Legalizing Marijuana

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by jwoodie, Dec 19, 2012.

  1. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,756
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,904
    I think there are legitimate arguments to be made in support of this proposition, but the alleged medical benefits of Marijuana and its analogy to tobacco are not among them. First, the active ingredients in MJ are already legally obtainable with a Doctor's prescription. Secondly, tobacco is legal only because of its historically widespread usage. If it was introduced today, it would never receive FDA approval. In the absence of any credible medical studies to the contrary, it must be assumed that the same harmful effects of ingesting carbonized tobacco particles would be realized by ingesting carbonized MJ particles into your lungs.

    That being said, society should have the ability to evaluate its laws based on a cost-benefit analysis. Whether the costs of exposing more children to marijuana and trying to enforce impaired driving laws are outweighed by the benefits of lower drug enforcement and incarceration expenses is an open question. As with the death penalty, practical considerations may trump moral imperatives. What say you?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. TheOldSchool
    Offline

    TheOldSchool Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    45,242
    Thanks Received:
    7,914
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    last stop for sanity before reaching the south
    Ratings:
    +27,854
    Absolutely legalize it. That would greatly decrease the drug cartels' revenue, free up space and money in jails, greatly decrease the amount of drug dealers in the country, free up police to deal with real issues, create an entire industry, and close a chapter of our history marred by racist scare tactics. Look up Henry Anslinger to understand why people think of Marijuana in the way that they do.

    Then tax the bejeezus out of it. 300% if you want. I guarantee people would be willing to pay that for a safe and legal way to obtain it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  3. oldfart
    Offline

    oldfart Older than dirt

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,354
    Thanks Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Redneck Riviera
    Ratings:
    +527
    You shifteed your ground and ended up contradicting yourself. It's the classic Sophist's Dilemna. In the orginal, a student in Athens agreed to study under a rhetorician in how to argue cases in court, and to pay as his fee for the instruction whatever he recieved for the payment in his first case in court. The student decided to not argue cases in court, and the teacher sued the student for the customary fee. The student argued, "If I prevail in this case, by the order of the court, I am not obligated to pay my teacher. On the other hand, should I lose this case, by the terms of our agreement, I have not won a case and therefore have no obligation under our agreement to pay my teacher." Of course the teacher made the mirror argument demonstrating that either way, he was entitled to the fee. Of course both committed the same fallacy of shifting ground. You must decide first whether the terms of the contract govern the decision or the opinion of the court. You cannot consistently argue two different standards for the decision when they are incompatible.

    So your argument is that tabacco is legal because of widespread historical use, regardless of its harmful effects. But marijiana, which also has a long history of widespead use, is illegal, regardless of its medical effects. Apparently harmful medical effects has nothing to do with whether a substance is or should be legal. So what do you propose as a basis of distinguishing them? I think you are inadvertently making a case for treating them the same, either legalizing, taxing, and regulating both or criminalizing both, as their medical effects are both deleterious.

    And if your cost-benefit analysis turns out supporting keeping marijuana illegal, and the facts are parallel, have you not made the case for criminalizing tobacco? Logically how can you assert the facts are parallel and that cost-benefit analysis is appropriate in one case but not the other, where the historical fact of illegality will govern instead?

    Which side are you arguing, the student's or the teacher's?

    Jamie
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  4. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,756
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,904
    Your apparent assertion that marijuana and tobacco have equally long and widespread histories of use is grossly inaccurate. Your assertion that harmful medical benefits has nothing to do with whether a substance should be legal is equally absurd. Under that "reasoning," Thalidomide should have been allowed in the US so that we could have had millions of deformed babies.

    Unlike you, I am able to evaluate both sides of this issue.
     
  5. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,906
    Thanks Received:
    5,107
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,702
    Just what we need... One more thing (legalized pot) to bring down the standards of the American public.
     
  6. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,251
    Thanks Received:
    2,079
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +4,286
    I actually disagree with this sentiment.
    While laws should have some sort of cost/benefit relationship the underlying factor should not be whether or not this ambiguous entity called society benefits but rather is your freedom impeding on others.

    Drug laws, for the most part, clearly fail this rule because your personal decisions on what to stick in your own body have next to zero impact on my freedoms. As long as you are not impacting my rights, you should b allowed to do as you please.

    As far as cost/benefit goes though, drug laws fail miserably at that and prohibition proved such when we were forced to repeal it.


    To be frank, 'society' would benefit from a completely caged and controlled populous. We would all live longer if we were forced to exercise, our complete diet was controlled and we lived under some authoritarian vision of 1984 but we are not looking for what is best for our longevity or even our happiness. What we are looking for is giving each and every man the opportunity to make these things for themselves and freedom.

    Drug laws are an absolute failure by any measure whatsoever and need to be done away with. What the hell is a victimless crime? Why are you allowed to claim it is your body when you want to kill your unborn child and then, suddenly, it is not your body when you want to smoke some drugs?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. arKangel
    Offline

    arKangel Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    427
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Midwest
    Ratings:
    +30
    I really don't care one way or the other.
    If you don't like drug laws then don't do drugs.

    Still, hemp is just a plant. Government should never be able to tell you what plants you can grow on your own property.

    Those who are selling dope... I could see that as a community problem. Which is why the most dangerous thing would be to let the government tax it, that creates an incentive for the government to push dope. Then again, they already have a functioning slave system built on dope trading.

    Dope is for dopes.
    Though I am interested in the potential of hemp for industrial purposes.
     
  8. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    I think we got more important problems that weed. Make it legal and then tax it to death. Geez, I sound like a democrat.
     
  9. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    Legalizing marijuana is a fitting postscipt to this failure.
     
  10. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,236
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    How about we evaluate laws based on the idea of liberty and individual freedom? If I'm not hurting another nor taking what doesn't belong to me, why are we even talking about a law?

    What a consenting adult chooses to put in his own body is nobody else's business.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

what message does legalizing marijuana give to children