Should Marijuana Be Legalized?

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Requoting the conversation does nothing to clear up anything. It's a rather basic question. Yes or no and why?

The issue I'm having is this: You say "no" to the question in your conversation with inimalist (I think) yet previously in our conversation you said that if it is not an issue of human rights the federal government should be forbidden from getting involved, it's up to the states. Voting and moving don't fall into the way you grouped human rights, as I recall, thus it should be fine for the states to remove them.

Similarly you dismissed murder as a mere social issue, taking the right not to be murdered or to be protected from murder or punish people for murder out of the realm of human rights. Then you complained when I pointed out that (under your system where the federal government can only override states on social issues) this would mean states could make murder legal if they wished.

These sort of things seem paradoxical to me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Requoting the conversation does nothing to clear up anything. It's a rather basic question. Yes or no and why?

The issue I'm having is this: You say "no" to the question in your conversation with inimalist (I think) yet previously in our conversation you said that if it is not an issue of human rights the federal government should be forbidden from getting involved, it's up to the states. Voting and moving don't fall into the way you grouped human rights, as I recall, thus it should be fine for the states to remove them.

Similarly you dismissed murder as a mere social issue, taking the right not to be murdered or to be protected from murder or punish people for murder out of the realm of human rights. Then you complained when I pointed out that (under your system where the federal government can only override states on social issues) this would mean states could make murder legal if they wished.

These sort of things seem paradoxical to me.

Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about, at this point. I think what you're talking about is a combination of what I've said, what you think I said but are not correct in your assumption of what it means, and things that I never said. Thus, what you're talking about seems vaguely related to my actual points.

Tell me what you actually want me to say. (For reals). You obviously want me to say, concede, amend, or do something differently. But I don't know what it is.

Edit - And if you could, quote specific sections and compare them instead of vague references.

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. 🙂

Just to provide clarification, by states I did actually mean individual states within America. I'm just sort of looking for the core axiom upon which you are determining what issues states can or can't make policies on.

EDIT: actually, I end up using state to mean both states within america and in the abstract... the stuff about election rights has always been about the rights of individual states whereas the drug stuff is more about the rights of government in general.

You mentioned human rights before, so I tried to name a couple of issues not typically tied directly to those that I think it would be terribly problematic if states, like Delaware and Ohio, could individually set policy on. It seems like you said you would apply it to voting rights but not mobility ones, and not to disallowing elections in general, but that doesn't say why that is a logical place to split rights, or really why it might be beneficial or not.

Also, though this is going way off topic, your voter education idea may violate your own criteria of racial equality being something the federal government should regulate. So long as there remain racial divisions in the access to education or sources of information, as exist in almost all contexts in American life, your system is biased against racial and economic minorities. They will be at a disadvantage in terms of their ability to access educational things that would allow them to pass the test.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

maybe trivial wasn't the best term, but what I meant wasn't in terms of "there is no effect", but rather, in terms of the law and what type of powers I think the government should be allowed to have, there effects are trivial in terms of justifying government restrictions.

like, keeping the context of car crashes, there is no other thing for which we say, "it increases accidents, therefore we ban it outright". Tiredness can be far more dangerous for a driver than alcohol, talking on a cell phone (or hands-free) is equally damaging to driving performance as marijuana, and having 3 passengers in a car is equally debilitating for a driver as cell phone use.

Does this mean that I think lawmakers should take these things into account, as you describe, to be better able to prosecute and deal with actual dangerous behaviour that are produced as a result of these, sure, of course.

However, if the comparison to drugs is made, this would be akin to the government saying because there are impacts on driving, it has the right to criminalize cell phones, alcohol, sleepyness and groups of more than 3 people. Not just with regard to driving situations, but in public and private situations as well.

This is what I meant by trivial. I see the data you present in nearly identical ways that you do: we need a better law enforcement capacity to deal with things that needlessly endanger people on the road. I don't think it even begins to make a case for why the state can criminalize consenting private behaviour.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

the 20% you don't agree with, is it their effects on driving specifically that you think warrants the government's right to encroach on your personal liberty?

