can argue that ending prohibition of migrant workers (essentially the situation we have, since legal immigration is extremely numbers-limited and by lottery for unskilled workers) would end the criminal organizations that support illegal immigration.

With regard to recreational drug use, it is also clear that prohibition does not work.  It is likewise clear that such drugs are in demand, since they are quickly distributed and sold on the streets of America.

There is, as with illegal immigrants, a criminal network that supports drug importation and distribution.  Likewise, it brings with it both violence and avoidance of government revenue through taxation.

Given that these two situation are quite similar, one might argue that both should be dealt with in a similar fashion.  Logic would dictate that all things being equal, legalization in both cases would yield positive results.

And yet, I do not feel this way.  I feel that prohibitions on immigration should be ended, and prohibitions on drugs should be continued.

There are many reasons I feel this way, some of the deeply personal (and some of you know to what I refer).  However, I can summarize without getting too icky.

The first priority of any organized form of society is that it be able to survive.  No society can condone activity inimical to its own survival and expect to survive.

So the question is not JUST whether or not legalizing illicit drugs and illegal immigration is the cost-effective and expedient thing to do, but ALSO whether or not such legalization would be ultimately destructive to society as a whole.

Many things which are legal are also destructive to society.  Many things which are illegal are not that destructive overall.  So I accept that there are no clear bright lines drawn, and that in many cases, there are both positive and negative effects on society for a given behavior or activity.

However, on balance, I do not see allowing the massive numbers of illegal workers who are already in the USA to remain on a legal basis as destructive of society.  Detrimental, perhaps, but no more so than they are already.  Drugs, on the other hand, I do see as quite destructive to society, and liable to increase that damage as they become legal and available.  The increasing popularity of 'medical' marijuana in states such as California and Colorado, with the attendant popular wink-wink of declaring a medical 'problem' requiring the use of marijuana to alleviate pain, is proof enough of that to me.  Illicit drug users do not care about anyone but themselves; their actions make that clear.

This is a deeply personal issue, and I'm not going to spend the next few days or weeks getting sucked into this thread to defend why I think recreational drug use is incredibly destructive to society; it is my opinion and although I strive to remain open-minded on most issues, on this particular issue I do not feel I will ever change my mind.  I have a dim view of recreational drug use and not much respect for recreational drug users.  For drug dealers, I would only wish we had a death penalty.  

I feel that people who continue to buy illegal drugs for recreational use in the USA are knowingly supporting the criminal organizations that fund terrorism and crime cartels that pose significant risks to all Americans; and when they buy their pot in a baggie, they're essentially buying bullets for Al-Queda.  Since they are willing to overlook that in order to get their high, I am willing to say that should be removed from society as a threat to us all.  If they cannot control themselves to extend of forgoing their hobby in exchange for, say, fewer beheadings in Mexican border towns, then they're a danger to us all.  Life behind bars would be fine with me.  Yes, those organizations would vanish to a large extend if drugs were legal; but they are not.  So continuing to buy from dealers is funding the criminals directly and indirectly funding terrorism.  I can't comprehend how anyone considering themselves a good person can do that with a clear conscience except through denial.

Of course this means that I also support the status quo to some extent - continued prohibition of recreational drugs means continued criminal organizations to support the demand for illicit drugs.  I accept that.  However, although there is no solution to this problem that will work 100%, I feel that stronger enforcement against drug users and low-level dealers is a good start.  Life in prison, capital punishment, and the like.  Lock 'em up and execute the dealers.  Won't cure the problem, but it will make it harder for the drug cartels to continue to operate as openly as they currently do.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 17, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I think that if they're legal they should be regulated. Some should remain illegal, such as meth. Others, like mary jane, should be legalized and controlled much as we currently control alcohol.


Meth has really been an issue since its criminalization.
sean


----------



## Nomad (Dec 17, 2010)

To me, it's more an issue of freedom.  The freedom, as adults, to decide what to put into our own bodies (whether that's alcohol, marijuana, or high fructose corn syrup) is one of the most basic freedoms available... and yet, it's one we don't have.  The government has decided in it's infinite wisdom that it's ok for an adult to drink a bottle of Jack Daniel's, but not to smoke a joint.

From a public safety standpoint, this distinction doesn't hold water; many studies have shown the relative rates of direct (alcohol poisoning, cirrhosis, etc)  and indirect deaths (drunk driving, alcohol promoted violence and so on) caused by alcohol to be far far higher than those even suspected of being caused by marijuana use.  

The real danger around illicit drugs tends to come from the fact that they're illicit, and thus controlled by cartels who have violent clashes with each other and the police, in which innocent bystanders are frequently harmed (especially south of the border).

I prefer Portugal's view of drugs as a public health concern rather than a legal one.  Financial reasons aside, I just don't think that there's much "moral" ground to stand on behind the current drug laws.  I also believe that much of the fascination with marijuana and other drugs comes from their illicit nature; teenagers especially are more likely to try something if they know that it's against the rules.  Backing this up, studies have shown that drug use in Portugal and the Netherlands has actually gone down following legalization.  It just becomes less of a big deal. 

If you don't like them, don't indulge.  The same way that teetotalers and nonsmokers have not indulged in their respective vices for a very long time.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2011)

I know this thread is a few weeks old but I feel I needed to reply.  I currenty work as an  Narcotics Detective in the Baltimore/ Washington DC metro area.  I deal with this issue everyday.  I work all aspects of drug cases from interviewing addicted crack mothers, to multi-kilo cocaine suppliers.  Ive bought everything from $10.00 worth of Marijuana up to multi-kilos of Cocaine and Heroin.  Im by no means an expert on the subject but I have a very clear working knowledge of the topic.

Making narcotics legal will do nothing to reduce crime it will only change they types of crimes being commited.  Drugs are illegal here but they are not hard to get.  Any day, any time 365 days a year 24 hrs a day I can go into areas as big a Washington DC to rural farmlands near the PA border and I can buy anything I want.  So that fact that they are illegal does nothing to hurt the supply its here and despite my and 1000's of other officers al over the worlds best effort that wont change.  Crack heads will still want crack and Heroin addicts will still need it every day to keep from getting sick.

So we decide to make it legal ok.  So what happend next?  1st that .1gram of crack cocaine I pay 10 bucks to the local dealer is now going to cost $15 from the Govt run clinic once they tax it.  So now Mr. Crack head has to go break into 2 houses to get enough money to get his fix instead of one.
Mr local street hustler drug dealers is now not making his $1500 a day crack sales so now hes got to go start robbing people to make money.  Mexican drug cartels are now out Billions of dollars a month they have to find someway of making money so what do they turn to?
Where do we start gettig all the drugs that are now legal?  Do we have Govt run drug makers to process and manufacture Cocaine and other drugs now?  OK where do they get the raw materials from?  The same terriorst groups they are selling to the dealers will now cut out the middle men jack up the price and sell directly to the Fed Govt.  

How do you teach your children not to use drugs when the Govt says its ok?  Look how many teens drink and smoke now its way higher then the # that use illegal drugs.

I always hear the argument well people are going to do it anyway and you cant stop it so just make it legal.  Well the same can be said about Rape, child molestation, murder.  Its always going to happen so why try to stop it?

You want to put a dent in the drugs here you need to cut off the supply.  You need to seal off the borders, Ive interviewed a 27 year old Mexican man that drove a pick up truck from Mexico to Washington DC loaded with 247 kilos of pure uncut Cocaine.  It was just loaded in boxes in the bed of the truck and had a bed cover over the back.  He was never stopped at the border and drove from Texas to Washington with out ever being stopped.  We only found out thru an informant he was coming and was able to stop him.  He told us he has made that trip every 2 months for the last 3 years and was never stopped.

You want to treat it as a health issue not a legal one sure.  What about the users that dont want help dont want to stop smoking crack cocaine. What do you do with them?

Oh but what about all the great tax money we will make right?  Thats not even going to be enough to cover the medical cost of all the new addicts.  Ive talked to people that used a drug once and were hooked and couldnt stop.  now make it legal and every 18 year old on their birthday is going to "Try it once" because they are now old enough.  So then what ok we make the tax even higher well now all you have dome is created a black market where the same old dealers make the same old connections to sell lower priced untaxed drugs that are now legal so there is nothing you can do to them other then what tax fraud?  Weve now come full circle have the same dealers making money and no way to punish them.

Ohh ok well lets just do marijuana and not the other stuff.  Sure the same will apply as above you will tax it until its to expensive and people will import it from other places tax free.  It happens here now with tobacco.  Theres a hugh problem in places like NewYork where a pack of cigarettes can cost 3 tmes as much as they do in South Carolina so smugglers drive to SC buy hugh amounts of them and drive them to new your and sell them for half price illegally.  

Until we face reality and Close off the supply theres nothng we can do but try to make a dent in the problem and clean up one corner at a time and hope it stays clean for a little while but I know as soon as I move on to the next corner that last one is right back at it.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Ballen 0351, Thanks for the work you do.  I have to say I haven't heard anyone bring up your points before.  They are points that are not readily obvious and it is good to hear from someone with practical experience at the human level of this problem.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 2, 2011)

The idea of legalizing the so called, "Recreational drugs" troubles me for a few reasons. 
First, there is a difference between a cocktail on Friday night with the boys and an injection of heroin.
Second, the argument that legalizing these drugs would allow the government to tax them. Um, the government squanders BILLIONS of tax dollars now, why should we give them another source?
Third, and not close to finally, if we woke up Monday and all drugs were legal, and taxed, would the anti-smoking zealots be after pot heads, would MADD and their ilk be protesting against cocaine, heroin and marijuana?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 2, 2011)

I saw an excellent interview on some TV show last night dealing with the issue of pot legalization.  A fellow noted that the 'damage' pot does was compared to the danger alcohol does, with the argument that since we allow alcohol, we ought also to allow pot.  The fellow noted that you know what?  We don't do all that well with alcohol - we have a huge problem with it nationwide.  In fact, we humans don't behave very well with intoxicants in general; we're virtually too immature to deal with mind-altering substances at any age.  His reply to the pot-lover's argument is that adding MORE problems to the list of things that are legal and we do poorly with is not really a logical argument.  I had to agree.  Yes, alcohol is legal.  We have a lot of people who have a lot of problems with it; it causes huge problems in our society, costs us innocent lives and huge money, and we want to increase that problem by legalizing pot too?  I don't think so.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

I once was on the other side of the argument.  I believed it's your body do what you want it's not hurting anyone but yourself.  That's what alot of people who have no knowledge on the topic think. Oh it's a victimless crime.  

Tell that to the mother and father whos 20 yr old daughter steals from them to get her fix and they stay up all night and pray she is ok and that they won't get a knock on the door from me telling them I need you to come identify the body. The newborn baby born hooked on crack cocaine.  The 7 yr old hit by stray gunfire between 2 dealers fighting over a corner.  The wife of the drug smuggler who is kidnapped, raped and her head cut of by the mexican drug lords whos shipment was missing some product.  The young stupid girl that tries a hit of meth to impress the boy she likes thens she hooked. Tell that to the little boy whos house I raid on a weekly basis that's sound asleep in his bed and has 2 big ugly police men with guns and masks wake him up to search his room because his dad hides his crack in the kids closet.  Tell that to the wife of a fallen officer who was killed cause some kid didn't want to go to jail over a bag of weed.   Tell me it's a victimless crime and they are not hurting anyone but themselves.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Some friends of mine went through the problems of their son being addicted to drugs.  He stole form them and eventually died from the abuse.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 2, 2011)

A most thought-provoking post above, *ballen*.  

The point you made about those taking "try it once just to see what it's like" route I had not really considered before.  The 'instant addiction' problem is definitely something to be weighed in the balance to be sure :nods:.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 2, 2011)

i'm not sure about an outright ban, most drugs have a medicinal use as well.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 2, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> i'm not sure about an outright ban, most drugs have a medicinal use as well.



I have no problem with medical uses; the problem is that most 'medical use' marijuana is pure 'wink-wink' backdoor recreational use.  Read some of the old threads here - even some MT members frankly admit either using 'medical' marijuana for recreational use or thinking it's just fine to do so.

In California, it's clearly a simple backdoor legalization scheme.  You can get a 'prescription' from a doctor for medial marijuana for 'chronic pain'.  Any kind of pain.  You name it. Let us not pretend this is 'medical'.

That's not to say that there are not people who honestly derive a medical benefit from marijuana; but the provisions of the law are being abused for recreational use.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have no problem with medical uses; the problem is that most 'medical use' marijuana is pure 'wink-wink' backdoor recreational use.  Read some of the old threads here - even some MT members frankly admit either using 'medical' marijuana for recreational use or thinking it's just fine to do so.
> 
> In California, it's clearly a simple backdoor legalization scheme.  You can get a 'prescription' from a doctor for medial marijuana for 'chronic pain'.  Any kind of pain.  You name it. Let us not pretend this is 'medical'.
> 
> That's not to say that there are not people who honestly derive a medical benefit from marijuana; but the provisions of the law are being abused for recreational use.



when medical marijuana first passed in cali a news show sent 10 people to a doc to get a prescription.  Each one they sent got less and less serious.  One woman said he eet hurt when she wears 4 inch heels. 9 of the 10 got a prescription and the only one that didn't was because he was 16.  All the rest no matter what "medical" problem they had they got the prescription


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> when medical marijuana first passed in cali a news show sent 10 people to a doc to get a prescription.  Each one they sent got less and less serious.  One woman said he eet hurt when she wears 4 inch heels. 9 of the 10 got a prescription and the only one that didn't was because he was 16.  All the rest no matter what "medical" problem they had they got the prescription



I read your previous posts and agree with your stance.  FWIW, I am former LE, and I am anti-legalization.  Everything you described as the human cost of drugs has happened to my family due to one of my family members' addictions to various drugs, including marijuana.  The cost is high and extends down the generations.  It destroys families and damages society.

I have a libertarian base - my first instinct is to not regulate if it is a matter of individual choice.  However, we also live in a society that is ravaged by drugs and it destroying us.  I do not subscribe to the notion that if we simply legalize it, we'll all be OK; all the bad stuff will magically disappear and our society will be just peachy keen.

If one buys marijuana on the street today, one is supporting the criminals who import and distribute it.  The guys shooting police officers and beheading innocent people in Mexico and other nations.  There is no way to shift that moral responsibility; if the pot came from non-domestic sources, the end-user is indirectly responsible for murder in a very traceable and clear-cut way.  This makes pot-smokers angry, but it's the truth.

I would have some respect for people who wanted marijuana to be legal for whatever purpose, but who refused to use it until it became legal to do so.  However, pot smokers are the main proponents, and though their arguments are correct - that legalization would eliminate the illicit drug trade to a large extent - while they currently smoke non-domestic pot, they are criminals in my mind, responsible for murders and terrorism, and I'm frankly not all that interested in their opinions.  They are actually prime examples of how people cannot control themselves - if they want drugs, they'll get drugs, regardless of the laws; and if people get killed to bring those drugs to them, they'll shift the blame and pretend they themselves are not responsible for it.

The supply will never end; only the ending of the demand can change this.  The demand can be change by legalization - which I do not support - or by drug users not using the drugs - which addicts will never stop doing, though they claim their drug is not addicting and they are not addicted.  Really?  Then quit smoking dope until it's legal.  No, they can't do that.   Q.E.D.


----------



## Steve (Jan 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would have some respect for people who wanted marijuana to be legal for whatever purpose, but who refused to use it until it became legal to do so.


That is the only reason I don't smoke weed now, and haven't for over 20 years. But I'd happily buy a pack of Marleyboros if it's ever legalized.

Ultimately, the reasons pot is illegal are financial and political and have nothing to do with any sane arguments to the contrary. People don't get angry on weed. They don't get into fights. It's not addictive. It's not a gateway drug. It's not any more unhealthy for us than things we do every day. In many ways, it's much, much safer than alcohol.

Should it be regulated? Sure. Should it be legal for minors? Absolutely not. Should people be able to drive under the influence? Of course not.

The topic of weed has come up several times before.  

Starts here:  http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73168

Continues here:  http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78867


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have no problem with medical uses; the problem is that most 'medical use' marijuana is pure 'wink-wink' backdoor recreational use.  Read some of the old threads here - even some MT members frankly admit either using 'medical' marijuana for recreational use or thinking it's just fine to do so.
> 
> In California, it's clearly a simple backdoor legalization scheme.  You can get a 'prescription' from a doctor for medial marijuana for 'chronic pain'.  Any kind of pain.  You name it. Let us not pretend this is 'medical'.
> 
> That's not to say that there are not people who honestly derive a medical benefit from marijuana; but the provisions of the law are being abused for recreational use.



i think marijuana should be like steroids. illegalbut you are permittexd to have it with approval from the doctor. I once had to have medicinal cream that had steroids in it to treat a side effect from a bad allergy I had.  (my family used to tease me about me developing muscles like Arnold. LOL.) I have heard of people getting medical benefits from marijuana so it should be regulated like that.

Shouldnt be able to go out and score some drug off the street tho


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> That is the only reason I don't smoke weed now, and haven't for over 20 years. But I'd happily buy a pack of Marleyboros if it's ever legalized.
> 
> Ultimately, the reasons pot is illegal are financial and political and have nothing to do with any sane arguments to the contrary. People don't get angry on weed. They don't get into fights. It's not addictive. It's not a gateway drug. It's not any more unhealthy for us than things we do every day. In many ways, it's much, much safer than alcohol.
> 
> Should it be regulated? Sure. Should it be legal for minors? Absolutely not. Should people be able to drive under the influence? Of course not.


 
 Thats a 100% untrue statement.  I have been in many many fights with people high on weed. I have seen fatal accidents where the driver was only high on weed.  I have seen people kill each other over a $20 sack of Marijuana.  Every Hard core drug user I have ever met and I meet them daily started their drug use with Marijuana and moved on from there.  That does not mean every pot smoker move will on to other drugs.  Ive been to domestics where husbands high on Marijuana beat the crap out of their wives and kids.


----------



## Steve (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Thats a 100% untrue statement. I have been in many many fights with people high on weed. I have seen fatal accidents where the driver was only high on weed. I have seen people kill each other over a $20 sack of Marijuana. Every Hard core drug user I have ever met and I meet them daily started their drug use with Marijuana and moved on from there. That does not mean every pot smoker move will on to other drugs. Ive been to domestics where husbands high on Marijuana beat the crap out of their wives and kids.


While every hardcore drug user you've met may have started with weed, millions of people who smoke or have smoked weed regularly did not move on to hardcore drug use.  It's just simply not a gateway drug any more than World of Warcraft is a gateway drug.  Every hardcore drug addict you've ever met has had some alcohol, too.  Is alcohol a gateway drug?  Of course not.  Why?  Because it's legal. 

Look, the topic has been done to death.  Ultimately, any arguments about continuing the prohibition on weed are emotional in nature, and are not reasonable.  You're entitled to your opinions, but I've never seen any rational argument for the continued prohibition on weed.  It's just not there.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> While every hardcore drug user you've met may have started with weed, millions of people who smoke or have smoked weed regularly did not move on to hardcore drug use. It's just simply not a gateway drug any more than World of Warcraft is a gateway drug. Every hardcore drug addict you've ever met has had some alcohol, too. Is alcohol a gateway drug? Of course not. Why? Because it's legal.
> 
> Look, the topic has been done to death. Ultimately, any arguments about continuing the prohibition on weed are emotional in nature, and are not reasonable. You're entitled to your opinions, but I've never seen any rational argument for the continued prohibition on weed. It's just not there.


Have you ever looked at the effects of long term Marijuana use on the brain?  Have you done any research on the symptoms of Marijuana addiction?  I mean real research not what the pro-pot lobby tell you.

