Author Topic: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT  (Read 87057 times)

Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 5848
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #510 on: November 23, 2009, 04:27:45 pm »
No, no I did not read the whole article, I thought I was clear I only searched for key terms.  You didn't read it either (you haven't had time).  And while the researchers in question may well have addressed adolescent views compared to adult views on the law, and might (maybe) have mentioned said research, that was not the focus of the article cited.

Right, the focus of the cited article was risk-protective factors as relates to substance abuse prevention.  Laws and norms favorable to substance abuse is one of the risk factors.  I'm very familiar with the work of Hawkins and Catalano and have used them in previous research.  Further, I would also hazard a guess that the researcher who compiled the research also has a background in adolescent substance abuse.  So in my estimation the bases are adequately covered, and apparently the journal of Pediatrics agrees, because they published the research. 

I agree changes in the law present a risk factor, and the cited article does address that.  But the quoted section doesn't say that teens will smoke more weed after legalization.  It says that teens have more respect for the law, and will be even more likely to smoke more than adults on the basis of those risk factors.  *That* I take issue with.

Not to mention that citing a secondary source but not a primary one is bad form in the first place, especially a secondary source as broad as the one in question.

To be clear, I *would* expect higher use rates if it was legalized for adults, and increased access. I wouldn't be too surprised if teen use increased more than adult, but for entirely different reason.  Adults have more reasons not to use that have nothing to do with the law, dependency is more likely to occur in teens etc.

And you're appealing to the authority of a medical journal. on a sociology question.  How exactly does that work?

Because it isn't merely a sociology question maybe? 

Oh?  Then what is it?  We have some way to predict how a change in a law will alter an individual's biology now?
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 33703
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #511 on: November 23, 2009, 04:29:30 pm »
that answered exactly none of the questions I directed at you.

You asked me about the impact of an adult legally being able to enjoy marijuana and this research is a window into the potential impacts if that came to be.  So, I think I actually did answer your question. 

Quote
here's another question: are you capable of viewing this issue outside of the very limited framework of your job?

How do you come to the conclusion that the framework of my job is "very limited"? 

Quote
because this is an issue of personal liberty, and you seem to be saying that personal liberty isn't that important.

It is.  I especially value the personal liberty of the youth in our country who aren't capable of making the same adult decisions that we are.  We live in a society and that society, like every society, needs to have a healthy and flourishing youth to continue.  We also do need laws to maintain the peace.  It is why we can't drive 85 even though that is something many adults would enjoy doing and would be able to do without harming anyone else.  It is why we regulate gun ownership.  And those aren't analogies, they are examples of restrictions on our personal liberty in the interest of public safety.  My argument is that the prohibition of all illicit drugs, not just marijuana, is in the best interest of public safety because of the impacts on the youth as explained in the research I quoted. 

Quote
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but that's a frustrating attitude to see coming from someone here. Or, indeed, from anyone anywhere.

And there it is.  I knew someone would eventually go there.  I'm sad and disappointed that it is you.  So now I'm officially not Discordian enough because of my view.  Great. 

you did NOT answer my question about how my use of marijuana has a direct negative impact on another individual.

Because it is irrelevant, because we don't legislate on an individual by individual basis.  It would be honky dory if we could pass a law that says, "RCH's marijuana use is completely benign to his community, ergo, we'll let him smoke."  The fact is, while you may find some way to use which has zero impact on your community, it is not the case overall.  So perhaps one of your initiatives is to foster more responsible use of the substance that doesn't impact adolescents.  I'm not quite sure how you would do that, but I wouldn't stop a person from trying.  

Quote
and I did NOT say "oh, RWHN isn't discordian enough because of his views", that's utter horseshit. In general, the posters here seem to place a much higher premium on personal liberty than the general population and that's one of the things I've always been proud of about this site and that's the context in which my statement was made. It has fuck-all to do with anyone's personal level of discordianism, which I think we've all agreed countless times over the years is pretty much up to whoever decides they're a discordian to define.

