Drugs: Legalise or Prohibit?

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

@ 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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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: