Glenn Beck

[ydoaPs]

Well, before we go to far, are you arguing FOR legalized drugs or AGAINST legalized alcohol? It would seem to me that showing that alcohol is just as conducive to further experimentation as pot isn't so much an argument in favor of pot, but an argument against alcohol.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm not arguing anything. I've merely asked a question(and stated facts justifying said question). Questions aren't arguments unless you think you already know my answer.

[Mr Skeptic]

How does smoking pot ruin lives worse than imprisoning them?

 

And that is the problem with these laws.

[jryan]

I'm not arguing anything. I've merely asked a question(and stated facts justifying said question). Questions aren't arguments unless you think you already know my answer.

 

I'm pointing out that the answer, regardless of it's outcome, wouldn't contribute much to the debate.

[bascule]

In the same way that prohibitions on embezzlement have ruined lives. Not that I support embezzlement, but arguing that a law that people willingly break is at fault for the people breaking the law is not at all accurate.

 

I'm arguing that much like the prohibition of alcohol, the harm caused by the law greatly exceeds the harm caused by what the law is trying to ban.

 

Regarding the comparison to embezzlement, the act of embezzlement directly causes material harm to others. Smoking marijuana does not.

 

I thought you considered yourself a "classical liberal" (i.e. libertarian) jryan. Your attitude regarding marijuana is certainly not in line with this position. ParanoiA's attitude is (as is John Stossel's, for that matter)

[Sisyphus]

So does anyone have a real argument for keeping it illegal?

 

Or to put it another way, why is smoking an unaccountable mystery product, risking prison, and funding organized crime better than smoking regulated legal marijuana? Surely the former ruins more lives, no?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm arguing that much like the prohibition of alcohol, the harm caused by the law greatly exceeds the harm caused by what the law is trying to ban.

 

And even that is not the dillema. It's not harm of the law vs. harm of the drug, because the law is ridiculously ineffective at stopping the drug. It's harm of the law plus harm of the drug vs. harm of a less dangerous drug. No brainer.

[jryan]

How does smoking pot ruin lives worse than imprisoning them? Ever tried to get a job after prison? How about after smoking pot?

 

Then don't smoke pot. It seems like a rather obvious solution to me!

 

How do your wife and kids fare while you're in prison? I wonder how many single moms draining the welfare system have a pot dealing hubby in prison. Exactly how is smoking pot at home worse for your kids than you being in prison while they grow up?

 

Guess how many of those pot dealing hubbies were good contributing parents outside of prison.

 

As for how much worse it is for children... well, that depends on the parents. If the other parent instills in their child that pot is bad for everyone and that the other parent imperiled their own family just to get high, maybe that child will grow up to be the kind of person that doesn't imperil their children for the monumentally selfish goal of getting stoned.

 

I don't think ruining people's lives with prison and other forms of incarceration remotely compare to the "damage" by smoking pot itself.

 

I would beg to differ. Those who engage in illicit drugs are not the sort that stay out of trouble otherwise.

 

Dealing with clients with long term marijuana abuse (schizophrenia, depression, suicidal thoughts, and so on) gives you a different perspective. I would rather the parent go to jail and the child learn a lesson than have the parent pass on their belief in the harmlessness of marijuana to their kids.

 

Of course, the parent left behind to raise the children is usually an abuser themselves, so kids rarely have a good place to turn for sanity.

 

The problems with drugs relate to their illegality - not problems themselves. Most of the violence, overwhemingly, is directly caused by it being illegal - fueling the black market. We have created drug dealers and pimps - they don't have a job if we don't create one for them.

 

The idea of "we created drug dealers and pimps" is false. Legalizing the drugs or prostitution doesn't mean there will suddenly be no pimps or dealers. They just do it legally... but the negative effects of prostitution and drug use don't vanish... and the black market would still exist.

 

I'm not all that keen of legalizing something because organized crime deals in it anyway. The argument wouldn't sound reasonable for any other illicit trade of organized crime, so it doesn't for drugs.