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

I can't imagine why you would assume I'm afraid of dealing with cases of people who had negative outcomes associated with drugs. Not to be presumptive, but I'm sure I know the general narrative themes that go through them, and they aren't happy or optimistic and certainly don't reflect positively on certain contexts in which drugs are used.

But they aren't my contexts. And, as a responsible adult, I do everything in my power not to make decisions that would lead me to having problematic experiences with drugs. I have always paid rent, I have zero debt (including credit cards and all that), I have food in my house, I've never pawned or stolen or whatever to get drugs, and I know the substances that I have problems with and do whatever I can to avoid them. Sure, obviously there are things beyond people's control that can drive them into bad scenarios, but this exists with many legal things that I'm sure you wouldn't feel the government has the right to ban outright (porn, video games, books, masturbation, gambling, alcohol, tanning, shopping).

Its one of those Maggie Thatcher "There's no such thing as society" things. You can't just make blanket rules that restrict the rights of all citizens because only a portion of them are unable to live with that freedom. Rights are applied to individuals, not to some general idea called society. iirc, you support private gun ownership, how could private drug use be any different at all? Cause man, you'd hate to see the horror stories I could come up with for that!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about, at this point. I think what you're talking about is a combination of what I've said, what you think I said but are not correct in your assumption of what it means, and things that I never said. Thus, what you're talking about seems vaguely related to my actual points.

Tell me what you actually want me to say. (For reals). You obviously want me to say, concede, amend, or do something differently. But I don't know what it is.

Edit - And if you could, quote specific sections and compare them instead of vague references.

You said that because abortion because is a social issue not a rights issue then the states should be able to make laws on it without the federal government interfering.
During the same conversation you said that murder was a social issue.
I stated that this would mean states should be able to make laws about it with the federal government interfering, up to and including making it legal.
You objected to that claim but never explained why it doesn't follow.

It seems to me that you're applying multiple definitions of "social issue" without any clarification or you're being inconsistent.

Who cares if the states can make murder legal? In theory, I suppose they could, but they won't, so it's a moot point. And if they ever do, it means we're past the tipping point, so nuke it all anyway.

Furthermore, liberals often describe capital punishment as "legalized murder" and conservatives do the same to euthanasia (and, once upon a time, abortion), so according to them, yes, states can legalize murder.

What you should really be worrying about is the federal government legalizing murder, which they have. But let's be honest here: you're trying to make the argument that those evil Southern Dixiecrats are going to remerge and legalize f*g-dragging. This specious argument allows you to justify instituting more federal control over the population for almost any reason.

Originally posted by inimalist
Just to provide clarification, by states I did actually mean individual states within America. I'm just sort of looking for the core axiom upon which you are determining what issues states can or can't make policies on.

You mentioned human rights before, so I tried to name a couple of issues not typically tied directly to those that I think it would be terribly problematic if states, like Delaware and Ohio, could individually set policy on. It seems like you said you would apply it to voting rights but not mobility ones, and not to disallowing elections in general, but that doesn't say why that is a logical place to split rights, or really why it might be beneficial or not.

Yes, I know that's where the disconnect was which is why I provided that "no" clarification. I could see that you meant "individual states like Delaware" and I meant "an entire government state like the US or China".

And the reason I would make voting privilaged based is to force people to have to know what they are voting for: that reason is completely separate from whatever other reason you were aiming for. I don't lump them in as the same thing. We blanket every issue in a certain category as being the same. They are individual issues and should be addressed individually. Mobility is key in my pretend US because it allows people to go to states that have rights they favor.

Originally posted by inimalist
Also, though this is going way off topic, your voter education idea may violate your own criteria of racial equality being something the federal government should regulate. So long as there remain racial divisions in the access to education or sources of information, as exist in almost all contexts in American life, your system is biased against racial and economic minorities. They will be at a disadvantage in terms of their ability to access educational things that would allow them to pass the test.

I already acknowledged that this would be a problem. I even labeled it with the proper legal term:

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Additionally, in such a system, if they wanted a voice, they would have to exercise just as much effort to pass the test as any other group. All groups would have to be educated/knowledgeable upon they people they vote for. That allows for quite a large margin of people: is about 80%, now.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Your response should be something like this: But that negatively impacts a certain demographic because they don't have a voice due to not being able to educate themselves on the current candidates.