You can believe the pro-marijuana talking points all you want. "hey man weed makes you happy, You dont get mad you dont get into fights man you just chill dude"  "its so not addicting Ive smoked dope for 25 years I can quit anytime wait what were we talking about" Its your right.

Sadly this country will someday make marijuana legal and we as a society will continue to fall behind.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Steve why stop at weed? Cocaine comes from a plant just like weed does lets make that legal too.  Heroin also comes from a plant lets all pass the needles around.

Where do we draw the line?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 2, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Ultimately, the reasons pot is illegal are financial and political and have nothing to do with any sane arguments to the contrary.



Everything is financial and political.  Doesn't change anything with regard to what pot and other illicit drug use does to families and societies.



> People don't get angry on weed. They don't get into fights. It's not addictive. It's not a gateway drug. It's not any more unhealthy for us than things we do every day. In many ways, it's much, much safer than alcohol.



I disagree.



> Should it be regulated? Sure. Should it be legal for minors? Absolutely not. Should people be able to drive under the influence? Of course not.



I agree.



> The topic of weed has come up several times before.
> 
> Starts here:  http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73168
> 
> Continues here:  http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78867



Yep.  My views haven't changed, I'm just trying to be a bit kinder and gentler.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 2, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> You're entitled to your opinions, but I've never seen any rational argument for the continued prohibition on weed.  It's just not there.



A very simple one is that most people do not want it to be legal.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144086/New-High-Americans-Support-Legalizing-Marijuana.aspx







While the trend is towards public approval, it is not a majority opinion at the moment, and historically, it has not been - in many years, by huge percentages.

I will still not be in favor of legalization if the balance tips and more people favor legalization than not, but you stated there is no rational argument for continued prohibition on pot, and this is one; the public does not want it to be legal.  That's a very good and rational reason.  One of many, but that's an excellent one.


----------



## granfire (Jan 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A very simple one is that most people do not want it to be legal.
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/144086/New-High-Americans-Support-Legalizing-Marijuana.aspx
> 
> ...



but by the graph you posted that argument is losing credibility.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 2, 2011)

granfire said:


> but by the graph you posted that argument is losing credibility.



No, by the graph I posted, the public opinion is changing, which I clearly acknowledged.  However, Steve said there was no rational argument against the legalization of marijuana, and I pointed out yes, there is a rational argument - the public does not want it to be legal.  Historically, as can be seen on the graph, the public has not wanted it to be legal.  That is a *good, rational, and sufficient reason*, so long as civil rights are not being infringed upon.

Majority rule is quite acceptable in a democratic (or republican representative) society.  So long as civil rights are not infringed upon, the majority does indeed have a right to set the rules it pleases; whether directly by plebiscite or indirectly through elected politicians.

In fact, it is majority rule that has ushered in legal 'medical marijuana' in several states recently.  So clearly, public sentiment is changing; but if you accept that the majority has a right to set the rules regarding medical use of marijuana, then you must also accept that the majority has the right to keep it illegal for all other use.


----------



## granfire (Jan 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, by the graph I posted, the public opinion is changing, which I clearly acknowledged.  However, Steve said there was no rational argument against the legalization of marijuana, and I pointed out yes, there is a rational argument - the public does not want it to be legal.  Historically, as can be seen on the graph, the public has not wanted it to be legal.  That is a *good, rational, and sufficient reason*, so long as civil rights are not being infringed upon.
> 
> Majority rule is quite acceptable in a democratic (or republican representative) society.  So long as civil rights are not infringed upon, the majority does indeed have a right to set the rules it pleases; whether directly by plebiscite or indirectly through elected politicians.
> 
> In fact, it is majority rule that has ushered in legal 'medical marijuana' in several states recently.  So clearly, public sentiment is changing; but if you accept that the majority has a right to set the rules regarding medical use of marijuana, then you must also accept that the majority has the right to keep it illegal for all other use.



However frightful the thought is to be ruled by the dreadfully uninformed masses, you are correct.
And I am speaking of broader matters, past 'Mary Jane'


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 2, 2011)

granfire said:


> However frightful the thought is to be ruled by the dreadfully uninformed masses, you are correct.



The difficulty in any system of governance that claims to represent the will of the people is that it does precisely that.

Our government in the US is very cleverly designed.  The core principles were made such that they could only be modified by the will of the people using extreme effort - we can change the core principles, but we really have to be motivated to do so.  However, any power which we have permitted the federal and state governments to have may be exercised by simple majority (plebiscite vote) or through the representative vote of elected leaders.  This gives us rule by the masses, and also prevents us from swinging wildly to and fro with the current _zeitgeist_.  It's the best system going.

It also means that when the majority, in their ignorance, want something to be banned, then banned it is.  And is that a shame?  Not really.  Is it unfair?  Only to the minority.  And frankly, unless someone's civil rights are being trampled, the rights of the majority _*should*_ outweigh the rights of the minority in a free society.  I know that sword cuts both ways - I'm against the current 'medical marijuana' laws in Michigan that are really just backdoor legalization of recreational use, but the people have spoken and I have to deal with it.  My recourse is to vote against it if it comes up on the ballot again, and to express my displeasure to my elected representatives.  Whining about the unfairness of it all doesn't fix anything.

If pot is as innocent and non-dangerous as smokers make it out to be, they can just as easily do without it.  If they need it so desperately that they cannot stop themselves from buying it even though it is illegal, then perhaps that says something about their argument that's just a harmless little weed.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The difficulty in any system of governance that claims to represent the will of the people is that it does precisely that.
> 
> Our government in the US is very cleverly designed. The core principles were made such that they could only be modified by the will of the people using extreme effort - we can change the core principles, but we really have to be motivated to do so. However, any power which we have permitted the federal and state governments to have may be exercised by simple majority (plebiscite vote) or through the representative vote of elected leaders. This gives us rule by the masses, and also prevents us from swinging wildly to and fro with the current _zeitgeist_. It's the best system going.
> 
> ...


 Great Post that last paragraph was spot on


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 2, 2011)

Some very interesting posts in the past day or so on this one.  Thank you one and all for your input thus far.

My own views are that the drug trade should be legalised and regulated 'above the table'.  

I am not and never have been a user of any of the illegal 'recreational' drugs and have an entire 'generation' of my friends who are no longer with me because they were i.e. all my friends of a certain part of my life are dead because of drugs.  

To make my 'legal' position clear, as things presently stand, I would happily sign off, as a voter, on a shoot-on-sight policy for drug-dealers ... indeed, in my more feral moments, I'd add their 'regular' customers to the list too!  I call it the "38 pence cure" (that being how much it used to cost to handload a pistol round).  But that's an emotional reaction rather than an intelligent one.

However, the system of suppression and criminalisation causes more problems than it solves.  Those of us here who are officers of the law, who still maintain that the position of legality is okay as it is, also tell us that the battle is not being won.  The main point being that people can still get whatever drugs they want wherever they want to.  That is not the mark of a successful policy really.

So it is time to experiment radically, on the premise that things cannot be worse than they already are.

There are provisio's, of course.  

*Ballen* and Bill have made some excellent points for maintaining the status quo, the big one that struck home was the one I mentioned earlier viz the 'curious experimenter' who gets hooked right off the bat.  That is a most serious point indeed and one I don't have a counter to.  After all, I used to be a smoker!  I made it through all the difficult years and never succombed and then I got promoted at work; someone offered me a cigarette and (Lord knows why) I accepted.  Cue two decades of addiction.

This thread is largely for the American view-point on this issue, mind you, rather than the English (or more particularly, *my*) opinions.  Please continue, it has been most interesting so far :tup:.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 2, 2011)

I think that there are not just two schools of thought on the subject, but indeed two reasons for it to be legal or not.

The first is with regard to the harm it does (or potentially does).  I could even split that down into the harm it does the individual, the harm it does their families, and the harm it does society.

The second is with regard to the will of the citizenry that a behavior be legal or illegal.

With regard to the first subject, I am above all a proponent of freedom and the least amount of governance possible.  I do not care if a person does themselves harm through their own free will; so long as it does not cost me anything (which is a sub-argument against it if we have any form of socialized medicine), let me be legal.

If it harms the individual and their family, I still say let the government keep their noses out of it; families are meant to deal with such issues on their own; even when those issues are difficult and when the government could conceivably assist them, in my view.

However, when it involves sufficient negative impact on society, then I feel that the government has a right and a duty to get involved.  It is for reasons such as these that we have laws ranging from stop signs to laws against rape; if everyone behaves as they please, we haven't got any society at all.

With regard to the second subject, as I have said recently in this thread, in a free society in which the will of the citizenry is the basis for the law - excluding the framework, which is more difficult to change by design - then if the majority want a thing illegal, then that is what it should be.  The minority will always natter on about the tyranny of the majority; but what would they prefer, the tyranny of the minority?  Someone must have their voices heard, and if it does not infringe upon basic liberties enshrined the framework of our government, then I have to insist that in my opinion, the majority should in fact rule.

I suspect that we are moving towards legalization, and we may soon have it.  This will disappoint me very much, and I believe it will be one of the many small cuts that lead to the bleeding to death of our society.  

It may well alleviate some minor current issues, such as some drug dealing and so on, but in fact, it will not stop the drug trade so long as **any** currently-illicit drugs remain that way.  The drug dealers who will no longer deal pot will gladly turn to whatever drug remains illegal and in demand.  The criminal attacks on police and innocent citizens will continue; the legalization of marijuana will not put a stop to it.

It may also increase revenue for states that are currently suffering from lack of money, and forestall the curtailing of services or the raising of taxes.  However, this is a *Faustian Bargain* in my opinion; we sell what we value in our society in order to raise the money to preserve our society.  Selling our souls to the devil in order to keep the lights turned on is no bargain, and one that reasonable people should consider not lightly before making.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

My question to the make them legal crowd would be.  What is your answer to the drug related crimes.  The crimes like theft, robbery,assaults, murders?  The criminals are still going to need drugs and now they will cost more so they will need to commit more crimes to get them.  Then add in the # of new people hooked because they tried it out on their 21st birthday.  

the argument that it's still happens even when it's illegal so we might as well make it legal just does not hold water.  You can make that same argument about all laws.  Murder, rape, ect they still happen everyday but they are illegal so should we just get rid of all laws?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 2, 2011)

I think the pivotal point of the non-moral part of your position is a pricing issue more than anything else, *Ballen*.

I do think that with the other aspect you are leaping to the upper-bound without traversing the points between, so to speak; it does your argument more harm than good to do that when it comes to those of us (who do not face the same work-a-day situation that you do) pondering your position seriously (tho' that may just be me ).


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I think the pivotal point of the non-moral part of your position is a pricing issue more than anything else, *Ballen*.
> 
> I do think that with the other aspect you are leaping to the upper-bound without traversing the points between, so to speak; it does your argument more harm than good to do that when it comes to those of us (who do not face the same work-a-day situation that you do) pondering your position seriously (tho' that may just be me ).


 
Price will be a big deal. The price will cause a huge increase in crime.  Right now the drugs are not taxed and everyones make it legal plan is to tax it to get all this great income of the govt.

If Im a drug dealer for most drugs I know my normal customers.  I know the area I "work" in.  If Im a street dealer in a poor area when I get my supply I buy in bulk. Lets say Cocaine.  I go to my supplier and buy an 8 ball of cocaine which is about 3.5 grams of cocaine around here. Now if I know my supplier well I can get it for a price anywhere between $100 and $350.  The going rate right now where I work is around $150 bucks.  I take my cocaine and go to my house to package it up.  Now I know my customers are poor so Ill cut my cocaine with a product to weaken it and also give me more of it to increase my profit.  so lets say I use my cutting agent and now I have 6 grams of cocaine.  I package it up into "dime" bags or 0.1 grams which cost $10.00.  Now I go out on my street corner and to make my money and my local crack head "bob" shows up hes a good crack head he buys from me all the time and he steals me nice things sometimes and hooks me up.  So when "bob" gets there he says mr crack dealer man Im hurting I need a fix I only got 3 bucks.  Ok bob here take this then run to the grocery store and steal me a steak.  So now bob gets his cocaine for $3.00  This is a VERY common occurrence in the poor areas.

Now the Govt is in charge.  The first question would be where are the govt authorized drug dealers going to get the drugs from?  I would guess drug companies would find a great profit in selling these drugs. So they buy the raw material from the same drug cartels at an inflated price since now they can do it legally.  So now the make the product is made. The Govt says ok this is a great money maker so were going to tax the crap out of it lets put a 50% tax on it.  So now this cocaine cost double what it did before.  They then sell it to the local drug store who also needs to make some money so they raise the price further.  Ok so now "bob" has to get his drugs from the authorized govt drug dealing store.  So he goes in mr clerk I need a fix Im hurting I got $3.  Im sorry sir our cocaine is $25 per 0.1 gram.  Now whats bob to do hes used cocaine for 20 years hes not going to stop.  So bob goes to the nice part of town and robs someone to get his money to buy his cocaine.  Or bob just pulls a knife and stabs the clerk steals all the cocaine and overdoes a day later we find him in the bushes.


----------



## granfire (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Price will be a big deal. The price will cause a huge increase in crime.  Right now the drugs are not taxed and everyones make it legal plan is to tax it to get all this great income of the govt.
> 
> If Im a drug dealer for most drugs I know my normal customers.  I know the area I "work" in.  If Im a street dealer in a poor area when I get my supply I buy in bulk. Lets say Cocaine.  I go to my supplier and buy an 8 ball of cocaine which is about 3.5 grams of cocaine around here. Now if I know my supplier well I can get it for a price anywhere between $100 and $350.  The going rate right now where I work is around $150 bucks.  I take my cocaine and go to my house to package it up.  Now I know my customers are poor so Ill cut my cocaine with a product to weaken it and also give me more of it to increase my profit.  so lets say I use my cutting agent and now I have 6 grams of cocaine.  I package it up into "dime" bags or 0.1 grams which cost $10.00.  Now I go out on my street corner and to make my money and my local crack head "bob" shows up hes a good crack head he buys from me all the time and he steals me nice things sometimes and hooks me up.  So when "bob" gets there he says mr crack dealer man Im hurting I need a fix I only got 3 bucks.  Ok bob here take this then run to the grocery store and steal me a steak.  So now bob gets his cocaine for $3.00  This is a VERY common occurrence in the poor areas.
> 
> Now the Govt is in charge.  The first question would be where are the govt authorized drug dealers going to get the drugs from?  I would guess drug companies would find a great profit in selling these drugs. So they buy the raw material from the same drug cartels at an inflated price since now they can do it legally.  So now the make the product is made. The Govt says ok this is a great money maker so were going to tax the crap out of it lets put a 50% tax on it.  So now this cocaine cost double what it did before.  They then sell it to the local drug store who also needs to make some money so they raise the price further.  Ok so now "bob" has to get his drugs from the authorized govt drug dealing store.  So he goes in mr clerk I need a fix Im hurting I got $3.  Im sorry sir our cocaine is $25 per 0.1 gram.  Now whats bob to do hes used cocaine for 20 years hes not going to stop.  So bob goes to the nice part of town and robs someone to get his money to buy his cocaine.  Or bob just pulls a knife and stabs the clerk steals all the cocaine and overdoes a day later we find him in the bushes.




Interesting math, however I don't think there is a lot of medical use for crack, non for meth and cocain is limited as well...

So we realistically are talking pot.
And by most accounts that has about the effect of booze, is less addicting than nicotine (which is legal and highly taxed, regardless of health concerns) plus most smoke less in joints than a smoker lights up.

That stuff can be easily grown, so you decriminalize that you got one leg up, plus even with taxes it should be cheaper legal than illegal. So the only people really having an interest keeping it on the books are the growrs and the temperance movement...

Not to mention that there is a little hing called hemp that is an excellent natural fiber, some believe superior to cotton, but under current laws it is also not legal to grow, heck some states make it illegal to have your life stock poop on it...


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 2, 2011)

I can see decriminalizing user level possession to some extent, but not for legalizing manufacture, distribution or sale. In general I'm in step with Bill M on this one though. Thinking that legalization is the magic wand that will solve all our problems is pie in the sky. Heroin is not all that expensive off the street as it is and people will rob, steal and kill to pay for their next fix. Will that same person not do the same to buy their smack from Uncle Sugar??


----------



## granfire (Jan 3, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I can see decriminalizing user level possession to some extent, but not for legalizing manufacture, distribution or sale. In general I'm in step with Bill M on this one though. Thinking that legalization is the magic wand that will solve all our problems is pie in the sky. Heroin is not all that expensive off the street as it is and people will rob, steal and kill to pay for their next fix. Will that same person not do the same to buy their smack from Uncle Sugar??



Though it's legal, you still got bootleggers and cigarette smugglers...


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> Though it's legal, you still got bootleggers and cigarette smugglers...



Dont see a lot of smokers robbing the 7-11 to buy a pack or a 40 oz.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2011)

While discussing drugs would people include alcohol? I know that America had prohibition which didn't work as well as was hoped but should alcohol be included in the list of dangerous drugs? In my job the vast majority of offences we come across are caused by drinking too much, drugs aren't so common. The Armed Forces here have random compulsory drugs tests and if found to be taking drugs it's instant dismissal. Alcohol on the other hand is not only legal but encouraged.
The crimes that the misuse of alcohol lead to are varied- assaults, domestic abuse, criminal damage, drink driving, murder, theft, drunk and disorderly etc. The focus however is always on the drugs while the medical costs of alcohol abuse are far larger than that of drug users. The time spent by police here dealing with alcohol related crimes is far bigger than that of drug related problems. 
It seems relatively easy to sort out the drug problem as it's a legalise or not question but alcohol which is still a drug seems a much harder problem therefore people seem to push it under the carpet.
Drug addiction certainly is one cause of crimes but alcohol causes  more damage and costs the country far more.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 3, 2011)

"Legalization" and allowing recreational use are two different things. Should we let prescription drugs be available over the counter for recreational use too?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> Interesting math, however I don't think there is a lot of medical use for crack, non for meth and cocain is limited as well...
> 
> So we realistically are talking pot.



No, we're not.  The drug dealers who sell pot also sell other illicit substances.  The cartels that buy, process, and import illicit drugs do not specialize in 'only marijuana' and certainly won't voluntarily cease operations if/when medical marijuana use becomes legal nationwide.  They will continue to buy, process, and import all the other drugs, which will continue to be illegal.

One cannot easily sever the link between marijuana-related crimes and those of other currently-illicit drugs.



> And by most accounts that has about the effect of booze, is less addicting than nicotine (which is legal and highly taxed, regardless of health concerns) plus most smoke less in joints than a smoker lights up.



The amount of damage to the individual marijuana does is not central to the discussion of whether or not it should be legal; that is a side-issue.  The point is that abusers of all stripes (pot, booze, prescription drugs, etc) do serious damage to society.  Increasing our acceptance of that damage is not helping society, it is inflicting further damage upon it.

Put simply, it's not about what pot smokers do to themselves, it is what they do to the rest of us.



> That stuff can be easily grown, so you decriminalize that you got one leg up, plus even with taxes it should be cheaper legal than illegal. So the only people really having an interest keeping it on the books are the growrs and the temperance movement...



Cigarettes would be twenty-five cents a pack without taxes at the local, state, and federal level.  Currently, a pack of cigarettes in North Carolina cost about $3.50.  In NYC, the same pack is over $8.  This leads directly to black market and smuggling operations.  Cigarettes also cost much more in Canada, leading smugglers to take them to Canada from the USA, just as booze flowed from Canada to the USA during Prohibition.

