Is it time to legalize pot and reduce the death rate of tobacco and alcohol?

[Accountable]

Why should it be any different than alcohol?

It shouldn't. We should allow competent adults to make their own decisions, then hold them responsible for those decisions.

I know it's a completely foreign concept in America today, but I think we should regain it.

 

[Stone]

It shouldn't. We should allow competent adults to make their own decisions, then hold them responsible for those decisions.

I know it's a completely foreign concept in America today, but I think we should regain it.

We should allow competent adults to make their own decisions, then hold them responsible for those decisions.

What standards do you use to judge an adult, competent, that would choose to use a mildly addictive drug for recreational purposes?

 

[Mercury]

I smell a debate on how addictive Marijuana is .....

Personally, I don't know that much about the chemicals in Marijuana. I personally don't enjoy the drug as it just makes me feel .... blah. As such, I also don't hate the drug as I have friends who smoke it and they seem to do just fine as regular smokers. If a ballot was presented for the legalization of Marijuana along with proper regulations in place, I would vote yes. As long as there is a way to identify that someone is under the "active" influence of it ... as in DUI exams and such.

It would be interesting to see what changes in society there would be if it was available in 7/11 or liquor stores and the like. Or if there would be any changes.

 

[Jaybird]

There was a Rand report out several years ago that addressed the problems of legalization from the angle of taxation and distribution.
It found reason to believe that crime would merely relocate into the realm of tax avoidance and profiteer from the difference in taxed price versus a cost to grow.
So the revenues from taxes were considerably off and the criminal element still involved in secret culturing of pot.
Naturally, this also offset the support the drug centers would receive.

Sure. And there still are people making moonshine in the woods too. And they can and sometimes are charged with a federal crime(whether one believes that is just or not is another subject though)

And there already is a tax enforcement agency that could take up the slack targeting that, as you are going to need to shift a large portion of the federal police force away from stopping drugs from coming through the border to other things.

And yes, there will always be the people growing a few plants for themselves, just like I can make beer or wine in my basement for personal use(legally). And that is the way it should be.

Not only was Prohibition a failure, it demonstrated the inability of a society to protect itself.
The answer to your why is a 'negative'. Meaning....why duplicate failure?
It may come to that eventually, but that's a loss to and of society, not a benefit.

When the majority chooses to legalize pot, then the argument is over.
So far that hasn't happened on the recreational aspects of pot.

Yes, prohibition was an absolute failure. Just like the prohibition on pot and the whole 'war on drugs' has been a complete failure.

But no. The answer to my question is not why duplicate failure, as I do not see the repeal of prohibition as the failure. Prohibition itself was the failure, repealing it was the cure.

 

[Dana]

Sometimes you don't always die... Sometimes you just lose a lung :ninja

 

[Stone]

Sure. And there still are people making moonshine in the woods too. And they can and sometimes are charged with a federal crime(whether one believes that is just or not is another subject though)

And there already is a tax enforcement agency that could take up the slack targeting that, as you are going to need to shift a large portion of the federal police force away from stopping drugs from coming through the border to other things.

And yes, there will always be the people growing a few plants for themselves, just like I can make beer or wine in my basement for personal use(legally). And that is the way it should be.



Yes, prohibition was an absolute failure. Just like the prohibition on pot and the whole 'war on drugs' has been a complete failure.

But no. The answer to my question is not why duplicate failure, as I do not see the repeal of prohibition as the failure. Prohibition itself was the failure, repealing it was the cure.

And there still are people making moonshine in the woods too. And they can and sometimes are charged with a federal crime

Not really comparable....the level of sophistication to production is on a different level.
All one needs is a hand full of seeds and a garden plot....or fence row.

And there already is a tax enforcement agency that could take up the slack targeting that, as you are going to need to shift a large portion of the federal police force away from stopping drugs from coming through the border to other things.

You missed the point.....neither crime nor the violence stops.....only the arrests directly relating to usage would stop with the result of a society in further trouble and medical support further burdened.

And yes, there will always be the people growing a few plants for themselves, just like I can make beer or wine in my basement for personal use(legally). And that is the way it should be.

Again, you soft sell your argument. Marijuana will grow prolifically as a weed.....beer won't
Actually, the only way your scenario would work is if the majority of users grew their own. This favors the suburbs and rural communities, but not the inner cities where violent crime already exists.