 

How many beer gangs do you see roaming the streets? How about the mafia wine gangs? See any drive-by shootings by cigarette dealers in your town?

 

Yeah, we should also legalize home theft and muggings too... it's amazing how little crime you get when everything is legal!

 

You have no right to regulate my consciousness.

 

Well, unless your conscious choices impact those around you negatively. I have little care for a single burnout with no wife or kids... they ruined their own lives and can deal with the consequences. But when you find it more important to get high than to protect your souse and children from harm then excuse my if I feel compelled to stop you from doing it... just the same as I would (and have often) call 911 on any motorist I see driving erratically.

 

What's the problem with that? It's almost like there's a problem with everyone being satisfied. I thought that was part of the point of this country. Each of us can pursue happiness however we define it as long as it doesn't hurt others?

 

No, because drug abusers (and alcoholics for that matter) are almost universally self centered and can never understand why those around them have a problem with their choice of slow in-your-face suicides.

[ydoaPs]

Pro:

+Less crime(Many violent crimes are related to drug deals gone wrong. Legalization opens the door to commercialization which means Marlboro Chronic will be cheaper than whatever little Timmy has to sell you, so little Timmy has no business.)

 

+Fewer broken homes(parents aren't in jail for enjoying some herb, nor are the children)

 

+Safer product(decriminalization leads to regulation)

 

+Economic recovery(decriminalization leads to regulation which means taxation)

 

Cons:

-Hemp would be a competitor

 

-Americans would be fatter and happier

 

-Everyone would know how to play the piano

 

 

Either way, people are going to smoke pot(which is less harmful than substances which are legal); they might as well do it in a way that helps the economy, the streets, and families.

[Sisyphus]

Then don't smoke pot. It seems like a rather obvious solution to me!

 

But if they legalize it, then I have to! That's what "legalize" means, right?

[ydoaPs]

Dealing with clients with long term marijuana abuse (schizophrenia, depression, suicidal thoughts, and so on) gives you a different perspective. I would rather the parent go to jail and the child learn a lesson than have the parent pass on their belief in the harmlessness of marijuana to their kids.

Is that word 'use' or 'abuse'? Hmm......

 

The idea of "we created drug dealers and pimps" is false.Legalizing the drugs or prostitution doesn't mean there will suddenly be no pimps or dealers. They just do it legally

You honestly think people would pay twice as much for pot off the streets as they would for Marlboro Chronic? Seriously? Yeah, right.

 

The argument wouldn't sound reasonable for any other illicit trade of organized crime, so it doesn't for drugs.

It didn't work to end prohibition of alcohol?

 

No, because drug abusers (and alcoholics for that matter) are almost universally self centered and can never understand why those around them have a problem with their choice of slow in-your-face suicides.

And keeping it illegal is going to drop the rate of abuse? I'd like to see some statistics on that.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But if they legalize it, then I have to! That's what "legalize" means, right?

 

lols. Same thing with Gay Marriage too

[Mr Skeptic]

Lots of really bad arguments there...

 

Then don't smoke pot. It seems like a rather obvious solution to me!

 

So why don't you advocate this? How is throwing them in jail an improvement? The question wasn't whether either was good, it was which was worse.

 

Guess how many of those pot dealing hubbies were good contributing parents outside of prison.

 

How many? Most of them, I'm sure, given the statistics of percentages who smoke pot.

 

As for how much worse it is for children... well, that depends on the parents. If the other parent instills in their child that pot is bad for everyone and that the other parent imperiled their own family just to get high, maybe that child will grow up to be the kind of person that doesn't imperil their children for the monumentally selfish goal of getting stoned.

 

But why are you wanting to imperil children just because their parents smoke pot? Why ruin the child's life by throwing their parent(s) in jail? Why do you assume that a parent who smokes pot will tell his child that pot is safe and good, contrary to plenty of evidence from parents who smoke or drink?