And one must also recognized that once governments get a taste of tax revenue from a new stream, they cannot restrain themselves from adding more and more and more taxes to it; very quickly the cost of 'legal' marijuana will outstrip what was the former illicit cost; and illicit importation will begin again, as it will be able to compete with legal prices.



> Not to mention that there is a little hing called hemp that is an excellent natural fiber, some believe superior to cotton, but under current laws it is also not legal to grow, heck some states make it illegal to have your life stock poop on it...



Hemp is lovely and should be legal to grow as a crop.  The type of hemp grown as a crop is so low in THC that no one could reasonably smoke it and get high.  However, again, that is a separate issue from the legalization of marijuana for recreational or medical (wink, wink) uses.

One might also note that the marijuana grown today for smoking purposes is not the same as it was in the days of the 1960's hippies.  It has gone from 1% - 3% THC to over 14% THC.  Great for getting high, but a very different drug from that smoked by peaceniks.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 3, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> "Legalization" and allowing recreational use are two different things. Should we let prescription drugs be available over the counter for recreational use too?


Someone mentioned the "medical marijuana" in CA is so much a wink and nod recreational legalization. (in so many words) shouldn't abusers of marijuana prescriptions be treated the same as abusers of other prescriptions? 

Oh, I'm not only talking about the users, I'm talking about the doctors who for, the rate I've heard over and over, $150 will give you a medical marijuana card, be punished as well?

Somehow, with this guy in the top law enforcement job in the country, I doubt it will be:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Drug addiction certainly is one cause of crimes but alcohol causes  more damage and costs the country far more.



I don't see the logic in saying _"We have an alcohol problem.  Let's make it worse by adding a drug problem, to be fair to the drug users."_


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't see the logic in saying _"We have an alcohol problem. Let's make it worse by adding a drug problem, to be fair to the drug users."_


 

I'm sorry I don't see what you are getting at. The figures in this country show that alcohol abuse costs more in medical care and is the cause of more crime than drug abuse is. I don't understand what you mean, I'm not adding anything to anything.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I'm sorry I don't see what you are getting at. The figures in this country show that alcohol abuse costs more in medical care and is the cause of more crime than drug abuse is. I don't understand what you mean, I'm not adding anything to anything.


I think, what Bill was getting at, was that if drugs were legal, you'd see drugs much more rampant.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I think, what Bill was getting at, was that if drugs were legal, you'd see drugs much more rampant.


 
Ah, thank you. I'm not sure about that as I haven't anything to go on as obviosuly drugs aren't legal.
I know in Portugal they haven't made drugs legal but they are concentrating on getting drug addicts to rehab instead of to court, it seems to work. It leaves the police free to target the drug dealers rather than the addicts who are treated medically rather than as criminals. I doubt it does any good locking up drug addicts they would be better off in rehab, at least some would get clean. It would seem to benefit the country economically to treat them rather than just lock them up, more room for the drug dealers in prison!

However like the UK Portugal is a small country and it may work better than in such a large place as the States, I don't know. However the main point is that drugs aren't legal in Portugal but they have made some headway in dealing with the problem.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I'm sorry I don't see what you are getting at. The figures in this country show that alcohol abuse costs more in medical care and is the cause of more crime than drug abuse is. I don't understand what you mean, I'm not adding anything to anything.



You are also not taking away from anything.  It's a false argument.

It is like saying _"The damage to the environment caused by legal fertilizer is much larger than the damage to the environment caused by DDT.  Therefore let us legalize DDT."_  It changes nothing - the cost caused by legal fertilizer or the cost caused by illegally-used DDT.  It is an argument which has no point, a logical fallacy.  The costs of each remain the same in both the legal and illegal scenarios.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 3, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I think, what Bill was getting at, was that if drugs were legal, you'd see drugs much more rampant.



Not exactly, but thank you anyway.  It may be that drug use would increase if drugs were legalized, but that is an arguable point.  My point is that using an example of something that causes more damage to society (alcohol) as a justification for legalizing something that causes less damage to society (pot smoking) isn't a valid argument at all; nothing will change whether pot is legal or illegal - the costs to society for both booze and pot remain the same.  So how is that an argument in favor of legalization?  It's just throwing a bunch of words in the air in a false comparison.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You are also not taking away from anything. It's a false argument.
> 
> It is like saying _"The damage to the environment caused by legal fertilizer is much larger than the damage to the environment caused by DDT. Therefore let us legalize DDT."_ It changes nothing - the cost caused by humans or the cost caused by illegally-used DDT. It is an argument which has no point, a logical fallacy. The costs of each remain the same in both the legal and illegal scenarios.


 
I've still no idea what you are talking about. I was asking what people thought about alcohol abuse, whether it should be considered as a problem in line with drug abuse, I had no argument, it was a question. Are you sure it's my post you are talking about? I haven't called for anything to be legalised or made illegal, I was curious to know whether people considered alcohol on a par with drug use.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not exactly, but thank you anyway. It may be that drug use would increase if drugs were legalized, but that is an arguable point. My point is that using an example of something that causes more damage to society (alcohol) as a justification for legalizing something that causes less damage to society (pot smoking) isn't a valid argument at all; nothing will change whether pot is legal or illegal - the costs to society for both booze and pot remain the same. So how is that an argument in favor of legalization? It's just throwing a bunch of words in the air in a false comparison.


 

I think you have got my post quite mixed up. I was saying that in my experience it was alcohol that caused the damage as drug use wasn't very common where I am. I wasn't suggesting legalising drugs at all and nowhere did I say that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I think you have got my post quite mixed up. I was saying that in my experience it was alcohol that caused the damage as drug use wasn't very common where I am. I wasn't suggesting legalising drugs at all and nowhere did I say that.



Beg your pardon, but I made an assumption - erroneous as it turns out.  The _'booze causes more problems than pot'_ argument is very commonly heard here, so I presumed that's what you were saying.  Booze DOES cause more problems than pot; but this is not a logical argument in favor of adding pot to the list of problems we have.  Sorry to have assumed you were making an argument.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Beg your pardon, but I made an assumption - erroneous as it turns out. The _'booze causes more problems than pot'_ argument is very commonly heard here, so I presumed that's what you were saying. Booze DOES cause more problems than pot; but this is not a logical argument in favor of adding pot to the list of problems we have. Sorry to have assumed you were making an argument.


 

No worries.

I have little experience with drug problems or drug dealing. All drug offences in the Armed Forces are dealt with by the relevant service police. I see the problems caused by the misuse of alcohol, the fighting, domestic abuse etc. I was curious to know if people see alcohol as a problem along with drugs because to many alcohol is an 'acceptable' drug.

I think I would favour the Portugese way of coping with the drug problem, keep drugs illegal but target the drug dealers and make the drug addicts go through rehab. I think if you legalise drugs you would lose the ability to 'force' the addicts to get clean, I don't really care about addicts if I'm honest but I do resent how much they are likely to cost us in police man hours and in the prison system so if they are going to cost us something anyway get them into rehab and get as many clean as possible. Of course it isn't going to work all the time but chasing the dealers rather than the addicts is a better use of police resources.


----------



## Steve (Jan 3, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Have you ever looked at the effects of long term Marijuana use on the brain?  Have you done any research on the symptoms of Marijuana addiction?  I mean real research not what the pro-pot lobby tell you.
> 
> You can believe the pro-marijuana talking points all you want. "hey man weed makes you happy, You dont get mad you dont get into fights man you just chill dude"  "its so not addicting Ive smoked dope for 25 years I can quit anytime wait what were we talking about" Its your right.
> 
> Sadly this country will someday make marijuana legal and we as a society will continue to fall behind.


I'm not suggesting that marijuana is innocuous or healthy.  I'm saying that we do things every day that are unhealthy but legal.  We eat double double animal style cheeseburgers at the In and Out. We smoke cigarettes.  We drink scotch or Zima.  We fail to exercise even when we know we should.  We allow our kids to play football, but have you seen what THAT does to a brain?

Point isn't that MJ is good for you.  Point IS that it's much less bad for you than many things that are legal.  Again, all of the negative points for MJ are directly attributable to its being illegal.  Were it legalized, all of these negative points would magically disappear.


----------



## Steve (Jan 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yep.  My views haven't changed, I'm just trying to be a bit kinder and gentler.


I didn't consider you unkind or ungentle.  Wrong maybe... but you came around to my side in the end.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I'm not suggesting that marijuana is innocuous or healthy. I'm saying that we do things every day that are unhealthy but legal. We eat double double animal style cheeseburgers at the In and Out. We smoke cigarettes. We drink scotch or Zima. We fail to exercise even when we know we should. We allow our kids to play football, but have you seen what THAT does to a brain?
> 
> Point isn't that MJ is good for you. Point IS that it's much less bad for you than many things that are legal. Again, all of the negative points for MJ are directly attributable to its being illegal. Were it legalized, all of these negative points would magically disappear.


 
So then why keep adding more things that are bad for us?  We have already shown we cant handle alcohol look at the # of fatal accidents due to drinking.  So why add one more thing to the mix?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2011)

It makes me laugh that in Cali they can outlaw Happy meals for kids because they are bad for them and thats ok but allow Marijuana use because we dont want the Govt telling us what to do.


----------



## granfire (Jan 3, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So then why keep adding more things that are bad for us?  We have already shown we cant handle alcohol look at the # of fatal accidents due to drinking.  So why add one more thing to the mix?



Like cell phones with texting?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> Like cell phones with texting?


 
Great point thats why its illegal in alot of states now


----------



## Steve (Jan 3, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So then why keep adding more things that are bad for us?  We have already shown we cant handle alcohol look at the # of fatal accidents due to drinking.  So why add one more thing to the mix?


Keep your government mits out of my personal life, you damned liberal.

Oh, sorry.  I... ahem...  just get so angry at you liberals trying to stick your noses where they don't belong.  

Seriously, though, who are you to decide for me what is good for me or not?  Or which vices I should be able to indulge in and which I should not?  

Personally, I think that when considering whether a vice should be legal or not, we should consider the relative negative impacts based on what we already legalize.  Heroin, Chrystal Meth, Cocaine, etc, lead to clear, inevitable downward spirals of addiction.   Marijuana does not.  Alcohol does not.  Could they?  For some people with a genetic propensity for addiction in general or for alcoholism in particular, they could be problems.  But for most, they do not.

There are millions of high functioning people who smoke weed regularly.  Just as there are millions of high functioning people who enjoy alcohol responsibly.

BTW, banning happy meals is idiotic.


----------



## Steve (Jan 3, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Great point thats why its illegal in alot of states now



And studies are showing now that this has made driving even more dangerous as people aren't stopping. They're continuing to text, only now doing it below the level of their dashboard making it even more dangerous.  Their eyes are off the road longer and they're dividing their attention even more.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 3, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> oint isn't that MJ is good for you.  Point IS that it's much less bad for you than many things that are legal.



That's not actually a point, though.

This is the core of your argument:

_X is legal and it is bad for you.  Y is not legal and it is not as bad for you as X.  Therefore, Y should be made legal.
_​This is a logical fallacy, even if all the statements in it are true.

If we make our laws on the basis of what is good for you are and what is not good for you, then the logic of your argument would dictate that X should be made illegal, not that Y should be made legal also.

If we acknowledge that the basis of our laws does not rest merely upon what is 'good for you' or 'bad for you', then the statements constitute a moot point.  You might as well argue that Marijuana is green, and green is a nice color.  True, but meaningless in the context of argument for or against legalization.



> Again, all of the negative points for MJ are directly attributable to its being illegal.  Were it legalized, all of these negative points would magically disappear.



I disagree.

Negative aspects of Marijuana:

* Property and personal crimes associated with supply.  By this, I mean that some people who want marijuana steal and rob to get the money to buy it.  Not all people who smoke pot do this - a small minority do.  This is also true of people who steal and rob to get booze or hard drugs, etc.  There is no reason to presume that this behavior will cease when and if marijuana becomes legal.  It will still not be free, and a small percentage of people will still steal and rob to get it.  That's a negative aspect, and it won't go away.

* Personal injury resulting from use.  By this I mean people who get intoxicated and have accidents, such as crashing cars and walking off cliffs or whatever.  Even if we assume that there will be no more pot-smokers after legalization than before, we will still have the same number of people doing these things.  That is also a negative aspect, and it won't go away either.

* Drug-related violence.  By this I am referring to the cartels that purchase, prepare, transport, and sell the drugs.  These cartels, as we know, kill people and threaten government stability, not to mention funding terrorism and other negative causes.  These people who currently specialize in marijuana, they're not going to quietly throw up their hands and go out of business if and when marijuana becomes legal.  They're going to continue their other operations and/or get into other prohibited substance dealing; unless you legalize ALL drugs, the violence associated with them is not going to go away.  That's a negative aspect, that won't change with legalization.

What may happen is that states will be able to raise revenues through taxes on a new cash crop.  Prices will be set by taxation, and there will be a minor influx of black market dealers taking legal pot from one state into another where taxes are lower to earn a quick buck, not to mention those who will buy wholesale in states where it is legal and transport it to states where it is not legal, where they will compete with the illicit drug dealers.  Crime and the associated violence could well go up, not down.

What may also happen is that legal pot dealers become targets for crime, since there are drugs and cash located there.  This is an attractive target, very much like liquor stores, only liquor stores have had a long time to figure out physical security and countermeasures.  For at least a period of time, these dope shops will be getting knocked over left and right by armed thugs; innocent people will get hurt.  That's pretty much a given.  By the way - this is already happening.

As well, the now-legal farms inside the US will be attacked, robbed, and raided by criminal organizations.  Nobody steals corn or rustles cattle much anymore, but they do steal things that are small and valuable.  A truck load of pot is worth a lot and isn't an armored fortress.  A field of weed isn't very defensible without prices becoming stratospheric.  And unlike the illicit pot crops grown now in the USA, the growers (now legal) won't be able to resort to man-traps and machine guns and murder to deter criminal attacks.  Their fields will be on the map, not hidden away in some state forest.

About the only negative thing I can think of that goes away with legalization is that the guy who wants to smoke pot but currently has to buy from some kid in a bad part of town will now be able to buy it at the corner convenience store.

I can't really see a lot of negative things about pot getting suddenly better once it becomes legal.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 3, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Keep your government mits out of my personal life, you damned liberal.
> 
> Oh, sorry.  I... ahem...  just get so angry at you liberals trying to stick your noses where they don't belong.
> 
> Seriously, though, who are you to decide for me what is good for me or not?  Or which vices I should be able to indulge in and which I should not?



I'm a conservative.  I don't think I have the right to tell you what's good for you or not.  I only think I have a vested interest in what's good for our society.  I see pot as a dangerous problem, and pot smokers as damaging to the core institutions of our society.  I don't think it should be allowed on that basis.

Arguing that X or Y or Z is worse for society doesn't cut it for me.  That's not in debate right now, marijuana legalization is.  I won't shift the topic; the discussion is pot legalization, I think it damages our society, I think we have a perfect right to proscribe things that are inherently dangerous to our society, and that is pretty much that.

People in favor of legalization (left and right) like to make the argument that I am trying to tell them how to live, or what they can put in their bodies.  I'm not.  But I absolutely agree that society has a right dictate how it will be ordered and run; so long as basic civil liberties are not infringed.  Do I care what you do to your body?  No.  But I care what you do to mine.  A dope smoker is a threat to my safety, my family, my community.  Put whatever you like in your body; but if it threatens me, I'll cut it out roots and all.

And frankly, although I do not personally subscribe to this belief, I have pointed out many times that socialized medicine means that the government does actually have a say in what you do to your body; because it costs taxpayers money.  One could argue that this is true of private insurance as well, but private insurance is not mandatory (well it kind of is now, but will be declared unconstitutional).  When it is paid for by the government (meaning tax dollars), then the government will have a perfect right to tell you want you can and cannot put in your body.  Meh, I'm not in favor of that, but there it is.



> Personally, I think that when considering whether a vice should be legal or not, we should consider the relative negative impacts based on what we already legalize.



By what means would you compel people to consider this?  Isn't personal choice a perfectly acceptable reason to be for or against a law?  I am under no such compunction; and I'm not sure how you'd go about compelling me to make such a consideration before entertaining an opinion pro or con.



> Heroin, Chrystal Meth, Cocaine, etc, lead to clear, inevitable downward spirals of addiction.   Marijuana does not.  Alcohol does not.  Could they?  For some people with a genetic propensity for addiction in general or for alcoholism in particular, they could be problems.  But for most, they do not.



Debatable, but side-issues having nothing to do with what we as citizens want for our society.



> There are millions of high functioning people who smoke weed regularly.  Just as there are millions of high functioning people who enjoy alcohol responsibly.
> 
> BTW, banning happy meals is idiotic.



No one said that laws had to be non-idiotic.  They only have to be constitutional.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2011)

Being a British Liberal I don't care what people do, they can take drugs, drink to excess or feed their faces but and this is where it gets 'restrictive' I take exception when someone who drinks too much gets behind the wheel of a car and kills other people. If they just kill themselves that's fine by me. It's the same with drugs, if someone is just feeding their own habit I don't see it as a concern however again if they drive while drugged it again becomes everyones business. If a drunk or drug addict tries to convert others such as children it agian becomes a public problem.

Bill is correct, when what people do in private impinges on others or puts their lives in danger we have the collective right to do something about it.

A paedophile may enjoy looking at obscene pictures of children in private  but the public would be very quick to call for action if he started preying on children in schools etc.


----------



## Steve (Jan 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's not actually a point, though.
> 
> This is the core of your argument:
> 
> ...


The crux of my argument is simply that we shouldn't invite government intervention where it actually has a detrimental effect on society and is unwarranted.  In this (and, believe it or not in most things) I agree very much with a conservative, libertarian position.  There is ample evidence to suggest that the criminalization of drugs, specifically in this situation Marijuana, is doing nothing positive.  It's costly, ineffective, and pointless.  Why do we have this unenforceable law on the books?  Why do you support some (these) and rail as conservatives against others?


----------



## Steve (Jan 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Bill is correct, when what people do in private impinges on others or puts their lives in danger we have the collective right to do something about it..


You guys understand that the statement was tongue in cheek.  Right?  I was trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to point out in a lighthearted way that the conservatives are arguing a liberal position and that the liberals are arguing what would objectively be viewed as a conservative position.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 3, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> The crux of my argument is simply that we shouldn't invite government intervention where it actually has a detrimental effect on society and is unwarranted.  In this (and, believe it or not in most things) I agree very much with a *conservative, libertarian position*.



Note: emphasis mine above...

The conservative and libertarian viewpoints are very different in this case.

Libertarian planks call for the abandonment of all drug laws, period.  The Libertarian Party opposes all drug laws.

Conservatives, on the other hand, run the gamut; but they tend strongly towards supporting the rule of law.  Even when conservatives speak in favor of smaller federal government and more state's rights, they do not deny the right of society to set standards in the form of laws; this includes traditional laws on 'morality' such as prohibitions on sex for profit, liquor sales on Sundays, and so on.  The conservative point of view concerns who may properly set such rules; not what rules may be set for the preservation of an ordered and safe society.

So I don't think you can claim the 'conservative' mantle as a pro-legalization point of view; it simply is not one.

There may be a more recent poll, but this serves to illustrate my point:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/who-supports-marijuana-legalization.aspx







I believe that MY position is the *traditional conservative* position with regard to the legalization of marijuana.  It is, in fact, one of the few areas where I seriously differ from the Libertarian Party, such that I cannot call myself a _"Libertarian"_ with a capital "L."  I like many things about the libertarian ideal, but I can't reconcile myself to the concept of legalization of drugs.



> There is ample evidence to suggest that the criminalization of drugs, specifically in this situation Marijuana, is doing nothing positive.



