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

[Limewater]

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.

OK. I'm not going to waste my time retorting the part I agree with, though. Also, I'm watching TV. Hopefully this will be coherent.

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.

That was poor wording on my part. I don't really hold pot smokers at all responsible for the violence associated with cocaine, or poisonings and explosions from crystal meth production. I meant to only refer to the violence in the trafficking of marijuana.

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.

Why can't they stop? Are they addicted? Is a few hours of mellow contentment worth the lives of a few smelly, brown people? The fact is that the people involved are breaking the law. They know the risks going in, just as a skydiver does. The fact that people continue to support to the violent and oppressive supply chain for this product only makes the act of smoking more reprehensible. Smoking marijuana would be a rather benign thing in and of itself if it did not rely on this. If someone grows his own from an original source from a country where it is legal, he can dodge the blame on a lot of this, but most people don't.

Your argument can also be spun to support harsher penalties for marijuana possession. In all seriousness, if you are currently a young, white person and get caught with pot, you get little more than a slap on the wrist, particularly if you are a student. I know several people who have been caught with it, and they suffered minimal consequences. That is not sufficient punishment to be an effective deterrent.

The fact that people break a law should never be given as a justification for repealing that law. I really believe that people would take the whole legalization movement more seriously if its vocal advocates weren't quite obviously already partaking in an illegal substance. If the law isn't stopping you from smoking up, why change anything? Pot smokers saying that "everyone does it, so it should be legal" aren't being altruistic. They aren't worried about the lives of smelly, brown people in Mexico who probably don't even speak English. They just don't want to get caught enough times to go to jail. They're worried about their own butts.

"Oh, this guy is in jail? He wouldn't be if what he did wasn't a crime!" Brilliant! Unfortunately, that argument can very quickly be applied to pretty much any crime that exists. That is the problem with the "everybody does it anyway" argument. It can never stand on its own.

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.

I don't agree with how you get here, but I do agree with this statement. Arguments for prohibition should be about the drug itself.

[Overload]

The fact that people break a law should never be given as a justification for repealing that law. I really believe that people would take the whole legalization movement more seriously if its vocal advocates weren't quite obviously already partaking in an illegal substance. If the law isn't stopping you from smoking up, why change anything? Pot smokers saying that "everyone does it, so it should be legal" aren't being altruistic.

I said that to point out the futility of the war on drugs. I'm not saying that a law should be repealed because a lot of people break it. That's just dumb. It's not black and white. You have to take into consideration the law itself and the prohibited activity.

It's sad that people assume everyone who advocates the legalization of marijuana smokes. It's also sad that people don't take the ones that do smoke as seriously.

They're worried about their own butts.

Is it so selfish to want to have freedoms? I don't understand why you're trying to make it seem like a bad thing.

"Oh, this guy is in jail? He wouldn't be if what he did wasn't a crime!" Brilliant! Unfortunately, that argument can very quickly be applied to pretty much any crime that exists. That is the problem with the "everybody does it anyway" argument. It can never stand on its own.

More like:

"Oh, this guy is in jail for something harmless? He wouldn't be if what he did wasn't a crime as it shouldn't be?" Brilliant!

Once again, nobody is saying that the only reason it should be legalized is because a lot of people break the law.

[Limewater]

It's sad that people assume everyone who advocates the legalization of marijuana smokes. It's also sad that people don't take the ones that do smoke as seriously.

I personally support the legalization of marijuana, and I've never smoked the stuff. I know several people who support legalization and don't smoke it. But you know what? It's pretty much always been guys I know who DID smoke who kept bringing it up. In fact, it's always been the guys who smoke a LOT. I know plenty of guys who are really sharp and smoke pot from time to time. But the guys who smoke a lot and are vocal about it have been, in my experience, almost universally idiots. It really destroys a lot of credibility. And willfully and openly breaking the law really does hurt one's credibility in discussions on legalization. If you do that, you're openly flaunting the law while trying to work within it to achieve your purposes. That completely undermines the platform.

They're worried about their own butts.

Is it so selfish to want to have freedoms? I don't understand why you're trying to make it seem like a bad thing.

Sure it's selfish. That, in and of itself, is not a real problem. We're all pretty selfish. That's the whole basis for capitalism. It just reflects the stupidity of the argument. "People will always commit this crime, so the laws should be changed to legalize it!" It is implicit in there that, because people will not stop committing a crime, the law defining the crime must be wrong. It is not the purpose of the law to describe the status quo.

But I think you're missing the point of my response. The "selfish" part was in direct response to his discussion of violence associated with drug trafficking.

More like:

"Oh, this guy is in jail for something harmless? He wouldn't be if what he did wasn't a crime as it shouldn't be?" Brilliant!

But that's not what you wrote. Lots of crimes can be considered "harmless." Tax evasion does not directly harm anyone. It certainly does not help anyone (except the person committing the crime), but it can be considered "harmless."

A drunk driver whose acton does not result in injury, death, or property damage is ultimately "harmless."

A man who tries to murder a political figure in public, but whose gun jams has not actually committed any harm.

But even your revised quote is stupid. Read it again. It essentially says, "A guy who committed a crime that should not be a crime would not be in jail if it was not a crime." That is not an argument. That is an observation, and not a particularly keen one at that. You might as well say, "This cheeseburger doesn't taste good. If it was a better burger, it would taste better." That's not brilliant. That's not even a step above simply saying, "Marijuana should be legal." You can say it over and over again, but it is not a convincing argument.

