Trigger warning: Drugs

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Dr. Winstock says that based on his research, only about 10% of natural cannabis users have ever used synthetics. He also had some rather incisive commentary about why that is, along the lines of "why would they?"

Which is pretty much where I have been coming from. A person who wants weed will get weed.  Someone who wants a different, "stronger" kind of high is going to seek out these more dangerous substances.  Legalization is not going to change that.

Except for the part where the vast majority of them DON'T WANT A STRONGER PRODUCT. THEY WANT WEED. 7% (the ones who don't like natural cannabis more) will still seek weird shit out, because they are weirdos. 93%, if given the choice in an even market, would stick with the less dangerous substance. 651,000 people (if my math is correct) would rather not be doing this shit, and are likely choosing the inferior product for reasons directly associated with prohibition.

That sounds like harm reduction to me.

But it isn't about harm reduction.  It's about control.

[AFK]

No, it's about protecting the public health.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No, it's about protecting the public health.

We had to burn the village to save it.   

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

And now it's safe forever.

So long as no one rebuilds.

[AFK]

No, it's about protecting the public health.

We had to burn the village to save it.   

No, we just don't change a law that already exists.

[Reginald Ret]

No, it's about protecting the public health.

We had to burn the village to save it.   

No, we just don't change a law that already exists.

Right, just keep adding more and more laws until everyone is a criminal!
Then everyone can be safe in their state-sanctioned private prisons where they have employment guaranteed and security coming out of (and in to) their assholes.

[AFK]

That is nonsensical.

Keeping marijuana illegal doesn't add a law.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No, it's about protecting the public health.

We had to burn the village to save it.   

No, we just don't change a law that already exists.

Sure, because it's been PROTECTING THE PROSTATES RIGHT OUT OF AMERICA since the 1930s.

[Reginald Ret]

That is nonsensical.

Keeping marijuana illegal doesn't add a law.

No it doesn't. But you know as well as i do that laws will be added. That shit happens all the time. There has not been a net decrease in laws since ever. So Not changing laws just because they already exists is really fucking stupid and effectively the same as increasing the number of laws. There are many criminals because there are many things forbidden, maybe the lawmakers can chill the fuck out every once in a while? Any step towards decriminalizing the lesser crimes is good in my book.

[AFK]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Lord Cataplanga]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

As an analogy, think of Bruce Schneier's critique against No Fly Lists:

The TSA has every incentive to put suspicious people in that list, because the cost of putting someone in that list who shouldn't be there is low (For them. The people in the list disagree). And the incentive to remove inocent people from that list is... nothing. Less than nothing, because the cost of making a mistake in that case is huge. Because of that, the list is always growing.

It's the same with regulation: The government regulates a product or a behavior because it makes sense, but when it stops making sense, suddenly the burden of proof shifted and it's impossible to deregulate anything that was once regulated.

Thinking about it, I realize that this analogy may be even more complicated than the "simple" case of drug legalization (apologies if that's the case), but since it doesn't go against your biases, who knows, maybe you can see my point.

[AFK]

Well, I don't agree with the idea that it no longer makes sense for marijuana to be illegal.


That aside, it still does not add up, this idea that not removing a law adds laws.  That is fuzzy math.

[Lord Cataplanga]

Well, I don't agree with the idea that it no longer makes sense for marijuana to be illegal.


That aside, it still does not add up, this idea that not removing a law adds laws.  That is fuzzy math.

Laws are added all the time, no matter what we do. What regret said was that if we don't remove some laws at least as fast as new laws are being added, then naturally the number of laws will increase. Fairly simple math.

We don't agree on which laws should be added or substracted, but that there are more and more laws is not controversial.

[AFK]

Okay, but not removing a law does not add laws.  Adding laws, adds laws. 

[LMNO]

Law of aneristic escalation?  Create a law, new stuff squishes out the sides in the face of wider public acceptance, new laws have to be made to deal with the stuff that squished out the side, lather, rinse, repeat?



Just thinking out loud here.