Legalize pot
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2012, 07:05 PM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2012 07:08 PM by Dark Light.)
RE: Legalize pot
(30-10-2012 06:44 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:lowering artificially inflated prices of drugs

I lol'd.
Though you are right, basic supply and demand in a free market economics.

As for your whole post, the problem is, where do you draw the line?

I'm trying to apply this to things like gay rights and stuff seeming you want to make this a rights argument.
People argue that if you allow gays to marry you then have to allow less savory things to marry like people to animals.
The same here, if you allow weed to be legal under your argument you'll have to allow things like meth to be legal.
And nobody will disagree that meth is bad for your health.

This is always the issue with public policy, "where do you draw the line in the sand".

You have to be a little wacko to believe that gay marriage leads to people marrying animals. Surely you do not believe this yourself.

Yes for me personally (though I am probably in the minority) see this as a civil right issue first and foremost, but I also provided plenty of other good reasons to legalize it, but if you want me to argue from my perspective alone, and representing a libertarian viewpoint than I will.

The basic argument is this. Who owns my body? Well I do. So what right does the government have to tell me what I can and cannot do to my body? None. If I choose to destroy myself, it is my natural right to do so. Therefore, the government has no business telling me what I can and can't eat, drink, snort, or inject into my body. As you pointed out America does not have socialist healthcare so it really doesn't affect other taxpayers. Besides, people who are going to do drugs are going to do them regardless of the law. If it becomes legal then I'm I going to start doing them BECAUSE it is legal? No. The supply is already there, if I was going to do it I would do it. Because it is legalized it will be regulated. This means if I do choose to do drugs, I know exactly what it is that I am putting into my body. Not only that but it will be much more difficult for children to get drugs. With prohibition, who decides the age? Drug dealers, and they probably don't care as much if Johnny is 14, as long as they get their money. Under legalization stores must get a license which is difficult to obtain, and easy to lose, so they have every incentive to check IDs. (This isn't hearsay, since we have starting tracking this data children have always had an easier time getting illegal drugs than legal one, i.e. alcohol, and tobacco). Furthermore, the price goes down because there is no longer that artificial price increase, which means it is much less profitable for thugs and gangbangers, which means less profit, which makes it not worth it factored in with the risk of getting caught. Also, with the money saved from the war on drugs we could more than afford to offset some of that with drug rehabilitation programs, further reducing the consumption of dangerous drugs and help people who genuinely want to be drug-free.

Forgot to mention that under legalization there will also be reduced blood born infections from shared needles, and thus a lower burden on healthcare insurance, however much that might be, and also safer for the drug users ;D

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 07:32 PM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2012 08:35 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Legalize pot
(30-10-2012 05:29 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I don't think making it legal would mean necessarily that your local drug dealer is going to go out of business, but it will mean he could be taxed.
That's the beauty of making stuff like this legal, you can tax and regulate the market. You actually make that market safer.
In saying that it would be very difficult for your local drug dealer to compete with stores.

It happened here with prostitution. Now women can work safer because the market is regulated and things like lighting and extra cop patrols can be put up and around etc.. Instead of dodgy pimps you now have dodgy businessmen.
If I was a prostitute I must say I'd rather be managed by a businessmen then a gang member.


There's so many factors in making it legal, it's not a simply matter of "free up cop resources".

"it would be very difficult for your local drug dealer to compete with stores."-- That's where I'd see the potential problems.

Out of local drug dealers, I doubt we would see very many legitimate business approaches. I'd see large companies, already established, getting on top of things quickly. I'd see the people who are already business savvy, which doesn't include the 15 year old kid, or the 20 year old stoner, jumping on the opportunity and pushing to get set up quickly. I doubt I see the average dude, illegally selling right now, even attempting to get into selling legally, if it was even something that they would be competent enough to do if they tried. I'd see business setting up from outside, with the best case scenario being the old dealer being able to find a minimum wage job. That means potentially selling crack and robberies, which could lead to more guns, more violence. Just up the scale when you go from individual dealer to gangs.

You also have to think about the spite of seeing large corporation swoop in and take that piece of your operations.

You even have to think of seeing people high searching for tax money. You are supposed to have 5 on it, not 5 plus tax. Then the idea of them driving home high.