I have a high premium on personal liberty, but, I also have a high premium on a healthy society and living in a healthy community.  That entails trade-offs.  I personally am not willing to gamble with the health of 190,000 or more adolescents for the enjoyment of some adults.  Is whether or not you can use marijuana legally THAT important?  And do you really think rights around marijuana use are going to upset the house of cards of democracy?  I would suggest that if our democracy is THAT fragile, that it relies upon recreational drug use, our democracy perhaps deserves to fail so we can set up something a bit more resilient and robust.  

Quote
and the framework of your job is limited (or limiting) because we're trying to discuss this in the context of risks/benefits to the entire human population (or at least the American population) and your focus seems to be strictly limited to a handful of children with addictive personalities.

I would hardly call 190,000 a handful.  And again, we're talking about recreational drug use.  This isn't about whether or not we have single payer healthcare.  It isn't about whether or not we have equality.  This isn't about National Security.  It's about recreational drug use.  It seems like a piss-poor reason to jeopardize the future of 190,000 or more kids.  
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 5848
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #512 on: November 23, 2009, 04:33:37 pm »
190,000 is the *users*.  Not every user will abuse or become dependent, by a long shot.

Nor is that number even an attempt at prediction, let alone accurate, it's simply a number thrown out as an example of what a small increase could mean.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 33703
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #513 on: November 23, 2009, 04:34:47 pm »
No, no I did not read the whole article, I thought I was clear I only searched for key terms.  You didn't read it either (you haven't had time).  And while the researchers in question may well have addressed adolescent views compared to adult views on the law, and might (maybe) have mentioned said research, that was not the focus of the article cited.

Right, the focus of the cited article was risk-protective factors as relates to substance abuse prevention.  Laws and norms favorable to substance abuse is one of the risk factors.  I'm very familiar with the work of Hawkins and Catalano and have used them in previous research.  Further, I would also hazard a guess that the researcher who compiled the research also has a background in adolescent substance abuse.  So in my estimation the bases are adequately covered, and apparently the journal of Pediatrics agrees, because they published the research. 

I agree changes in the law present a risk factor, and the cited article does address that.  But the quoted section doesn't say that teens will smoke more weed after legalization.  It says that teens have more respect for the law, and will be even more likely to smoke more than adults on the basis of those risk factors.  *That* I take issue with.

Not to mention that citing a secondary source but not a primary one is bad form in the first place, especially a secondary source as broad as the one in question.

To be clear, I *would* expect higher use rates if it was legalized for adults, and increased access. I wouldn't be too surprised if teen use increased more than adult, but for entirely different reason.  Adults have more reasons not to use that have nothing to do with the law, dependency is more likely to occur in teens etc.

And you're appealing to the authority of a medical journal. on a sociology question.  How exactly does that work?

Because it isn't merely a sociology question maybe? 

Oh?  Then what is it?  We have some way to predict how a change in a law will alter an individual's biology now?

Yes, it's called epidemiology.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology

Epidemiology is the study of factors affecting the health and illness of populations, and serves as the foundation and logic of interventions made in the interest of public health and preventive medicine. It is considered a cornerstone methodology of public health research, and is highly regarded in evidence-based medicine for identifying risk factors for disease and determining optimal treatment approaches to clinical practice. In the study of communicable and non-communicable diseases, the work of epidemiologists ranges from outbreak investigation to study design, data collection and analysis including the development of statistical models to test hypotheses and the documentation of results for submission to peer-reviewed journals. Epidemiologists also study the interaction of diseases in a population, a condition known as a syndemic. Epidemiologists rely on a number of other scientific disciplines, such as biology (to better understand disease processes), Geographic Information Science (to store data and map disease patterns) and social science disciplines (to better understand proximate and distal risk factors).
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 90457
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #514 on: November 23, 2009, 04:36:36 pm »
I have a high premium on personal liberty, but, I also have a high premium on a healthy society and living in a healthy community.  

And how's that working out for ya?   :lulz:

Drugs aren't the illness, they're just the fever.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 33703
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #515 on: November 23, 2009, 04:37:36 pm »
190,000 is the *users*.  Not every user will abuse or become dependent, by a long shot.

Nor is that number even an attempt at prediction, let alone accurate, it's simply a number thrown out as an example of what a small increase could mean.