 

I would beg to differ. Those who engage in illicit drugs are not the sort that stay out of trouble otherwise.

 

Those who engage in illicit anything are not the sort to stay out of trouble. 100% Solution: make the drugs legal, then these people won't be doing illegal drugs.

 

Dealing with clients with long term marijuana abuse (schizophrenia, depression, suicidal thoughts, and so on) gives you a different perspective. I would rather the parent go to jail and the child learn a lesson than have the parent pass on their belief in the harmlessness of marijuana to their kids.

 

And do you think that the many many folks who use marijuana and don't have trouble with it are going to be going to you for help? But do tell: did these people tell you that they tell their children that marijuana is safe, or did you make that up?

 

Of course, the parent left behind to raise the children is usually an abuser themselves, so kids rarely have a good place to turn for sanity.

 

We do have legal requirements on minimum standards for taking care of children.

 

The idea of "we created drug dealers and pimps" is false. Legalizing the drugs or prostitution doesn't mean there will suddenly be no pimps or dealers. They just do it legally... but the negative effects of prostitution and drug use don't vanish... and the black market would still exist.

 

But what about less pimps and dealers? Cheaper drugs mean people don't have to turn to prostitution to fund their habit, and mean that the risk to dealers remains while their profit margin plummets.

 

I'm not all that keen of legalizing something because organized crime deals in it anyway. The argument wouldn't sound reasonable for any other illicit trade of organized crime, so it doesn't for drugs.

 

What about for things that aren't illicit? There's a black market that sells computers; should we make computers illegal? Enforceability is an aspect of making a law: there is little sense in outlawing something that can't be enforced and where the law does more harm than good.

 

Yeah, we should also legalize home theft and muggings too... it's amazing how little crime you get when everything is legal!

 

These are illegal because they infringe on other people's rights.

 

Well, unless your conscious choices impact those around you negatively. I have little care for a single burnout with no wife or kids... they ruined their own lives and can deal with the consequences. But when you find it more important to get high than to protect your souse and children from harm then excuse my if I feel compelled to stop you from doing it... just the same as I would (and have often) call 911 on any motorist I see driving erratically.

 

We are trying to protect children and wives by legalizing marijuana.

 

No, because drug abusers (and alcoholics for that matter) are almost universally self centered and can never understand why those around them have a problem with their choice of slow in-your-face suicides.

 

So how does throwing them in jail improve things?

 

-----

 

Also, what happened to you being a Free Market Capitalist? The free market has spoken: the peoples want marijuana.

[jryan]

I'm arguing that much like the prohibition of alcohol, the harm caused by the law greatly exceeds the harm caused by what the law is trying to ban.

 

And I would argue that that is not the case. It simply trades one death for another. It would be hard to argue that few people have died from Alcohol since the repeal of prohibition than died during it.

 

Similarly, if you banned tobacco tomorrow there would be a surge in black market tobacco and violence, but even a 20% decrease in new smokers would mean an aggregate drop in tobacco related deaths.

 

Going back to whether it's worse to have a user in prison than in the home, I'd like to point out that watching your parent or family member kill themselves with substance abuse is not as great as some here seem to think it is.

 

Regarding the comparison to embezzlement, the act of embezzlement directly causes material harm to others. Smoking marijuana does not.

 

Increased rates of cancer that WE ALL need to pay for now, higher rates of mental illness which we ALL need to pay for now, lower job dependability which we all already have to pay for. It's hard, especially with out drift into a full nanny state that marijuana abuse doesn't effect other people.

 

I thought you considered yourself a "classical liberal" (i.e. libertarian) jryan. Your attitude regarding marijuana is certainly not in line with this position. ParanoiA's attitude is (as is John Stossel's, for that matter)

 

I'm not a pure libertarian any more than I am a pure conservative. I do find, however, a purity in true libertarianism that supports every-man-to-his-own-vice "freedom" as at least a true libertarian wouldn't want to saddle me with the health care bills of a substance abuser.