It's actually pretty easy to buy weed, and safe, already. It's probably more dangerous to go the corner store to buy the blunt wrap, legally, than it is to get a hold of the weed and smoke it illegally. To me, even with weed being illegal, it seems like everyone already smokes weed. I know plenty of people who smoke weed, and I can get weed and smoke if every I wanted to, easily. Personally, I view first step is just making it less of, or completely do away with, a punishment for people getting caught with weed, especially small amounts, on state and federal level. Get that out of the way first and foremost, then think about going for the completely legal sell, tax, regulate, corporate weed industry, deal.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 07:37 PM
RE: Legalize pot
Ya, DL pretty much covered it.

For the record muffs, your comparison was unfair. your are comparing stabbing someone to shooting someone. Both illegal.

My comparison was smoking pot (illegal) to smoking tobacco (legal). If one is a somehow "worse" should be irrelevant. They should both either be legal or illegal based on that logic. And I don't think any of it should be illegal. None of it.

That's why I made the point to begin with. This drawing the line thing is bullshit.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 07:38 PM
RE: Legalize pot
Bowing Clap Portugal.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 08:35 PM
RE: Legalize pot
(30-10-2012 07:05 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The basic argument is this. Who owns my body? Well I do.

So what right does the government have to tell me what I can and cannot do to my body? None.

If I choose to destroy myself, it is my natural right to do so. Therefore, the government has no business telling me what I can and can't eat, drink, snort, or inject into my body.

That's not an argument, or at least not a good one.

The government has a right to protect people. The law, even the ones saying certain drugs are illegal, doesn't prevent you from being able to use drugs. You can still do what ever you want to your own body. You can argue against the practically of sentencing for drug use, if you want to, but the government has all the right to say that the use of certain drugs is against the law.

That only limits your access, and presents a punishment, for a behavior that does, specifically in the case of hardcore drugs, effect other people.

I think it would be completely naive to think otherwise. Either you are unaware of what drug use does and how that effects more than just the user, or you have a different idea of what constitutes an effect on other people

Quote:As you pointed out America does not have socialist healthcare so it really doesn't affect other taxpayers. Besides, people who are going to do drugs are going to do them regardless of the law. If it becomes legal then I'm I going to start doing them BECAUSE it is legal? No. The supply is already there, if I was going to do it I would do it.

For one, it still would affect other tax payers.

Also, more importantly, if affects other people, in general, so the health cost is just added on.

What kind of cloud cuckoo land do you live in? Alcohol is legal and affects other people tremendously, especially in our culture.

I also happen to know a lot more alcoholics than I do crackheads, meth, or heroine addicts. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll just assume that doesn't have anything to do with the supply and legality of alcohol. There were also fewer crackheads running around prior to it being pushed so heavily, but again I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:Not only that but it will be much more difficult for children to get drugs. With prohibition, who decides the age? Drug dealers, and they probably don't care as much if Johnny is 14, as long as they get their money. Under legalization stores must get a license which is difficult to obtain, and easy to lose, so they have every incentive to check IDs. (This isn't hearsay, since we have starting tracking this data children have always had an easier time getting illegal drugs than legal one, i.e. alcohol, and tobacco).

You wouldn't know that without looking at that data; that's all I have to say about that one. A decent amount of people that I know have had access to alcohol and tobacco, and have been using both, since middle school.

The access works exactly the same. You just get it. The same way kids get prescription drugs, alcohol, tobacco, over the counter/store bought/non-prescription drugs, etc. Maybe those things are slightly harder to access than weed and crack, but even if it was much harder, I couldn't see the difference when looking at it in terms of use.

Quote:Furthermore, the price goes down because there is no longer that artificial price increase, which means it is much less profitable for thugs and gangbangers, which means less profit, which makes it not worth it factored in with the risk of getting caught. Also, with the money saved from the war on drugs we could more than afford to offset some of that with drug rehabilitation programs, further reducing the consumption of dangerous drugs and help people who genuinely want to be drug-free.

What artificial price increases? All the same applies to selling drugs illegal, you just don't have to pay taxes or worry about all of the business regulation and management that comes along with playing by the rules.

Also, I can't name anyone that has said they didn't genuinely want to be drug free. The easiest way to be drug free is to never do drugs; after the first use, it's an extreme, usually lifetime, battle. The number one way to prevent drug addiction, is to not use drugs. And the number one way to prevent using, is limiting the exposure and opportunity to do the drug.