 :cn:
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 33703
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #516 on: November 23, 2009, 04:41:37 pm »
I have a high premium on personal liberty, but, I also have a high premium on a healthy society and living in a healthy community.  

And how's that working out for ya?   :lulz:

Drugs aren't the illness, they're just the fever.

I am not making any claim that we are living in some kind of healthy social shangra-la. 
And I understand that drug use is a symptom.  However, when someone is running a fever do we stick them in a sauna?  No, we try to relieve symptoms while we work on the cure.  So yes, kids have issues that need to be addressed, and indeed when it comes to substance abuse prevention the field has moved towards a co-occuring disorder model that seeks to address underlying issues that are prevalent. 

But to use the malady metaphor, it is my contention that legalizing marijuana will only serve to aggravate the fever. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 5848
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #517 on: November 23, 2009, 04:42:22 pm »
Quote
biology (to better understand disease processes)

We're not talking about disease processes.

We're talking about the social sciences bit.  Risk factors, remember?


190,000 is the *users*.  Not every user will abuse or become dependent, by a long shot.

Nor is that number even an attempt at prediction, let alone accurate, it's simply a number thrown out as an example of what a small increase could mean.

 :cn:

Quote from: The same damned source you gave
From a public health perspective, even a small increase in use, whether attributable to increased availability or decreased perception of risk, would have significant ramifications. For example, if only an additional 1% of 15- to 19-year-olds in the United States began using marijuana, there would be approximately 190 000 new users.47

Seriously, you citation needed me for something *you* said.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 90457
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #518 on: November 23, 2009, 04:43:39 pm »
But to use the malady metaphor, it is my contention that legalizing marijuana will only serve to aggravate the fever. 

Why?  Because we'll stop ruining the lives of people who choose to smoke it?

Anecdotally speaking, I don't know anyone who smokes that lets the law stop them, and I don't know anyone who doesn't smoke that would start if the law was repealed.  It's every bit as effective as the Volstead Act.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11433
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #519 on: November 23, 2009, 04:45:39 pm »
Ok, this is becoming a crazy free for all and I suppose we've gone beyond the "why I don't trust the government claims" bit... But I'll have a go anyway.

Ok, first I'll tackle a biog one and one that came up here earlier... Is Marijuana potency growing at an extreme rate? I believe the usual quote from the Drug Czar is 10 to 20 x stronger than the plants of 30 or 40 years ago. (John Walters, Washington Post May 1, 2002). RWHN has also stated that he believes this to be true. Let's look at the hard data.

According to the federal Potency Monitoring Project, in 1985, the average THC content of commercial-grade marijuana was 2.84%, and the average for high-grade sinsemilla in 1985 was 7.17%. In 1995, the potency of commercial-grade marijuana averaged 3.73%, while the potency of sinsemilla in 1995 averaged 7.51%. In 2001, commercial-grade marijuana averaged 4.72% THC, and the potency of sinsemilla in 2001 averaged 9.03%.

Quarterly Report #76 University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project  (Director of NIDA)

Last I checked, 4.72 was not 10 times more than 2.84, nor is 9.03 10 times more than 7.17.

In fact, for the Drug Czar to be telling the truth, marijuana would have had to have .4% THC in the 60's and 70's for merch and .9% for Kine Bud. That's on par with wild hemp numbers...

AND THAT is how the Drug Czar got away with his statement. "Compared to Wild Hemp, culitvated hemp is 10 or 20 times stronger." The falsehood was in making it appear that "wild hemp" is what parents smoked a generation ago.
---------------------

Another example of bad data handling lies with the "marijuana overdose visits in emergency rooms" RWHN mentioned one such statistic earlier. ONDCP mentions it in a number of places as have various policy papers. IT comes in a variety of statements, but they all basically say that emergency rooms are reporting huge increases in Marijuana drug mentions, in cases.