 

In practical terms though -- as a person who has seen to many lives ruined by substance abuse of all kinds -- I can't in good conscience support the legalization of what would be the death of many people. Seeing those who managed to escape before killing themselves and still carry mental and physical scars from habitual use of many drug, I don't consider jail, or even death as the worst of all possible outcomes.

 

Furthermore, dealing with many drug councilors that went through addiction themselves -- many whom detoxed for the last time in prison -- I don't find the idea of letting people kill themselves legally very compelling.

[jackson33]

Drug usage policy from Libertarians....

 

Libertarians, like most Americans, demand to be safe at home and on the streets. Libertarians would like all Americans to be healthy and free of drug dependence. But drug laws don't help, they make things worse. [/Quote]

 

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/lp-rld.htm

 

Glenn Beck, certainly leans Libertarian and John Stossel IS a Libertarian. It seems unreasonable, they would discard their belief in personal freedoms, at the door of drug usage and I'll add legal drugs which in many cases are the most addictive and harmful to society.

 

While anything, used in excess can be harmful, those that are addictive (food/sex, a couple), some people believe that's the choice of an individual. While I have problems in legalizing everything people might do, to achieve a high, escape from reality or some self gratification, it's certainly overplayed in society today.

 

If forced to join a side on this issue, I would suggest any control over sales of drugs should be the top issue on the list. Most folks I've known that do drugs or have, is the unintended advancement to a higher high (so to speak) generally brought on by dealers in the drugs themselves. The corner pusher, to the Doctor who may suggest or prescribe a more potent drug, not really needed, both to keep the buyer coming back. I would disagree, that alcohol is a less destructive drug, than marijuana alone or that either could be used excessively. Frankly if you think about it, more families are destroyed by people hooked on Gambling, Sex and Alcohol, which is already legal in many places and to ALL ages, than by illegal drugs off the street, generally by young folks.

 

Then and just as revolting to me, would be the purpose for legalization. To raise money (taxes) no doubt to cover medical cost or promoting a drug free society and will be used for everything but....Most those in jails or prisons today are not for usage, but the money it takes to buy the products. There is nothing to say these people will not continue to rob and steel from others, which is no less what's going on in many States today with a carton of Cigarettes nearing the 100.00 mark or the thousands that buy on line, not reporting to save the tax money. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of otherwise law abiding people, breaking felony law, tax evasion.

[bascule]

Increased rates of cancer that WE ALL need to pay for now

 

If we're talking about things that should be banned because we all have to pay for the healthcare costs, why don't we ban red meat, which leads to heart disease and colon cancer?

 

What kinds of cancers are you suggesting are caused by marijuana? This study found no link between marijuana and lung cancer:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis#UCLA_study

 

On 23 May 2006, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles announced that the use of cannabis does not appear to increase the risk of developing lung cancer, or increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus.[219] The study involved 2252 participants, with some of the most chronic marijuana smokers having smoked over 22,000 marijuana cigarettes.[219][220][221][222] The finding of Donald Tashkin, M.D., and his team of researchers in 2006 refined their earlier studies published in a Dec. 17th 2000 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarker and Prevention.[223] Many opponents of marijuana incorrectly cite the original finding of UCLA Medical Center from 2000 as "proof" that marijuana leaves the users at higher risk for cancer of the lung, and cancerous tumors,[215] even though the researchers at the UCLA Medical Center have revised their finding with a more in-depth study on the effects of the use of marijuana. This seemed to contradict assumptions made after some studies, like those from Dale Gieringer et al., which found that 118 carcinogens were produced when marijuana underwent combustion, and two carcinogens {2-Methyl-2, 4(2H-1-benzopyran-5-ol) & 5-[Acetyl benz[e]azulene-3,8-dione} formed when marijuana underwent vaporization with the Volcano Vaporizer.[224] To help explain this seemingly chemical proof of carcinogenity inherent in the process of combustion, Tashkin noted that "one possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."[219]

 

In practical terms though -- as a person who has seen to many lives ruined by substance abuse of all kinds -- I can't in good conscience support the legalization of what would be the death of many people.

 

Death? By marijuana? How?

 

There's certainly one way to die from marijuana: getting killed in the course of marijuana trafficking. The simple solution to that is to legalize marijuana.

 

I'm not a pure libertarian any more than I am a pure conservative. I do find, however, a purity in true libertarianism that supports every-man-to-his-own-vice "freedom" as at least a true libertarian wouldn't want to saddle me with the health care bills of a substance abuser.

 

Sounds to me like you want an authoritarian nanny state to tell people what substances they can and can't do because those people don't know better. That's pretty much the opposite of libertarianism.

 

You do realize that you'll still have to pay those bills regardless of whether marijuana is illegal, right?

 

What else should the nanny state ban to keep healthcare bills down? Alcohol? Cigarettes? Red meat? Sugar/HFCS?

Edited April 1, 2010 by bascule

[Phi for All]

Guess how many of those pot dealing hubbies were good contributing parents outside of prison.

A larger percentage than the guys who are in there for crimes that had victims.

 

As for how much worse it is for children... well, that depends on the parents. If the other parent instills in their child that pot is bad for everyone and that the other parent imperiled their own family just to get high, maybe that child will grow up to be the kind of person that doesn't imperil their children for the monumentally selfish goal of getting stoned.

Is that other parent going to instill that alcohol is bad for everyone? How many other rash generalizations is this other parent going to instill?

 

I would beg to differ. Those who engage in illicit drugs are not the sort that stay out of trouble otherwise.

Most everyone I know who smokes pot is never in trouble with the law, and all have productive jobs which contribute to society. You have made a Hasty Generalization.

 

Yeah, we should also legalize home theft and muggings too... it's amazing how little crime you get when everything is legal!

Strawman. Those crimes have direct victims in every single case. Smoking pot does not.

 

Well, unless your conscious choices impact those around you negatively. I have little care for a single burnout with no wife or kids... they ruined their own lives and can deal with the consequences. But when you find it more important to get high than to protect your souse and children from harm then excuse my if I feel compelled to stop you from doing it... just the same as I would (and have often) call 911 on any motorist I see driving erratically.

I think your experience as a social worker has shown you the worst case scenarios only. There have to be far more productive people who smoke pot than the "burn-outs" you mention, simply going by national averages.

[Sisyphus]

jryan, with all due respect, I think your particular experience has led to a huge sampling bias. Nobody would deny that alcohol is harmful, or that it can ruin lives. However, the great majority of adults have consumed alcohol, and only a very small percentage are alcoholics. However, if your only experience with alcohol was in the role of a social worker, I can certainly imagine how you could get an entirely different impression.

 

Now, cannabis is not harmless, and in some cases it can be quite harmful indeed, just like alcohol. However, by most measures, it is actually less likely to be so.

 

And, in any case, whether it is harmful is not the issue. What is at issue is whether more harm is done by it when it is legal, or when it is illegal. I'll again bring in the analogy of alcohol, and let none other than John D. Rockefeller, onetime proponent of Prohibition, make my point for me:

 

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.

[ParanoiA]

Then don't smoke pot. It seems like a rather obvious solution to me!

 

Fine, then you should have no problem with prison sentences for floating stop signs. Hey, don't like prison? Then don't float stop signs, right?

 

Prison for altering your consciousness with a drug that gives you the giggles and makes Benny Hill actually seem funny is utterly ridiculous. It's a punishment way beyond the scope of the crime - just like traffic violations.

 

Even speeding twice the speed limit - a freaking WMD on the highway - won't get you prison.

 

Guess how many of those pot dealing hubbies were good contributing parents outside of prison.

 

As for how much worse it is for children... well' date=' that depends on the parents. If the other parent instills in their child that pot is bad for everyone and that the other parent imperiled their own family just to get high, maybe that child will grow up to be the kind of person that doesn't imperil their children for the monumentally selfish goal of getting stoned.[/quote']

Do you also indict parents for monumentally selfish goal of getting drunk or do you just reserve this for mild sensory intoxicants incapable of even overdose? How about aspirin? More people die from aspirin every year than has ever died from pot (hint: pot = zero deaths).

 

The millions of drug users that take care of their families responsibly outnumber the ones that don't by 20:1. I wish I could search for that Stossell statistic from here at work - so I'll do it tonight when I get home. A study was done here in the states that will shock the anti-drug folks.

 

They sit next to you at work. They teach your kids in school. You have beens surrounded by them your whole life. Just like people who drink alcohol responsibly. Why would you think this is any different?

 

Alcohol has the potential to incapacitate people to an extremely dangerous degree that pot could never reach. Pot doesn't slur your speech, cause you to stagger and lose balance, or pass out unconcious. Pot makes you slow. Pot cannot incapacitate you for abuse by others - a freaking epidemic really considering how many women are taken advantage of with alcohol every weekend.

 

The only good thing about alcohol really is the potential to humiliate your passed out friends with lipstick, whipped cream and a camera phone.

 

I'm not all that keen of legalizing something because organized crime deals in it anyway. The argument wouldn't sound reasonable for any other illicit trade of organized crime, so it doesn't for drugs.

 

The argument works because it's something that shouldn't have been illegal in the first place since it caused no direct damage to anyone. That's why there's a huge black market for drugs and prostitution, but a relatively micro one for having people killed.

 

Demand for drugs is high because people enjoy using them and they know it doesn't hurt others, thus the black market can flourish. Demand for hitmen is low because people usually don't enjoy murder by proxy and they know it hurts people so the black market cannot flourish. Sure it's there, but pales in comparison to the behemoth that is the drug trade.

 

You create crime where you remove choice for a behavior in demand. Try outlawing food and see how quickly macaroni and cheese gangs patrol your block.

 

I think your experience as a social worker has shown you the worst case scenarios only. There have to be far more productive people who smoke pot than the "burn-outs" you mention, simply going by national averages.

 

This is a great point. To expand on that, as Stossell reported recently, this was pointed out in reference to police and hospital workers as well. The only examples of drugs they are going to see are horrible ones. Why would anyone get high and go the hospital to say they're ok? Police don't randomly stop at homes to see if anyone is getting high and not committing some other crime or killing themselves. The only exposure they're going to get are the problems - that's their job, problems.

 

So of course they're going to come at this from a different kind of experience. Not worthy of dismissal mind you, of course, just worthy of gauging in context of the big picture. There are problems that I'm glossing over, so it's not like we're talking about Flinstones vitamins. They just pale in comparison to the poison that is alcohol and how it trumps marijuana in every category...except maybe short term memory.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

omgponies? Really? Who do I have to thank for such a cool forum title?

Edited April 1, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Phi for All]

Ultimately, you have to stop thinking subjectively about drugs and alcohol. Everyone knows abusers and they will always exist. We need to focus on objective evidence, what has worked in the past and what hasn't. We've seen what the war on alcohol did in the 20s and 30s. We've seen what the war on drugs has done. Repealing prohibition has been a positive action on the whole. We can always make alcohol illegal again when it becomes too much of a problem. We need to legalize drugs with the same evidence and the same concerns in mind.

 

Try outlawing food and see how quickly macaroni and cheese gangs patrol your block.

I was once a member of a macaroni and cheese gang. It was a struggle to get out of that life and I hope no one else ever has to learn the kraft.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

omgponies? Really? Who do I have to thank for such a cool forum title?

 

It's an honor bequeathed on only our best members.

