Legalizing Marajuana

[Lonewulf]

So can food and sex. And personal woes.

I know the solution. Let's outlaw life, that'll make everyone good little worker bees. Then maybe your communistic vision of a freemarket utopia will be realized.

As rationality has fled out the window for you, so shall I.

 

[gnome]

I honestly don't know what you mean by the right to incorporate. Could you explain? (And is it literally a service granted by the government, or is it just something that the government can choose not to prevent you from doing? If it's the latter, then your argument is silly- that's like saying that your life is granted to you by the government because the government chooses not to kill you.)

It's the former...look at a history of corporations. You apply to the government for a charter, and based on the idea that your venture is useful to the community, it allows you to create a legal entity with liability limited to only what you invest. In the absence of a government charter, you are liable into your own personal funds for liabilities of the business you own.

It was created (in fact) as a privatization boost... for example, to support exploration and development of the New World. There's a lot more incentive to take the risk if you can gather investors that are only risking what they put into it. But corporations only exist by agreement with the government. Thus, it makes sense to allow the government to set the terms (such as requiring the entity to be an equal opportunity employer).

 

[Tony]

As rationality has fled out the window for you, so shall I.

That's ok. Atleast there was a point where I had rationality.

 

[Mephisto]

Um, so it should be legal because of this "fact?"

Maybe. Perhaps you'd like to explain why drugs are illegal in the first place. Isn't it because they are dangerous? Isn't it because their addictive qualities raise criminal activities (the junkie using buglary and armed robbery to support his "habit?).

Here is some information on the "fact."

The Drug Awareness Warning Network Annual Report, published by the US federal government contains a statistical compilation of all drug deaths which occur in the United States. According to this report, there has never been a death recorded from the use of marijuana by natural causes.

http://www.drug-overdose.com/marijuana.htm
_________

(be sure to check out the table at the bottom - they include deaths caused by popularly prescribed drugs such as Ritalin, Viagra and Vioxx [which has since been taken off the market])

"Much of the medical marijuana discussion has focused on the safety of marijuana compared to the safety of FDA-approved drugs. On 6/24/05 ProCon.org sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to find the number of deaths caused by marijuana compared to the number of deaths caused by 17 FDA-approved drugs. Twelve of these FDA-approved drugs were chosen because they are commonly prescribed in place of medical marijuana, while the remaining five FDA-approved drugs were randomly selected because they are widely used and recognized by the general public."

http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/pop/deathreports.htm

(edited to ask) Have you ever consider the possibility that marijuana is still illegal because it's simple to grow, requires no refinement to use (unlike cocaine, meth, or heroin or any of the FDA "safe" drugs) and the pharmeceutical companies couldn't justify charging a patient $90 a month for a prescription?

 

[gnome]

It's not a matter of safety when it comes to Prohibition. It's a matter of supply and demand. You make the supply illegal, and you drive it underground. It will still be there if there is a demand. We know there is a demand, like it or not. It's a fact of life that certain persons will abuse substances in order to get high. Under Prohibition, that underground supply is a black market. With black markets come crime, not just the possession and sale themselves, but ancillary crime which involves theft, robbery, and violence.

Notice I don't speak of blanket Prohibition. If you've made the stuff, or gotten your hands on it one way or another, you can't be prosecuted. The people that can be gone after are the ones intentionally selling a harmful product... it's that way for tangibles, irrespective of demand, why not for consumables? To be consistent, it should be the same for both.

Is there an underground market for unsafe tangibles?

 

[gnome]

Would you ever work for an employer that demanded sex from his employees? Neither would I. Would you ever do business (buy products from, sell resources to) with an employer who demanded sex from his employees? Neither would I. Some would, but the point is that doing this is an ENORMOUS cost to a business. And the cost goes farther than that- by hiring people based on sexuality rather than merit, they're hiring unqualified people. In short, there is a huge financial incentive NOT to use these policies. If I trust corporations with one thing, it's that they really, really want to make money.

So the behavior wouldn't even be CLOSE to widespread (particularly since in a free society, prostitution would be legal. Executives wouldn't sacrifice their companies for sex if they could pay for it directly). And if this awful practice of demanding sex in exchange for employment does go on, it doesn't have to hurt you at all. Just don't work for the employers that do this (which would be very rare) and don't buy their products. In the end, no one ends up getting hurt.