Quote
Of an estimated 113 million emergency department (ED) visits in the U.S. during 2006, the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) estimates that 1,742,887 were drug-related. DAWN data indicate that marijuana was involved in 290,563 ED visits
- http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/DrugFact/marijuana/marijuana_ff.html

Stated as it is, we're left to believe that people are going to the hospital BECAUSE they overdosed on marijuana or had some horrible side effect... let us leave to the side that overdosing is medically impossible and 'horrible side effects' would likely be 'paranoia'... let's examine what a 'drug mention' is.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is the group charged with collecting the stats that ONDCP and others use for these claims. Here's what they had to say:

Quote
"Drug Episodes vs. Drug Mentions

"Drug-Related Episode: A drug or ED episode is an ED visit that was induced by or related to the use of an illegal drug(s) or the nonmedical use of a legal drug for patients age 6 years and older.

"Drug Mention: A drug mention refers to a substance that was mentioned during a drug-related ED episode. Because up to 4 drugs can be reported for each drug abuse episode, there are more mentions than episodes cited in this report." (p. 1)

Source: "Year-End 2000 Emergency Department Data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network," Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Dept. of Health and Human Services, July 2001.

So all that these numbers tell us is that when people go to the hospital with a problem with one drug, they ALSO might mention they smoked a joint. So the person in the hospital because they OD'd on heroin, if they smoked a joint that day, would get counted... even though the pot had nothing to do with their bareback horse ride. Or, if a person OD's because they are depressed... and if they also happened to smoke because they were depressed... BAM another statistic.

There might be some cases where someone is in the emergency room because of pot related issues (maybe they burned themselves on a lighter), but the statistics as used, appear to strongly support a position which doesn't appear realistic.

-------------------

How about the Gateway Drug?

According to SAMHSA 2001 (National Household Survey on Drug Use) :

Quote
76.3 million people have tried marijuana, while only 2.78 million have ever tried heroin in their lifetimes and only 5.3 million have ever tried cocaine in their lives. The figures for monthly use are similar: 10.7 million Americans admit to being regular marijuana users, yet only 1.2 million admit to using cocaine each month - 1 for every 9 marijuana users - and 130,000 people use heroin monthly, or 1 for every 80 regular marijuana users.

Hrmmm, 1/15, 1/10, 1/80 those don't appear to support any sort of gateway theory.... it does however support that people who do hard drugs may also smoke pot, but not that people who smoke pot are likely to try harder stuff.

----------------------

Now one for the kids:
Quote
Research shows that kids who use marijuana weekly are nearly four times more likely than nonusers to report they engage in violent behavior."
— Office of National Drug Control Policy, Marijuana Myths & Facts
Online article from 2006 which is now missing, it was replaced by a document which doesn't have this obvious falsehood.

Now this is a great example of cherry picking on the order of George Tennent's Slam Dunk on Saddam. The original study which ONDCP referenced concluded with this:

Quote
"A disclaimer, or a note of caution, is indicated against over-generalizing the findings of a linkage between marijuana use with drug selling in the inner-city and with involvement in serious types of criminal and violent behavior. These significant marijuana-violence linkages that have been found for this study sample may not apply to a representative sample of the general population. The findings presented here may be specific for the sample of this study: an inner-city, relatively low SES, African/American sample. As postulated in the introductory section of this paper, marijuana use during adolescence is fairly widespread in this study sample, especially within specific peer groups. The regular users of marijuana maintain contact with the sellers of drugs, and thus become more familiar with the criminal life style, which may lead to a tendency to engage in drug selling themselves, and thus to a greater likelihood of committing violent illegal offenses. The drug sellers from whom they originally obtained the cocaine and other drugs during their adolescence, most likely were adolescent peers who grew up in similar circumstances to their own. The majority in the sample need the money. Some are helping their families financially with some of the money they earn from selling drugs. Thus, a peer bonding and friendship develops between the buyer/user and his drug provider. The buyer/user becomes a new seller, and eventually finds himself in circumstances in which engaging in violent illegal behavior is routine and is considered to be acceptable. "These findings on the degree of relationship of substance use to violent behavior may be somewhat inflated since we do not have available for control purposes, data on all the possible factors, in addition to substance use, that may be involved in violent behavior, (i.e., all of the relevant characteristics, behavior and life circumstances of the subjects, that predispose to violent behavior). The fact that there were available as many as 51 such relevant characteristics for use as control variables in the analyses, may be considered to be a relative strength of the study. On the other hand, it is a weakness, or a limitation of this study, that data on some of the factors or influences that are known to predispose to violent behavior were not available for the analyses. An outstanding example of such an influence is the amount of time spent during childhood and adolescence in watching TV programs and films that present violent behavior in an interesting and exciting manner. Such entertainment programs sometimes present, as heroic figures, characters who use drugs and engage in violence. In any case, the lack of more complete control data should not be a significantly greater problem for determining the effect of the use of marijuana on violent behavior, than this lack would be for the effect of the use of any other type of drug. Thus, it would not explain why the degree of marijuana use was found to have a greater degree of relationship to certain types of violent behavior, when compared to the degree of cocaine/crack use."