[jryan]

So why don't you advocate this? How is throwing them in jail an improvement? The question wasn't whether either was good, it was which was worse.

 

I do advocate it, Mr. Skeptic. I am simply pointing out that claiming that the laws are at fault here is wrong. These people chose to risk jail time for a stupid high.

 

How many? Most of them, I'm sure, given the statistics of percentages who smoke pot.

 

Here is a rather complete statistical breakdown of drug use.

 

If you scroll down to table 1.26a and onward there are the pertinent numbers for 2005 and 2006. 1.27a in particular shows that the unemployment/underemployment/non-employment rate among pot smokers is 29.9% (part-time+unemployed+other divided by total) in ages 26+. Given that the retirement age (65+) has the lowest usage rate (7.2% lifetime), don't think that retirement contributes that much to "other" either.

 

But why are you wanting to imperil children just because their parents smoke pot? Why ruin the child's life by throwing their parent(s) in jail? Why do you assume that a parent who smokes pot will tell his child that pot is safe and good, contrary to plenty of evidence from parents who smoke or drink?

 

I'm not, that was their parents choice.

 

As for what parents tell their children, I am simply going by what I know of habitual pot smokers, and those parents left behind to fend for the family. They, like you, fail to properly assign blame for the plight of the family and children. To them the parent in jail is a victim of the system rather than an idiot that couldn't get their priorities in order.

 

Those who engage in illicit anything are not the sort to stay out of trouble. 100% Solution: make the drugs legal, then these people won't be doing illegal drugs.

 

So you agree that making drugs legal won't keep these people out of prison? What's the point of making drugs legal then?

 

And do you think that the many many folks who use marijuana and don't have trouble with it are going to be going to you for help? But do tell: did these people tell you that they tell their children that marijuana is safe, or did you make that up?

 

They were in large part those who felt they were the victim of the law, rather than of their stupid spouse/parent. Most raised their children to make the exact same mistakes they made and wind up in the exact same predicament as their parents.

 

Running through the play list of your average urban radio station will also give you a good clue of the target population's thoughts on who the heroes and villains are in the drug war. And this cuts across race and ethnic barriers in the ghettos and poor populations, too.

 

We do have legal requirements on minimum standards for taking care of children.

 

Sure we do, but those standards have little to do with what you teach them about drug use and personal responsibility.

 

But what about less pimps and dealers? Cheaper drugs mean people don't have to turn to prostitution to fund their habit, and mean that the risk to dealers remains while their profit margin plummets.

 

The irony is that if Glaxo or Phillip Morris started selling marijuana people would like them... but selling actual medicines and cigarettes have them equally hated.

 

But that was OT.. on the reduction in pimps and prices and prostitution: I wouldn't be so sure about that. The prostitutes I dealt with as a social worker needed to turn tricks to afford bread and beer, much less marijuana, heroin, etc.

 

The interesting side effect of legalizing prostitution is a great many prostitutes could be out of business or remain under the thumb of black market pimps... and the price would sky rocket. See what happened in Nevada with legalized prostitution. I won't link you to "menus" for these brothels, but suffice it to say they are prohibitively expensive, and black market prostitution still exists.

 

What about for things that aren't illicit? There's a black market that sells computers; should we make computers illegal? Enforceability is an aspect of making a law: there is little sense in outlawing something that can't be enforced and where the law does more harm than good.

 

You would be hard pressed to argue that computer use is as dangerous as drug use. You haven't proven your point beyond pure emotion that jail time is more damaging than having a drug addicted parent in the home.

 

Granted, I am arguing the same line, but I have considerable experience with both.. and in most cases the children were better of with dad (or mom) in jail.

 

 

These are illegal because they infringe on other people's rights.

 

 

So does recreational drug use.

 

 

We are trying to protect children and wives by legalizing marijuana.

 

But you aren't. You are kidding yourselves. The parent that risks their wives and children's lives for marijuana have given clear evidence already that they are not suitable to be parents.