This ideal is distorted by the possibility of employers that are willing to give up a little theoretical money for perks such as this. In truth, they can maintain demand if they sell a good product at a good price. Many will continue to patronize the store regardless of their employment practices. In addition, if the jobs themselves are in especially high demand, they will find more people willing to put up with the sex in order to rate the higher pay. So it's all nice and fair and nobody's being forced into anything... but is it desirable? I see no reason to believe that high-paying jobs wouldn't characteristically require sex, since there is no shortage of individuals that would go that far to receive such opportunities, no shortage of business owners tempted by such power, and no shortage of customers who will keep on buying if the price is right.

If you live in a society where the best of opportunities are mainly available to the person willing to give up the most liberties voluntarily... you are not in a society that loves liberty.

 

[Lonewulf]

This ideal is distorted by the possibility of employers that are willing to give up a little theoretical money for perks such as this. In truth, they can maintain demand if they sell a good product at a good price. Many will continue to patronize the store regardless of their employment practices. In addition, if the jobs themselves are in especially high demand, they will find more people willing to put up with the sex in order to rate the higher pay. So it's all nice and fair and nobody's being forced into anything... but is it desirable? I see no reason to believe that high-paying jobs wouldn't characteristically require sex, since there is no shortage of individuals that would go that far to receive such opportunities, no shortage of business owners tempted by such power, and no shortage of customers who will keep on buying if the price is right.

If you live in a society where the best of opportunities are mainly available to the person willing to give up the most liberties voluntarily... you are not in a society that loves liberty.

You know... if someone really was willing to go that far, I wouldn't trust them. And if it was part of a contract (especially one viewable to the public), then some people will lose a lot of reputation, fast. If it's not part of that contract, then perhaps you can catch 'em on a breach of contract.

Just an idea.

 

[gnome]

There's another point... viewable to the public... they could argue that their methods of choosing employees are completely between them and the employee, and not public knowledge. With the employees voluntarily signing non-disclosure agreements as a condition of taking the job, of course.

 

[Admiral]

Yep, you said:



You think it should be legal for an employer, a person in a position of power, to use that power as leverage to coerce sex from a person seeking employment.

Power over what? Their own property. Do you think that you have a right to get a job from an employer if he doesn't want to give it to you?

There is no human right to take from other people.

And what happens if she refuses consent?

She doesn't get the job. IT'S UP TO THE EMPLOYER WHETHER TO GIVE HER A JOB OR NOT.

The employer-employee relationship is one of exchanging property. I have a right to spend my time however I like. However, if I sign a contract with an employer that I'm going to come to work from 9-5 in exchange for money, I've just given up my liberty. Shouldn't that be illegal, by your logic?

No it doesn't. He can still hire who he wants. He just can't drug test them. He is the one using force, the government would be stopping him.

Huh? This is a consensual drug test. No one has to take it if they don't want to. The employer also doesn't have to give anyone a job if he doesn't want to.

Yes.

(Just to be clear, that was in response to "Do you support the legalization of prostitution?").

Red herring. I'm not talking about hiring people for "sex and accounting". I'm talking about making it a requirement to perform sexual acts to get the accounting job.

What? The contract would say (in legalese) "The employee will have sex with the employer, after which she will work as an accountant."

Since you think prostitution should be legal, then a contract saying "The employee will have sex with the employer" is OK with you. And since you think that work is legal, you're OK with "The employee will work as an accountant." So both of those contracts are OK, but when they're together they're sick and depraved and rape?

But it's an employees human right to not be required to do so.

They're not forcing her! It's an exchange!

The job is the employer's property. He owns the salary (until he pays her). He therefore has the right to give out the job at any price he wants. The woman's body belongs to her. She can't be forced to have sex with anyone she doesn't want to.

If the two mutually agree on an exchange- he gives up his money, she gives him sex- where is the force?

That's like saying "An employer doesn't have a right to require me to work for him." That's right. Unless I agree to work for him in exchange for money.

No he isn't. Who is this person or government forcing this guy to keep his business open and running? Furthermore, he is being forced to respect his employees human and civil rights.

He's being forced not to exchange jobs for sex. You call this human and civil rights- but you say prostitution should be legal. So exchanging money for sex is OK, but exchanging jobs for sex is force?

The employee doesn't have a human right to get the job any more than she has a human right to take the person's money. But rephrasing the definition of prostitution, you could argue "The employee is being forced to have sex as requirement to get the other person's money." You're OK with this. Now switch the word "money" for "job." What's the difference that makes one OK and one rape?