Yes, prohibition was an absolute failure. Just like the prohibition on pot and the whole 'war on drugs' has been a complete failure.

The 'whole war on drugs' hasn't been a complete failure.
Excluding pot, hard drug abuse has been on the decline.
The issue is cost and the extreme amount of incarcerations associated with pot abuse.
I agree there need to be changes, but not legalization as it introduces more problems to the point of a negative impact.

That recent Rand report estimated pot abuse would about double since 1978 along with an increase of abuse of hard drugs.
And let me be clear, I'm not arguing pot is a gateway drug.
The issue is acceptance of the concept of drug use/abuse.
Some 7/8 years ago, Rand also put out a paper ....that as a generality.... pot was not a gateway drug whose usage enticed users into experimenting further with harder drugs, but whose initial acceptance was already that bridge into a culture of drug abuse. Pot is seen as a safe means of that entry.

So the issue isn't just one of simple control, it also about persuading a person not to initially embrace the concept of being in a culture of drug use/abuse.

And that, considering the way people live with prescription and over the counter medicines, is what is failing. We do live in a society that seems to be continually increasing acceptance of entering this drug culture ....and it's this acceptance that also reflects failure.

Prohibition itself was the failure, repealing it was the cure.

It was a bad law in that it was ineffectual with negative results. That I agree with.
But the issue was alcohol abuse and neither instituting the law nor it's repeal provided a working solution to that issue.....alcohol abuse.


Legalization of pot as a recreational drug does not address reducing drug abuse.
It merely opens the door to arguments for legalizing harder drugs.

If alcohol, why not pot, if pot, why not hash, if hash,..... why not cocaine......and on and on.

 

[Accountable]

What standards do you use to judge an adult, competent, that would choose to use a mildly addictive drug for recreational purposes?

In the US, and I assume in all other developed nations, people are considered competent adults when they reach an arbitrary age (we have several in the US; kinda stupid iyam). It is a very big deal to declare an adult incompetent. Are you prepared to declare incompetent anyone who uses a mildly addictive drug for recreational purposes? I'm not. As with alcohol, so long as his/her behavior doesn't endanger others or break the law, it's not the government's business.

 

[Accountable]

If alcohol, why not pot, if pot, why not hash, if hash,..... why not cocaine......and on and on.

 

[Stone]

In the US, and I assume in all other developed nations, people are considered competent adults when they reach an arbitrary age (we have several in the US; kinda stupid iyam). It is a very big deal to declare an adult incompetent. Are you prepared to declare incompetent anyone who uses a mildly addictive drug for recreational purposes? I'm not. As with alcohol, so long as his/her behavior doesn't endanger others or break the law, it's not the government's business.

In the US, and I assume in all other developed nations, people are considered competent adults when they reach an arbitrary age (we have several in the US; kinda stupid iyam). It is a very big deal to declare an adult incompetent

There is a wide gulf between the concept of being legally competent to stand responsible for actions and being competent in regards to decision making.

Do you really think a person that induces a mental reaction to suppress reality is capable of making a judgement about his/her own condition and applying it to the status of a society?
One of the definitions of 'competent' is 'adequate for the purpose' and your position fails miserably here.

It is a very big deal to declare an adult incompetent.

In a court of law, yes....but in concerns of taking advice, not so much as shown.

Are you prepared to declare incompetent anyone who uses a mildly addictive drug for recreational purposes?

Yes.....they are under an outside influence and the reality they experience is their own, not necessarily one shared by those not so affected.
So under the heading of advice and decision making....yes, of course.....but what you suggest/support is irrational from a practical pov....as shown.

I'm not. As with alcohol, so long as his/her behavior doesn't endanger others or break the law, it's not the government's business.

And that scenario realistically only occurs if this individual has no contact with other members of society. As long as drug abuse has an influence on the safety of a society, it's in the realm of a government to seek safeguards for that safety as long as the society sees a danger and requests the protection.

Not only is that the basis for most laws, it's also a major flaw in libertarian thinking. Anarchy does not sustain a viable society.

 

[Stone]

Of course you do....you're a .....( me shudders ) a 'libertarian'

 

[Accountable]

There is a wide gulf between the concept of being legally competent to stand responsible for actions and being competent in regards to decision making.

