Another victory for "freedom"

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 29 2005, 06:56 PM
If you're someone who uses pot, you should be weary of legalization and government regulation. You know as soon as they do, the legalized product will only be a weak version of the stuff you can get relatively easily today.

I think that the 'government-version' would be potent. It would be lunacy to legalize, legislate, and regulate a massive pot-operation, and then make the stuff crappy. Since there's already a huge private industry in place, it would simply remain in place, churning out high-quality marijuana.

For that reason I believe the Government's stuff would be adequate, if only to discourage people going out to find better stuff from illicit sources. The quality of regulated liquor/cigarettes is fine, and we don't see huge underground production networks in place for those (smuggling, on the other hand...) Also, there are large tax-revenues to be reaped here, and the Government is too money-grubbing to ignore a score that big.

[CaramonLS]

Which is why the Liberals are going to win another Minority presumably when the next election rolls around? Does that mean all the of the Liberal voters are all on board with the corruption scandal and think it is all fine and dandy that people can waste money as well as gay marriage?

No. Do issues happen in a vacuum? No.

As far as which substance is better to drive while impaired? I must have missed that, I'm sure that has been tested throughly.

[Agamemnon]

Which is why the Liberals are going to win another Minority presumably when the next election rolls around? Does that mean all the of the Liberal voters are all on board with the corruption scandal and think it is all fine and dandy that people can waste money as well as gay marriage?

No. Do issues happen in a vacuum? No.

Sure, you're right. But a political election vs. a single-issue vote are two different things. I suppose I should have qualified my 50%+1 argument with, 'if 50%+1 of people _really_ oppose it, it won't happen'. It just so happens that our electoral system rewards party's that win with less than half the vote. Not a great example on my part.

Regardless, I stand by my claim that if most Canadians _truly_ didn't want weed legalized, it wouldn't happen. The importance of the issue is a clear factor, and I think that Gay Marriage and Marijuana are issues of different scopes. I think the parties affected, and how much they're affected, are very different accross the two issues.

As far as which substance is better to drive while impaired? I must have missed that, I'm sure that has been tested throughly.

You're right, it has been tested thouroughly. And, for the third time, I'll direct you to the quotes I provided in this thread as an example of that. Take a look... they're still there.

[Mike F]

Maybe your arguments are easily misinterpreted.

You haven't just misinterpreted arguments, you've flat-out ignored clear and unambiguous statements I've made and put your interpretation in my mouth instead.

Lovely exercise in semantics, but all you've done is replace the words 'bad or evil' with 'harm'.# A negative connotation, as I was always saying.# Maybe you're the one not hearing me, instead of vice versa.# Or maybe you used a bad example.

It's not simply semantics. Lots of things can cause harm without being evil. And what may have been a bad example at first should have been clarified the first time I explicitely said I don't think pot is bad or evil.

That being said, are you now saying that there is absolutely nothing harmful or negative about regular pot use. It would be an odd position to take given how often the phrase "no more harmful than alcohol" has been used.

I guess.# I'd suggest it's pretty legitimate that, when making/deciding legal legislation, all other aspects of society be taken into account.# It's great to try and isolate issues from reality to explore theories, but, at the end of the day, we live in reality.# You can't separate related-issues from each other 'just because'.# While I'm not suggesting that 'if A=1 then B MUST=1', I'm saying that, when assigning value to A, to completely ignore B is a mistake.# B must be taken into context and examined.

What issues am I isolating? Where am I not in touch with reality? Where have I made any 'just because' arguments? I've never said you don't consider symmetry, I've been saying that it's not by any extent the deciding factor and so you don't stop there, but have to go on to a further consideration of the effect of instituting symmetry.

And your whole argument has been 'if A=1 then B MUST=1' -- i.e. if alcohol is legal then pot should be legal or else it's an unfair double standard. You haven't just said that it should be taken into account, you've said that it's the end of the argument -- If the limit on one highway is 100, that should be the limit on the other one.

Show me where and how this one is different.# Show me why many, many 'harmful' substances are allowed, and this one, arbitrarily, isn't.# 'Because one more vice will break the camel's back?'.# I doubt it.# Marijuana use is already prevalent.

Are you asking why, historically, pot has been illegal and not other substances? Don't know; doesn't really matter. The fact that it may be a double standard makes it a legitimate issue to consider, but at the end of the day if it was shown (HYPOTHETICALLY!) that allowing it to be legalized would do much more harm then good then the only responsible thing to do would be to let the imbalance continue. As I said before, symmetry doesn't trump health and safety, and it doesn't need to break the camel's back for the harm to exceed the benefits.

I think the comparisons between marijuana and alcohol are extremely apt.# Alcohol would be impossible to ban, and marijuana, I believe, is proving to be the same.# It will just take a matter of time before we realize that it's here to stay, and there's nothing we can do about it short of starting our own 'war on drugs'.# But those haven't proven to work too well, so far.

You're free to your opinion, but you'll never convince me that smoking pot is anywhere near as integrated into society as alcohol. You can't honestly believe that for every person who has a beer at the game, wine with dinner, drinks at a bar-b-q, etc, etc, etc, there's an equivalent person smoking up. Alcohol is ingrained in so many aspects of Canadian society and it would take a Herculean effort to remove.