They shouldn't be voting, then. We do not have 80% voter turn out, yet. Of those that do turn out, I suspect that the extreme majority have enough access to educate themselves on who they are voting for, anyway.

The extreme minority to which you refer DON'T VOTE anyway.

Also, here's what irks me: some homeless people I have talked to know more about politics and the candidates than the "educated, rich, voting class" to which you referred. How? That's stupid! But that's an anecdote, for you.

Lastly, poor people don't vote in a large disproportion to their counterparts. So your point is almost complete moot, to begin with. The greatest impact this fascist voting system would have would be barring ignorant, home owning, white people from blindly voting: the most loathsome type of voter. It would force people to know enough about the candidates and politics to actually make an informed decision. The test would be easy enough, of course.

Originally posted by inimalist
maybe trivial wasn't the best term, but what I meant wasn't in terms of "there is no effect", but rather, in terms of the law and what type of powers I think the government should be allowed to have, there effects are trivial in terms of justifying government restrictions.

I agree on both accounts: I don't think the "numbers" are trivial by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to driving, alone. There are other areas, other than driving, that are also affected. #1 on my list would be "parenting", to be honest.

To the second part, I think the government does a shitty job and the last thing I would want is more laws and more administration concerning drugs. So we agree there, too.

Originally posted by inimalist
like, keeping the context of car crashes, there is no other thing for which we say, "it increases accidents, therefore we ban it outright". Tiredness can be far more dangerous for a driver than alcohol, talking on a cell phone (or hands-free) is equally damaging to driving performance as marijuana, and having 3 passengers in a car is equally debilitating for a driver as cell phone use.

As for driving, it is my hope that Google and other pull through with the "driving" cars. Hopefully, all these arguments go away when cars drive themselves (they already can).

I also agree that we should be careful on making laws that restrict freedoms. It is a delicate balance. Banning alcohol use outside of private (cannot be served or consumed in public...but only in private) MIGHT drop drunk driving rates. Would it be trivial? Probably not. However, there would be riots and protests. What about forcing everyone to have to take a breathalyzer test before their car will start? Yeah, that should drop it, too. But those are restrictions on rights I don't want to see. I hope you are taking my discussion on "alcohol" as symbolic of the greater topic: drugs.

Originally posted by inimalist
Does this mean that I think lawmakers should take these things into account, as you describe, to be better able to prosecute and deal with actual dangerous behaviour that are produced as a result of these, sure, of course.

Laws that are reactive instead of proactive? Punish those that wrongfully cause death rather than prevent the deaths: that is the problem. We can do both...but we can't maintain maximum freedom while doing so: something has to be forfeit.

Originally posted by inimalist
However, if the comparison to drugs is made, this would be akin to the government saying because there are impacts on driving, it has the right to criminalize cell phones, alcohol, sleepyness and groups of more than 3 people. Not just with regard to driving situations, but in public and private situations as well.

Well...I am not for restricting the use of anything we are talking about. I was only wanting you to come up with a plan that satisfies the problems of the impact and the problems of restricted freedom. Neither of us like either. Both of us want maximum freedom. So what is the solution?

However, I disagree with banning cell phones and the like. You can still use your cell outside of a car...and be sleepy outside of a car. But you really shouldn't do both inside of a car while driving it. Should the government regulate that? DAMNIT! I don't know...part of me says yes and part of me says "stay the **** out of my life, government".

Originally posted by inimalist
This is what I meant by trivial. I see the data you present in nearly identical ways that you do: we need a better law enforcement capacity to deal with things that needlessly endanger people on the road. I don't think it even begins to make a case for why the state can criminalize consenting private behaviour.

I see it as "I do not consent to drive on these roads with people driving under the influence". Driving on the roads is a privilege, not a right. But wait, is mobility a basic human right as I stated? YES! So wait...why are roads a privilege and mobility is a basic human right? We should all be allowed to go where we want to go as long as we are welcome there by the private property owners (you just can't walk into someone's house...but you should be able to camp in the woods...that aren't protected due to a trillion different reasons). But getting into a 1.5 ton machine and riding in it at high speeds should always be a privilege. Walking on the street with knives pointing straight out from your body, on a busy city side-walk, should also be highly restricted: it poses an inherent danger to those around you.