Do you really think a person that induces a mental reaction to suppress reality is capable of making a judgement about his/her own condition and applying it to the status of a society?
One of the definitions of 'competent' is 'adequate for the purpose' and your position fails miserably here.




In a court of law, yes....but in concerns of taking advice, not so much as shown.



Yes.....they are under an outside influence and the reality they experience is their own, not necessarily one shared by those not so affected.
So under the heading of advice and decision making....yes, of course.....but what you suggest/support is irrational from a practical pov....as shown.



And that scenario realistically only occurs if this individual has no contact with other members of society. As long as drug abuse has an influence on the safety of a society, it's in the realm of a government to seek safeguards for that safety as long as the society sees a danger and requests the protection.

Not only is that the basis for most laws, it's also a major flaw in libertarian thinking. Anarchy does not sustain a viable society.

Calling someone incompetent as in they can't do a job or make a wise decision is miles from legally declaring someone incompetent. You mix the two, so your argument fails. I'm talking about legality alone.

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these is the right to be stupid.

 

[fuel1316]

a liber from TEXAS??

now ive seen everything
:giggle

 

[Stone]

Calling someone incompetent as in they can't do a job or make a wise decision is miles from legally declaring someone incompetent. You mix the two, so your argument fails. I'm talking about legality alone.

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these is the right to be stupid.

Calling someone incompetent as in they can't do a job or make a wise decision is miles from legally declaring someone incompetent. You mix the two, so your argument fails. I'm talking about legality alone.

I suggest you read what I post.
I don't mix the two, I've posted the difference and I've done it logically.

In a court, competency is a legal issue concerning understanding.

But this is how you responded to me:

In the US, and I assume in all other developed nations, people are considered competent adults when they reach an arbitrary age

You aren't keeping your own argument straight. Your argument is one of competency being an absolute tied to responsibility.
But as I've shown, a person can be incompetent by way of inadequacy.
And that relates directly to judgement calls under the influence of a drug.

You mix the two

No...I presented the concept of contextual differences.
You, sir, attempt to blur the distinction for the purpose of convenience.
That's called 'sophistry'.

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these is the right to be stupid.

And that appears to be a concrete libertarian position

 

[Accountable]

a liber from TEXAS??

now ive seen everything
:giggle

Ron Paul :shrug:

 

[Stone]

I might be gone for a while today and into the future, but keep those posts coming

I've got chores to do and my time is going to be tied up quite a bit for a while in helping my mother-in-law.
She was just yesterday diagnosed with bone cancer in the hip and needs a lot of mental and physical support.
So my schedule is uncertain right now.
Mornings might be more convenient for me to post.

So take care all and smoke 'em while you got 'em

 

[Stone]

I've just been informed her cancer has spread through her body and into her spine.
I walked her into the hospital yesterday morning and today she can't stand on her own.
Last July she was diagnosed with lung cancer ( she's a non smoker ) and had a large portion of her right lung removed and the prognosis had been that it was successful.
Sadly, it obviously metastasized quickly and suddenly her time with us has been shortened dramatically.

She's been very good to me over the years.

I like being here and debating you guys and gals, so I will be back, I just don't know when.

Bye


Jack

 

[HK]

Sorry to hear about that Stone

 

[Greatest I am]

What's a 'forgiving' addictive drug?

One that is the least addictive and does the least amount of damage to the body.
Pot is a good candidate.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

The gov't shouldn't be telling competent adults what they can and can't put in their bodies. Information, not legislation.

I agree.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Meh. I have a problem with decriminalization instead of legalization.

One of the largest problems we have when we make something illegal is the Black market. Where money is, violence and crime follow. Over 50,000 mexicans have been killed just across the border because of the war on drugs, and thousands in the US are sucked into illegal activities to assist in the drug trade.

If you decriminalize, but do not legalize, you maintain the black market. Drugs still have to come in to this country. People still have to get the drugs to 'market'. People will still die.

No. We need full legalization to resolve the problem. And then you can create real jobs in the industry.

I know decriminalization is a war cry for some in the Cannabis Community, but I think it is the wrong war cry.

Good point.

I hate to see what goes on in Mexico and see the U S war on drugs as just the U S protecting it's turf.
After all, pot has been California's largest cash crop for what, 50 years.

Regards
DL