420 friendly Halo Tournaments !!!Winner wins free 1/8!! - $5

[MrPopo]

Mods you can go ahead and ban me for posting these images

For a site watermarked as "best gore" these pictures are pretty tame. Next time bring some close-ups of gangrene.

[Overload]

So, what you are telling me is that drugs don't help fund violence? This is what happens across the border just so you can get high! This is an everyday occurrence, it is becoming a very common sight. Also, I am not blaming only those you purchase marijuana or cocaine, but those who seek to make a profit from this as well. Hell, this is starting to happen on the California, Arizona and New Mexico borders.

You're going too far into things. I said the mere act of lighting up in one's own home. That doesn't harm anyone. It's a victimless crime. You are correct in that violence occurs when it comes to buying drugs and drug trafficking. This is not because people smoke it. It's because of prohibition. I think this is blatantly obvious by now. It's impossible to stop people from buying, selling, and using cannabis. There's no debate there. What needs to be changed are the laws. Unless one is willing to give up every ounce of freedom they have, how is anyone to know someone's smoking pot?

[Limewater]

You're going too far into things. I said the mere act of lighting up in one's own home. That doesn't harm anyone. It's a victimless crime. You are correct in that violence occurs when it comes to buying drugs and drug trafficking. This is not because people smoke it.

Of course it is. If people didn't smoke pot, all of the crap associated with drug trafficking wouldn't be happening. (I also think it is true that if marijuana's legal status was different, there would be less violence associated with its trade, but that's beside the point when we're talking about whether or not it is "a victimless crime.")

I think this is blatantly obvious by now. It's impossible to stop people from buying, selling, and using cannabis. There's no debate there. What needs to be changed are the laws.

Oh no. So you're saying that a law should be changed simply because a lot of people choose to break it?

I've only ever heard this argument from people who smoke pot. I think there are several reasons for this, but I think part of it is that you have to be high to think that is a good argument. There are good arguments for decriminalization. There are good arguments for legalization. However, I am not sure there is a single weaker argument than "Everyone does it anyway."

[crux]

If people didn't smoke pot, all of the crap associated with drug trafficking wouldn't be happening.

It seems as if you're under the assumption that marijuana is the primary source of profit in the drug trade. It's far from it. Beyond which, the real point to be taken here is that expecting users to stop using is more unrealistic than changing the laws that make the problem so severe. Thus the only argument for prohibition should be against the drug itself, not illegal drug trafficking which is a response to the prohibition of the drug.

[Hatta]

Concerning decriminalization, it's the worst possible solution. It leaves the entire industry in the hands of criminals, and leaves the government unable to collect taxes.

Besides, when you think about it, what's the difference between a fine and a tax? A tax is just a fine that's collected up front. So if you want to fine people for marijuana use, just do it up front, tax people for it and let Phillip Morris or whoever sell the shit.

I also think it is true that if marijuana's legal status was different, there would be less violence associated with its trade, but that's beside the point when we're talking about whether or not it is "a victimless crime."

No, it's not beside the point at all. It is in fact the entire point. Let's look at this argument.

Marijuana use is illegal because it encourages drug violence.
Marijuana use encourages drug violence because it is illegal.

That is completely circular reasoning.

Oh no. So you're saying that a law should be changed simply because a lot of people choose to break it?

No. A law that hurts more to enforce than repeal should be repealed. We'll never win the war on murder either, but we shouldn't repeal the laws against murder because murder hurts people. Marijuana use hurts people much, much less than the War on Drug Users does.

[Overload]

Well stated, Hatta.

[Limewater]

I also think it is true that if marijuana's legal status was different, there would be less violence associated with its trade, but that's beside the point when we're talking about whether or not it is "a victimless crime."

No, it's not beside the point at all. It is in fact the entire point. Let's look at this argument.

No, I think you misunderstand. I am sole looking at the claim that, in the status quo in the United States of America, smoking pot is a victimless crime. I am not discussing changes that can make that cease to be the case, though I am acknowledging that they exist. I am solely looking evaluating that statement as applied to the status quo.

Marijuana use is illegal because it encourages drug violence.
Marijuana use encourages drug violence because it is illegal.

That is completely circular reasoning.

I agree completely.

Oh no. So you're saying that a law should be changed simply because a lot of people choose to break it?

No. A law that hurts more to enforce than repeal should be repealed. We'll never win the war on murder either, but we shouldn't repeal the laws against murder because murder hurts people. Marijuana use hurts people much, much less than the War on Drug Users does.

I agree with you. I disagree with what Overload stated in the post to which I replied.

[dsheinem]

Concerning decriminalization, it's the worst possible solution. It leaves the entire industry in the hands of criminals, and leaves the government unable to collect taxes.

Besides, when you think about it, what's the difference between a fine and a tax? A tax is just a fine that's collected up front. So if you want to fine people for marijuana use, just do it up front, tax people for it and let Phillip Morris or whoever sell the shit.

There's a huge difference between a fine and a tax, not the least of which is a moral distinction. A fine is avoidable and is given out as a penalty for wrongdoing. You should be fined for pissing in public or jaywalking because these activities are marginally destructive/dangerous to the public, but probably not egregious enough to be taken to jail.

A tax is a payment to the government made during certainly legally sanctioned activities and transactions, and is used to foster the continuance of the infrastructure that permits those transactions to continue.

To tax is to condone, to fine is to condemn.

[Limewater]

No. A law that hurts more to enforce than repeal should be repealed. We'll never win the war on murder either, but we shouldn't repeal the laws against murder because murder hurts people. Marijuana use hurts people much, much less than the War on Drug Users does.

I agree with you. I disagree with what Overload stated in the post to which I replied.

Actually, scratch that. I do not believe that a law should be repealed just because it hurts more to enforce than to repeal. I responded in haste, when I didn't clearly read the end of your post. What lead you to this conclusion? What assumptions is it based upon?

[crux]

I am not discussing changes that can make that cease to be the case, though I am acknowledging that they exist.

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to see a retort to my previous post if you are, as such, willing to admit that the drug trafficking problem cannot exist (as severely) without prohibition.