Side-issue, and not germane to the point.  Societies get to decide what is legal and what is not, based upon majority rule and elected representative votes, barring infringement of civil liberties.  It doesn't matter if marijuana helps grow strong bones twelve ways - if the people don't want it to be legal, then it should not be legal.  Banning it infringes on no one's rights, so it is within the rights of society to control the use of it if society wishes to do so; and society does wish to do so.



> It's costly, ineffective, and pointless.  Why do we have this unenforceable law on the books?  Why do you support some (these) and rail as conservatives against others?



Why?  I think I have made my feelings clear.  I am against legalization of marijuana because I personally dislike it, dislike many potheads (including family members), dislike what it does to people and to our society.  I see it as a threat, a clear and present danger to our way of life.  That's purely subjective, based on my life experiences, and I sincerely doubt my opinion of pot will ever change.

On a (hopefully) more objective note, I have stated in this thread why I do not agree with you that pot is harmless *to society*.  I don't care if it is harmless to the individual or not.  I think people have the right to drink poison if they want to; but not to put my society in jeopardy.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 3, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> You guys understand that the statement was tongue in cheek.  Right?  I was trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to point out in a lighthearted way that the conservatives are arguing a liberal position and that the liberals are arguing what would objectively be viewed as a conservative position.



Um, no, I didn't get that.  Oops.  Yes, you are correct that this is role reversal of a sort.  Except that my position (anti drug-legalization) is the traditional conservative position.  Many conservatives who are anti-government have now jumped onto the idea of legalizing pot as a way to bring in revenue to the states and reduce the power of the government, but it's not a traditional conservative point of view.  It's not conservative at all.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> You guys understand that the statement was tongue in cheek. Right? I was trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to point out in a lighthearted way that the conservatives are arguing a liberal position and that the liberals are arguing what would objectively be viewed as a conservative position.


 
Ah but here the liberals and conservatives are in government as they aren't opposites, the opposite to conservatives here would be the labour party.


----------



## Steve (Jan 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Ah but here the liberals and conservatives are in government as they aren't opposites, the opposite to conservatives here would be the labour party.


Yeah, but you're British.  You guys barely speak English anymore.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Yeah, but you're British. You guys barely speak English anymore.


 
Eh by eck lad, you'll get a skelping for that.


----------



## Steve (Jan 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Um, no, I didn't get that.  Oops.  Yes, you are correct that this is role reversal of a sort.



  As I said before, I clearly didn't do it right if it wasn't funny.  The material was good, but my comedic timing was lacking.  



> Except that my position (anti drug-legalization) is the traditional conservative position.  Many conservatives who are anti-government have now jumped onto the idea of legalizing pot as a way to bring in revenue to the states and reduce the power of the government, but it's not a traditional conservative point of view.  It's not conservative at all.


And that's exactly what makes this so funny.  The traditional conservative position is actually liberal, calling for sustained government intervention into our personal lives.  And the traditional liberal position is for less government intervention.    

The conservatives who are anti-government are actually being consistent when support legalization.  Makes sense to me, particularly if one leans libertarian.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's not actually a point, though.
> 
> _X is legal and it is bad for you.  Y is not legal and it is not as bad for you as X.  Therefore, Y should be made legal.
> _​This is a logical fallacy, even if all the statements in it are true.



Only out of context. Part of the fundamental contract between the US Government and "we the people" is that our freedom of action and choice is only supposed to be restricted when there's a clear danger.

If something  is _*x*_ dangerous and legal, then making something that's _*x-1*_ dangerous illegal flies in the face of that basic precept.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 3, 2011)

Why is it that when the question of legalizing DRUGS comes up the conversation centers around marijuana?

What about coke? Meth? Heroin? Or prescription drugs like Oxy? Lortabs?


----------



## granfire (Jan 3, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Why is it that when the question of legalizing DRUGS comes up the conversation centers around marijuana?
> 
> What about coke? Meth? Heroin? *Or prescription drugs like Oxy? Lortabs*?



Are legal. Restricted, but legal. 
I think that is to the point that 'legal' does not equate 'freely available'
After all, there are restrictions on who can buy alcohol and tobacco as well.

(and I think we all can agree that something that is akin to rat poison does not need to be legal, no matter the buzz it gives you)


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 3, 2011)

But is it really? The conversation always seems to devolve into recreational weed smoking.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 3, 2011)

I suspect that's because it's what the dialog is really about. Whichever side of the fence you sit on, I don't think anybody believes that there's a _realistic_ chance of getting anything but marijuana legalized any time soon.

Everything else is just theory. Marijuana's status might actually change during our lifetimes.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 4, 2011)

Prescription drugs are "legal" as it is. And addicts doctor shop to get them "legally" or buy them illegally off the streets. These "legal" drugs are at the heart of a large addiction problem.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 4, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Only out of context. Part of the fundamental contract between the US Government and "we the people" is that our freedom of action and choice is only supposed to be restricted when there's a clear danger.



The clear danger being to society - the clear danger to the person taking the drug is irrelevant (although it will become relevant when we become a socialist nation for the purposes of medical care).



> If something  is _*x*_ dangerous and legal, then making something that's _*x-1*_ dangerous illegal flies in the face of that basic precept.



Negative.  If X is dangerous and legal, and X-1 is dangerous and illegal, it illustrates that perhaps X should also be illegal, not that X-1 should be made legal although also dangerous.

Making the point that X does more damage to society as an argument that therefore X-1 should be legal as well is poor logic.  If the argument is on the basis of danger to the person (which marijuana proponents insist it is), then arguing that more dangerous things are legal is simply arguing that the more dangerous things should be illegal too.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 4, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> And that's exactly what makes this so funny.  The traditional conservative position is actually liberal, calling for sustained government intervention into our personal lives.  And the traditional liberal position is for less government intervention.



There isn't the contra position that you think there is.  The traditional conservative approach to the drug issue isn't based on a desire to restrict human behavior vis-a-vis their own bodies, but to restrict human behavior vis-a-vis the damage it does to society, which conservatives strive always (and sometimes wrongly) to maintain and protect.

The net result is the same - drugs being restricted - this I grant you.  But the motivation is the key here to understanding why conservatives behave in what you might otherwise consider to be contra conservative behavior.

_"You're telling me what I can and cannot put in my body, d00d!"_ No, young man.  I am telling you that society won't permit the destruction your choices may cause to our society. 

This is a tightrope; in many cases, activity that conservatives believe is destructive to society is also protected behavior; for example freedom of speech.  However, this is why we have the foundations of civil liberties; they protect us from our own 'best judgment' at times.  Recreational marijuana-smoking is not protected behavior.



> The conservatives who are anti-government are actually being consistent when support legalization.  Makes sense to me, particularly if one leans libertarian.



It is a libertarian stance, but it is not a conservative stance.  Those who claim the mantle of conservatism and are pro-drug legalization are not being conservative in this area.  The conservative ideal of a weak central government and strong state governments does not mean we do not believe in regulation appropriate to the protection of society and our way of life.  That is entirely a libertarian approach.  It may seem similar, but it's not.  Conservatives want smaller government and fewer regulations on areas they do not see as being destructive to society (rightly or wrongly).  Libertarians want less government in all areas, period.  This is key.

I understand that many conservatives have libertarian views in some areas, as do I.  However, the core principle of conservativism is that of conservation, meaning preservation.  We do not wish to upend the rule of law, but to restore the balance between the federal government and the states to that designed by the founders (Jeffersonian, rather than Hamiltonian).


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The clear danger being to society - the clear danger to the person taking the drug is irrelevant (although it will become relevant when we become a socialist nation for the purposes of medical care).............
> .


 

I think that may depend on whether it's intended to treat drug addicts or throw them into prison. As in Portugal throwing addicts into prison is going to cost you anyway for their upkeep plus treatment so it may be cheaper in the long run to put them into rehab, you will end up paying one way or another. If only one out of three addicts stays clean it will save money, you'd have all three to pay for in prison. It's not much of a choice though whether you have socialised care or not. 
If you legalise drug taking you still pay for in policing the inevitable damage caused as with the damage alcohol causes ie driving under the influence causing accidents etc. Addicts without money are still going to commit crimes to get the drugs they need even if they are from legal sources unless of course it's intended to give drugs away! Alcoholics without money steal legal alcohol off the shelves of shops, the crime figures are unlikely to actually decrease. Unless you have free drugs you will always have a black market undercutting the legal sources and therefore drug dealers.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 4, 2011)

granfire said:


> Like cell phones with texting?



That's a good example.  Many states in the USA are moving towards bans on 'distracted driving', which is a catch-all that includes talking on cell phones and texting whilst driving.

There is no widespread organized opposition to these moves; they are generally popular if not highly supported by the populace.  Most see the need or at least accept the notion that people who text whilst driving are a bloody menace, even if they do it themselves from time to time (whilst insisting that they, alone, are capable of doing so safely, unlike those other idiots).

And I do not hear anyone claiming that the government is _*'telling them what to do with their bodies'*_ by not allowing them to text whilst driving.  I do not hear the complaints that the restrictive hand of government is once again intruding on the right of people to do as they wish.

Why do we not hear those complaints, as we do with marijuana pro-legalization groups?

The reason is simple; the act of texting whist driving is indefensible when viewed as a danger and menace to society.  The risks are clear and easily seen; we've all been behind a car that was weaving dangerously, only to pass and find that the driver had a cell phone balanced on the wheel or they were staring down into their laps and typing furiously away.

Marijuana, in my view, is the same, and can be seen through the same lens.  The government is not trying to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, nor is it intruding on the rights of people to do as they wish.  It is acting in accordance with its role of protecting society from a clear and present danger.

The issue, the actual argument, that can be made is whether or not the risk and danger to society exists and is sufficient to justify government action (I believe it is).  Some proponents of marijuana law reform argue that it is not.  However, more often, the arguments raised are not logical.  

They focus on the right of the government to regulate what people put into their own bodies, they insist that their personal freedoms are being violated.  They ignore the fact that the restrictions are not based on that at all.   This makes a lot of noise, but it doesn't make any sense.  If pot-smoking should be legal on that basis, then texting whilst driving should be legal on the same basis.  No one is arguing that texting whilst driving should be made legal - hence the argument is worthless.

If I should ever become convinced that marijuana legalization represented no danger to society, but only to the health of the individual, then I would change my position with regard to it.  My concern is that of a true conservative; for society.  People are free, in my estimation, to do whatever they like that pleases themselves; so long as it does not pose a risk, threat, or danger to my society and my way of life.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Addicts without money are still going to commit crimes to get the drugs they need even if they are from legal sources unless of course it's intended to give drugs away! Alcoholics without money steal legal alcohol off the shelves of shops, the crime figures are unlikely to actually decrease. Unless you have free drugs you will always have a black market undercutting the legal sources and therefore drug dealers.



+1 and QFT.

And consider this - that those who claim marijuana is non-addicting whilst they themselves are users are not giving it up.  In fact, they will make the same claim that every cigarette smoker and alcoholic does; that they can quit anytime they wish.

Yet they continue to smoke their pot, even though it is illegal (for most or many), even though they know that the source of their drug comes through channels that most likely involve criminal organizations that murder innocent people and funnel money to terrorist organizations that kill our own soldiers and citizens.  They'll angrily justify this by insisting that *their* pot comes from domestic sources (and they know this how?) and that *they* are not responsible for the evil that men do since if the drug were legal, all that violence would magically go away in a puff of smoke; all demonstrably untrue, but they cling to these fictions.

That is the mark of a person who cannot give up their drug of choice.  I don't criticize them for being addicted; I was once a cigarette smoker, and I am cheerfully addicted to caffeine to this day.  However, the hypocrisy that marks the marijuana smoker with regard to the addictive qualities of the drug do not lead me to believe their argument.  If it's not addictive, sir or madam, quit smoking it until it becomes legal, please.  Can't do that?  Well, Q.E.D.  I guess it's addictive, then.


----------



## Carol (Jan 4, 2011)

Cannabis dependence is documented in the DSM-IV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction



> *Substance dependence*
> 
> Main article: Substance dependence
> According to the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), *substance dependence* is defined as:
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

If the laws that make certain drugs illegal are repealed what do people think would happen?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> If the laws that make certain drugs illegal are repealed what do people think would happen?



I think we are seeing that now, to some extent.  In California, medical marijuana has become a backdoor legalization, such that anyone can claim 'chronic pain' and receive a doctor's prescription to buy it.  Medical marijuana dispensaries have sprouted up (pardon the pun) everywhere.

The positive:

* Revenue for the state.  California currently collects about 18 million per year from tax on medical marijuana.

* Smokers no longer have to risk arrest or prosecution to buy the drug.

The negative:

* Growers are being robbed now that their operations are open and available instead of hidden away.

* Dispensaries are being robbed, and customers coming and going have been robbed as well.

* Marijuana is still sold on the street by drug dealers in the traditional manner; most of them also sell other drugs that do not have a medical exemption (crack, cocaine, heroin, etc).

* Drug smugglers still commit great acts of violence on both sides of the US borders.

* Drug cartels are still rich and powerful.

* Drug money still gets sent to terrorist organizations.

* Drug users, dealers, and distributors in California still risk federal arrest and prosecution.  It should be noted that the current administration under President Obama has been ordered to cease such operations, but this is not law; this is selective enforcement.  Given a change in policy or president, the feds could quickly go back to raiding and shutting down pot dispensaries.

What we have not yet seen, but I anticipate, is rampant black-market dealing between states that have legal marijuana use and those that do not.  This will cause the same kind of problems that cigarettes and booze do now, since various states have various levels of taxation on the same products.  End result - states that do not want marijuana to be legal now have to fight not only the traditional drug smugglers, but also the influx of drugs from neighboring states where it is legal.  Kind of like living next door to a crack house.  It's not your house or under your control, but you still end up with a lot of the problems.

And of course, as many have noted, those who currently steal and commit other crimes to purchase illegal marijuana will continue to do so to purchase legal marijuana; this type of crime will not be abated.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 4, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Negative.  If X is dangerous and legal, and X-1 is dangerous and illegal, it illustrates that perhaps X should also be illegal, not that X-1 should be made legal although also dangerous.
> 
> Making the point that X does more damage to society as an argument that therefore X-1 should be legal as well is poor logic.  If the argument is on the basis of danger to the person (which marijuana proponents insist it is), then arguing that more dangerous things are legal is simply arguing that the more dangerous things should be illegal too.



You're adding emotion and ethical value to a logical proposition. From a standpoint of pure logic, either approach is reasonable (legalizing the less dangerous, or banning the more dangerous). Which choice you select is by nature based on personal values, ethics and emotional reasoning.

Which is the problem with the debate entire, from my perspective. Nobody's looking at data and reaching a reasonable conclusion based on analysis of facts. Hell, the politics of the matter has made it so there's no uncompromised data to look at.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 4, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> You're adding emotion and ethical value to a logical proposition. From a standpoint of pure logic, either approach is reasonable (legalizing the less dangerous, or banning the more dangerous). Which choice you select is by nature based on personal values, ethics and emotional reasoning.
> 
> Which is the problem with the debate entire, from my perspective. Nobody's looking at data and reaching a reasonable conclusion based on analysis of facts. Hell, the politics of the matter has made it so there's no uncompromised data to look at.



I disagree.  My approach to the question posed is purely logical.

Look, when you argue that a substance - any substance - should be legal because it is less dangerous than another substance which is legal, you must use the parameters given; the parameters in this case are the 'dangerous' aspect.  It is illogical to say one poison is less poisonous than another poison, so you should take the less dangerous poison.  The correct and only logical answer is you should take neither of them.

You can argue the question on several points, but this is a poor one.  You cannot win with this argument, because it is based on flawed logic.

You could re-frame the question, though.  Let me help you.

You could argue from the point of view of society's acceptance of risk in pursuit of pleasure.  In other words, society accepts a level of risk in order to enjoy alcohol (and tobacco, etc, etc), so it would be logical to argue that society should accept a lower risk (if such it is) to allow citizens to pursue enjoyment from marijuana.  That's a logical argument - even if I don't agree with it, at least that's a discussion we can actually have.

You could also argue from the point of view that individual liberties outweigh the threat to society, using again alcohol as an example.  It seems that personal alcohol consumption required a constitutional amendment to be restricted on the federal level (and to be repealed as well).  So since there is no constitutional amendment banning the recreational use of marijuana, one can argue that it is an issue of civil liberties that are being trampled.  I don't care for that one either, but again, at least it is logical and can be argued.

I will admit when someone comes at me with a logical argument and I simply disagree with the conclusion.  But when someone presents an illogical argument, we can't have a discussion about it, because it isn't an argument.  One might as well argue that marijuana should be legal because squirrel fish toy truck.  Makes no sense either, and can't be argued either way because it is NOT A VALID ARGUMENT.

The argument that dope should be legal because it is less dangerous than booze isn't an argument.  It's not logical and doesn't stand up to the basic demands of logic.  So I reject it completely.  It's just distracting noise.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 4, 2011)

I am against legalization, but reading the last two comments makes me wonder about comparisons..
Couldnt you make the argument that car accidents are more dangerous then Pot and therefore cars should be outlawed, as ridiculous as it sounds..
or perhaps a better argument would be that football is also dangerous to society because of the damage done to our youth and therefor for the betterment of our society we should ban that? I love football btw, this would crush me lol...

I mean dont we have quite a few activities that are undertaken by many in our society that are in fact dangerous to society in general, but we still allow that danger for the sake of the individual having the freedom to enjoy it?
like say... off road recreational vehicles... I love riding quads, and thousands of peopel ride motorcycles, quads, buggies etc.. but isnt it in fact bad for the environment, and our society? but we allow it for the individuals to enjoy that?
I think the same can be said of hundreds of things..
I am convinced that cigarettes are not legal for the individual to enjoy the freedom of using, but rather for the taxes that they bring in, but that might be another conversation..

not really trying to debate this either, just trying to wrap my head around the different sides of the argument, and it seems Bill has a pretty damn good feel for the argument.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What we have not yet seen, but I anticipate, is rampant black-market dealing between states that have legal marijuana use and those that do not. .


 Thats already going on now.  We seize large shipments of marijuana from UPS and Fed EX.  People fly out to Cali package up several pounds of Marijuana and fed ex it back to their house in other states.  Got 25 pounds of it last week from the Fed Ex distribution center just in 1 box.  It was sent from San Fran.


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2011)

are those of you arguing that mj is bad for society also in favor of reinstating prohibition?  Just want to knoif you are consistent.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 4, 2011)

An interesting question that had occurred to me too, Steve, and a nice 'perspective' post from Lucky just prior also.

Once more I want to compliment all contributors for putting their points forward, especially those who have made me ponder my own views and opinions - take a bow ladies and gents.


----------



## granfire (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Thats already going on now.  We seize large shipments of marijuana from UPS and Fed EX.  People fly out to Cali package up several pounds of Marijuana and fed ex it back to their house in other states.  Got 25 pounds of it last week from the Fed Ex distribution center just in 1 box.  It was sent from San Fran.



But that is going on anyhow. Can't really hang it on the legality of MJ in Cali. 25 pounds is above the legal limit even there.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 5, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I disagree.  My approach to the question posed is purely logical.



I have to respectfully disagree. You present your argument compellingly and you're obviously intelligent, but you're adding value.  Let's break it down

A logical fallacy is something that, if converted to a math formula or computer program, wouldn't work. 

Say *y* = the threshold for danger at which a substance should be banned
Say the danger level of alcohol is *a* and that of marijuana is *b*
Our society seems to think that *a < y*
If evidence suggests (and I'm not saying it definitively does) that *b < a* ....