A study completed two years earlier (Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 2004) made the statement:

Quote
"With regard to the associations between early frequent marijuana use and later violence, our conclusions are similar to those of White et al. (1999), in that what we are seeing is a selection effect. In other words, marijuana use is more atypical during early adolescence and becomes more normative with age, and the subset of males who begin marijuana use at younger ages are at elevated risk for several serious outcomes, including poly drug use, violence, and property offending. It is likely that this subgroup of males is inherently more deviant, engaging in multiple problem behaviors at earlier ages, choosing deviant peers, and being more likely to manifest their individual propensity for aggression and antisocial behavior later on. Our findings reinforce the benefits of primary prevention efforts that address multiple risk factors early on, as well as early intervention with high risk or aggressive males.
"Because the proportion of violent individuals who used marijuana frequently was larger than the proportion of frequent marijuana users engaging in violence, and because the prediction of violence from earlier frequent marijuana use was mediated by common risk factors, our results do not indicate that early frequent marijuana use causes later violence. Rather, we conclude that frequent marijuana use and violence co-occur because they share common risk factors (e.g., race/ethnicity, hard drug use). It is important to keep in mind that marijuana has been used for centuries and is the most widely used illicit drug today and that the majority of marijuana users do not engage in violence (Boles & Miotto, 2003). Our findings indicate that intervention with young violent offenders to prevent or treat substance use problems may be more practical than targeting marijuana users for violence prevention."

-----------------

Now, I am NOT claiming that these Studies are TRUTH or FACT... I am however, using them as examples where the Drug Czar and the ONDCP, the official government heads of Drug Control Policy, appear to select interpretations of data which fit their political policies, and appear to avoid data which disagrees with the official position. Indeed, that was exactly what the General Accounting Office concluded in the quote I made earlier. The job of the Drug Czar and his department is to support and promote the federal position... not dissseminate facts.

Quote
ONDCP is specifically charged with the responsibility for “taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use” of certain controlled substances such as marijuana —- a responsibility which logically could include the making of advocacy statements in opposition to legalization efforts.
-GAO

In this response, the GAP was citing an instance where the Deputy Director made claims which appear misleading, namely:

Marijuana is addictive.
Marijuana and Violence are directly linked.
No one is being imprisoned for smoking a joint.
Marijuana is a Gateway Drug.
Marijuana has no medical benefit (apparently the FDA is full of shit as they claim Marinol is medically beneficial).

So, here we have a government body that, according to the GAO is charged with supporting and promoting the current policy, even if it means they must provide 'misleading information' to do so.

So in conclusion, both viewpoints may be biased, so I choose not to believe either one entirely. HOWEVER, the interpretations promoted by the ONDCP and the Drug Czar appear very inconsistent with my experience and the experiences of pretty much every other marijuana user I know well enough to comment on.

While Creationism may have some validity, I choose to not acccept it as it doesn't appear to fit in with the reality I see.
While there may be some value to a hawkish Neo-Con political position, as far as I can determine it doesn't seem to work well in reality.
And while there may be some risks associated with Marijuana; the claims by official government entities appear inconsistent with my experiences.

Let us say that I am HIghly Skeptical of claims from a creationist, Neo-Con or Prohibitionist.


- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 33703
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #520 on: November 23, 2009, 04:46:05 pm »
Quote
biology (to better understand disease processes)

We're not talking about disease processes.

We're talking about the social sciences bit.  Risk factors, remember?

Actually, we are.  Addiction is a disease.  

Quote
190,000 is the *users*.  Not every user will abuse or become dependent, by a long shot.

