Should Marijuana Be Legalized?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which isn't an answer at all, how like a politician.

What?

That's a very good answer. 😬

It is not something the federal government should mandate/legislate. Leaving it up to the states (reserved powers) to decide on some social issues is a perfectly acceptable answer and definitely the way the constitution is designed.

Abortion: leave it to the states.

Whether or not MJ should be legal: leave it to the states.

Gay Marriage: leave it to the states...but make sure marriages are honored across state lines (similar to a grandfather clause). Besides, isn't marriage an outdated institution? 🙂 Eventually, it will be a moot issue as long as our laws evolve with it (that's usually how it works).

Other things, like whether or not black people should get to vote, would obviously be something the federal government decides on. Think of states as really big cities: they get to decide their own laws on a great majority of things but mus concede some things to the state. You've just been raised and educated in an era where the reserved powers have almost been completely destroyed (Nixon on)...just like everyone else in this thread (including myself). We have become accustomed to the "weak state" governing and find it a bit odd to shift a bit of power BACK to the states.

The next response to the reasoning I have provided is this: "Oh, great. More reserved powers. I seem to remember something about an articles of confederation failing. You can't have your cake and eat it to, son." That's not a proper rebuttal nor is it a legitimate response. Many powers would still be held by the federal government: we'd just give more decision making opportunities to the states where it can be decided more democratically (yes).

Originally posted by inimalist
I have to agree

Think of how inadequate it would have seemed if laws against racism were left to the states to decide

Good thing that's not the case, right? It's now part of the constitution to allow black people to vote and all sorts of racist things are protected against under the Civil Rights Act. 🙂

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol I don't understand the idea of devolving powers to the states.

State governments are just as liable to be corrupt or incompetent than the Federal Government if not more so because there's less attention.

One of my major issues with Ron Paul is that his ideal America is essentially a Confederacy where Congress has next to no say in social or economic issues.

The corruption of the federal government is not the reason you would give those powers to the state: it is to limit the powers of the federal government and allow a smaller government institution to more democratically decide on "what the people want". You can have state voted propositions. If someone doesn't like the laws in a state, they can move to a state that DOES have laws they can live with....without having to go to another country.

Also, I already addressed the common misnomer of calling that setup of a "confederacy". It's not creating a confederacy: it's limiting the power of the federal government from this bigass behemoth it has become. We already do this on multiple issues: we just don't do it on MJ, abortion, and many other social issues.

Originally posted by dadudemon
we just don't do it on MJ, abortion, and many other social issues.

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
How does the federal government differentiate between a social issue upon which they can pass legislation and a social issue to be left to the states? Is it just completely arbitrary?

Well, I fully expect Gay Marriage to be federally protected.

But, it boils own to this: basic human rights versus things that are not.

Smoking MJ is not something that you can'y help because it was the way you were born. 😄 Same with being a woman, being black, having deformities, and so forth.

Other things...naaaaah. Hardly arbitrary.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What?

That's a very good answer. 😬

You might want to start wearing sunglasses when you look at Ron Paul. He's obviously blinding you with bullshit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is not something the federal government should mandate/legislate. Leaving it up to the states (reserved powers) to decide on some social issues is a perfectly acceptable answer and definitely the way the constitution is designed.

Except that you're one of the only people in the world who dismisses it as a social issue. Everyone else considers it a matter of basic human rights.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You might want to start wearing sunglasses when you look at Ron Paul. He's obviously blinding you with bullshit.

What kind of response is this? I have held that the federal government has been too large since before I knew what a Ron Paul was. You do know that I have been a voting adult long before I Ron Paul's 08 "attempt", right?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that you're one of the only people in the world who dismisses it as a social issue. Everyone else considers it a matter of basic human rights.

I like it when people arbitrarily throw around "everyone" as though it was credible even if you take into consideration that it is hyperbole.

From my experience, very few people got the "insane with a tin foil hat" route of it being a basic human right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like it when people arbitrarily throw around "everyone" as though it was credible even if you take into consideration that it is hyperbole.

From my experience, very few people got the "insane with a tin foil hat" route of it being a basic human right.

Murder is just a social issue?
Personal liberty is just a social issue?
These are the two sides I've seen, ever.

I'd love to live in your America, though. I could choose between states where randomly stabbing me is okay and states that are massive gulags. BUT AT LEAST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SMALL SO ITS ALL OKAY!!!!!!

First of all, nothing in the portion you quoted said "just social issues".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Murder is just a social issue?

Uhhh...yes. You weren't aware of that? You do know that ALL of these things are social issues, right?

What defines murder is defined by the law. I believe you meant reclassifying a certain type of life destruction (abortion) into the legal definition of murder.

But, yes, abortion is not murder as defined in the outcome of Roe vs. Wade. It is a social issue both before, during, and after the case, too. Did you not know that?

And, yes, I just moved the bar for what "social issues" means since you're trying your hardest to be both petty and troll.*

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Personal liberty is just a social issue?

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. But, yes, all personal liberties are social issues. You didn't know that? In fact, all laws and morals are social issues.*

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
These are the two sides I've seen, ever.

Actually, you have, you just weren't aware that you knew the answers to your questions already.

I think you could use a bit of logic to help make things make more sense:

*The set of "social issues" is all of law, morals, and ethics.

Under the set of social issues is a bunch of other things like drug policies, marriage, public conduct, and so forth. Generally, social issues are taken as separate from things such as "environmental issues" or "economic regulation issues" but, really, they are all social issues. We wouldn't need morals, ethics, or laws at all if humans weren't social and never interacted. So they are all social issues if you want to be as petty and philosophical as possible.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd love to live in your America, though.

I know right: in my version of America, people can think and know what words mean.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I could choose between states where randomly stabbing me is okay and states that are massive gulags. BUT AT LEAST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SMALL SO ITS ALL OKAY!!!!!!

lol

You do know that this is not the type of America I have described at all, right? You are describing the very thing that I said it wouldn't be (go back and read my first post in this thread for today).

You do know that you are trolling, right? Should I report you or will you calm down and start posting rationally?

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, yes, abortion is not murder as defined in the outcome of Roe vs. Wade.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
President Paul has something to say about that.

lol x2

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't abide by illiterate people on the internet.

Leave it to the states.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Good thing that's not the case, right? It's now part of the constitution to allow black people to vote and all sorts of racist things are protected against under the Civil Rights Act. 🙂

sure, and given I'd consider abortion laws to be matters regarding some of the most important rights people have, it only really makes sense that such things are dealt with at a federal level.

On marijuana, I'd tend to agree with you, aside from the fact that I don't really see such extreme federalism as a good thing, at least the way it is set up in America (creates 2 levels of bureaucracy and partisan bickering rather than giving people more direct democratic control over their state). The idea that some states may give themselves the right to regulate what a human consumes privately and consensually might in fact be in line with the constitution, however, I fail to see the benefit of individual states being able to give themselves that right.

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, and given I'd consider abortion laws to be matters regarding some of the most important rights people have, it only really makes sense that such things are dealt with at a federal level.

Good thing Roe v. Wade makes it a federal level decision, right? lol

Regardless, I don't see abortion as being a basic human right. I see it as a personal choice meaning the government should neither bar nor support it. But not barring it, the government indirectly supports it, according to some.

Originally posted by inimalist
On marijuana, I'd tend to agree with you, aside from the fact that I don't really see such extreme federalism as a good thing, at least the way it is set up in America (creates 2 levels of bureaucracy and partisan bickering rather than giving people more direct democratic control over their state). The idea that some states may give themselves the right to regulate what a human consumes privately and consensually might in fact be in line with the constitution, however, I fail to see the benefit of individual states being able to give themselves that right.

But I know you approach the subject as "the government should not be involved with regulating what people do to their own boy." That's a faulty line of reasoning from the onset. What people do to their own body does not affect just themselves and that's true of almost any psycho-active substance. This is why my ultimate position is to get it down to the state level and have individual state laws that creates and enforces the DWI laws or public "intoxication" laws. There can be a federal mandate that requires all states create a public intoxication laws but leave it up to the states to determine the details and severity.

But what are the deterrents against public intoxication? Even private intoxication can lead to harm to other people. What is the most pragmatic solution? There's no such thing as "as much rights as possible because that's the best course of action". That's not the best answer as long as humans do stupid shit. There is a balance between law and rights, though. What is it?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Regardless, I don't see abortion as being a basic human right.

however, the rights of the government to encroach on people's liberty or bodies certainly does represent a basic right, whether you call it a human right or not, it is a fundamental question of what governments are or should be able to do.

For instance, while not necessarily a human rights issue, I suspect you wouldn't be in favor of states having different laws regarding who could participate in elections or in whether elections could be removed from the political process at all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But I know you approach the subject as "the government should not be involved with regulating what people do to their own boy." That's a faulty line of reasoning from the onset. What people do to their own body does not affect just themselves and that's true of almost any psycho-active substance.

1) thats a false dichotomy though. I can both accept that someone's drug use might have a trivial impact on others and also think the government has no right to regulate what people put in their body.

2) I've yet to hear a meaningful justification of "drugs impact others" that doesn't rely on either the taxes spent on medical care (a not only moot, but ideologically inconsistent argument unless you would suggest the regulation of anything I can do that might cause you to have to pay for me, which you and I both know a list of such things can be generated pretty easily) or from actions taken to acquire drugs which are themselves already illegal.

Originally posted by inimalist
For instance, while not necessarily a human rights issue, I suspect you wouldn't be in favor of states having different laws regarding who could participate in elections or in whether elections could be removed from the political process at all.

I would. Remember that 20 page word document I sent you regarding a future state? I made it to where voting required a certain level of non-ignorance in order to vote. It barred people who didn't know the candidates positions. I think voting is a right and you should prove worthy to hold it. I don't care about a disparate impact: you should literate and informed on the candidates before you get to vote which ones you want to represent you.

Originally posted by inimalist
1) thats a false dichotomy though. I can both accept that someone's drug use might have a trivial impact on others and also think the government has no right to regulate what people put in their body.

Wha? trivial? 😬

You have just destroyed any sort of reasonable dialogue we might have had concerning personal drug rights. It is not possible to have any meaningful discussion concerning drug use if you hold the position that drug use "trivially impacts" others.

Originally posted by inimalist
2) I've yet to hear a meaningful justification of "drugs impact others" that doesn't rely on either the taxes spent on medical care (a not only moot, but ideologically inconsistent argument unless you would suggest the regulation of anything I can do that might cause you to have to pay for me, which you and I both know a list of such things can be generated pretty easily) or from actions taken to acquire drugs which are themselves [b]already illegal. [/B]

What? I don't understand. You have never heard a meaningful justification of "drugs impact others"? To you, what would be meaningful? Forgive me for being doubtful of your position, but it seems absurdly ignorant...in stark contrast my perceptions of your knowledge concerning drugs and drug use.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would. Remember that 20 page word document I sent you regarding a future state? I made it to where voting required a certain level of non-ignorance in order to vote. It barred people who didn't know the candidates positions.

so you are in favor of a Federalist type system where it is ok in one state to ban elections entirely, another where voting is limited based on education, and another where all people are free to vote.

I don't see what benefit such a system provides for people. Like, would you also favor the fascist state's right to restrict mobility rights so that none of its citizens can legally leave? Or what about territorial disputes between states, or military issues? None of these are strictly "human rights" issues.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wha? trivial? 😬

You have just destroyed any sort of reasonable dialogue we might have had concerning personal drug rights. It is not possible to have any meaningful discussion concerning drug use if you hold the position that drug use "trivially impacts" others.

