Legalizing Marajuana

[Lonewulf]

In short, I think you mistake my arguing for decriminalization of substances to be akin to advocating anarchy and lawlessness.

It's AKA the "Slippery Slope Fallacy". "You want to legalize drugs? Then murder's next!"

 

[Tony]

That's my opinion.

I'd support a law making drug tests for employment illegal.

Except for jobs that put members of the public in harm's way (pilot, truck driver), I agree.

 

[Belz...]

That doesn't follow from my point.

No, of course not, and I wasn't talking about a slippery slope or anything. I was just trying to find the line that would be drawn, and why.

When you prohibit a substance that is in demand because it gets persons high (not an act, but a substance), you create a black market for that substance.

Let's not forget, however, that there are black markets for legal stuff, as well.

In short, I think you mistake my arguing for decriminalization of substances to be akin to advocating anarchy and lawlessness.

Oh, no. That wasn't my thought at all.

I'm not for doing away with criminal law. I'm for removing possession and sale of substances that persons use to get high from the criminal law.

And, I assume, deal with crimes commited while under their influence just like you would those under the influence of alcohol ?

 

[Belz...]

It's AKA the "Slippery Slope Fallacy". "You want to legalize drugs? Then murder's next!"

I was trying to make a parallel, not build an "if - then" relation. I don't think one has anything to do with the other. I was trying to ascertain what things might be like if illegal drugs were legal. Would it be no worse than alcohol and tobacco ? I honestly have no clue.

 

[Tony]

I actually wouldn't (even though I'm greatly in favor of both drug legalization and every privacy issue you can name). I'll tell you why- I don't think the government should be allowed to force anyone to give a job to anyone. If I'm an employer, I should be allowed to give out jobs as I see fit- including testing potential employees for drugs. (If the people don't want to be tested, they don't have to be, but they won't get the job.)

Its a non-sequitur to assert that since employers can't drug test, they're being forced to hire people. They can still hire anyone they want, they just can't drug test the people they want to hire.

 

[Admiral]

Let's not forget, however, that there are black markets for legal stuff, as well.

Really? Can you give an example?

Isn't it part of the definition of black market that it's illegal?

 

[Lonewulf]

Really? Can you give an example?

Isn't it part of the definition of black market that it's illegal?

Actually, yeah, there is. In Korea, for instance, people would buy things from the Commisary to sell on the streets of Korea (off the base). This is considered "black market" trading, and yes it is illegal, but it's still dealing in legal goods; it's just the customer that is the point, and the main reason why people do this is 'cause they can get more cash for the objects.

In the same sense, in the U.S., I could probably buy legal goods and sell them to a secondary party; except under certain circumstances/contracts, this would definitely be illegal, even though it is still dealing in a legal good.

 

[Admiral]

Its a non-sequitur to assert that since employers can't drug test, they're being forced to hire people. They can still hire anyone they want, they just can't drug test the people they want to hire.

Not true. If I said, as an employer, "I will not hire anyone who has not taken a drug test and given me the results," then the government says "That's illegal- you can't not hire someone just because they refused to take a drug test," then I am being forced to hire people I don't want to hire.

The exception is if you're saying that ALL drug tests given by potential employers are illegal, even if the employer and employee mutually agree to it. In response, I'd say that you're making a mutually consensual arrangement illegal, which is just as bad. What's more, you'd have to make exceptions in the law to literally hundreds of exceptions where you probably agree that drug testing is necessary- athletic organizations, airline pilots, doctors, truck drivers, etc... When you're defining a law by the huge number of exceptions to it, I tend to think it's not a very good law.

 

[Lonewulf]

Its a non-sequitur to assert that since employers can't drug test, they're being forced to hire people. They can still hire anyone they want, they just can't drug test the people they want to hire.

Which means that you're setting a limitation, though. You're saying that they have to hire people whether they're druggies or not. Otherwise, why bother with a drug test?

EDIT: Dang! Too late.

 

[Admiral]

Actually, yeah, there is. In Korea, for instance, people would buy things from the Comissary to sell on the streets of Korea (off the base). This is considered "black market" trading, and yes it is illegal, but it's still dealing in legal goods; it's just the customer that is the point, and the main reason why people do this is 'cause they can get more cash for the objects.

In the same sense, in the U.S., I could probably buy legal goods and sell them to a secondary party; except under certain circumstances/contracts, this would definitely be illegal, even though it is still dealing in a legal good.

But the point there is that no matter what, regulation is what causes black markets. The less regulation, the weaker the black market. (That is- if drugs are illegal, then there is a huge black market. If drugs are legal, but highly taxed and only permitted to be sold in approved stores, there's still a black market, but it's not as strong. If drugs are completely unregulated, corporations would take up all the slack and the black market would disappear).