(30-10-2012 06:52 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  The gateway drug theory was debunked around the same time we figured out the earth wasn't flat. It just never made as many headlines.

Well it is nonsensical in the sense of a logical argument.

The problem is that you can't predict the future, and you can't really say that if weed becomes just simple, accessible to all, that people won't get tired of it and start searching for another way to be edgy, illegal, and get high. And that is no matter what statistics say about weed use, or the legality of it, in correspondence with the use of harder drugs. Until you implemented the policy, you have to wonder what the effect will be. If it is no longer taboo, will people just search for the next taboo, or will weed be enough? Saying that you knew that would also be a matter of a logical problem, one just might be the more reasonable option to assume. I do, personally, prefer going for what is in accordance with good reason, but there are a couple of different ways to look at it, and outcomes, that have to be taking into account.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 08:50 PM
RE: Legalize pot
Ok. Too high. I'll save further comment for tomorrow.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
31-10-2012, 09:50 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 01:09 PM by Dark Light.)
RE: Legalize pot
I was waiting for Stark to destroy your argument, but he is being lazy, so I suppose I will...

(30-10-2012 08:35 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  That's not an argument, or at least not a good one.

The government has a right to protect people. The law, even the ones saying certain drugs are illegal, doesn't prevent you from being able to use drugs. You can still do what ever you want to your own body. You can argue against the practically of sentencing for drug use, if you want to, but the government has all the right to say that the use of certain drugs is against the law.

That only limits your access, and presents a punishment, for a behavior that does, specifically in the case of hardcore drugs, effect other people.

I think it would be completely naive to think otherwise. Either you are unaware of what drug use does and how that effects more than just the user, or you have a different idea of what constitutes an effect on other people

Okay, well you obviously don't understand natural rights and want a nanny state. Government has no authority to punish people for harming themselves. It is a ridiculous concept. If the government declares that they have a right to assert what I can and cannot do with my body then they are asserting that they own my body. I am an adult with full mental capacity, it is my responsibility to evaluate what I put into my body. If I deem it appropriate to smoke crack, or parachute off of a cliff face on my property that is my prerogative. I know it is dangerous, but it is my choice, not the governments. What you describe is government run amok. It is the same for alcohol, if I choose to get piss drunk I suffer the consequences. If, while drunk, I hop in my car, and run over someone I am still responsible for actions. I will still get punished for harming others. This is the way it should be.

Truly X Wrote:For one, it still would affect other tax payers.

Also, more importantly, if affects other people, in general, so the health cost is just added on.

What kind of cloud cuckoo land do you live in? Alcohol is legal and affects other people tremendously, especially in our culture.

These are empty assertions. What is your reasoning, because you have provided none, only claims.

Truly X Wrote:I also happen to know a lot more alcoholics than I do crackheads, meth, or heroine addicts. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll just assume that doesn't have anything to do with the supply and legality of alcohol. There were also fewer crackheads running around prior to it being pushed so heavily, but again I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Which just shows that people know they suffer the consequences of their actions, and provided alternatives, most will choose a less destructive drug. Prohibition does not stop people from doing crack, meth, or heroine. The people that choose to do those drugs are doing them, regardless of the law. All it is doing is tying up tax dollars punishing people for harming themselves. Non-violent drug 'offenders' do not belong in prison. At best it wastes resources and increases taxes. At worst it turns them into violent criminals. It is counter-productive. Offering treatment is a much better option.

Truly X Wrote:You wouldn't know that without looking at that data; that's all I have to say about that one. A decent amount of people that I know have had access to alcohol and tobacco, and have been using both, since middle school.

The access works exactly the same. You just get it. The same way kids get prescription drugs, alcohol, tobacco, over the counter/store bought/non-prescription drugs, etc. Maybe those things are slightly harder to access than weed and crack, but even if it was much harder, I couldn't see the difference when looking at it in terms of use.
Well I would know it, but maybe you just aren't observant. Either way, I did look at the data. The fact that you acknowledge this leaves you no room to argue this point. I don't even know why you posted this bit. You agree with me, but then try to make it look weaker by saying that you don't understand why the data is in opposition to what you want to be true.
Truly X Wrote:What artificial price increases? All the same applies to selling drugs illegal, you just don't have to pay taxes or worry about all of the business regulation and management that comes along with playing by the rules.
This is Economics 101. Do I really need to explain why making something illegal creates an artificial inflation of its value? Really? You bother looking at what happened with alcohol when it was prohibited? No? Urggh, okay...Well it's like this. Since the substance is illegal there is inherent risk in manufacturing (or growing) it. Since there is an inherent risk fewer people are willing to do it. Additionally it is risky to sell it, ship it, knowingly supporting it by selling things to help manufacture it, etc. This makes the price increase though the product is the same as it was before it was made illegal.

