Drug War Policy for Democrats

[case#46cw39]

It is when it's illegal. What part of that confuses you?

It doesn't fit the definition of crime.


If harming others involuntarily (causing involuntary pain, disease, death) then a crime.

Growing a plant on one's own property is not doing that.

=====================

Therefore: It is not a crime.

 

[case#46cw39]

The introduction of two poisons into society does not necessitate the introduction of a third, fourth and fifth.

If you can get rid of one poison then you can get rid of both poisons (alcohol).

Leaving a poison in society while crying about another poison in society doesn't make sense.

It would make more sense to get rid of both poisons then if you are being rational.

It would make more sense to get rid of the worst poison if you cared so much

Alcohol is a worse poison then cannabis.

==============================

Therefore: Get rid of the alcohol poison.

Now suddenly you don't care about poison in society right?

I assume you don't touch alcohol due to how it poisons society. Right?

 

[Mudcat]

The introduction of two poisons into society does not necessitate the introduction of a third, fourth and fifth.

High light mine. There are far more than just 2 poisons readily available to the general population. Some while go boom if mixed right (or wrong), some most definitely will kill you if ingested (bleach), will cause health problems with long time exposure (bleach), or cause brain damage if sniffed for a high (bleach again). Thus your argument is irrelevant.

PS, most cleaning supplies are decidedly unsafe and hazardous in one way or another, they are far more poisonous and deadly even in small amounts compared to cigarettes, alcohol, pot or any other recreational drug in large doses.

 

[Dessi]

The introduction of two poisons into society does not necessitate the introduction of a third, fourth and fifth.

I really doubt cannabis is a "poison" in any comparable sense as alcohol or nicotine. In any case, suppose that it is: suppressing the introduction of new poisons into society doesn't come for free. It requires regulation, enforcement of drug policies, increasing the number of criminal offenders shuffling through courts and prison systems.

At the same time, we need to consider the actual benefits of legalizing new "poisons". There is a market for drugs, about $32 billion in untaxed revenue circulating through the US. There is a strong argument that legalization can move drug money out of the hands of shady criminals and into more reputable business owners.

The question isn't so simple. We really have to consider whether enforcing drug laws is a net positive return on investment.

I don't believe there is a credible case that criminalizing cannabis has any advantages at all. In fact, a growing consensus of experts around the globe suggests the War on Drugs is a failure, that it has failed to reduce drug usage, the harm of drugs is grossly exaggerated, and the tremendous cost of fighting the war is a net negative.

I personally believe legalization of cannabis would have a hugely positive impact on the US. Economic impact includes recreational drug users, but the many many uses of hemp, reduced burden to prosecute non-violent drug offenders, etc. There are huge advantages to decriminalizing or legalizing cannabis, certainly many more advantages than prohibition -- those advantages justify legalizing cannabis on that basis alone.

 

[Robrob]

Clearly you've fundamentally missed the point of the post you are replying to. Heroin harms an individual, it's their right to choose to harm themselves. It is not an individuals right to harm others, hence laws that limit speeding in school zones. Sheeeesh

Who exactly is harmed by speeding in school zones? Hitting people with cars is already illegal so apparently you are in favor of victimless crime laws designed to influence behavior?

Sheeeesh

 

[case#46cw39]

Who exactly is harmed by speeding in school zones? Hitting people with cars is already illegal so apparently you are in favor of victimless crime laws designed to influence behavior?

Sheeeesh

On a public street, other people are potentially on the street, and that is who you could directly harm involuntarily via driving too fast. Thus making it a matter of law since others share the street.

If you had a private street on your property you could drive it as fast as you want.

 

[psionl0]

The introduction of two poisons into society does not necessitate the introduction of a third, fourth and fifth.

I didn't know that cannabis hadn't been introduced into society yet.

 

[psionl0]

If harming others involuntarily (causing involuntary pain, disease, death) then a crime.

Growing a plant on one's own property is not doing that.

=====================

Therefore: It is not a crime.

It is called a "victimless crime" - one of the greatest sources of corruption in police forces all around the world. It is a crime simply because the government declares it to be and for no other reason.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

That is definitely an understandable concern. Marijuana is not a benign drug even if it doesn't kill anybody. It can definitely cause serious personal, mental, and family problems.