Only a third of traffic fatalities were related to drunk driving. So if we had a perfect system of absolutely no alcohol, we'd still have 66% left of our traffic fatalities. Bam: back to my original point of it all being automated. Problem solved. Climb into your car and give it directions on where to drive (or preprogram it to drive you home...because you know you're going to get drunk). The car could know not to drive you home unless you are in it because it responds to a RFID you have implanted in your body. Bam: auto-theft is reduced to almost 0 and only hackers can steal cars (lolololol). Two birds with one stone (stoned? 🙂 ).

Originally posted by inimalist
the 20% you don't agree with, is it their effects on driving specifically that you think warrants the government's right to encroach on your personal liberty?

We talked about that 20% before, in another thread. Remember when the UK did their drug analysis and found the most dangerous drugs as they affect many different areas: addiction, bad health effects, how they negatively impact your family, and so forth.

The top 20% would still allow, generously, almost all drugs that we like. Alcohol, MJ, salvia, steroids, cocaine, and so forth. I believe it would not allow crack cocaine and heroin, iirc. Apparently, heroin is very addictive. (lol). I heard about another drug that is extremely addictive and destructive: it causes your body to literally rot off the bones. I forget the name of it but it seems to be used more in Russia.

Originally posted by inimalist
I can't imagine why you would assume I'm afraid of dealing with cases of people who had negative outcomes associated with drugs. Not to be presumptive, but I'm sure I know the general narrative themes that go through them, and they aren't happy or optimistic and certainly don't reflect positively on certain contexts in which drugs are used.

No, I thought you might be offended if I ignored your anecdote for obvious reasons.

I thought it more appropriate to ignore your anecdote than to respond with my own because it just turns into a anecdote penis measuring contest.

And you're right on your presumptions. The stories I would provide would be all-too obvious. The one I miss the most is Naomi. 🙁

Originally posted by inimalist
But they aren't my contexts. And, as a responsible adult, I do everything in my power not to make decisions that would lead me to having problematic experiences with drugs. I have always paid rent, I have zero debt (including credit cards and all that), I have food in my house, I've never pawned or stolen or whatever to get drugs, and I know the substances that I have problems with and do whatever I can to avoid them. Sure, obviously there are things beyond people's control that can drive them into bad scenarios, but this exists with many legal things that I'm sure you wouldn't feel the government has the right to ban outright (porn, video games, books, masturbation, gambling, alcohol).

I think I understand your reason for the anecdote, now. You're saying that you should have the freedom because SOME people, like yourself, imbibe responsibly. Having restrictive laws punish you but that's unfair to you. You're paying for sins for which you have not committed. As a Mormon, I would have no choice but to agree with you (well, I do have a choice...but my choice would either make me agree with you or become hypocritical in my beliefs). Of course, I agree that it is unfair. I obviously want you to have the right to choose and not the government to choose for you. I just don't know if that decision is the best one (yet).

What if we could technologically simulate drug use? Would that be the solution? You stop being high instantly and you pack up and go home. People would abuse that, too: avoiding doing basic human necessities like pooping, eating, or sleeping. That's already a problem with games for some. But I see it as a safer alternative to real substance abuse. I ALWAYS turn back to technology and science for answers to some of the big political questions. But I know you're probably getting tired of reading it.