Truly X Wrote:Also, I can't name anyone that has said they didn't genuinely want to be drug free. The easiest way to be drug free is to never do drugs; after the first use, it's an extreme, usually lifetime, battle. The number one way to prevent drug addiction, is to not use drugs. And the number one way to prevent using, is limiting the exposure and opportunity to do the drug.
Okay, well, hi, I am Dark Light. I do drugs. My drug of choice is alcohol. I do not wish to quit doing this drug. Pleased to meet you. Believe it or not, just because you don't know other drug users that don't want to stop doing drugs does not mean they are not there. I can assure you, there are plenty of drug users that have no desire to quit doing drugs, because drugs are fun. I'm am sure there are plenty of others, even on this very forum that do not desire to quit using their drug of choice. I suspect no less that two in this very thread would like nothing more than to continue using their drug of choice, even though it is illegal.

You cannot prevent drugs from flooding the street with prohibition. It does not limit there availability, only their price. If I wanted to I could leave my house and have any number of drugs within a 15 minute time span. I could even have it delivered within 30. Without a magic genie or a god to wish drugs of the face of the earth it cannot be done. Even then, we would find new ways of getting high. Sorry to burst your bubble friend.
Truly X Wrote:Well it is nonsensical in the sense of a logical argument.

The problem is that you can't predict the future, and you can't really say that if weed becomes just simple, accessible to all, that people won't get tired of it and start searching for another way to be edgy, illegal, and get high. And that is no matter what statistics say about weed use, or the legality of it, in correspondence with the use of harder drugs. Until you implemented the policy, you have to wonder what the effect will be. If it is no longer taboo, will people just search for the next taboo, or will weed be enough? Saying that you knew that would also be a matter of a logical problem, one just might be the more reasonable option to assume. I do, personally, prefer going for what is in accordance with good reason, but there are a couple of different ways to look at it, and outcomes, that have to be taking into account.

I can predict the future, because history repeats itself. People that want to smoke weed will smoke weed. People that want to smoke crack, will smoke crack. People that want to do both, will. There is nothing in marijuana that makes you want get higher or do other drugs. It is that simple. If the data is not enough to convince you, then I don't know what will. You reasoned for your argument, but data trumps reason, it has a way of showing that your reasoning was false. This is what religious people do to convince themselves that their religion is right.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
01-11-2012, 12:52 AM
RE: Legalize pot
(30-10-2012 03:15 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  [Image: 400x.jpg?1306898671]


We should totally legalize pot. I mean, what harm does pot do to you? Nothing. Yeah maybe it'll make you a little slow if you use it too much but hey, alcohol will fuck you up bad if you use it too much, and cigarettes will give you cancer. Pot helps fight some cancer, it's proven.

It's just these old people, man. They watched "Reefer Madness" and didn't get the fuckin' joke. I bet if we had them all on marijuana instead of morphine and oxycontin they'd be a lot more chill and stop ruining a good thing. 'Course the war on drugs helps kill brown people, so they'll probably keep it going out of spite just for that.

Anyway, peace.

You are wrong. The war on drugs is not about skin color. maybe it used to be, I can't be sure. I just know that the war on drugs gives the government billions of untracked dollars to spend. I know the FBI and CIA get a lot of funds from it. Who knows how many high ranking officials in our government also line their pockets with it as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 10:52 AM
RE: Legalize pot
Thanks DL. Got sidetracked. Back now though.

I have a question for you guys..

Do you think the medical marijuana movement is a step towards full legalization, or do you think it is a hindrance?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 10:56 AM
RE: Legalize pot
(01-11-2012 10:52 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Thanks DL. Got sidetracked. Back now though.

I have a question for you guys..

Do you think the medical marijuana movement is a step towards full legalization, or do you think it is a hindrance?

I see it as a step closer. Attitudes are already changing compared to just 30 or so years ago. Fewer people see marijuana as the evil drug it is supposed to be. There is still a way to go.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: