Well you managed to completely miss the point of the analogy. I'm not saying that the two acts are the same, (i.e. using pot is the same as getting stabbed), I'm saying the two arguments are the same: If you already have harmful action/substance X, and Y on its own is no more harmful than X on its own then it makes no sense not to have both X and Y.
It ignores the fact that even though Y is no more harmful than X, you're still being hurt more when X and Y co-occur.
Quote:
What if one highway had a speed limit of 100kph. And what if a more or less similar highway had a speed limit of 60kph. I might argue that they should be the same, either both 100, or both 60. Why does it make sense to have one so much slower than the other? I suppose you'd come along and say something like 'speed kills, we've already got one fast highway, why do you need another? Why can't you just be happy driving slow on one, and fast on another?'. This doesn't make sense to me.
Like I say above, the equivalent is two highways that are fairly similar, with wildly different speed limits. For no apparent reason. You want both to be slow? Fair enough. As long as they're both the same, fast or slow, doesn't matter to me.
|
That argument is completely irrelevant because there what happens on one highway has absolutely no influence on what happens on the other, and at the end of the day no one is driving faster than 100. Your highway argument is the equivalent of arguing that Canada should legalize pot because e.g. Holland legalized pot. It completely sidesteps the crucial aspect that the change doesn't just affect one 'highway' on its own.
Like it or not the equivalent is one highway whose speed is being increased. What we're talking about is looking at the effect of adding legalized marijuana to a society which already has a number of other substances legalized.
Quote:
Society already uses _massive_ quantities of marijuana....
Well, I guess you've got to point out what the cumulative _bad_ effects are of adding one more harmful substance (which is already widely used).
|
Are you honestly saying that you don't think there would be an increase in regular pot use if it was completely legal and anyone could just stop off at 7-11 on the way home and pick up a carton of joints?
Quote:
You make a great point about not being a crusader against liquor consumption. Because it's too hard to enforce.
Just like marijuana consumption.
|
There's a huge difference in what it would take to institute a new prohibition on one substance which is completely integrated in society and what it takes to keep enforcing a prohibition on another substance.
That being said, are the marijuana laws currently in force completely ineffective? I don't think so; as I implied in the previous paragraph I have little doubt that legalizing pot would lead to a pretty big increase in regular use. However, the fact that they may be moderately ineffective is definately worthy of consideration when evaluating whether the benefits of decriminalization outweigh the costs.