You aren't making a point.
Printable View
You aren't making a point.
Sure I am. If pot deserves legalization, so does crystal meth.
Why's that?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Perhaps we should outlaw alcohol yeah?
pot makes you slow, meth makes you eat peoples faces.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Actually that's pot as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
A drug is a drug is a drug.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Booze = Pot = Meth.
I am fairly confident that alcohol is leagues ahead of meth when it comes to associated violence.
Ok. So you are in favour of outlawing all drugs yeah? Ok, fair enough. As long as you are consistent.
No, not all drugs are created equal, as you well know.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
For example, you can look at the ratio of effective dose to fatal dose. By this metric, alcohol is a fairly dangerous drug, heroin is extremely dangerous, and oral marijuana is kids' stuff. Admittedly, this is just one metric, but unlike your grandstanding, it's based on evidence and reason.
https://i.imgur.com/QfFnT.jpg
From American Scientist:
"Alcohol thus ranks at the dangerous end of the toxicity spectrum. So despite the fact that about 75 percent of all adults in the United States enjoy an occasional drink, it must be remembered that alcohol is quite toxic. Indeed, if alcohol were a newly formulated beverage, its high toxicity and addiction potential would surely prevent it from being marketed as a food or drug. This conclusion runs counter to the common view that one's own use of alcohol is harmless."
According to the chart cocaine is less lethal than alcohol. I say, let's put the coca back into Coca Cola. After all, cocaine ban was mostly fueled by racism, i.e. the fear of the big bad coked up Negro running around violating all those proper White ladies.
rvg, when you're prepared to make an argument, let us know!
It's like trying to have a serious discussion with your kid brother when he's just od'd on Halloween candy.
Says the drug addict...Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
rvg, given the clear, demonstrated, real-world dangers of prohibition, would you at least agree that a nation needs to have a serious think before going down that road?
As it stands, we tolerate caffeine, nicotine and alcohol, largely because they have a long history in our society. We don't tolerate them for public health or safety reasons (all three have strong negatives), we do it because they're so embedded in our society that prohibition is an absurdity, as demonstrated in the 1920s.
Marijuana, much like alcohol, has a large following in all classes of society. Unlike meth, it is not insanely toxic in production and consumption. Unlike cocaine, it falls into the lowest echelon of effective-to-toxic dose. Unlike heroin, it can be produced with minimal agricultural impact, and can easily be grown in all 50 states.
If you can make an argument against ending marijuana prohibition that does not rest on the slippery slope fallacy, I'd like to hear it.
Nice!Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
You're just trolling :yes:
Shame as it is an interesting topic.
We're not talking about prohibition. We're talking about maintaining status quo vs introducing new legal drugs into the society. I do not have a problem with status quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Prohibition is precisely what we are discussing. A long, failed campaign of prohibition and incarceration that has cost the government and the people of the United States too much money and time.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Prohibition is a failure. The status quo is changing, as the recent ballot initiatives have shown. The USA has passed the tipping point at which more that 50% of the population sees the madness of criminalizing a popular and comparatively safe recreational drug.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
And you can't put it on the hippies and pot-heads. Last estimate was that only 3.9 million Americans smoke pot regularly. That means there are a lot of people like me, who see a stupid, failed, obstinate, counter-factual policy for what it is.
Why would I support something from which I don't stand to gain anything and potentially lose something? Why in the world would I do that? It makes no sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Could you please be more specific? What do you "potentially lose" by allowing a few of your friends and neighbors to purchase and consume marijuana legally? And what do you "stand to gain" by continuing a massively expensive, failed policy of prohibition?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Note that the average cost for incarcerating a marijuana smoker is $23,000 per year. And because our jails are full of these non-violent perps, states are forced to either expand their prison budgets and facilities or release violent criminals to make room for all of the pot heads. Where is your benefit?
What would you lose?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
There are many potential gains.
By having a marijuana dispensery in my town for instance. 18 year olds (or 21 or whatever) smoking it openly. Recreational use of it does not make my state a better place for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The current policy can certainly use some work. However, the substandard policy doesn't mean that legalization is needed. It just means that the policy needs to be retooled by punishing the dealers more and punishing the users less. Users can be dealt with by high fines and no jail time, while the dealers should be looking at life w/o parole.Quote:
And what do you "stand to gain" by continuing a massively expensive, failed policy of prohibition? Note that the average cost for incarcerating a marijuana smoker is $23,000 per year. And because our jails are full of these non-violent perps, states are forced to either expand their prison budgets and facilities or release violent criminals to make room for all of the pot heads. Where is your benefit?
Public intoxication is already a crime in most states. I seriously doubt you would be subject to legions of weed-smoking teens or young adults toking up in public.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
No, the current policy is a failure by any objective measure. I challenge you to find me a metric -- any metric -- that indicates marijuana prohibition is a success. On any level.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Well, when the drug addict makes more sense than the teetotaler ...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
It makes access to the drug more difficult and more importantly it keeps the drug branded as socially unacceptable. When you're trying get a job you have to pass a drug test. Smoke pot == no job. There are of course ways to beat the system, but the point is that it discourages the drug usage. I like that. I'd like it to stay that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Heh... We aren't going to convince you.
People are already using it in your town. Usage in the medium term won't increase. The difference is that people will pay tax on it and the money won't go to organised crime.
Try and squeeze supply eh? What does that do to price again... And where will those boosted profits go...?
That's an assertion, not a metric. Please, find me a measurable impact or result of marijuana prohibition that indicates the policy is a success.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
This isn't anything personal, mind you. I do not believe drugs to be a positive influence on our society. Alcohol is tolerable because it is so deeply ingrained in our culture. It's grandfathered in if you will. That however does not mean that I should vote to open the doors for other drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Not a metric perhaps, but good enough for me to stick to my view. Not trying to win any converts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I understand where rvg is coming from. For him, the very fact of illegality is a measurable success. He will remain unconvinced even if legalisation was implemented, reduced drug use and harms and saved money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I find it a little difficult to see it as "not personal" when you called me a drug addict.
Drugs aren't a positive in society, but they can bring pleasure to individuals. A part of the pursuit of happiness. It never said anything about finding it.
That was uncalled for. I guess I overreacted to being compared to a "kid brother OD'd on candy." Seriously though, it's nothing personal. We have ideological differences and I have no problem with it. For now the status quo is on my side. If that changes, I would lament the loss and move on. I won't however lift a finger to expedite that change, in fact I would do whatever I can to impede it. It is my right just as it is your right to push for it. Nothing personal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I think my local police could be doing better things than chasing potheads; I think my county could do with a downsizing of the bloated jail system; I think my state could spend money more wisely elsewhere; I think my town, county and state could do with a shiny new sales tax gladly (gratefully!) paid by the consumer.
And lastly, I think my nation should learn its freaking lesson about prohibition, and enter into it with more thought and care from now on.