Originally posted by inimalist
Its one of those Maggie Thatcher "There's no such thing as society" things. You can't just make blanket rules that restrict the rights of all citizens because only a portion of them are unable to live with that freedom. Rights are applied to individuals, not to some general idea called society. iirc, you support private gun ownership, how could private drug use be any different at all? Cause man, you'd [b]hate to see the horror stories I could come up with for that! [/B]

I am not arguing for restriction against private drug use (which includes alcohol) I am arguing that we cannot have our cake and eat it too. We cannot legalize all drugs and be done with it. There are definitely negative repercussions to doing so. Getting a gun requires certain hoops be jumped through (thankfully). In a perfect system, only authorized people can have guns. That does reduce some gun violence but not all. If someone cracks, they can still kill and injure (Glasgow used to be the murder capital of the world, iirc, and it wasn't guns doing the vast majority of the killing). Like I said about guns, I am not sure on that, either. I can see both sides and I see the arguments from both sides. It's too hard for me to decide. In those cases, I try to side for the "most freedom" side of things. Legalize drugs for private use and legalize private gun ownership. These are my conclusions. I will always favor freedom over restriction in cases where I can't decide because that, to me, seems like the default choice.

I was all over the place from technology solutions to the basics of human rights. Bare with me as this is how I normally think.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Requoting the conversation does nothing to clear up anything. It's a rather basic question. Yes or no and why?

It does everything for both of us because neither of us understands the other. I don't want you to just requote the conversation: I want you to requote specific sections of the conversation and compare it to others with your words.

That is key to understanding what you are wanting and what I meant.

Actually, I take it back. The Fifth Amendment says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Fourteenth Amendment says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Actually, I take it back. The Fifth Amendment says:

The Fourteenth Amendment says:

So, no, the states cannot legalize murder.

Dude to an overreach of federal power, apparently.

Veering off coarse

what a silly tangent to go off on...murder can never be legalized. its impossible.

I never thought weed should be legalized, probably the only pot smoker who believes so. First, because it would become more inaccessible, it would cost more due to taxing, and I believe the populous would grow lethargic due to it's effects over a long-term period

Originally posted by Lestov16
I never thought weed should be legalized, probably the only pot smoker who believes so. First, because it would become more inaccessible, it would cost more due to taxing, and I believe the populous would grow lethargic due to it's effects over a long-term period

Hope you realize how cheap it would be to grow your own. Also save money by not using our tax dollars to keep non violent "criminals" in jail. Would be mass produced and very accessible.

Your lethargic argument is laughable. Could be the weed though. stoned

YouTube video

YouTube video

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Hope you realize how cheap it would be to grow your own. Also save money by not using our tax dollars to keep non violent "criminals" in jail. Would be mass produced and very accessible.

Your lethargic argument is laughable. Could be the weed though. stoned

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I could see there being a hipster class of potheads that disdain the common folk buying store weed and assert that the only way to grow it is in your basement or in the middle of some farmer's corn field.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I could see there being a hipster class of potheads that disdain the common folk buying store weed and assert that the only way to grow it is in your basement or in the middle of some farmer's corn field.

Generalization at its finest, Lol. What exactly is this hipster class of potheads you speak of? Being legal, you wouldnt need to use some farmers corn farm. 😉

Common folk? Weed smokers are weed smokers. I could care less if you smoke schwag or if you smoke top shelf medicinal marijuana. You get the idea. You know the feeling. I smoked weaker shit when I started out, its something you gotta build into. Just like the first time drinking alcohol. You'll drink a sip of grandmas wine or a taste of grandpas beer. Eventually leading up to a beer all to your own. Hard liquor and so on.

If someone were to buy from the store (which I probably would for instant obtainability) then good for them. Maybe after purchasing a few packs someone will inform them, or they will look it up themselves, on how to grow their own stuff to the full extent. Took me a while to figure it out myself after purchasing from friends and eventually family. I have cousins that work in the dispensaries. Male and female. Good times.

Not everyone is as childish as your comment suggests. "My toys are better than your toys."

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Generalization at its finest, Lol. What exactly is this hipster class of potheads you speak of?

every. stoner. ive. ever. met.

I've literally had many, many conversations with people who think legalizing weed would simply turn into everyone growing their own organic stuff, and nobody would want the convenience of going to a store to buy it, essentially because it would be gauche.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I never thought weed should be legalized, probably the only pot smoker who believes so. First, because it would become more inaccessible, it would cost more due to taxing, and I believe the populous would grow lethargic due to it's effects over a long-term period

thats very true

look at prohibition, those criminal bootleggers and still operators made a much finer quality of product, for much cheaper, than do modern alcohol manufacturers.