All you've done in your statement above is to state the obvious and throw in a little bit of your opinion that pot smoking shouldn't be a crime. The fact that this is put forth as an argument at all just reinforces negative stereotypes about potheads. It seriously reads like something one of the characters in the film "Idiocracy" would come up with in an argument.

Once again, nobody is saying that the only reason it should be legalized is because a lot of people break the law.

Of course not. I simply said that it was the WORST argument one could make for legalization. I suppose one could come up with a worse one, but it is certainly the worst I have seen actually put forth as a real argument.

[Luke]

Still with this?

[Hatta]

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?

Is that not obvious? If doing something causes more damage than not doing it, then we shouldn't do it. To do otherwise is self destructive.

Personally, I'm curious at what sort of reason you would have to continue doing something harmful to ourselves. Some sort of puritanical glorification of hardship I'm guessing?

I personally support the legalization of marijuana

Then why are we arguing?

It's pretty much always been guys I know who DID smoke who kept bringing it up.

The persecuted always have the greatest stake in ending their persecution.

And willfully and openly breaking the law really does hurt one's credibility in discussions on legalization. If you do that, you're openly flaunting the law while trying to work within it to achieve your purposes.

If everyone obeyed the law, alcohol prohibition would have never ended. Same thing here.

[crux]

I never argued that prohibition should end because people will always use drugs, but rather that hoping for people to not use drugs is not a realistic solution, particularly in the United States. (One could paint a different picture of Sweden, though no one knows how accurate their numbers are given Sweden is the largest contributor for the institution that takes the statistics.) Therefor, arguing that they should, regardless of whether they could, is not an adequate solution. Ending prohibition, on the other hand, is an event that has happened in the past and could happen in the future. Thus, if we're looking at two solutions, one of which could happen and the other of which could not, which would you choose?

[Limewater]

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?

Is that not obvious? If doing something causes more damage than not doing it, then we shouldn't do it. To do otherwise is self destructive.

Hurting (as you mentioned in your original post) and doing damage are not necessarily synonymous.

Every law has a cost associated with enforcement, and every law would cost less if it were not enforced. The argument then simply becomes whether one considers the value of this enforcement, whether it be financial, practical, or simply ideological.

You mention murder as an example of a law that is somehow "worth it." However, there are considerable costs associated with enforcing it as a law, and it has not been effective in keeping people from murdering others. Most societies outlaw murder in some sense, so we cannot effectively study the effects of legally prohibiting murder, but it is pretty easy to argue that legal restrictions on murder do little to actually deter it. People daily murder others, without regard for the legal penalties that exist, and social/community effects can easily be argued to have an equal or possibly stronger deterrent effect than the legal restrictions. To this you might respond, "You can't put a value on a human life," but that is really a pretty weak argument as well. If necessary, I can discuss why.

You can view any law through the lens of a cost-benefit analysis, but by only looking as "how much it hurts to enforce", you're ONLY looking at the cost of the law. That is never sufficient to make any decision.

Personally, I'm curious at what sort of reason you would have to continue doing something harmful to ourselves. Some sort of puritanical glorification of hardship I'm guessing?

Perceived benefit. I enjoy running, and I know that it is generally good for my health. However, I also know that every step is harming my knees, and I already feel the effects at 26. Looking at family history (my father and uncle are serious runners), I know that I am also likely to suffer heel spurs. I could do other exercises for my cardiovascular health, but I enjoy running and I consider that enjoyment to be worth the harm. The same thing applies to smoking tobacco, and pot. The same thing applies to getting drunk on the weekends (even if one does not drive drunk). I cannot speak to who values what or how much. I can only answer such questions about myself, and then in only vague terms. But, if I look solely at the costs of an activity like running, I can easily conclude that it is a foolish and self-destructive thing to do.

I personally support the legalization of marijuana

Then why are we arguing?

I can agree with your conclusion without agreeing with how you arrived at it. Say, for example, you did not vote for President Obama in November 2008, and did so for political reasons. Would you not disagree with someone who also did not vote for Obama, but did so due to racism?

If you're going to use bad arguments for legalization, wouldn't you rather use them on someone you don't really need to convince?

It's pretty much always been guys I know who DID smoke who kept bringing it up.

The persecuted always have the greatest stake in ending their persecution.

I wasn't wondering why they talk about it so often. I was discussing why people have such a hard time getting taken seriously on this issue.

And willfully and openly breaking the law really does hurt one's credibility in discussions on legalization. If you do that, you're openly flaunting the law while trying to work within it to achieve your purposes.

If everyone obeyed the law, alcohol prohibition would have never ended. Same thing here.

You can't make that statement about prohibition. We don't know what would have happened-- we only know what did happen. You are stating a hypothetical as a fact and trying to use that hypothetical to support an argument. That is ridiculous. But, if you really want to play this game, sure.

If people had actually stopped smoking pot when it was made illegal, it totally would have been legalized again twenty years ago. So that totally supports my point. Like, Q.E.D., dude.

I never argued that prohibition should end because people will always use drugs, but rather that hoping for people to not use drugs is not a realistic solution, particularly in the United States. (One could paint a different picture of Sweden, though no one knows how accurate their numbers are given Sweden is the largest contributor for the institution that takes the statistics.) Therefor, arguing that they should, regardless of whether they could, is not an adequate solution. Ending prohibition, on the other hand, is an event that has happened in the past and could happen in the future. Thus, if we're looking at two solutions, one of which could happen and the other of which could not, which would you choose?

I think you actually have a pretty good argument here. I don't think it is a sufficient argument by itself, but I think it's a valid point. You asked for a retort in your last post, so I tried to oblige. It does call into question the claims that people don't get addicted to marijuana, though.