Nor is that number even an attempt at prediction, let alone accurate, it's simply a number thrown out as an example of what a small increase could mean.

 :cn:

Quote from: The same damned source you gave
From a public health perspective, even a small increase in use, whether attributable to increased availability or decreased perception of risk, would have significant ramifications. For example, if only an additional 1% of 15- to 19-year-olds in the United States began using marijuana, there would be approximately 190 000 new users.47

Seriously, you citation needed me for something *you* said.

No, I mean a citation the support that the number is not accurate.  
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

fomenter

  • don juan myhatass
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 4630
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #521 on: November 23, 2009, 04:46:35 pm »

  Is whether or not you can use marijuana legally THAT important?  And do you really think rights around marijuana use are going to upset the house of cards of democracy?  I would suggest that if our democracy is THAT fragile, that it relies upon recreational drug use, our democracy perhaps deserves to fail so we can set up something a bit more resilient and robust.  
  
its not just about the right to smoke, you focus on the harm to x number of kids but don't weigh the harm to society and individuals (many of whom are also kids) that the war itself costs, and the concern that liberty's given up inevitably lead to more liberty's being given up is legitimate and should also be weighed against the harm you think prohibition prevents, the patriot act we lost some rights to privacy (wire taping) should we allow the government to listen in to peoples conversations and emails to catch pot dealers? it would protect the kids.... and that trumps liberty ...
"So she says to me, do you wanna be a BAD boy? And I say YEAH baby YEAH! Surf's up space ponies! I'm makin' gravy... Without the lumps. HAAA-ha-ha-ha!"


hmroogp

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 33703
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #522 on: November 23, 2009, 04:50:42 pm »
But to use the malady metaphor, it is my contention that legalizing marijuana will only serve to aggravate the fever. 

Why?  Because we'll stop ruining the lives of people who choose to smoke it?

Anecdotally speaking, I don't know anyone who smokes that lets the law stop them, and I don't know anyone who doesn't smoke that would start if the law was repealed.  It's every bit as effective as the Volstead Act.

But the "ruining the lives of people" can be addressed without legalizing the substance.  I absolutely agree that some guy pulled over for speeding with a joint or two should not have his life turned inside out for that.  But I would argue that the solution is reform of the local or state code of law.  I absolutely agree that we don't want an agency like the DEA breaking in the door of an innocent family.  There should be very harsh penalties for those kinds of actions.  The problem isn't the stature of marijuana being illicit, it is the implementation of policies and the carrying out of laws that is the problem.  When innocent people are in the cross-hairs, something is wrong.  But that happens with other forms of law enforcement as well.  So you keep working on it. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 33703
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #523 on: November 23, 2009, 04:51:21 pm »

  Is whether or not you can use marijuana legally THAT important?  And do you really think rights around marijuana use are going to upset the house of cards of democracy?  I would suggest that if our democracy is THAT fragile, that it relies upon recreational drug use, our democracy perhaps deserves to fail so we can set up something a bit more resilient and robust.  
  
its not just about the right to smoke, you focus on the harm to x number of kids but don't weigh the harm to society and individuals (many of whom are also kids) that the war itself costs, and the concern that liberty's given up inevitably lead to more liberty's being given up is legitimate and should also be weighed against the harm you think prohibition prevents, the patriot act we lost some rights to privacy (wire taping) should we allow the government to listen in to peoples conversations and emails to catch pot dealers? it would protect the kids.... and that trumps liberty ...

see my answer to Roger's post. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

fomenter

  • don juan myhatass
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 4630
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #524 on: November 23, 2009, 04:55:02 pm »


But that won't happen.

But what you all seem to keep ignoring is what I keep bringing up.  The ills you listed can be addressed in policy reforms without legalizing the substance.  

as for "it wont happen!!!" and "it will happen with policy reform !!!"  WHY  both are going to be done by the same incompetent government at the direction of the same apathetic citizens why does "one works" and the other "wont happen"???


?
"So she says to me, do you wanna be a BAD boy? And I say YEAH baby YEAH! Surf's up space ponies! I'm makin' gravy... Without the lumps. HAAA-ha-ha-ha!"


hmroogp