But again, as I've said before, the difficulty in banning marijuana is something to consider in the cost/benefit analysis of legalization.

[Agamemnon]

You haven't just misinterpreted arguments, you've flat-out ignored clear and unambiguous statements I've made and put your interpretation in my mouth instead.

I disagree. There was a clear and obvious reason you used stab-wounds to be your comparison, due to their _extreme_ harm. Maybe you didn't realize this, but it seems pretty overt that the reasoning here is to equate the 'harm' of weed to the 'harm' of being stabbed. Again, maybe you used a poor example.

It's not simply semantics. Lots of things can cause harm without being evil. And what may have been a bad example at first should have been clarified the first time I explicitely said I don't think pot is bad or evil.

That being said, are you now saying that there is absolutely nothing harmful or negative about regular pot use. It would be an odd position to take given how often the phrase "no more harmful than alcohol" has been used.

Of course not. Like eating at McDonalds, not getting enough exercise, and staring at a computer monitor all day, smoking marijuana is not a healthy exercise. I was merely pointing out (repeatedly) that your use of the 'stab' example is a _very_ extreme one. You may regret that its that extreme, but you have yet to replace it. It's a bad example, plain and simple. Find a better one, or expect me to go on in the same vein. Its purpose is to make weed appear 'harmful', like a stab-wound is in a person. That analogy is inherently negative and ignores _any_ positive aspects, and as such, I don't think its' warranted.

What issues am I isolating? Where am I not in touch with reality? Where have I made any 'just because' arguments? I've never said you don't consider symmetry, I've been saying that it's not by any extent the deciding factor and so you don't stop there, but have to go on to a further consideration of the effect of instituting symmetry.

You're isolating the legalization of marijuana from the current legality of alcohol. You've basically suggested that the legal status of alcohol has _zero_ bearing on the legal status of marijuana. I think that's selective thinking, and making broad, comprehensive decisions (legalization), isolated from _very_ related concerns. They don't have to be treated the same, of course, but should they be treated as fundamentally different? I don't think so at all.

What's the closest thing in this society to marijuana, to give us a reference point? Alcohol is the best I can figure, but clue me in if there's a better one.

And your whole argument has been 'if A=1 then B MUST=1' -- i.e. if alcohol is legal then pot should be legal or else it's an unfair double standard. You haven't just said that it should be taken into account, you've said that it's the end of the argument -- If the limit on one highway is 100, that should be the limit on the other one.

Not at all. I'm just wondering why you don't think the limit on one highway has any bearing on the limit of the other. They don't have to be the same, but, as I said above, why would they be fundamentally different and isolated? Why choose to ignore an obvious similarity?

Are you asking why, historically, pot has been illegal and not other substances? Don't know; doesn't really matter. The fact that it may be a double standard makes it a legitimate issue to consider, but at the end of the day if it was shown (HYPOTHETICALLY!) that allowing it to be legalized would do much more harm then good then the only responsible thing to do would be to let the imbalance continue. As I said before, symmetry doesn't trump health and safety, and it doesn't need to break the camel's back for the harm to exceed the benefits.

Well, I guess the 'harms' are 1. health-related (though not nearly as bad as other, currently legal substances), 2. safety-related (though, I pointed out above that the safety concerns for driving are _much_ greater with alcohol than marijuana), 3. people becoming addicted to the substance (though, again, there are more addictive substances already legalized, cigarettes for one).

I see the 'good' or 'un-harm' (or whatever you want to call it) as being several things. 1. no more jail-sentences/criminal records for people engaging in an activity that is no worse than several currently legal activities (my opinion is that it is better than those, but I'll stick w/ no worse, for argument's sake). 2. it can be controlled, regulated, taxed, and, if it's done right, ruin the massive underground economy that currently provides 100% access to the substance. There is gang-violence and such associated with controlling the multi-billion dollar illicit drug trade that would be substantially reduced. 3. you have the freedom to indulge in whichever drug you like, be it tobacco, marijuana, or alcohol, without fear of criminal retribution.

I don't think society would be any worse-off if it was legalized. The people who are interested in doing it can pick it up from the street corner right now (and, again, they do, by the droves). If people would like to opt out of using any of these substances (a wise choice), then they're free to. In fact, school's should be educating children to make the proper choice, rather than the government unsuccessfully legislating which plants you're allowed to smoke and which you can't.

You're free to your opinion, but you'll never convince me that smoking pot is anywhere near as integrated into society as alcohol. You can't honestly believe that for every person who has a beer at the game, wine with dinner, drinks at a bar-b-q, etc, etc, etc, there's an equivalent person smoking up. Alcohol is ingrained in so many aspects of Canadian society and it would take a Herculean effort to remove.

Sure, there are a lot of rummies out there.

I'd suggest the main reason that alcohol is 'ingrained' in society and marijuana isn't is precisely due to the legal nature of both. If it became socially acceptable, I wouldn't be surprised to find people at the BBQ firing up a joint and leaving the six-pack behind. To each they're own.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that over half of Canadians have tried marijuana. I am convinced that in urban areas of the country, especially in the West, the numbers would surprise a lot of people. And I think they're growing. BC hasn't _always_ been exporting billions of dollars worth of weed, that's a fairly recent phenomona.

Is this just a numbers thing? If enough people 'do it' it should be allowed? Does the number of people engaging in it that change anything?