What? I don't understand. You have never heard a meaningful justification of "drugs impact others"? To you, what would be meaningful? Forgive me for being doubtful of your position, but it seems absurdly ignorant...in stark contrast my perceptions of your knowledge concerning drugs and drug use.

using the term trivial means that I'm not just looking for an off hand "well, people on ecstasy are annoying, or people on coke are more likely to fight". These are fairly poor reasons to remove rights from people, especially in the coke example, as assault is already illegal.

give me an example of something non-trivial then

I've used many drugs, privately and publicly, for years. What harm have I done that would legitimize being restricted by the government from expressing my personal freedom?

Originally posted by inimalist
so you are in favor of a Federalist type system where it is ok in one state to ban elections entirely, another where voting is limited based on education, and another where all people are free to vote.

I don't see what benefit such a system provides for people. Like, would you also favor the fascist state's right to restrict mobility rights so that none of its citizens can legally leave? Or what about territorial disputes between states, or military issues? None of these are strictly "human rights" issues.

No, I'm in favor of a fascist type system where the government is "evil" in some regards because it prevents some people from voting. The distinction of "some states" and "others" allowing people to vote is not what I said yes too. Only the words I typed are what I agreed to.

No, I would not restrict mobility "rights". I would only restrict voting rights to those that knew what they were voting for. 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
give me an example of something non-trivial then

http://www.cadca.org/resources/detail/more-people-killed-drugs-car-accidents-some-states

"One Third of Fatally Injured Drivers Recently Used Drugs"

"Marijuana May Double the Risk of Motor Vehicle Crashes"

"New Study Shows Tough Laws and Treatment are Top Deterrents Against DUI Offenders"

"Large Majority of Drivers Ages 55 and Older Are Unaware of Potentially Dangerous Combination of Medications and Driving"

"More Than Half of Motor Vehicle Crash Drivers Tested Positive for Drugs Other Than Alcohol in a Level-1 Trauma Center"

"High Rates of Drug Use Found Among Injured Motorists at Adult Australian Trauma Centre"

"British Columbia Roadside Survey Examines High Rates of Impaired Driving in Canada"

"Repeat DUI Offenders Diagnosed with Drug Use Disorders Show Increased Risk of Negative Traffic Outcomes"

"30% of High School Seniors Reported Driving After Using Alcohol or Other Illicit Drugs or Riding With a Driver Who Had"

"Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis Increases Risk of Car Crash in France"

That's just various headlines from various studies concerning drugged driving.

Now, I don't want to read whining about how personal use of drugs largely affects the individual not those around them (that's both untrue and true depending on how you want to spin the conversation...ambiguous "you", not "inimalist" you). That's bullshit. There's thousands of reasons an individual dying from taking drugs would be bad for those around them. There's also tons of reasons why someone, while under the influence, could have a negative impact (physical or emotional) on those around them.

Now, you also know that I think we should legalize (in the US) about 80% of the drugs that are illegal and we should move many drugs from the restricted schedules to the personal use category.

Originally posted by inimalist
I've used many drugs, privately and publicly, for years. What harm have I done that would legitimize being restricted by the government from expressing my personal freedom?

Would you be offended if I ignored this anecdote? If you want me to legitimately discuss it, I will...but I would prefer not to discuss individual personal cases because my stack of contradictory anecdotes is probably not something you want to hear.

driving while intoxicated is already illegal and I don't remember challenging that... I'm on the bus though, so I will have give you a better response in a bit

Originally posted by inimalist
driving while intoxicated is [b]already illegal and I don't remember challenging that... I'm on the bus though, so I will have give you a better response in a bit [/B]

lol. I hope you're not "riding while intoxicated".

Additionally, this discussion is about making illegal drug use legal. So you're point about drunk driving (not the primary focus of all of those article titles that I Google searched) is largely irrelevant to the point I made. It is just one drug in a laundry list of drugs that make unrestricted personal drug use come into question.

Personal drug-use is NOT just a trivial impact on others, as you claim. In fact, that claim is factually incorrect.