The statement that *b > y* would crash a program or get you an F on the math test.

That's logic. Logic further suggests that the simplest solution is to change the value of y if you want to ban marijuana. 

You can fix this logical conundrum in one of three ways: 


Lower the value of *y* until *y < b*, effectively banning alcohol as well as marijuana.
Legalize marijuana so that the formula works as is.
Demonstrate (and there's evidence to support this) that *b > a*.

All three of these work just fine from the standpoint of logic. They fix the problem in the equation or program.

Which option you choose is a value judgment. It may even be a value judgment based on logical conclusions drawn from another equation. But it's disingenuous to dismiss opinions contrary to your own as logical fallacies when your actual concerns are based on your personal values.

In this case, if I'm reading you right, your personal value places safety above the ability to choose vices for yourself. Anybody who feels that way would naturally choose options 1 or 3 above. But again, that's a value judgment based on what you think is important. Somebody who values that freedom above the safety of a more controlled society would choose option 2.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

Exactly.  Added to the above post is that, by definition, if you legalize marijuana you are removing the criminal element from the equation.  Prohibition created a "drug war" that, even though it was a relatively brief period of time, gave rise to legendary drug lords like Al Capone whose impact on our culture is profound.  

Once prohibition was repealed, and since, bootlegging of alcohol is practically unheard of to the point that now, many people enjoy home brewing or winemaking as a hobby.  There is absolutely no cultural stigma or negative association attached to the responsible and legal enjoyment of alcohol, even though the abuse of alcohol can be extremely damaging to society. 

As I said before, the "damage to society" is largely a direct result of the prohibition, not a function of the product that is prohibited.  It's pretty convenient that we have such a blatant and clear example of it in our own country's relatively short history.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 5, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I have to respectfully disagree. You present your argument compellingly and you're obviously intelligent, but you're adding value. Let's break it down
> 
> A logical fallacy is something that, if converted to a math formula or computer program, wouldn't work.
> 
> ...


 
You are kind of saying the same thing I was saying but in a totally different way, I think its an assumption though..

we are basically saying that society is allowing for some forms of danger to itself to allow the individual personal freedoms.

therefore if that level of danger it allows is measurable, and quantifiable then anything that would allow less danger should be legalized and anything allowing more should be illegal.

I think what Bill was saying is that if an item has any harm on society at all then it is in fact bad and should not be legalized, and that by simply saying that another thing that is already legal is legal is not a logic reason for allowing something that while not causing as much stnad alone harm as the legal one will indeed cause harm, and add to the overall harm being done.

the hard part I think is to pinpoint what level we as a society are ok with allowing a cartain amount of harm done to it. I see alot of things that seem to cause alot of harm to our society yet are legal, unfortunately more people are fine with it then are not fine with it.

Up to this point in our history our society has not been fine with the dangers that Marijuana poses to our society. As our society changes, erodes or evolves depending on who you talk to, its very possible and some might say probably that marijuana is legalized..
who knows eventually many more things might be made legal that today are looked at as wrong or even evil.
Personally I think our country is headed the wrong way with many things, I think we got carried away with righting wrongs, and have gone to far and allowed to much leeway just because we have so many people apologetic of our past. Will it right itself? I dont know


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 5, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> In this case, if I'm reading you right, your personal value places safety above the ability to choose vices for yourself.



I actually wasn't discussing my personal choices in my exposition of the illogic of the argument.  I appreciate your analysis, but I still feel that the original argument advanced does not place a threshold value on what is and is not acceptable to society.  It simply advances the argument that since alcohol is dangerous and is legal, then marijuana (less dangerous as asserted in the argument) should also be legal.  That in and of itself is an incomplete argument.  It does not present the boundary conditions you specified, which does indeed turn it into a logical argument.  The only logical solution to the originally-presented argument is that alcohol should also be illegal, if 'danger' is the key value.

If you are asking my _personal opinion_, it's less complex.  I don't care if people choose to damage their own bodies or not (until I am forced to pay for it, which is a different argument entirely), but I do care that they inflict damage on society.  I place the *safety of society* above the *rights of the individual* in cases where I believe that the potential for society damage is sufficiently great.  Of course, I understand that this is a value judgment on my part; if my assessment of the danger presented to society by marijuana use is wrong, then my conclusion is flawed.  That's how opinions are...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 5, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Exactly.  Added to the above post is that, by definition, if you legalize marijuana you are removing the criminal element from the equation.  Prohibition created a "drug war" that, even though it was a relatively brief period of time, gave rise to legendary drug lords like Al Capone whose impact on our culture is profound.



I still disagree with your assertion that legalizing marijuana will "remove the criminal element from the equation."  The drug dealers will still exist; they'll still sell marijuana if they can undercut commercial prices for legal marijuana.  They'll also sell the other drugs that remain illicit.  They will not go away.  The violence that surrounds the distribution of drugs will not go away.  They are linked.  So long as there are ANY banned substances imported in large quantities from outside the USA, we're going to experience this sort of crime.  So no, legalization won't fix the criminal problem.  It will only change the equation for the end-user and legal side of the distribution chain.



> Once prohibition was repealed, and since, bootlegging of alcohol is practically unheard of to the point that now, many people enjoy home brewing or winemaking as a hobby.  There is absolutely no cultural stigma or negative association attached to the responsible and legal enjoyment of alcohol, even though the abuse of alcohol can be extremely damaging to society.



That is correct.  It is also correct that the bootleggers exacerbated and gave more power to organized crime, and organized crime still exists - and now imports drugs and human beings instead of booze.  One might well say that the violence of Al Capone is gone; but yet we still have the gang warfare over distribution of other illicit items which the gangs took to after giving up booze.  So the repealing of Prohibition didn't fix the gang problem, it only deprived them of a source of income.



> As I said before, the "damage to society" is largely a direct result of the prohibition, not a function of the product that is prohibited.  It's pretty convenient that we have such a blatant and clear example of it in our own country's relatively short history.



I disagree with that as well.  You keep saying it, but you don't provide any evidence that this is the case.  The pot-smoker who steals to buy pot will still steal to buy legal pot.  In what way has this changed?  The drug user who destroys their family will still do so; in what way will this change?

The same can be said of alcohol and the damage it inflicts on society.  A DUI driver is a DUI driver; it hardly matters if their booze was legal or illegal before they poured it into themselves, does it?  Legalizing booze did not stop the damage to society that booze represented.  Neither will legalizing drugs such as marijuana.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 5, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> are those of you arguing that mj is bad for society also in favor of reinstating prohibition?  Just want to knoif you are consistent.



Let me address that this way...as is my wont...

1) It doesn't matter if I am consistent or not when it comes to personal preference.  This is opinion, after all.  I can present logical argument in support of my opinions, but in the end, my opinion is based as much on my preferences as on the facts I gather to support them.

2) To that end, I like booze.  At least, I have a snort now and again, maybe a couple times a year.  I don't like pot, don't use it, and have had significant personal issues with family members who have (as well as other drugs, it must be said).

3) Is it hypocritical to support the continued legal use of booze, but to argue against the legalization of pot?  Yes, it is!  I am an unabashed hypocrite in this area.  I could make all kinds of convoluted arguments about the medical use of alcohol versus the medical use of pot, or the addictive qualities of each, or the relative ease of spotting a DUI driver versus a stoned driver, and so on and so forth; but it still comes down to personal preference.  I am against pot.  Why?  Because I am.

4) If, however, booze were outlawed, I would not be personally torn up over it.  Just don't drink it that much; it would be oh well for me. I'd resent the intrusion into my 'rights', but in the end, I'm not certain that there is a civil right to drink booze.

5) When it comes to legalization of substances we use to entertain ourselves, booze is, like it or not, the people's choice.  Pot is not (again, that trend is changing, but at the moment, it's still the minority view).  When no one's civil liberties are being infringed, the majority rules.  The majority wants booze to be legal; shazam.  The same majority wants pot to be illegal; shazam it's illegal.

There is nothing wrong with a system of majority rule when no one's rights are being infringed.  Is it oppressive?  Yes, to the minority who doesn't get their way.  I'm fine with that; even though sometimes it is ME who doesn't get my way.  It is how our system works, even when I don't care for the outcome.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 5, 2011)

@ Bill: Logical propositions are by nature incomplete an out of context.

A freshman-level logic example goes thusly:

Given: Everything with a tail is a dog.
Given: Monkeys have tails.
Conclusion: Monkeys are dogs.

It only works if you accept that we're illustrating logic, not discussing facts in context. Facts in context always require a value judgment as well as a logical analysis. 

For me, when I discuss points on which my friends and I disagree, it's always most fun to find the diverging value judgments that are responsible for that disagreement. In this case, an intelligent, informed person can logically arrive at different conclusions. It's the value judgment that ultimately decides the difference.

Personally, I take issue with the government legislating good sense. It's _stupid_ to abuse drugs, ride without a helmet or get yourself neck-deep in credit card debt. But, IMO, the government has no place in telling me I can't be self-destructive. Yes, being stupid hurts the society in which I live. According to my values, that harm is less than the harm that is/would be done by making our society more restrictive.

But that's my opinion based on my values. You have the right to your own opinion based on yours. I'll vote against you, but you won't catch me resorting to impugning your intellect just because you have a different value set.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

The problem with the "I only hurt myself" argument (especially in our shift toward Socialism in the US) is that you really DONT. Between the costs of medical treatment for the damage you do to yourself and the social programs like substance abuse programs that you get into when you get addicted and the like, the costs roll down onto everybody else. If you get knocked onto life support and huge medical expenses you cant cover because not wearing a motorcycle helmet "hurts nobody but me" then should we pull your plug when your bank account runs out? It was your decision in the first place to take the risk right?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 5, 2011)

I accept your previous statement and concede the point you made.



bushidomartialarts said:


> Personally, I take issue with the government legislating good sense. It's _stupid_ to abuse drugs, ride without a helmet or get yourself neck-deep in credit card debt. But, IMO, the government has no place in telling me I can't be self-destructive. Yes, being stupid hurts the society in which I live. According to my values, that harm is less than the harm that is/would be done by making our society more restrictive.



That's the crust of the biscuit, all right.  We both recognize that the two imperatives (personal liberty and the continuation of society) are in opposition to each other in many ways.  There is a continual tug-of-war between them, and a good and just society struggles to balance personal liberty against the legitimate needs of society.  As citizens is a representative republic, our responsibility is to use our reasoning ability as well as our core principles when we cast votes for direct results in a plebiscite or for a representative who pledges to represent those values for us.



> But that's my opinion based on my values. You have the right to your own opinion based on yours. I'll vote against you, but you won't catch me resorting to impugning your intellect just because you have a different value set.



Props to you, my friend.  May I say "likewise."

One area we have not yet breached opens up a new can of worms, however.  That is the notion of a national system of health care, or cases in the current system where health care is taxpayer-funded (federal employees, retirees, and others enrolled in federal health care systems).  When the taxpayer must ultimately foot the bill for the individual choices people make, there is a strong argument that can be made that those same taxpayers (ie, society) have a vested interest and indeed a right to say how those funds are spent.  This can be done by restricting health care based on identifiable risky practices by those who need the care and denying coverage; or by restricting the rights of all to engage in those risky practices.

Both are alien to concepts of personal liberty, but they are also linked to concepts of representative democracy.  That is, if I have to spend money for taxes, I have a right to insist through my elected representatives how that money should be spent.

Since there is no established constitutional right to health care, at the present time one can well imagine a national health care system where it is perfectly legal to say that alcohol abusers don't get a new liver, or that one cannot smoke pot because it costs society money in terms of health care expenses of various sorts.

Would you care to comment, or shall we leave this discussion where we found it?


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I still disagree with your assertion that legalizing marijuana will "remove the criminal element from the equation."  The drug dealers will still exist; they'll still sell marijuana if they can undercut commercial prices for legal marijuana.  They'll also sell the other drugs that remain illicit.  They will not go away.  The violence that surrounds the distribution of drugs will not go away.  They are linked.  So long as there are ANY banned substances imported in large quantities from outside the USA, we're going to experience this sort of crime.  So no, legalization won't fix the criminal problem.  It will only change the equation for the end-user and legal side of the distribution chain.


And as I've said many, many times before, each substance or action should be weighed on its own merits.  Should marijuana be legalized, the negative impacts would be minimal when compared to many activities accepted and even endorsed by society at large.  Once again, alcohol is the biggie here, but there are others.

Do you believe that alcohol should be banned once again?  Surely you can admit logically that there is a societal cost to alcohol.  For your argument to be at all logical, or even simply internally consistent, you must be in favor of prohibition, consequences of that prohibition be damned.  


> That is correct.  It is also correct that the bootleggers exacerbated and gave more power to organized crime, and organized crime still exists - and now imports drugs and human beings instead of booze.  One might well say that the violence of Al Capone is gone; but yet we still have the gang warfare over distribution of other illicit items which the gangs took to after giving up booze.  So the repealing of Prohibition didn't fix the gang problem, it only deprived them of a source of income.


It didn't end crime, but it did end the criminalization of alcohol, including the unnecessary societal cost of jailing people for drinking, selling, or distributing it, and I believe that any reasonable person would agree that the repeal of prohibition was a good idea.  In exactly the same way, I believe that hindsight will eventually agree that the prohibition on pot was (is) a terrible idea as well. 





> I disagree with that as well.  You keep saying it, but you don't provide any evidence that this is the case.  The pot-smoker who steals to buy pot will still steal to buy legal pot.  In what way has this changed?  The drug user who destroys their family will still do so; in what way will this change?


In order to provide evidence to the contrary, I'd have to accept your statement as true to begin with.  Frankly, I'd like to see any evidence that someone who smokes pot (not a crack/meth/heroin addict, mind you, but a recreational pot smoker) will steal specifically to buy pot.  At most, I would again compare it to alcohol.  Do some particularly desperate people buy alcohol with stolen money?  Maybe.  Is it something that you could call a specific problem, among the billions of people in the World who drink alcohol?  I don't think so.  





> The same can be said of alcohol and the damage it inflicts on society.  A DUI driver is a DUI driver; it hardly matters if their booze was legal or illegal before they poured it into themselves, does it?  Legalizing booze did not stop the damage to society that booze represented.  Neither will legalizing drugs such as marijuana.


So, once again, you're on board with reintroducing prohibition of alcohol.  Right?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 5, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> And as I've said many, many times before, each substance or action should be weighed on its own merits.  Should marijuana be legalized, the negative impacts would be minimal when compared to many activities accepted and even endorsed by society at large.  Once again, alcohol is the biggie here, but there are others.



_"...Minimal when compared..." _ This is a value judgment.  As I've said...

a) I don't agree with your comparison.

b) Even if I did, the relative damage each drug (alcohol or pot) is not the measure of whether something should be legal or illegal in the USA; majority rule is.  So it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong.



> Do you believe that alcohol should be banned once again?  Surely you can admit logically that there is a societal cost to alcohol.  For your argument to be at all logical, or even simply internally consistent, you must be in favor of prohibition, consequences of that prohibition be damned.



I absolutely admit that alcohol has a high societal cost.  It has nothing to do with my opinion on whether or not alcohol should be banned.  You want to force me into a mode of deciding whether or not a substance should be banned based on how dangerous it is.  I reject that; it's not how our system works.  We ban or allow based on majority vote or the votes of our elected representatives.  Relative danger has little or nothing to do with it.



> It didn't end crime, but it did end the criminalization of alcohol, including the unnecessary societal cost of jailing people for drinking, selling, or distributing it, and I believe that any reasonable person would agree that the repeal of prohibition was a good idea.



It's a null argument and void for that reason.  Legalizing a substance necessarily eliminates the crime of obtaining and using that substance.  It has no value as an argument _"look, it ends crime!"_  Sure...so would legalizing murder - we'd save a bundle in arresting killers.



> In exactly the same way, I believe that hindsight will eventually agree that the prohibition on pot was (is) a terrible idea as well. In order to provide evidence to the contrary, I'd have to accept your statement as true to begin with.  Frankly, I'd like to see any evidence that someone who smokes pot (not a crack/meth/heroin addict, mind you, but a recreational pot smoker) will steal specifically to buy pot.



I've got a family member who burgled my apartment and sold my father and grandfather's legacy gifts to me in order to get high on both crack and pot.  The fact that she also smokes crack doesn't negate the fact that she also spent the money on pot.  That enough for you?



> At most, I would again compare it to alcohol.  Do some particularly desperate people buy alcohol with stolen money?  Maybe.  Is it something that you could call a specific problem, among the billions of people in the World who drink alcohol?  I don't think so.  So, once again, you're on board with reintroducing prohibition of alcohol.  Right?



No, I'm not, but as I previously said, if it was banned, it wouldn't bother me that much.  I like booze just fine, but I drink very little of it.  Take it away and I survive; not that big of a deal to me.

You want me to be logically consistent in my opinions about pot and booze, based on what you feel are their relative dangers to society.  I keep telling you - I'm not, because my opinion is an opinion.  I back my opinions with fact, but in the end, opinions are also based on personal preference, life experience, and personal principles.  I don't mind booze and I hate pot.  End of story.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> The problem with the "I only hurt myself" argument (especially in our shift toward Socialism in the US) is that you really DONT. Between the costs of medical treatment for the damage you do to yourself and the social programs like substance abuse programs that you get into when you get addicted and the like, the costs roll down onto everybody else. If you get knocked onto life support and huge medical expenses you cant cover because not wearing a motorcycle helmet "hurts nobody but me" then should we pull your plug when your bank account runs out? It was your decision in the first place to take the risk right?


And once again, the conservatives are arguing a liberal position.  I'm in bizarro MartialTalk.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I absolutely admit that alcohol has a high societal cost.  It has nothing to do with my opinion on whether or not alcohol should be banned.  You want to force me into a mode of deciding whether or not a substance should be banned based on how dangerous it is.  I reject that; it's not how our system works.  We ban or allow based on majority vote or the votes of our elected representatives.  Relative danger has little or nothing to do with it.


 I'm not trying to force you to do anything other than  admit that you're arguing from a veneer of logic, that you're not being internally consistent and instead are arguing your position more from convenience and a lack of momentum than any real ethical imperative.  Your position seems to be essentially this:

Marijuana is illegal.  I don't like it and am glad it's illegal. 
Alcohol is legal.  Meh.


> It's a null argument and void for that reason.  Legalizing a substance necessarily eliminates the crime of obtaining and using that substance.  It has no value as an argument _"look, it ends crime!"_  Sure...so would legalizing murder - we'd save a bundle in arresting killers.


And so then we can step back and look at the ACTUAL impact upon society of the activity.  Instead, you're stuck looking at the artificial impact that's strictly a result of the ban and not the behavior. If we legalize murder, what would happen?  If we legalize Marijuana, what would happen?  Objectively, the real impact on society would be very different.

The converse of your point is that any activity if made illegal creates crime regardless of the activity.  If drinking water is banned, as ridiculous as that might sound, it would create criminals where none were before.





> I've got a family member who burgled my apartment and sold my father and grandfather's legacy gifts to me in order to get high on both crack and pot.  The fact that she also smokes crack doesn't negate the fact that she also spent the money on pot.  That enough for you?


Nope, not at all, because you're talking about someone who is a crack addict.  Did she buy a beer or a fifth of Jack with that money?  Probably.  Likely.  


> No, I'm not, but as I previously said, if it was banned, it wouldn't bother me that much.  I like booze just fine, but I drink very little of it.  Take it away and I survive; not that big of a deal to me.


As I said, you're not arguing from a consistent position.  It's not about societal effect.  It's about momentum and your own emotional, personal experiences with one specific recreational drug over another. 