And saying "no one's forcing him to keep his business open" is totally irrelevant. I didn't say they were. I said they were using force to prevent a voluntary exchange.

Privacy, the right to liberty, freedom from oppression, freedom of religion.

Every single one of those rights is given up by a prostitute. If you believe that prostitution is legal, than so is this.

No one is forcing the employer to stay in business. If he doesn't want to hire employees, he doesn't have to.

As I said, irrelevant. "He could shut down his business" is not an argument.

Quote:
Because she is being raped (being coerced into consenting to have sex) against her will, and with the allowance of the government so she can support her family and herself? I mean, are you really that depraved that you can't grasp this?

THAT IS THE SAME THING AS PROSTITUTION. (And it's not coercion against her will if she agrees to it).

By your logic, work is the same thing as slavery (someone is being forced into labor to support their family), prostitution should be illegal... but you don't think that work is slavery or prostitution should be illegal.

 

[quixotecoyote]

The employer and the prospective employee are probably not meeting on a level playing field. In most cases I've encountered on the lower third of the socioeconomic divide, you need a job a lot more than the employer needs a worker. You can't often afford to be picky. The rent's due, the kids are hungry, there's a repo guy out looking for your car, and Mr. Freemarket is going thorugh 150 applications next week looking for 3 openings, you are in an uneven position.

Mr. Freemarket does not need you specifically, he just needs one of dozens like you. You however need him badly, because you are one of many jobseekers hunting for a smaller number of jobs, and if you don't find one fast enough bad things happen to you and your family. Sure there are other jobs out there, but you are limited by distance and applicable skills while Mr. Freemarket can draw from a wide pool or headhunt at leisure.

This is why sex as a requirement for job entry is coercion, because of the uneven balance of power between an employer and prospective employee.

 

[Admiral]

The employer and the prospective employee are probably not meeting on a level playing field. In most cases I've encountered on the lower third of the socioeconomic divide, you need a job a lot more than the employer needs a worker. You can't often afford to be picky. The rent's due, the kids are hungry, there's a repo guy out looking for your car, and Mr. Freemarket is going thorugh 150 applications next week looking for 3 openings, you are in an uneven position.

Mr. Freemarket does not need you specifically, he just needs one of dozens like you. You however need him badly, because you are one of many jobseekers hunting for a smaller number of jobs, and if you don't find one fast enough bad things happen to you and your family. Sure there are other jobs out there, but you are limited by distance and applicable skills while Mr. Freemarket can draw from a wide pool or headhunt at leisure.

This is why sex as a requirement for job entry is coercion, because of the uneven balance of power between an employer and prospective employee.

I'd just like to note that the same logic would state that prostitution must be illegal. (People need money, they're forced into prostitution because they're desperate- the uneven spread of money is what leads to prostitution.) If you agree with that argument, you must also agree that prostitution should be illegal.

(I don't agree with the argument, for different reasons, but my question for right now is- do you believe prostitution should be legalized?)

 

[Lonewulf]

I'd just like to note that the same logic would state that prostitution must be illegal. (People need money, they're forced into prostitution because they're desperate- the uneven spread of money is what leads to prostitution.) If you agree with that argument, you must also agree that prostitution should be illegal.

Well, with prostitution that's one venue. With a corporate environment, however, that's a lot of venues closed off to the average working mother. That's a problem with comparing it to prostitution; you affect a lot more people by allowing corporate bosses to have this power over the worker.

However, I still have to say that I'm dubious, and I may end up agreeing with you on the overall point. I just think that you can compare it to prostitution only to a point, and then they diverge.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I'd just like to note that the same logic would state that prostitution must be illegal. (People need money, they're forced into prostitution because they're desperate- the uneven spread of money is what leads to prostitution.) If you agree with that argument, you must also agree that prostitution should be illegal.

(I don't agree with the argument, for different reasons, but my question for right now is- do you believe prostitution should be legalized?)

This logic does not lead an argument against legalising prostitution, it leads to an argument against legalising pimping. If one is a self-employed prostitute, the only possible exploitation comes from society as a whole not providing better opportunities. That should be addressed, but illegalizing prostitution would serve to increase exploitation by making people desperate enough to turn to prostitution have even less leverage.

 

[steverino]

There's several arguments for marijuana being legal. That's not the only one. You want some others?