 

Going back to your previous computer example, if the government were to outlaw computers under penalty of jail time I would stop using computers. I wouldn't start arguing for the repeal of the law, but I wouldn't be so calloused as to jeopardize my children's safety by using computers before the law is repealed.

 

So how does throwing them in jail improve things?

 

There are a laundry list of reasons why not living with a drug user is better than living with one. For marijuana, one of the most common (ubiquitous) effects on children is the mental damage caused to their parents by continual use... not to mention the increased likelihood that the children will become early users... which in turn exacerbates the chances of psychological damage on the child in later life... leading to troubles for that child's children, and so on.

 

 

Also, what happened to you being a Free Market Capitalist? The free market has spoken: the peoples want marijuana.

 

Then legalize it. I am just telling you it's a very bad idea and the reasons for legalization are spurious and based on faulty assumptions.

[ParanoiA]

It's an honor bequeathed on only our best members.

 

Whew...for a minute there I wasn't sure if it was real or if it was the...herbs...

 

Seriously, I am honored to be a pony freak.

[ydoaPs]

I am just telling you it's a very bad idea and the reasons for legalization are spurious and based on faulty assumptions.

Like:?

 

+Less crime(Many violent crimes are related to drug deals gone wrong. Legalization opens the door to commercialization which means Marlboro Chronic will be cheaper than whatever little Timmy has to sell you, so little Timmy has no business.)

 

+Fewer broken homes(parents aren't in jail for enjoying some herb, nor are the children)

 

+Safer product(decriminalization leads to regulation)

 

+Economic recovery(decriminalization leads to regulation which means taxation)

 

As for what parents tell their children, I am simply going by what I know of habitual pot smokers, and those parents left behind to fend for the family. They, like you, fail to properly assign blame for the plight of the family and children. To them the parent in jail is a victim of the system rather than an idiot that couldn't get their priorities in order.

The same can be said of alcoholics, gamblers, or people with 'virtual daughters'. Bad parents are bad parents.

 

So you agree that making drugs legal won't keep these people out of prison?

No.

 

on the reduction in pimps and prices and prostitution: I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Do you honestly think people are going to pay MORE for street weed than for mass-produced?

 

You would be hard pressed to argue that computer use is as dangerous as drug use.

You would be hard pressed to argue that marijuana use is harmful. You're equivocating between use and abuse and it's obvious.

 

 

The parent that risks their wives and children's lives for marijuana have given clear evidence already that they are not suitable to be parents.

Bad parents are bad parents. Correlation does not imply causation. Is the bad parenting due to the marijuana or is the marijuana due to the bad parenting. Perhaps they're completely unrelated.

 

Going back to your previous computer example, if the government were to outlaw computers under penalty of jail time I would stop using computers. I wouldn't start arguing for the repeal of the law, but I wouldn't be so calloused as to jeopardize my children's safety by using computers before the law is repealed.

So it should be illegal because it's already illegal......ok Edited April 1, 2010 by ydoaPs

[jryan]

It's an honor bequeathed on only our best members.

 

Nice to see public ridicule by the management here. It reminds me why I can only take this place in short doses.

[ydoaPs]

Nice to see public ridicule by the management here. It reminds me why I can only take this place in short doses.

 

o.O

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Nice to see public ridicule by the management here. It reminds me why I can only take this place in short doses.

 

In case the joke is lost here, everyone shoes up as omgponies. The ones with an avatar get an added bonus.

[jryan]

Ah.... it was lost on me!

 

This is a dicey thing given that many people are in the middle of a heated debate, and only the user shows up as omgponies. I figured you and Paranoia were have fun at my expense! Oh the shame.

 

Reminds me of the fun we had on another site with a pluging that would replace [you] with the name of the viewer. So I could say "I really love [you]" and it would be a compliment to everyone... the oppoiste was more often used though.

Edited April 1, 2010 by jryan