> You want me to be logically consistent in my opinions about pot and booze, based on what you feel are their relative dangers to society.  I keep telling you - I'm not, because my opinion is an opinion.  I back my opinions with fact, but in the end, opinions are also based on personal preference, life experience, and personal principles.  I don't mind booze and I hate pot.  End of story.


And for the record, this is exactly what I predicted about 80 posts ago when I provided links to past threads and shortly after called the eventual outcome.  You always start off touting logic and disparaging anyone else's position contrary to your own, and end up admitting that you're arguing from emotion not logic.  For you, it's not about society, about the majority or minority position, about legality or logic at all.  It's about your own specific, personal experiences, and a visceral rejection of the idea of legalization.  

And so, once again, as we have in other discussions, you can drop the facade of logic.  You wave that banner around, but underneath it you're arguing from an emotional position.  There isn't anything wrong with that at all.  It's just as legitimate as anything else.  But what I do have a problem with is your insistence that it's just logic.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 5, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> You always start off touting logic and disparaging anyone else's position contrary to your own, and end up admitting that you're arguing from emotion not logic.  For you, it's not about society, about the majority or minority position, about legality or logic at all.  It's about your own specific, personal experiences, and a visceral rejection of the idea of legalization.



You're talking about two different things.  I argue from the position of logic, particularly when the arguments offered are illogical.  I even offered up some examples of logic that was supportive of legalization, although I did not subscribe to them personally; so there goes your idea that I reject any logic inconsistent with my own opinions.  On the contrary, I acknowledge good logic even when I disagree with the results.  I just take poor logic to task because it is poor logic.  Fuzzy thinking makes me want to pull my hair out.  Oops, hair is already gone. 

I also have opinions, which are only partially based on logic.  I actually tried to keep my opinion out of the discussion, and only argue logic, but you kept saying _"So your opinion is X, right?"  _

I recognize the difference between my opinion and logical argument.  I also recognize that everyone has opinions that are inconsistent and run contrary to logic.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

I think generally people will be disappointed if marijuana is legalised. Apart from the people perhaps who grow their own not being bothered by the police I can't see much else changing. There would have to be an age limit of course like smoking and drinking so I imagine dealers will look to get buyers in the underage groups. There will still be addicts who will need to steal, usually from family members, to sustain their habits, it will still be illegal to drive a car under the influence and drugs will still be the choice of control for pimps. There will be the black market as there always is whether things are legal or not. 

Probably a compromise is the best solution you are going to get, keep it illegal, the police chase the dealers not the personal use people. Don't jail the addicts, send them to rehab, the taxpayer pays either way so chose a way that may help, could well be cheaper, I don't know. 

As with the abortion argument perhaps education is also a way forward, if children learn about the effects of drugs and alcohol they may not take them up, if they do they can't plead ignorance and it's on their own heads. At least that way you almost please most people, it stays illegal but people can make a choice whether to use it or not. It's about the best you are going to get frankly. There's problems and cost to the tax payer whatever you do.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You're talking about two different things.  I argue from the position of logic, particularly when the arguments offered are illogical.  I even offered up some examples of logic that was supportive of legalization, although I did not subscribe to them personally; so there goes your idea that I reject any logic inconsistent with my own opinions.  On the contrary, I acknowledge good logic even when I disagree with the results.  I just take poor logic to task because it is poor logic.  Fuzzy thinking makes me want to pull my hair out.  Oops, hair is already gone.
> 
> I also have opinions, which are only partially based on logic.  I actually tried to keep my opinion out of the discussion, and only argue logic, but you kept saying _"So your opinion is X, right?"  _
> 
> I recognize the difference between my opinion and logical argument.  I also recognize that everyone has opinions that are inconsistent and run contrary to logic.


This may just be my own inability to understand you.  But Frankly, to me your posts allege logic in name only, and the support you give for your position is fluid and everchanging.  I guess from where I sit, your position still boils down to, "I vehemently dislike MJ because I have negative personal experience with it and so will always argue that it be banned."  It's not logical to argue laterally from the conclusion back to the premises.  It's a kind of distorted teleological fallacy where you start with the end, that MJ is bad, and argue backwards from there.

I've seen you argue in one thread that MJ should be illegal because the majority wishes it, and then when later asked whether you'd support it if the majority was in favor, you point out that the majority isn't always right.

 It's not logical to take an emotional position and cast about for plausible, rational support, but that's exactly what you're doing.  You make a good go at it, but ultimately, in the end, your position is based strictly on your ownnegative personal experiences and you freely (eventually) admit that.

Once again, if I'm too dumb to understand and completely way off base, I'll just call it quits.  If there's any shred of truth to what I've just written, I just wish you'd cut to the chase, say that you don't like it, don't want it legalized and never will.  And then just stop.  You'd save us all a lot of time.  Unless you're doing this strictly as an intellectual exercise, it's reminiscent of Groundhog Day, where whenever this thread comes up it launches virtually identical conversation.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

You guys that keep arguing about alcohol is legal so then so should pot.  If thats your position then why not Crack or Heroin or meth.  If your argument is keep the Govt from tell me what I can and cant do then why would you keep these drugs illegal and not pot?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 5, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> The problem with the "I only hurt myself" argument (especially in our shift toward Socialism in the US) is that you really DONT. Between the costs of medical treatment for the damage you do to yourself and the social programs like substance abuse programs that you get into when you get addicted and the like, the costs roll down onto everybody else. If you get knocked onto life support and huge medical expenses you cant cover because not wearing a motorcycle helmet "hurts nobody but me" then should we pull your plug when your bank account runs out? It was your decision in the first place to take the risk right?



Thank you for illustrating my point.

As BMattocks said, the "security --- liberty" continuum is something our society balances.

I don't think anybody here would advocate for literally sterilizing welfare mothers, despite the fact that this would reduce a very real drain on our society's resources.

I also don't think anybody here would advocate for the right to shag somebody in a school playground during school hours. And yet, somebody doing so isn't committing any real violence.

We all fall in the middle. For you, the potential damage of having some guy on life support for years outweighs his right to make personal choices. My values say the opposite.

@Ballen: you raise an interesting point. I think for most people who would legalize MJ, it's because a lot of research seems to indicate that it's no worse than alcohol, and clearly safer than tobacco. Crack and heroin are demonstrably worse than all three.

Personally I'm torn there. I object to drug prohibition because it doesn't work. Anybody can get drugs in the US if they want them. Anybody. It seems like a waste of resources better applied elsewhere. If we legalize marijuana, but not crack -- then we're still engaging in a policy that doesn't work. It doesn't resolve my chief concern.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> You guys that keep arguing about alcohol is legal so then so should pot.  If that&#8217;s your position then why not Crack or Heroin or meth.  If your argument is keep the Govt from tell me what I can and can&#8217;t do then why would you keep these drugs illegal and not pot?


That's already been answered.  Some would argue that the pros of legalization outweigh the cons regardless of the substance.  I don't personally agree with this.

For me, it is truly about the potential negative impact on society, and in this case it's pretty clear.  Crack, Meth, Heroin and other similar drugs lead inevitably through a destructive cycle of addiction.  Just about everyone who gets into Meth ends up chasing the dragon and spiraling until they either crash and burn or crash and emerge from the ashes.  

Weed doesn't have this.  If abused, weed might lead to a listless lack of ambition and a compromised short term memory.  That's about it.  The slippery slope fallacy is just that, flawed logic, and in this case it clearly doesn't apply. *  Edit:  Just want to add that there are obvious health issues, resulting from smoking plant (whether that be tobacco or whatever).  This is a simplification, but the point is that a person doesn't become a crazed, drug addled psychopath such as was presented in Reefer Madness.*

Bill brought up murder.  Why not legalize murder?  Same thing.  If murder were legal, what would happen?  Well, people would be able to murder with impunity.  That's... wow.  I think we can all agree that this is a very bad idea.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

Isn't marijuana linked to mental illness though? This doesn't sound encouraging, I've no interest in trying the drug but this would put me off if I were thinking about it.

_MENTAL HEALTH, BRAIN FUNCTION, AND MEMORY_
_It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia. This connection with mental illness should make health care providers for terminally ill patients and the patients themselves, who may already be suffering from some form of clinical depression, weigh very carefully the pros and cons of adopting a therapeutic course of marijuana._
_In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use. Mental disorders connected with marijuana use merit their own category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association. These include Cannabis Intoxication (consisting of impaired motor coordination, anxiety, impaired judgment, sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal, and often includes perceptual disturbances; Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (memory deficit, disorientation); Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Delusions; Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Hallucinations; and Cannabis Induced Anxiety Disorder. _
_In addition, marijuana use has many indirect effects on health. Its effect on coordination, perception, and judgment means that it causes a number of accidents, vehicular and otherwise._

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I think generally people will be disappointed if marijuana is legalised. Apart from the people perhaps who grow their own not being bothered by the police I can't see much else changing. There would have to be an age limit of course like smoking and drinking so I imagine dealers will look to get buyers in the underage groups.


Probably not.  It will be the same as for cigarettes and alcohol where the lion's share of underage use is from adults buying them stuff.  Strangers in some cases, relatives and friends more often than not.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

If you shave off all of the "war on drugs".."needless expense".."drug violence"...yadda yadda trappings it all boils down to "I want to smoke weed" in the end. And even though weed IS wide spread it is still not a common in our society as drinking alcohol is.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 5, 2011)

What amazes me is that Phillip-Morris and other big tobacco companies haven't poured tons of money into legalizing MJ. Just as their own core products are failing, BAM! brand-new market.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

Humans never have. Never will. And probably never should base decisions purely on logic alone. Values are as important or even more so when dealing with issues such as this. What is important to us as a people...logical or not.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Probably not. It will be the same as for cigarettes and alcohol where the lion's share of underage use is from adults buying them stuff. Strangers in some cases, relatives and friends more often than not.


 
True but it's still going to be illegal and have the police having to chase them so not a lot is going to be gained from making the drug legal, it's still going to cost the tax payer court and police costs. Though due to the way cigarettes and alcohol are viewed by people as relatively harmless I can't see adults buying drugs for  kids quite as much. 
There'll still be be a blackmarket though whoever buys them as someone is going to want to make money out of it.
I'm not advocating for or against making it legal, I don't know what would work in your country but I can't help thinking that for the people that are for making it legal it won't as much of a bonus as they think and it won't change very much either so perhaps erring on the side of caution and keeping it illegal could be better. :idunno:


----------



## granfire (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Isn't marijuana linked to mental illness though? This doesn't sound encouraging, I've no interest in trying the drug but this would put me off if I were thinking about it.
> 
> _MENTAL HEALTH, BRAIN FUNCTION, AND MEMORY_
> _It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia. This connection with mental illness should make health care providers for terminally ill patients and the patients themselves, who may already be suffering from some form of clinical depression, weigh very carefully the pros and cons of adopting a therapeutic course of marijuana._
> ...



Sounds not too different from what my Mom told me about alcohol issues...her more memorable moments in over 30 years professionally in mental health/detox and rehab were alcohol (especially hard liquor) and the nasty stuff like crack etc, I don't recall pot being mentioned...


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 5, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Humans never have. Never will. And probably never should base decisions purely on logic alone. Values are as important or even more so when dealing with issues such as this. What is important to us as a people...logical or not.



Another continuum. Spock wasn't right, and neither was Manson. Enlightenment comes when we balance perfectly our animal instincts against rational analysis.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

> We all fall in the middle. For you, the potential damage of having some guy on life support for years outweighs his right to make personal choices. My values say the opposite.



Make all the personal choices you want as long as they dont injure someone else (of course my decision to not wear a belt could "injure" the welfare of my wife and kids) or wind up making someone else PAY for what it is you wanted to do. Much like wildlife rescue services should send a bill to the mountain climbers who fall into crevasses. The problem (as I see it) is that most people who cry "I should be free to choose X" are also the ones who cry that they should not have to pay out their life savings and all of their assets when what they CHOSE to do lands them in trouble.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Isn't marijuana linked to mental illness though? This doesn't sound encouraging, I've no interest in trying the drug but this would put me off if I were thinking about it.


Ultimately, testing is inconclusive.  There is nothing definitive linking MJ to any mental illness (although, like people who insisted for years that smoking wasn't unhealthy, it's clear that if you abuse MJ, much as if you abuse ANYTHING, there will be consequences).

There are literally millions of people who have smoked weed throughout their adult lives, are high functioning and have suffered no observable ill effects.  Others react poorly very quickly.  Again, obvious parallels to alcohol.  

There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that MJ is used to self medicate pre-existing mental illness.  In other words, it's a cause/effect question.  I brought up in a previous thread on the same subject the NFL running back, Ricky Williams.  He had an anxiety disorder that he self medicated with MJ.  It eventually got him kicked out of the NFL, but had he taken the Paxil as prescribed (which reportedly involved many undesirable side effects for him) he would have been fine.   A sad case, really.

Source: http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

I'll also add that I think that alcohol or drug use in minors is a bad idea.  Much as I don't like the idea of kids being hit in the noggin, as I've stated in threads on kids sparring and such, I also don't like the idea of a child whose brain is rapidly developing into adulthood being impaired.  That, to me, just feels like a terrible idea.  I've seen evidence and studies in MJ use in kids, and the negative effects aren't surprising to me at all.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> @Ballen: you raise an interesting point. I think for most people who would legalize MJ, it's because a lot of research seems to indicate that it's no worse than alcohol, and clearly safer than tobacco. Crack and heroin are demonstrably worse than all three.
> 
> Personally I'm torn there. I object to drug prohibition because it doesn't work. Anybody can get drugs in the US if they want them. Anybody. It seems like a waste of resources better applied elsewhere. If we legalize marijuana, but not crack -- then we're still engaging in a policy that doesn't work. It doesn't resolve my chief concern.


 
Cant the same be said for any law?  If they made a  law and everyone followed it we would not need the police so to say well its everywhere anyone can get it so might as well make it legal could be applied to all laws because they are broken everyday.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> If you shave off all of the "war on drugs".."needless expense".."drug violence"...yadda yadda trappings it all boils down to "I want to smoke weed" in the end. And even though weed IS wide spread it is still not a common in our society as drinking alcohol is.


LOL.  And if you shave off all of the "negative societal impact"..."what about the children?"..."drug addled criminal"  yadda yadda trappings, it' all boils down to, "I don't like it, so you shouldn't do it."


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 5, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Make all the personal choices you want as long as they dont injure someone else (of course my decision to not wear a belt could "injure" the welfare of my wife and kids) or wind up making someone else PAY for what it is you wanted to do. Much like wildlife rescue services should send a bill to the mountain climbers who fall into crevasses. The problem (as I see it) is that most people who cry "I should be free to choose X" are also the ones who cry that they should not have to pay out their life savings and all of their assets when what they CHOSE to do lands them in trouble.



For me, the damage has to be direct and real.

You don't get to punch me, or point a gun at me, or steal from me. That's assault or theft and impinges on my rights as a human.
You don't get to tell lies about me in a way that hurts my livelihood or reputation. That's libel (or slander) and can hurt my family or livelihood.

Beyond that, things start getting indirect and theoretical.

I can't choose to ride without a helmet because I _might_ get in a wreck and that wreck _might_ put me on life support and my insurance _might_ run out with money left to pay?   Sorry, don't buy it.

That road quickly leads to criminalizing bad decisions of all sorts. Your credit card debt costs me money. So does your cousin's choice to drop out of school. Or my Catholic friend's decision to have six children.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

granfire said:


> Sounds not too different from what my Mom told me about alcohol issues...her more memorable moments in over 30 years professionally in mental health/detox and rehab were alcohol (especially hard liquor) and the nasty stuff like crack etc, I don't recall pot being mentioned...


 People do die from Marijuana, people do get addicted to marijuana, just like crack, and other drugs.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> True but it's still going to be illegal and have the police having to chase them so not a lot is going to be gained from making the drug legal, it's still going to cost the tax payer court and police costs. Though due to the way cigarettes and alcohol are viewed by people as relatively harmless I can't see adults buying drugs for  kids quite as much.
> There'll still be be a blackmarket though whoever buys them as someone is going to want to make money out of it.
> I'm not advocating for or against making it legal, I don't know what would work in your country but I can't help thinking that for the people that are for making it legal it won't as much of a bonus as they think and it won't change very much either so perhaps erring on the side of caution and keeping it illegal could be better. :idunno:


Cops already, largely ignore weed.  If cops spent their time chasing down every casual, recreational user of strictly MJ, there'd be no time for anything else.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

Perhaps it's could be left up to you whether you chose to wear a seatbelt in the front seat of a car but if you don't wear one in the back seat you could well kill the person in the front seat if the vehicle has to stop suddenly or is in an accident.
http://www.scottishmodifiedcars.com/features/news_rss_seatbelts_june.php

I picked that site because once you had read the article you could look at the cool cars lol.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 5, 2011)

Also, out here, wildlife rescue _*does*_ charge for rescuing idiots.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Cops already, largely ignore weed. If cops spent their time chasing down every casual, recreational user of strictly MJ, there'd be no time for anything else.


 

Exactly, that happens here too so really they'd be little change making it legal.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> That's already been answered. Some would argue that the pros of legalization outweigh the cons regardless of the substance. I don't personally agree with this.
> 
> For me, it is truly about the potential negative impact on society, and in this case it's pretty clear. Crack, Meth, Heroin and other similar drugs lead inevitably through a destructive cycle of addiction. Just about everyone who gets into Meth ends up chasing the dragon and spiraling until they either crash and burn or crash and emerge from the ashes.
> 
> ...


 Your facts are old and wrong there have been studies that shown Marijuana does kill, it is addicting, it does cause mental issues, just like all drugs.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Your facts are old and wrong there have been studies that shown Marijuana does kill, it is addicting, it does cause mental issues, just like all drugs.


Oh brother.  They're from the NIDA.  That's as close to "the source" as I can think of for relevant statistical information on the subject.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

Except when the rubber meets the road (or the head) that not how it works. The toll of auto accidents and their cost in lives and cash is large...there is long standing legal precedent for placing restrictions on vehicle operation and safety equipment. Why not be able to drive a car without bumpers or windshields (both illegal here btw)? I know that vehicle and traffic rules are going afield here, but there is also a longstanding history of substance restriction. Coke-a-Cola used to have "cocaine" in it once upon a time. Not allowing yall to have your ganga is far from a trampling of individual freedoms as far as our history goes.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> People do die from Marijuana, people do get addicted to marijuana, just like crack, and other drugs.



Really? You're the police officer and expert, so I'm asking for information here. Can you point to any cases of actual death from marijuana?

I mean death from MJ, like a cocaine overdose or the way people die from heroin withdrawal. Not dying from stupidity while stoned - like in a vehicle accident or falling off a mountain while hiking on MJ.

Seriously, I'm curious here. Not picking a fight.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

Perhaps the real solution is to pass laws where your medical insurance can refuse payment if you are injured while not wearing belts, while DWI, etc. And pass laws where your next of kin have to foot the bill for any EMS /medical service if your decision kills you.

It will never happen, but it presents an interesting take on the issue I believe.

As an aside. This seat-belt issue is a problem in my own profession:

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/news/no-seat-belt-usage-42-fatal-po



> *No Seat Belt Usage in 42% of Fatal Police Car Crashes*
> _Some officers resist wearing seat belts because the restraints slow their movement._


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Oh brother. They're from the NIDA. That's as close to "the source" as I can think of for relevant statistical information on the subject.