Alcohol is legal. Alcohol messes you up far more than marijuana does.

Cigarettes are legal. They're far more addictive and they're bound to kill ya.

Marijuana, when legalized, will be much easier to regulate; and it's much easier to catch someone on evading taxes than having a small stash of marijuana on their persons.

I "hashed" out this topic hour after hour for weeks on a prior thread. I mean, thousands of words read and written. The consensus was that people should be in charge of their own bodies, and that because alcohol is legal, marijuana should be too. I took the unpopular, non-hip position that we do not need another social ill, and that once sanctioned, little kids would have increased access.

FWIW, William F. Buckley is for legalization, Jesse Jackson against it.

 

[Belz...]

Here's the simple reason: I support property rights. The employer has his property (he owns the money and controls the corporation), and the employee has hers (she owns herself- no one can legally force her to do anything sexual). If the employer wants to trade a job for sex, and an employee agrees to it, what right does the government have to say that it's a violation of the employee's rights?

Well, I'd say that people who ask sexual favors from employees or future employees often do so because they are exploiting someone who is desperate for a job. Said person feels forced to have sex in order to get work and pay for her kids, for example. How is that NOT a violation of her rights ?

 

[Mephisto]

I "hashed" out this topic hour after hour for weeks on a prior thread. I mean, thousands of words read and written. The consensus was that people should be in charge of their own bodies, and that because alcohol is legal, marijuana should be too. I took the unpopular, non-hip position that we do not need another social ill, and that once sanctioned, little kids would have increased access

Well it looks like you can't stop stupid people from doing stupid things no matter what the law:

Video appears to show brothers, 2 and 5, smoking pot

POSTED: 12:52 p.m. EST, March 5, 2007

ATAUGA, Texas (CNN) -- Police in suburban Fort Worth, Texas, said a videotape found in a search for stolen goods appears to show two teenagers persuading a 2-year-old boy and his 5-year-old brother to smoke marijuana.

Third-degree felony charges have been filed against the teenagers.

"I have never seen anything like this quite so disturbing," said Bruce Ure, director of public safety for the Watauga Police Department. "Our children count on us to protect them; these individuals did everything but protect these children." (Watch kids puff on apparent joint as teens laugh )

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/04/pot.kids/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

[ponderingturtle]

Um, so it should be legal because of this "fact?"

So the dangers of use are not relevant when determining legal status?

 

[ponderingturtle]

There's several arguments for marijuana being legal. That's not the only one. You want some others?

Alcohol is legal. Alcohol messes you up far more than marijuana does.

Cigarettes are legal. They're far more addictive and they're bound to kill ya.

Marijuana, when legalized, will be much easier to regulate; and it's much easier to catch someone on evading taxes than having a small stash of marijuana on their persons.

Taxing and regulating americas largest cash crop? The nerve of some people.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I "hashed" out this topic hour after hour for weeks on a prior thread. I mean, thousands of words read and written. The consensus was that people should be in charge of their own bodies, and that because alcohol is legal, marijuana should be too. I took the unpopular, non-hip position that we do not need another social ill, and that once sanctioned, little kids would have increased access.

FWIW, William F. Buckley is for legalization, Jesse Jackson against it.

So they have limited access to americas largest cash crop now? And this is a greater social ill than locking up many people and potentially ruining their lives with the laws against something that is in comparison to tobacco and alcohol relatively innocuous?

Sure there will be some things that are worse if legalized, but there is also the people who's lives are ruined by the laws that need to be concidered.

 

[Mephisto]

And this is a greater social ill than locking up many people and potentially ruining their lives with the laws against something that is in comparison to tobacco and alcohol relatively innocuous?

Sure there will be some things that are worse if legalized, but there is also the people who's lives are ruined by the laws that need to be concidered.

I've often posed the question to people who speak out against legalization of any drug; "would you personally use heroin if it were made legal?" They usually answer with a surprised, "NO!"

I think this makes it clear that most people aren't going to use a drug simply because it's legal to do so. For the record, I'm NOT for legalizing heroin, meth, or cocaine - they all come with a decidedly different set of problems than marijuana. Making them all legal, however, could result in the obliteration of the most fervent users through mass overdoses.

It just seems comical to me to make a friggin PLANT illegal. A naturally occuring organic substance that once grew in droves across the country, illegal - would the same tactic work with a star? "You can't look at that star - it's illegal." What a world we live in.