Evidence?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

This is the crux of our disagreement, I think. I question whether a reasonable-sounding proposal like "legalize marijuana and eliminate the cost of policing it" considers the implicit social costs of marijuana use. Which, in my observation, are very high: disinterest in economic activity; incomplete education; underemployment; financial dependence on the government or family members; strained relationships. And I've seen plenty of examples of all five of those.

Evidence?

 

[psionl0]

Speeding is illegal. Who is the victim there?

Whoever the person is who's risk of surviving your driving is decreased as a result of your speeding.

If I aim a gun at your head and shoot it, don't tell me you are not a victim just because I missed.

 

[excaza]

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that people who cannot meet their basic responsibilities in life should not be using cannabis. And they certainly should not be given public money to buy cannabis, and then get high and cause problems that cost more public money to fix.

This is the same as arguing that welfare is a terrible idea because some people on welfare decide to buy big screen TVs and Escalades. It's an understandable concern, but basing it on anecdotal stories is not the way to go about it.

And hey, you should be on my side here. You want to convince mainstream voters that marijuana should be legalized because it is a safe, positive substance that can be used responsibly and does no collateral harm. But if a voter's experience with marijuana users is mostly like I described, that becomes a tough sell.

This is, of course, assuming that said voters would be convinced by evidence contrary to what they experience with the "stoner next door." It seems like you've already made up your mind, I'm not sure why you're expecting others to act differently.

 

[3point14]

That is definitely an understandable concern. Marijuana is not a benign drug even if it doesn't kill anybody. It can definitely cause serious personal, mental, and family problems.

Could I see your evidence for this?

 

[3point14]

High light mine. There are far more than just 2 poisons readily available to the general population. Some while go boom if mixed right (or wrong), some most definitely will kill you if ingested (bleach), will cause health problems with long time exposure (bleach), or cause brain damage if sniffed for a high (bleach again). Thus your argument is irrelevant.

PS, most cleaning supplies are decidedly unsafe and hazardous in one way or another, they are far more poisonous and deadly even in small amounts compared to cigarettes, alcohol, pot or any other recreational drug in large doses.

Salt is far more deadly than cannabis.

 

[Toontown]

If you're of the opinion that anything that can result in loss of life if used irresponsibly should be banned, we can extrapolate that you must be in favour of banning guns, yes?

This is why I don't talk to you people much, and tend to quickly become disgusted when I do.

No. You are not at liberty to extrapolate my opinion and then extrapolate something else from the extrapolated opinion.

BTW, you've committed another false equivalence. It is not necessary to get drunk (use alcohol irresponsibly) in order to protect oneself from drunks, crackheads, and various other forms of thuggery (own a gun for protection).

 

[Mudcat]

Drugs are banned because they are dangerous?

If that were so then alcohol and tobacco (which are dangerous) would be banned.

They are not banned

Alcohol, at the very least, is illegal to purchase in some places in the states, though I doubt that it has anything to do with how dangerous/poisonous alcohol is.

Salt is far more deadly than cannabis.

The list of things people consume on a regular basis that's more deadly than pot is quite shocking.

 

[3point14]

The list of things people consume on a regular basis that's more deadly than pot is quite shocking.

As far as I am aware (and I'm open to correction) cannabis is less deadly than just about anything and everything else a person can consume.

 

[Mudcat]

As far as I am aware (and I'm open to correction) cannabis is less deadly than just about anything and everything else a person can consume.

[panic mode]We has to protex teh childrenz, must banns all thingz cept teh weed! [/panic mode]

Surely water is (mostly) safe?

 

[3point14]

[panic mode]We has to protex teh childrenz, must banns all thingz cept teh weed! [/panic mode]

Surely water is (mostly) safe?

I'm fairly sure that ingesting too much water can kill you.

I don't know if there is a lethal level for cannabis, but if there is it's very, very high.

 

[case#46cw39]

Alcohol, at the very least, is illegal to purchase in some places in the states, though I doubt that it has anything to do with how dangerous/poisonous alcohol is.

There are dry towns like Ocean City NJ. But this just means it can't be sold in the town. But people are still allowed to purchase it elsewhere and bring it into town to consume at their homes. It isn't "banned" like cannabis. If you can name a place where it is banned completely please do. But exceptions to the rule miss the point about danger and drugs.