 
Never let it be said that debating here is a waste of time! I've been trying to find anything from the British Medical Journal about the dangers or not of marijuana, didn't find any but did find an article saying red wine doesn't cause heartburn and it made my spirits jump, I take daily meds for v bad heartburn but love red wine ( not much just good wine) and now I can go back to drinking it.

sorry, just wanted to say thanks guys


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 5, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Perhaps the real solution is to pass laws where your medical insurance can refuse payment if you are injured while not wearing belts, while DWI, etc. And pass laws where your next of kin have to foot the bill for any EMS /medical service if your decision kills you.
> 
> It will never happen, but it presents an interesting take on the issue I believe.



1. Wouldn't that exacerbate the issue? If your concern is personally picking up the tab, then making it easier for the insurance company refuse just puts most medical expenses directly on the public tab. Families can't afford to pay that out, so bankruptcy and bailouts reach back into our pockets.

2. Insurance already won't pay out for DWI or anything else where you're hurt while committing a crime.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Oh brother. They're from the NIDA. That's as close to "the source" as I can think of for relevant statistical information on the subject.


 Per the NIDA site
Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction; that is, people have difficulty controlling their drug use and cannot stop even though it interferes with many aspects of their lives. It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it. The number goes up to about 1 in 6 in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25-50 percent among daily users. Moreover, a study of over 300 fraternal and identical twin pairs found that the twin who had used marijuana before the age of 17 had elevated rates of other drug use and drug problems later on, compared with their twin who did not use before age 17.
*Marijuana accounted for 4.2 million of the estimated 7 million Americans dependent on or abusing illicit drugs*. In 2008, approximately 15 percent of people entering drug abuse treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse; 61 percent of those were under age 15, 

Research has shown that marijuana's negative effects on attention, memory, and learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off (Schweinsburg et al. 2008). 

Per C.E.D.A.R.S research report:
For 2002 there were a total of 157 deaths in the 31 Metro areas in which Marijuana is the only drug reported

Here a 3 medical case studies where people have died from using marijana its called cerebellar infarction.
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/MJstrokes.pdf


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Really? You're the police officer and expert, so I'm asking for information here. Can you point to any cases of actual death from marijuana?
> 
> I mean death from MJ, like a cocaine overdose or the way people die from heroin withdrawal. Not dying from stupidity while stoned - like in a vehicle accident or falling off a mountain while hiking on MJ.
> 
> Seriously, I'm curious here. Not picking a fight.


 Im far from an expert.  
Here are 3 case studies backed up by autopsys
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/MJstrokes.pdf


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> 1. Wouldn't that exacerbate the issue? If your concern is personally picking up the tab, then making it easier for the insurance company refuse just puts most medical expenses directly on the public tab. Families can't afford to pay that out, so bankruptcy and bailouts reach back into our pockets.
> 
> 2. Insurance already won't pay out for DWI or anything else where you're hurt while committing a crime.



No. You wind up loosing your house, having wages garnished and or tax returns seized. Insurance isn't automatically denied in a DWI injury here. Thats a new one to me. 

This way you get to choose to wear or not, but you wind up paying for your decision if it bites you in the ***.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Really? You're the police officer and expert, so I'm asking for information here. Can you point to any cases of actual death from marijuana?
> 
> I mean death from MJ, like a cocaine overdose or the way people die from heroin withdrawal. Not dying from stupidity while stoned - like in a vehicle accident or falling off a mountain while hiking on MJ.
> 
> Seriously, I'm curious here. Not picking a fight.


 

There is a case in Eire where the coroner stated that the deceased, a chap called Paul Byrne, died from heart failure caused by using marijuana. the wife has challenged this saying her husband had an ongoing medical condition he was self medicating with marijuana.


What if you kill someone because you weren't wearing a seatbelt? As in being sat in the back of a car and shooting forward at a rapid rate of knots?


----------



## granfire (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> There is a case in Eire where the coroner stated that the deceased, a chap called Paul Byrne, died from heart failure caused by using marijuana. the wife has challenged this saying her husband had an ongoing medical condition he was self medicating with marijuana.
> 
> 
> What if you kill someone because you weren't wearing a seatbelt? As in being sat in the back of a car and shooting forward at a rapid rate of knots?



I would assume that you would not come out smelling like a rose after impact either...but it is a valid question.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 5, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I've seen you argue in one thread that MJ should be illegal because the majority wishes it, and then when later asked whether you'd support it if the majority was in favor, you point out that the majority isn't always right.



That's a perfect example!  You're right, I have said exactly that.

I do argue that marijuana should be illegal because that is the will of the majority and prohibiting it does not infringe on anyone's civil rights.  That's how our government works and how it ought to work.  *Even when I don't like the result.*

I also stated my opinion - which is that despite the will of the majority, I won't ever be in favor of legalization.

However, what this means is this; if marijuana becomes legal for recreational use because the majority wishes it to be that way, I will of course respect the rule of law.  I won't like it and I won't agree with it, but will respect that the people have spoken.  I am allowed to agree with the logic of the situation and still not like it.  That's life, eh?

I have also said that the people are *booger-eatin' morons*, and I stand by that, too.  We're often driven by illogical passions, we can be mean and selfish, and we tend to make stupid self-serving laws that hasten our own destruction.  One of the drawbacks to a true representative democracy; we have the power to do ourselves in by being stupid.  It is only our constitutional framework that slows down our whirlwind of self-destruction.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Per the NIDA site
> Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction; that is, people have difficulty controlling their drug use and cannot stop even though it interferes with many aspects of their lives. It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it. The number goes up to about 1 in 6 in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25-50 percent among daily users. Moreover, a study of over 300 fraternal and identical twin pairs found that the twin who had used marijuana before the age of 17 had elevated rates of other drug use and drug problems later on, compared with their twin who did not use before age 17.
> *Marijuana accounted for 4.2 million of the estimated 7 million Americans dependent on or abusing illicit drugs*. In 2008, approximately 15 percent of people entering drug abuse treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse; 61 percent of those were under age 15,


Okay.  First, no one's arguing that marijuana use isn't pervasive.  Rather, I think it's pretty obvious that its use IS pervasive, to the tune of over 45% of people in the USA 12 or older have used it, and in 2009, according to the Fed, we're looking at over 16.7 million "past month" users.  That's a lot of people being criminalized.  

Second, I think it's really odd that you would change a critical word in the quote.  "Research has shown that approximately 9% of people who used marijuana _* may *_become dependent. The risk of addiction goes up to about 1 in 6  among those who start using as adolescents, and 25-50% of daily users."  Huh.  I guess that wasn't definitive enough for you.  A little dishonest, though.  http://www.drugabuse.gov/tib/marijuana.html  Once again, the language is inconclusive.  Is it good for you?  Clearly not.  Is it anything at all resembling meth?  No.  Not even close.  

Finally, looking at the addiction rates, alcohol has an addiction rate of about 5% of the total population of drinking age Americans.  That's about 1 in every 20 people... not just people who drink.  All people in the USA.  The rate of people who abuse alcohol is much higher, classified as alcohol abuse, but not addiction.  



> Research has shown that marijuana's negative effects on attention, memory, and learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off (Schweinsburg et al. 2008).


And again, no one's saying that it's a vitamin.  The point isn't that we should legalize it because it's a wonder drug.  The argument is that usage is already pervasive and that the prohibition itself is causing more problems than the substance, much as the prohibition of alcohol caused more problems than it solved.


> Per C.E.D.A.R.S research report:
> For 2002 there were a total of 157 deaths in the 31 Metro areas in which Marijuana is the only drug reported
> 
> Here a 3 medical case studies where people have died from using marijana its called cerebellar infarction.
> http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/MJstrokes.pdf


At what point does something become a medical exception?  Serious question.  For example, I train in BJJ, and a carotid choke is considered an extremely safe submission.  Most people do just fine, but there are a few for whom it's potentially fatal.  The number is statistically so small that it's considered more of an act of god than a legitimate risk.  I don't think I'm being clear.  I don't mean to dismiss the deaths or the risk.  The point is, at what point is something so unlikely that it's not a real risk.  Like being struck by lightning.  Potentially lethal, but not something that is at all likely.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's a perfect example!  You're right, I have said exactly that.
> 
> I do argue that marijuana should be illegal because that is the will of the majority and prohibiting it does not infringe on anyone's civil rights.  That's how our government works and how it ought to work.  *Even when I don't like the result.*
> 
> ...


I think I understand better now.  Thanks.  I hope that you'll be very clear to distinguish between two.  The problem for me is that you kind of flip back and forth between arguing a hypothetical because it conveniently supports your position and arguing what you really believe to be true because it supports your position.  I'm not always perceptive enough to tell the difference, and honestly, if you say X supports Y and also Z supports Y, I'm going to presume that you believe both X and Z to be consistent and true.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that MJ is used to self medicate pre-existing mental illness. In other words, it's a cause/effect question. I brought up in a previous thread on the same subject the NFL running back, Ricky Williams. He had an anxiety disorder that he self medicated with MJ. It eventually got him kicked out of the NFL, but had he taken the Paxil as prescribed (which reportedly involved many undesirable side effects for him) he would have been fine. A sad case, really.


 
 And Snoop Dog says he smokes it because he has migraines.
Just because I can make up a problem to justify why I do something dont make it right.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Okay. First, no one's arguing that marijuana use isn't pervasive. Rather, I think it's pretty obvious that its use IS pervasive, to the tune of over 45% of people in the USA 12 or older have used it, and in 2009, according to the Fed, we're looking at over 16.7 million "past month" users. That's a lot of people being criminalized.
> 
> Second, I think it's really odd that you would change a critical word in the quote. "Research has shown that approximately 9% of people who used marijuana _*may *_become dependent. The risk of addiction goes up to about 1 in 6 among those who start using as adolescents, and 25-50% of daily users." Huh. I guess that wasn't definitive enough for you. A little dishonest, though. http://www.drugabuse.gov/tib/marijuana.html Once again, the language is inconclusive. Is it good for you? Clearly not. Is it anything at all resembling meth? No. Not even close.
> 
> ...


 
If 16.7 million people break the law then they are criminals.  MIllions of people speed everyday should we get rid of traffic laws?

I didnt change any words that was cut and pasted directly from the NIDA web page.  There was no dishonesty.  Click the link on the top left that says Marijuana Research Report(Updated)  on the left click the like Is Marijuana Addictive?
1st paragraph It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana *will* become dependent on it.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDAHome.html

Medical exception?  That was just 1 research paper.  There are more out there.  But the initial claim was "nobody has ever OD and died from weed"  Thats a false and outdated statement.  Look at the CEDAR report over 100 deaths in just 31 cities in just 2002.  As Marijuana get even more potent that number will climb.  Marijuana today is not the Marijuana you smoked as a kid.  Its 5 to 10 times stronger then it was even in the 80's and 90's.  There are strains coming out of Canada that can be traded straight up in Miami  pound for pound for cocaine.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=24834


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> And Snoop Dog says he smokes it because he has migraines.
> Just because I can make up a problem to justify why I do something dont make it right.


 Sometimes, it would be a good idea to do a quick google search before saying something.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Sometimes, it would be a good idea to do a quick google search before saying something.



if there is one thing I like more then politics it's football.  I also am a huge texas fan and followed ricky williams since his longhorn days.  He had no trouble in texas being in front of crowds. And if I remember right the first time he popped on a test he did with his kicker or punter because they would party.  It was not until later he came up with this disorder as a reason why he smoked up.  


oh and if your talking about snoop dog since I can't tell by your snide comment but he was on Howard stern and said he had uhh migraines so he got his weed card from a doc.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> If 16.7 million people break the law then they are criminals. MIllions of people speed everyday should we get rid of traffic laws?


That's an excellent question.  A few years back now, when the national law was 55mph, the States looked at how many people were speeding.  They didn't eliminate laws, but they raised the speed limit in many stretches of the highways and interstates.  

If everyone jaywalks at the same spot, you could either ticket everyone or put a crosswalk there.  I guess which would be the best course of action depends upon your own personal stake in the race.  





> Medical exception? That was just 1 research paper. There are more out there. But the initial claim was "nobody has ever OD and died from weed" Thats a false and outdated statement. Look at the CEDAR report over 100 deaths in just 31 cities in just 2002. As Marijuana get even more potent that number will climb. Marijuana today is not the Marijuana you smoked as a kid. Its 5 to 10 times stronger then it was even in the 80's and 90's. There are strains coming out of Canada that can be traded straight up in Miami pound for pound for cocaine.


 This is another great point in favor of legalization.  Were weed legal, it would be regulated.  one of the biggest problems now is that weed often isn't just weed.  Good point, and I'd call this another really good reason to legalize and regulate.  You'd know that if you buy Phillip Morris doobs, you'd be getting the same thing each time.  Just like you know that if you drink a silver bullet, you've got a light beer that's about 4 or 5% alc by volume and you're not going to be drinking something that's 80 proof.  

The medical exception thing is a genuine question.  I just wonder what the cut off is... 3 out of... how many?  I mean, at what point are we looking at unfortunate flooks more closely related to an allergy than a legit medical threat?  Kind of like the guy who dies from a peanut allergy.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

actually speedlimits were changed to 55 to save oil in the 70's by the feds.  Then in 1995 the feds got rid of the law and returned the power back to the states it had nothing to do with people speeding


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 6, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> actually speedlimits were changed to 55 to save oil in the 70's by the feds.  Then in 1995 the feds got rid of the law and returned the power back to the states it had nothing to do with people speeding



The whole thing was a bit of funny business by the federal government.  President Nixon signed the bill into law, but there is and was no national speed limit; the federal government cannot set speed limits in the states, they haven't the authority.  What they could (and did) do was to deny states transportation funding unless they complied and passed state laws limiting the speed limit to 55mph.

It was intended to save gasoline during the 'fuel crisis' of the early 1970's.  It was also noted that lives were saved when people slowed down.

Over time, as gas prices came back down (and actually became available again, some of us remember rationing and gas stations being out of gasoline entirely), states began to rebel and push back.  Some raised their speed limits and dared the feds to cut off their road funds.

The law was eventually repealed.  However, it did not 'return power to the states' because it never had power over the states.  What it did was to stop holding the stick of 'no road funds for you guys' over the heads of the states and let them do as they wished.  Another blow for state sovereignty.

Some studies have noted that not much gas was saved and that the predicted 'blood on the highways' when the speed limits went up didn't happen.  Much of the lack of predicted negative impact may have had to do with other circumstances, such as safer cars, more use of seatbelts, the introduction of shoulder belts and airbags, more emphasis on interdicting DUI drivers, and better roads.


----------



## Steve (Jan 6, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> actually speedlimits were changed to 55 to save oil in the 70's by the feds.  Then in 1995 the feds got rid of the law and returned the power back to the states it had nothing to do with people speeding


Okay.  You said that these 16.7 million people are criminals.  Are the people who speed also criminals?  Do you speed in your POV?  Do you jaywalk?   The very fact that you drew the comparison between mj and speeding is an indication of how innocuous and petty the crime of recreational pot smoking really is.  

You also mentioned the unregulated strength and adjuncts that are in pot now making it much more potent and potentially dangerous.  This is a good point.  Again, the legalization of pot would bring the production process out in the open, and also open up the trade to regulatory oversight.  During prohibition, people were going blind from trying to make their own bathtub gin from ingesting wood alcohol.  When's the last time you heard of that happening?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Okay. You said that these 16.7 million people are criminals. Are the people who speed also criminals? Do you speed in your POV? Do you jaywalk? The very fact that you drew the comparison between mj and speeding is an indication of how innocuous and petty the crime of recreational pot smoking really is.
> 
> You also mentioned the unregulated strength and adjuncts that are in pot now making it much more potent and potentially dangerous. This is a good point. Again, the legalization of pot would bring the production process out in the open, and also open up the trade to regulatory oversight. During prohibition, people were going blind from trying to make their own bathtub gin from ingesting wood alcohol. *When's the last time you heard of that* *happening*?


 

That happens in Ireland when they make poteen. 

I suspect ballen doesn't speed or jaywalk though


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 6, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Okay. You said that these 16.7 million people are criminals. Are the people who speed also criminals? Do you speed in your POV? Do you jaywalk? The very fact that you drew the comparison between mj and speeding is an indication of how innocuous and petty the crime of recreational pot smoking really is.
> 
> You also mentioned the unregulated strength and adjuncts that are in pot now making it much more potent and potentially dangerous. This is a good point. Again, the legalization of pot would bring the production process out in the open, and also open up the trade to regulatory oversight. During prohibition, people were going blind from trying to make their own bathtub gin from ingesting wood alcohol. When's the last time you heard of that happening?


 
 Its not petty and innocuous to the families of addicts that steal from them.  Its not petty to children who get left at home alone so the parents can go get blitzed.  How petty is it when you find a bag of weed in your kids dresser?  I could care less if you smoke pot recreationally It illegal but most police wont bother you unless youre driving around with it or selling it.

Yes I do speed in my POV.  I also except the consequence that if Im caught I could get a ticket.  I dont expect the law to change to allow my criminal behavior.  NAMBLA lobbies to allow child molestation they give just as many "Good" reasons for it as you do for smoking weed. 

You act like as soon as Weed is legal and regulated people will stop selling it on the black market.  Weed and Alcohol are very different it take a complicated process to make alcohol.  It takes a seed and dirt to grow pot. Growing it and selling it is going to be cheaper then to buy it from a store.  Only now we have no way to stop it because we made weed legal.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 6, 2011)

I do think that perhaps, in an urge to 'win' the argument here and now, that the very serious point that the 'war on drugs' is ineffective and expensive is in danger of being overlooked.  Along the way, the good positions that were being made are starting to drown in tenuous and extreme comparisons.

The point of my OP at the end of the day was that the most senior officials tasked with 'dealing' (no pun intended) with the problem know that the evidence shows it can't be stopped, or even slowed down to any noticeable extent.  

I wondered what the views were of our American cousins on this issue, not really whether the trade deserves to be illegal or not.  That *is* a related matter but not the key point.  The very fact that useage is climbing seems to show that the real fight, the one to educate drug-use out of existence rather than eradicate by force of law, has been lost.

I wish that that weren't so, for as I said some pages ago, I lost a whole 'generation' of friends through their use of illegal drugs of one sort or another.  But historically this has ever been the case when mind-altering substances bump into a desire to legislate on the part of government viz the more that it is attempted to 'ban', the more harm gets done by the criminal element (and the drug users caught in the gears).

I suppose that my own stance is pretty close to Bill's on this.  I am just one step to the left, so to speak, in that, tho' I am unhappy about it, I do think that the trade should become officially regulated and commercialised.  It works okay(ish) for tobacco and alcohol after all, which are the closest extant synonyms that occur to me.


----------



## Steve (Jan 6, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Its not petty and innocuous to the families of addicts that steal from them.  Its not petty to children who get left at home alone so the parents can go get blitzed.  How petty is it when you find a bag of weed in your kids dresser?  I could care less if you smoke pot recreationally It illegal but most police won&#8217;t bother you unless you&#8217;re driving around with it or selling it.


And now we're back to the "what about the children" argument.  Every vice has the potential to be abused and there are personal consequences.  If someone is addicted to the internet and plays WoW at the expense of his personal and professional life that's not a good thing.  But MMORPGs aren't illegal.  If someone abuses alcohol, that can be devastating to a family.  If someone is addicted to gambling, the effects are often tragic and many families never recover.  It's sad when it happens.  But it doesn't happen to most people.

And again, just so that it's VERY clear, I am not and have never suggested that pot or any other recreational drug including alcohol is anything other than a very bad idea for minors.  In fact, in this thread, I've reiterated my position that I don't like anything that affects a child's brain, whether it's a legal or illegal drug, or being hit in the head in martial arts class.  A child's developing brain is, in my opinion, something that should be well taken care of, and this is particularly true through adolescence, where puberty is wreaking havoc on a child physically, mentally and emotionally.  So, to answer your question, if I found weed in my kid's dresser, sparks would fly.  Same would be true if I found out he was drinking alcohol or huffing scotch guard or getting high in any number of easily accessible ways.  

