So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

No, you're arguing that the current system of government, legislation, and law enforcement is funamentally flawed and needs to be changed in radical and unprecidented ways.

Which is still a pipe dream*, and doesn't address the current situation.

WHAT?

So I suppose we should say the same about Healthcare, the War in Iraq, Gay Marriage, Government oversight of Big Corporations etc etc etc... let's not try to change anything because that's radical! and unprecedented!

So changing the laws about marijuana are unprecedented...  well except that whole repeal of prohibition in the 1930's which is kinda like a precedent. Or *insert one of several nations that have repealed prohibition* that might be precedent as well.

Given that several states have legalized it for medical use, other states and a few cities have done as  much as they legally can to decriminalize the possession and use of the drug, I don't find my position to be at all unreasonable or radical.

*"pipe dream".  Get it?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

No, you're arguing that the current system of government, legislation, and law enforcement is funamentally flawed and needs to be changed in radical and unprecidented ways.

Which is still a pipe dream*, and doesn't address the current situation.

*"pipe dream".  Get it?

Its hardly radical or unprecedented when its brought up by events that occur in the real world.
Are you suggesting that those in favor of legalization give up, and simply accept the status quo?

Also the A vs B dichotomy you use is an excellent way of portraying the different extremes, and arguing against one extreme while promoting the other. Sure, B may never exist, but it hardly makes A acceptable.

Show of hands: How many of you have actually worked to overturn the current drug policy?

*raises his hand*

[Triple Zero]

Breaking news: "B" will never exist globally.

Fixed for a modicum of truth.

Cause certain nations or localities are trying real hard to get pretty close and have gotten pretty close at certain points in history. Maybe not in America. Also note that your option B said more than just flat out legalizing everything (the other parts like education are just as important).

Just saying, cause that pessimism in and of itself is no reason to not try. Other reasons, maybe. There are a whole bunch of (local / national) factors that get in the way, and it may take a very long time for some of those to change or disappear. But not everywhere and everywhen is the same.

[LMNO]

000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Show of hands: How many of you have actually worked to overturn the current drug policy?

Not me.  Basically, drugs are a Conspiracy trap.  There is no benefit to using them, save a form of gluttony and the illusion of getting over on The Man™ (and just who do you think provides those drugs?).

You should all live clean, like The Good Reverend.  I am like unto a role model in these things.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some pills to take. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

RWHN is dealing with one aspect of what is happening now. ECH and I and others have dealt with other aspects of what is happening now. Some of us are involved in pushes for change. Some of us are involved in the current system in one way or another.

I find your argument wanting.

[LMNO]

That's nice.

[Triple Zero]

000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

That's nice.

Generally, your arguments tend to stop me in my tracks, just sayin'.

[LMNO]

000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

You might not have been; I was.  Every time he talks about his job, he gets jumped on by the rest of the board with spurious and utopian objections, which ignore what he actually does, the reasons why he does it, and the information he has gathered in the process.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

You might not have been; I was.  Every time he talks about his job, he gets jumped on by the rest of the board with spurious and utopian objections, which ignore what he actually does, the reasons why he does it, and the information he has gathered in the process.

Not by me.  I think RWHN does good work.

Drugs are a form of slavery, though obviously some exceptions exist (weed isn't on the same level as meth, for example).  I do not believe that weed should be illegal, but I see no valid argument for the legalization of, say, PCP.

[Cait M. R.]

000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

You might not have been; I was.  Every time he talks about his job, he gets jumped on by the rest of the board with spurious and utopian objections, which ignore what he actually does, the reasons why he does it, and the information he has gathered in the process.

Not by me.  I think RWHN does good work.

Drugs are a form of slavery, though obviously some exceptions exist (weed isn't on the same level as meth, for example).  I do not believe that weed should be illegal, but I see no valid argument for the legalization of, say, PCP.

Agreement with Roger on all points.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

You might not have been; I was.  Every time he talks about his job, he gets jumped on by the rest of the board with spurious and utopian objections, which ignore what he actually does, the reasons why he does it, and the information he has gathered in the process.

Spurious and utopian? I keep looking through this thread and I find a lot of objections on many different grounds, but I don't really see much in the way of spurious and utopian arguments. Could you provide me with an example, cause I thought ECH was very realistic, as was Lys, Fomenter and several others.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see spurious or utopian arguments in most of this thread.

For me personally, I have respect for RWHN's work. I don't think kids should use drugs, I think they should get useful information about drugs that explain the risks. However, that doesn't mean I agree with his view that an adult needs to pay a fine or go to treatment if they smoke some pot. He seems to argue from the assumption that Drugs ARE bad. I argue from the assumption that drugs are drugs and the good/bad label needs to be applied on a case by case basis... usually aimed far more at the person doing the drugs than the drug itself (with notable exceptions like PCP).

[fomenter]

000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

You might not have been; I was.  Every time he talks about his job, he gets jumped on by the rest of the board with spurious and utopian objections, which ignore what he actually does, the reasons why he does it, and the information he has gathered in the process.

his experience has made the debate interesting, with out it it would just be an agreement, i don't think anyone is intentionally disrespectful of what he does, we are debating the conclusion that pot must be illegal, doors kicked in lives wrecked by prohibition because of the bad shit he sees and tries to fix..
-also not all of us arguing on the pro side are having "pipe dreams"..

[The Good Reverend Roger]

000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

You might not have been; I was.  Every time he talks about his job, he gets jumped on by the rest of the board with spurious and utopian objections, which ignore what he actually does, the reasons why he does it, and the information he has gathered in the process.

Spurious and utopian? I keep looking through this thread and I find a lot of objections on many different grounds, but I don't really see much in the way of spurious and utopian arguments. Could you provide me with an example, cause I thought ECH was very realistic, as was Lys, Fomenter and several others.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see spurious or utopian arguments in most of this thread.

For me personally, I have respect for RWHN's work. I don't think kids should use drugs, I think they should get useful information about drugs that explain the risks. However, that doesn't mean I agree with his view that an adult needs to pay a fine or go to treatment if they smoke some pot. He seems to argue from the assumption that Drugs ARE bad. I argue from the assumption that drugs are drugs and the good/bad label needs to be applied on a case by case basis... usually aimed far more at the person doing the drugs than the drug itself (with notable exceptions like PCP).

The problem with PCP and LSD and the like are that they remove your moral sense while leaving you with your full physical capacities.  This creates a danger to others, and as such is not a matter of personal liberty.

Weed, on the other hand, is less of a hazard than booze, and leaves its users on the couch eathing Cheetohs, and should thus be a matter of personal choice.

So, yeah.  Legalization of drugs should be considered on a case by case basis.