 

[Lonewulf]

But the point there is that no matter what, regulation is what causes black markets. The less regulation, the weaker the black market. (That is- if drugs are illegal, then there is a huge black market. If drugs are legal, but highly taxed and only permitted to be sold in approved stores, there's still a black market, but it's not as strong. If drugs are completely unregulated, corporations would take up all the slack and the black market would disappear).

Oh, well, yeah. That's by definition.

Though...

If you make something completely legal, but they sell it to a country that makes it illegal... then it's still a black market. But if you don't regulate it, then it's not a crime in your own country, just theirs.

 

[Tony]

Not true. If I said, as an employer, "I will not hire anyone who has not taken a drug test and given me the results," then the government says "That's illegal- you can't not hire someone just because they refused to take a drug test," then I am being forced to hire people I don't want to hire.

This is an example of the absurdity of free-market totalitarianism. If you as an employer also said "I will not hire anyone who will not give me a blow-job and swallow my semen" the govenment then says "that's illegal - That's illegal- you can't not hire someone just because they refused to give you a blow-job". By your logic you are being "forced" to hire people you don't want. However, you're not. You're being forced to respect a person's privacy, civil rights and human rights. I know, boo-fukkin-hoo, the government is protecting a citizen's rights.


ETA: Claiming that this constitutes force is bogus. Force would be the government or some other entity showing up with guns drawn and telling you to "hire this person or else". If an employer doesn't want to run a business where he is obliged to respect the rights of his employees, he can always sell his company, or move it to someplace where he won't be expected to respect the rights of his employees. In otherwords, no one is making him run a business in the USA, he can give it up anytime, for any reason.

 

[Lonewulf]

This is an example of the absurdity of free-market totalitarianism. If you as an employer also said "I will not hire anyone who will not give me a blow-job and swallow my semen" the govenment then says "that's illegal - That's illegal- you can't not hire someone just because they refused to take a drug test". By your logic you are being "forced" to hire people you don't want. However, you're not. You're being forced to respect a person's privacy, civil rights and human rights. I know, boo-fukkin-hoo, the government is protecting a citizen's rights.

So...

Should we make resumes illegal?

 

[Tony]

delete

 

[Tony]

So...

Should we make resumes illegal?

Did you eat paint chips as a child?

 

[Lonewulf]

Did you eat paint chips as a child?

Nice. You missed my point (did it make a sound as it sailed over your head?), and then launch an ad hominem attack, the last bastion of the incompetent.

 

[Tony]

Nice. You missed my point (did it make a sound as it sailed over your head?), and then launch an ad hominem attack, the last bastion of the incompetent.

No. I was just puzzled why you asked a completely unrelated and nonsensical question. If you have a point to make, make it. Don't expect the rest of us to read your mind or decode your cryptic statements.

 

[Lonewulf]

No. I was just puzzled why you asked a completely unrelated and nonsensical question. If you have a point to make, make it. Don't expect the rest of us to read your mind or decode your cryptic statements.

Ah. So your being "puzzled" translates into a question of my intelligence? Glad to work out your pseudo-logic there.

Let me explain in small words, then.

First, I'll quote you, this time inserting key words (in bold):

This is an example of the absurdity of free-market totalitarianism. If you as an employer also said "I will not hire anyone who does not have a good enough resume or work history" the govenment then says "that's illegal - That's illegal- you can't not hire someone just because they do not have a good enough resume". By your logic you are being "forced" to hire people you don't want. However, you're not. You're being forced to respect a person's privacy, civil rights and human rights. I know, boo-fukkin-hoo, the government is protecting a citizen's rights.

What is the purpose of a resume? To see if someone is qualified for the job. If someone takes drugs, especially if they are heavily addicted, then they very well may not be qualified for the task at hand. A school bus driver that is also a crack/heroine/cocaine/LSD/whatever else addict will not make a good school bus driver.

 

[Tony]

What is the purpose of a resume? To see if someone is qualified for the job. If someone takes drugs, especially if they are heavily addicted, then they very well may not be qualified for the task at hand. A school bus driver that is also a crack/heroine/cocaine/LSD/whatever else addict will not make a good school bus driver.

Yep, it's what I figured, you're moving the goal posts and ignoring statements I already made:

Except for jobs that put members of the public in harm's way (pilot, truck driver), I agree.

Since you can't discuss honestly and have no other resort except false analogies, I take it you have no other rebuttal?

 

[Lonewulf]

Yep, it's what I figured, you're moving the goal posts and ignoring statements I already made:

That's quite a lot of jobs, though, if not most of them. Even a janitor may have to operate a vehicle that would make him a liability (even just to get to the job location). In fact, if anyone is unable to function at his job thanks to heavy drug use, then he will become a liability to his employer. The only job I can really think of that wouldn't be affected by heavy drug use would be human drug testing, really.

Since you can't discuss honestly and have no other resort except false analogies, I take it you have no other rebuttal?

I can't discuss "honestly"? Excuse me?