I hope that puts to rest the strawman you're arguing against now.  





> Yes I do speed in my POV.  I also except the consequence that if Im caught I could get a ticket.  I don&#8217;t expect the law to change to allow my criminal behavior.  NAMBLA lobbies to allow child molestation they give just as many "Good" reasons for it as you do for smoking weed.


So... you're a criminal.   By your definition.  Even if you're willing to pay the fine, you're knowingly breaking the law.  Huh. 

Judging the value of one topic over another is subjective and irrelevant.  Trying to associate this subject with something completely off topic is just smoke and mirrors.  If you're interested in legalizing pedophilia, start another thread and I'll tell you why I think you're a pervert.


> You act like as soon as Weed is legal and regulated people will stop selling it on the black market.  Weed and Alcohol are very different it take a complicated process to make alcohol.  It takes a seed and dirt to grow pot. Growing it and selling it is going to be cheaper then to buy it from a store.  Only now we have no way to stop it because we made weed legal.


People make alcohol in their homes all the time.  I know exactly what's involved in making a really good brew, and have done it myself many times.  Fun and delicious.


----------



## Steve (Jan 6, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I do think that perhaps, in an urge to 'win' the argument here and now, that the very serious point that the 'war on drugs' is ineffective and expensive is in danger of being overlooked.  Along the way, the good positions that were being made are starting to drown in tenuous and extreme comparisons.
> 
> The point of my OP at the end of the day was that the most senior officials tasked with 'dealing' (no pun intended) with the problem know that the evidence shows it can't be stopped, or even slowed down to any noticeable extent.
> 
> ...


Bill thinks that it should become officially regulated and commercialized?  If that's true, then I have completely misunderstood Bill's position and apologize.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 6, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Bill thinks that it should become officially regulated and commercialized?  If that's true, then I have completely misunderstood Bill's position and apologize.



I think it was the other part.  We're both the same in that we're 'unhappy' about the prospect of legalization.  He comes down sadly for it, and I come down sadly against it.  That's my take on it, anyway.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 6, 2011)

That's it, Bill :tup:.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 6, 2011)

I wish I could figure out that mulit-post thing I hope this is readable



stevebjj said:


> And now we're back to the "what about the children" argument. Every vice has the potential to be abused and there are personal consequences. If someone is addicted to the internet and plays WoW at the expense of his personal and professional life that's not a good thing. But MMORPGs aren't illegal. If someone abuses alcohol, that can be devastating to a family. If someone is addicted to gambling, the effects are often tragic and many families never recover. It's sad when it happens. But it doesn't happen to most people.
> 
> _The internet does not kill people, its does not alter your mental state, it not a physical addiction It could be a mental addiction but not a physical one. It has no physical withdraw. _
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve (Jan 6, 2011)

I don't know what you did to that last post, so I won't try to quote.  Suffice to say, yes.  Exactly.  I am going to advocate that we change laws that I feel need to be changed.  That's the process.  That's how things work in a country of laws.  If I disagree with something, I do what I can to legally advocate for change.  Surely you understand this.  We've seen the process at work over and over again in this country. 

Do you have an opinion on the tax cut extensions that were just passed?  What about health care reform?  Those are also laws... that amend or supercede pre-existing laws.  

Regarding NAMBLA, if you don't see a problem with pedophilia or that the physical, psychological and emotional toll on children is significant, I don't know what to say.  Rationally, the two are completely unrelated.  This goes back to Bill's comparison to murder.  If you seriously believe that the legalization of pedophilia or murder is at all comparable to the legalization of pot, you're just fundamentally coming from a place that's too far away for me to understand.

Regarding home brewing, it is also regulated and taxed.  And fun and tasty.  If MJ were legal, what's the problem with someone growing their own for personal use?  Just like with alcohol, if someone wants to sell or distribute, we've got mechanisms in place to  handle that.   

That said, people can grow jalepeno peppers in their homes, too, but how many actually do?  People can grow literally anything that's legal in their homes or back yards, but most people prefer to buy it at the grocery store.  How many people do you know who have a personal vegetable garden?  I know a few, but not many, and I live in a rural area.


----------



## Steve (Jan 6, 2011)

double post... stupid internet.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 6, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> This goes back to Bill's comparison to murder.



I wasn't trying to make the comparison you may think I was trying to make.  You had stated that legalizing marijuana would end the crimes associated with people buying it, which is true.  But is also a tautology, it says the same thing.  If you make running stop signs legal, then there will not be any crimes associated with people who run stop signs.  If you make murder legal, then there will be no crimes associated with people who murder others.  These things are self-evident, but meaningless.

Some make the argument that legalizing marijuana will lower crime rates.  By itself, that is a reasonable statement.  Certainly people won't get arrested for buying marijuana anymore, so that's a lower crime rate, right?  But it does not address...and YOU did not address...what about the rest of the associated crime.  Drug dealers keep dealing.  People who steal to buy drugs keep stealing (yes, you argued that very few people steal to buy pot, but if you accept that ANYONE steals to buy pot, then you have to admit they will still steal to buy pot after legalization).  And you'll even add some new crimes, such as black-marketing.  So will crime rates drop?  Sure!  The crime that isn't a crime anymore won't be prosecuted as one!  So what!  It's a non-argument.  Like I said, if you make running stop signs legal, then you lower crime.  Shall we then make running stop signs legal?  That was my point.  I wasn't comparing legalization of marijuana to murder, I was just pointing out a tautology.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 6, 2011)

And I would like to see the evidence that proves that "marijuana users don't steal to support their habit". It may in fact be true, but where are the stats that prove it?


----------



## Steve (Jan 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I wasn't trying to make the comparison you may think I was trying to make.  You had stated that legalizing marijuana would end the crimes associated with people buying it, which is true.  But is also a tautology, it says the same thing.  If you make running stop signs legal, then there will not be any crimes associated with people who run stop signs.  If you make murder legal, then there will be no crimes associated with people who murder others.  These things are self-evident, but meaningless.


What you're saying is correct.  I've never said otherwise.  

Removing the criminal element leaves you with the ability to look at the potential damage or lack of that the actual activity would have.  I say again, the outcomes of legalizing murder, pedophilia or smoking weed would be very different.  While the acts would be legal and remove the criminal element, the fallout of legalizing the first two would be far worse than from the third.  Don't you agree? 





> Some make the argument that legalizing marijuana will lower crime rates.  By itself, that is a reasonable statement.  Certainly people won't get arrested for buying marijuana anymore, so that's a lower crime rate, right?  But it does not address...and YOU did not address...what about the rest of the associated crime.  Drug dealers keep dealing.  People who steal to buy drugs keep stealing (yes, you argued that very few people steal to buy pot, but if you accept that ANYONE steals to buy pot, then you have to admit they will still steal to buy pot after legalization).


I guess I didn't address this question because I'm not sure I or anyone else ever claimed that legalizing pot (or any other drug) would end crime.  If ending drug related crimes altogether is the goal, we're going to have to widen our scope.   Certainly, it would reduce the crime rate because there's no longer a reason for people to seek out criminals in order to lawfully purchase the drug.  Once again, how many drug dealers sell alcohol on the corner?  I don't deal with drug dealers, so I can't know for sure, but I'd guess not too many.  "Hey kid.  Wanna by some crack?  How about a fifth of Johnny Walker?"  There's just no reason for a recreational drinker to seek out a shifty criminal in order to purchase some booze.  Now, during prohibition, it was an entirely different story.

Ultimately, I don't understand why you think it's relevant.  I really don't.  Theft is against the law.  If you steal my car, should I ask you why before calling the cops?  You're getting caught up in some of that fuzzy logic you hate.  While everyone who steals for pot is a thief, not everyone who buys pot does so with stolen money.  The crime we're talking about in this discussion is smoking weed.  





> And you'll even add some new crimes, such as black-marketing.


Really?  Serious question here.  Is there a thriving black market for alcohol?  If so, I'll cede this point.  





> So will crime rates drop?  Sure!  The crime that isn't a crime anymore won't be prosecuted as one!  So what!  It's a non-argument.  Like I said, if you make running stop signs legal, then you lower crime.  Shall we then make running stop signs legal?  That was my point.  I wasn't comparing legalization of marijuana to murder, I was just pointing out a tautology.


 If you legalize theft, stealing would no longer be illegal.  I get it.  I got it the first time.  As I said a while back in the thread, "And so then we can step back and look at the ACTUAL impact upon society of the activity. Instead, you're stuck looking at the artificial impact that's strictly a result of the ban and not the behavior. If we legalize murder, what would happen? If we legalize Marijuana, what would happen? Objectively, the real impact on society would be very different.

The converse of your point is that any activity if made illegal creates crime regardless of the activity. If drinking water is banned, as ridiculous as that might sound, it would create criminals where none were before."


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 6, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Serious question here.  Is there a thriving black market for alcohol?  If so, I'll cede this point.



Not a huge one.  There's a bigger black market for cigarettes though.  Same concept; a pack of smokes costs $2.40 in NC, and $8.50 in NYC.  Fill up your truck in NC, sell them to bodegas in NYC, and make a bunch of green.  Don't even have to cross any border checkpoints.

Now that pot is becoming legal in some states, I predict that there will be thriving black market in two ways.  First, it will be done by people who for whatever reason cannot get a medical prescription for the pot themselves; people will get prescriptions and sell the stuff instead of using it.  Second, people will buy it in the legal state and sell it in the illegal state.  Or, if it's legal in both places, they'll buy it where the state taxes on it are lower and sell it where they are higher.

The only reason booze isn't more widely black marketed is because there isn't that much of a price differential between the states to support a profit by moving it from one state to another.  Let one state raise their booze tax by a bunch, though, and there will be a market for people to bring in booze from the state nearest by that has lower taxes.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 6, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Once again, how many drug dealers sell alcohol on the corner? I don't deal with drug dealers, so I can't know for sure, but I'd guess not too many. "Hey kid. Wanna by some crack? How about a fifth of Johnny Walker?" There's just no reason for a recreational drinker to seek out a shifty criminal in order to purchase some booze. Now, during prohibition, it was an entirely different story.
> 
> ."


 
It depends on your definition of black market.  If youre talking about illegal alcohol sales it happens 1,000's of times a day everywhere.  Every time a 17 year old gives  $20.00 to a bum to buy him a six pack.  Happens all over this country.  There are also several places normally in the poor areas that sell beer and cigarettes illegally to avoid the taxes and fees put on by the state.  We raid at least 1 a month in my town to keep the city alcohol board happy but there are a lot more we just dont really fool with them we have better things to do.

We also dont normally mess with the recreational drug user.  And normally the only time they are bothered is when they are out driving with it in their car or have it in public.  Ive never executed a search Warrant on a house where we believed the person only smoked weed.


----------



## Steve (Jan 6, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> We also dont normally mess with the recreational drug user.  And normally the only time they are bothered is when they are out driving with it in their car or have it in public.  Ive never executed a search Warrant on a house where we believed the person only smoked weed.


Prosecution rests.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 7, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Prosecution rests.


 So there is no reason to change the laws Im glad we agree


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 7, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Prosecution rests.


 
Maybe I have missed a part of the argument, but what good will come out of legalizing it.
I thought it seemed like there were very few if any positives to actually legalizing it..
I would not say prosecution rests..


----------



## Steve (Jan 7, 2011)

LOL.  If that's what you take from it, at this point I don't have the energy to reply at length, ballen.  To me, you're acknowledging that the crime is both insignificant and benign. 

LuckyKBoxer, there are many "good things" that would come out of it that have been brought up repeatedly.  From the regulatory control, the tax income at all levels of Government and the ability to set standards for potency, to the decriminalization of it, keeping people whose only crime is scoring a lid of pot from clogging up the courts and jails.  Others have been brought up as well over the course of the thread, but these are the ones that jump to mind.  

Honestly, and I'm being completely sincere here, while I can see many benefits to legalization, I cannot think of one significant downside.  Not one.  While legalization wouldn't be a cure to all of society's ills by any stretch, not one bad thing about pot would be made worse as a result of lifting the prohibition, and many... most of the negative aspects would be eliminated, or even better, turned from a negative to a bona fide positive.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 7, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> LOL. If that's what you take from it, at this point I don't have the energy to reply at length, ballen. To me, you're acknowledging that the crime is both insignificant and benign.
> 
> LuckyKBoxer, there are many "good things" that would come out of it that have been brought up repeatedly. From the regulatory control, the tax income at all levels of Government and the ability to set standards for potency, to the decriminalization of it, keeping people whose only crime is scoring a lid of pot from clogging up the courts and jails. Others have been brought up as well over the course of the thread, but these are the ones that jump to mind.
> 
> Honestly, and I'm being completely sincere here, while I can see many benefits to legalization, I cannot think of one significant downside. Not one. While legalization wouldn't be a cure to all of society's ills by any stretch, not one bad thing about pot would be made worse as a result of lifting the prohibition, and many... most of the negative aspects would be eliminated, or even better, turned from a negative to a bona fide positive.


 If you think allowing people to smoke weed is a positive then you have never delt with the ills of the drug trade.


----------



## Steve (Jan 7, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> If you think allowing people to smoke weed is a positive then you have never delt with the ills of the drug trade.


Really?  

I said this: _"Honestly, and I'm being completely sincere here, while I can see many benefits to legalization, I cannot think of one significant downside. Not one. While legalization wouldn't be a cure to all of society's ills by any stretch, not one bad thing about pot would be made worse as a result of lifting the prohibition, and many... most of the negative aspects would be eliminated, or even better, turned from a negative to a bona fide positive."_ 

In what way is anything I said incorrect?  Name one thing that would be worse as a result of lifting the prohibition?   

I'm also curious what "ills of the drug trade" you think would be affected by legalization, as well.  You've already admitted that smoking pot is so benign that you, "also dont normally mess with the recreational drug user. And normally the only time they are bothered is when they are out driving with it in their car or have it in public. Ive never executed a search Warrant on a house where we believed the person only smoked weed."


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 7, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Really?
> 
> I said this: _"Honestly, and I'm being completely sincere here, while I can see many benefits to legalization, I cannot think of one significant downside. Not one. While legalization wouldn't be a cure to all of society's ills by any stretch, not one bad thing about pot would be made worse as a result of lifting the prohibition, and many... most of the negative aspects would be eliminated, or even better, turned from a negative to a bona fide positive."_
> 
> ...


 
 You do realize not everyone that smokes pot is a recreational user that just chills in his house playing PS3 not bothering a sole right?

The #1 problem I see will happen is the number of underage users will go up.  Its kinda hard to put out there that marijuana is bad and turn around and make it legal for adults makes us kinda hypocritical.  

#2 after Marijuana is legal what drug lobby is next?  I know you keep saying it wont happen cocaine wont be legal but 20 years ago people never thought Marijuana would be and its almost there.  Its a slippery slope once you start with one you cant stop it.  

#3 the amount of Driving under the influence will go up because Marijuana will be more socially accepted.  Even though its illegal the numbers will rise.

#4 more a personal note then anything but We got alot of information from informants trying to get rid of a simple weed charge because as stated before most Marijuana dealers sell other drugs to.  So when Patrol arrests a guy driving with a bag of weed I interview him he tells me who and where he gets it from I turn that into an investigation and 8 times out of 10 will get a dealer selling other drugs besides Marijuana.

#5 you will replaces Marijuana dealers with people selling marijuana on the black market.  You wont change crime numbers just the name of the crime.  Same people will get locked up just a different charge now.

#6 In my opinion the number of Sexual assaults will go up.  I have no numbers to back that up but alot of the college date rape crimes we get usually involve smoking marijuana and drinking.  You make Marijuana legal people will be more likely to try it. 

#7 work production will go down.  

#8 what about Cops and Military do you want them to be smoking up before work?  If you make it legal Can I go smoke a fatty and go to work a few hours later?  Do you want our troops Smoking up?

#9 Suicides will go up.  There have been several links with Marijuana and depression.


----------



## Steve (Jan 8, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> You do realize not everyone that smokes pot is a recreational user that just chills in his house playing PS3 not bothering a sole right?


Yes.  You realize that not everyone who smokes pot is a drug addled sociopath.  Right?





> The #1 problem I see will happen is the number of underage users will go up.  Its kinda hard to put out there that marijuana is bad and turn around and make it legal for adults makes us kinda hypocritical.


What a joke.  About 55% of kids between 12 and 18 have tried weed and about 45% smoked it within the previous month.  It's a huge problem right now.  We also have a huge problem with underage drinking.  Both are serious, serious issues that need to be addressed.  Neither would be impacted by legalizing marijuana.  It would continue to be illegal for minors.





> #2 after Marijuana is legal what drug lobby is next?  I know you keep saying it wont happen cocaine wont be legal but 20 years ago people never thought Marijuana would be and its almost there.  Its a slippery slope once you start with one you cant stop it.


That you recognize this as a slippery slope, but don't understand that a slippery slope is a logical fallacy is funny.  





> #3 the amount of Driving under the influence will go up because Marijuana will be more socially accepted.  Even though its illegal the numbers will rise.


Really?  I'd like to know whether you're just guessing or you have something to back this up.  DUI is serious.  We'd need to figure that out.  But would more people do it?  I don't know.  It seems to me that the kind of person who would drive under the influence of alcohol is the same kind of person who would drive while stoned...  its' a problem either way, but I'd guess that it's more to do with the person than the activity.  





> #4 more a personal note then anything but We got alot of information from informants trying to get rid of a simple weed charge because as stated before most Marijuana dealers sell other drugs to.  So when Patrol arrests a guy driving with a bag of weed I interview him he tells me who and where he gets it from I turn that into an investigation and 8 times out of 10 will get a dealer selling other drugs besides Marijuana.


I'm not sure I understand.  Are you saying that we should keep weed illegal so that you can put pressure on casual users because they're being forced to get it from drug dealers?  That's pretty scary, if that's what you mean. [/quote] 

#5 you will replaces Marijuana dealers with people selling marijuana on the black market.  You wont change crime numbers just the name of the crime.  Same people will get locked up just a different charge now.[/quote]I asked you for any evidence to support this and you have yet to deliver.  The best you could do was completely redefine the term "black market." 

Bill mentioned cigs and alcohol, and it was pretty clear that the real key was disparity in the taxing and pricing.   





> #6 In my opinion the number of Sexual assaults will go up.  I have no numbers to back that up but alot of the college date rape crimes we get usually involve smoking marijuana and drinking.  You make Marijuana legal people will be more likely to try it.


What?  At least you're not pretending that this is anything other than a guess.  Weed is so incredibly available to college students that it might as well be legal.  Sexual assault is serious, but once again, you're ignoring reality and trying desperately to look for some reasonable sounding support for your position.  





> #7 work production will go down.


Do you envision people smoking a bowl in the back room of office buildings?  Your'e killing me.  Is drinking on duty okay?  Do you seriously think that smoking weed on duty would be okay?  Come on.  





> #8 what about Cops and Military do you want them to be smoking up before work?  If you make it legal Can I go smoke a fatty and go to work a few hours later?  Do you want our troops Smoking up?


Do I want them drinking before work?  Are you reading your own posts?   


> #9 Suicides will go up.  There have been several links with Marijuana and depression.


Once again, I'm afraid to ask where you're drawing this conclusion.

This is my last post in this thread, unless you've got something new to bring to the table.  At this point, you're really just rebooting the thread, pretending that you haven't read anything that's been posted before and stating your position like it's fresh and new.  I don't have the time or energy to continue.


----------