So, again, my question is: what is your proposed balance between personal drug use and protecting others? That's not a false dichotomy, that's a factual problem that MUST be addressed before we can move on to more liberal drug polices (something I am in strong support for...I want as much personal liberty as possible...being a libertarian sympathetic and all).

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I'm in favor of a fascist type system where the government is "evil" in some regards because it prevents some people from voting. The distinction of "some states" and "others" allowing people to vote is not what I said yes too. Only the words I typed are what I agreed to.

No, I would not restrict mobility "rights". I would only restrict voting rights to those that knew what they were voting for. 🙂

But would you support states rights in the matters of suspending all elections or choosing to forbid mobility? Neither of those are human rights issues.

[edit]

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But would you support states rights in the matters of suspending all elections or choosing to forbid mobility? Neither of those are human rights issues.

[edit]

I have already answered the question for both of those subjects. Normally, I'd whine at a poster to stop being lazy and just scroll up (or read the last page), but I'll be nicer since I have more time due to the semester just ending.

Here's a recap:

inimalist asked this question of me:

Originally posted by inimalist
For instance, while not necessarily a human rights issue, I suspect you wouldn't be in favor of states* having different laws* regarding who could participate in elections or in whether elections could be removed from the political process at all.

To which I responded:

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would. Remember that 20 page word document I sent you regarding a future state*? I made it to where voting required a certain level of non-ignorance in order to vote. It barred people who didn't know the candidates positions. I think voting is a right and you should prove worthy to hold it. I don't care about a disparate impact: you should literate and informed on the candidates before you get to vote which ones you want to represent you.

After that, inimalist asked this question of me:

Originally posted by inimalist
so you are in favor of a Federalist type system where it is ok in one state to ban elections entirely, another where voting is limited based on education, and another where all people are free to vote.

This is what I responded with:

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I'm in favor of a fascist type system where the government is "evil" in some regards because it prevents some people from voting. The distinction of "some states" and "others" allowing people to vote is not what I said yes too. Only the words I typed are what I agreed to.

**No, I would not restrict mobility "rights". I would only restrict voting rights to those that knew what they were voting for. 🙂

Now, you must know that I absolutely hate doing something like this. It is a miracle to get me to go back and re-quote conversations I have had especially if they are on the same page (I am very lazy in that regard...). I am letting you know this because there has been some animosity between us, recently. It is my lame-ass way of trying to make amends.

Does this recap answer your question? If not, the spoilers should definitely help.

*

Spoiler:
To clarify, that is not the same "state" as the states in the US...it is a "government state". That's what inimalist intended, that's not what I meant in my first reply to him. inimalist meant 1."different voting laws in each state"rather than 2. "different voting laws from what the US has now" as I originally presummed. I clarified that #1 was not my intention in my response concerning the topic. inimalist understood that which is why we did not continue the topic. That may be in part due to him remembering that big long ass document I sent him a few years back.

**

Spoiler:
Here is your mobility answer.

Edit - inimalist, I don't want you to think I am against your position. I have already proposed a solution to the dichotomy you and I were discussing: just simply adapt local and state law enforcement to be better trained to handle people that are under the influence, publicly. We can make that training available via the internet so it is not as though it would be impossible to train local law enforcement to better handle those types of situations. Sure, hands on is always best...I agree. But that was my solution between "increased risk of affecting other people" and "the loss of personal liberty". Another more fascist solution would be a non-invasive computer system in each car that tested an individual for "being under the influence" in public. An objective third party (a chemical test) could notify police for a human response. That already happens with some cars for "drunk driving" offenders: the car won't start unless you pass a breathalyzer test. I'm saying that that test is too invasive so we should work on other technologies that are sure and non-invasive. For instance, just grabbing the steering wheel we could test the person's hands. Or use a combination of visual cues that matches to a standard profile for the person (people will obviously object to a car that "thinks" about them...and assess whether or not they are safe to drive). As we improve the cleanliness, speed, and precision of our chemical testing devices, we should be able to install this stuff in cars and in public places to keep people safer from substance abusers.