Why is it a libertarian-esque mindset or approach? Surely it cannot be because I am trying to establish a principle by which we evaluate whether it should be criminal. Are libertarians the only folks who talk in terms of principles?The vast majority of people in this country are not going to approach this issue from a libertarian-esque mindset because the vast majority of people in this country don't subscribe actively to said mindset. So while to you the need to say "other people" when talking about the adverse affects is not present. However, to the vast majority of people who read "I am making the claim that the are no long term harmful affects" they are assuming you mean affects in general, including to themselves.
I can see how people would assume I mean harm to anyone including themselves. I need to raise the visibility of that distinction.
Yes, you are right. Very odd. I am not sure why I specified "long term".Indeed, its rather unusual to think of a statement like that about "long term" affects of a drug and assume you're meaning "long term affects to OTHER people".
I refer to those other arguments, before focusing on the single issue of identifying a principle. Here is what I say:Aside from the point Psycho was making, and I've made for a while here, in regards to the damage done to the movement by those who are simply the mirror image of the anti-pot propogandists your post illustrates the next most difficult hurdle the movement will need to overcome. This cannot be fought primarily or singularly from the logical stand point of a libertarian. “Harm Principle” cannot be your overriding argument if you want to win people over to this. This is actually at the heart of my issue with Ron Paul back during the primaries.
These types of arguments cater SPECIFICALLY to a rather small niche of the population (libertarians) while having a good deal of variation with regards to its impact with the vast majority of the population. The problem with that is that the people you are wanting to convince are not going to be libertarian types, as they are most likely going to be the ones already in favor of what you’re wanting.
Instead what you need to do is, instead of identifying what’s important to you and why you want it legalized identify what’s important to your target audience and then find out how to relate reasons for legalization to that crowd.
So here we see my approach to both issues. First, the issue of recognizing other arguments for legalization, but not addressing them in this essay. Second, distinguishing between harm to self versus harm to others.Originally Posted by http://www.noharmmeansnofoul.org
I am thinking about adding a robust section on "harm to self".You’re more than welcome to. I by no means suggest its thorough, complete, or well detailed though but I have no issues with you using it as I think all of those are pretty solidly factual. For the most part they’ve been gathered from various articles ranging from both sides of the fight as well as wiki and a few other sources.
In regards to heart rate, I believe one study I had saw that mentioned it stated that within the first hour of smoking weed one can experience their heart rate rising up to 4 times its normal level. The belief is that this could potentially raise the risk of heart attacks for those with heart conditions (doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen, but simply creates a better circumstance at that point for such). Similarly it could cause issues with people with existing anxiety or panic disorders. Beyond that it’s a mild thing like increased body heat, etc.
Yep. And if one was to be fair you’d need to point out that the majority of the long term affects if present are primarily apparent only when actively still partaking in the drug regularly. For example, in regards to the IQ/Memory/Attention they found definite decreases in these for long time, regular users, however people who had previously smoked or smoked only occasionally throughout the year did not present these symptoms.
I’d say withdrawl is one of those things that you could go into on its own as its almost a separate matter as it’s not an affect of the drug, but of leaving the drug. It’d be important to point out that it is one of the weakest drugs in terms of the severity of its withdrawl symptoms, and they do not manifest in every user. Symptoms are generally “mild” compared to other drugs and include things like irritability, anxiety and physical tension, decreases appetite and mood, insomnia, and sweats. While someone could have significant cases of these symptoms, the symptoms themselves are relatively benign compared to detox from others. So while its untrue when people suggest “there is no withdrawl issues with Marijuana” you’d likely want to be a slight bit more thorough then saying that there is withdrawl since that word can mean a lot of things to different people.
A way to think of it is the warnings on pills. If 4 versions of a type of pills say “warning, use of this drug could cause complications including heart attack, stroke, paralysis, or death” and 1 version says “warning, use of this drug could cause complications” and that’s all people know of that type of pill, they’re going to assume that 5 pill has similar “complications”. However if it the last pill said “warning, use of this drug could cause complications such as exhaustion, fatigue, and dizziness” then people are likely going to go “oh, yeah they’re not good but its not like its DEATH”. If they just left it off completely though, without any warning, people would naturally be distrusting.
Say Marijuana has the potential for withdrawl symptoms, though generally weaker than many other substances including Alcohol. Those symptoms are [list of symptoms]. All users may not experience withdrawl from the substance.
Yep, I see this.Gotcha. And its great to see you open and honest about wanting to find that kind of stuff out and being receptive to it. It’s a quality more in the active community for this needs to have. American’s are conditioned to think of harm not just in what it does to others but what it does to ones self, so behind honest about those will help as it will show that the affects are generally not horrible comparatively.
I reference the crime angle, and reduction of criminal enterprise. I hit the national security angle. I say that it should be a health problem and not a criminal problem. I do NOT make a fiscal argument nor a social argument (which seems to be a crime argument, so perhaps I touch on it). I was trying to super briefly acknowledge these other argumnets, to be found elsewhere, and focus the reader on my principle.Again, you’re viewing this from that libertarian scope.
Here’d be my advise to you honestly in regards to your site.
Do not abandon the “harm principle” notions and the government getting out of peoples private business notions. Those aren’t bad. Don’t make it your sole focal point though.
Hit on the fiscal issues of it. The amount of money we spend yearly in regards to enforcement and incarceration of individuals because of this. Look at the amount of money that could potentially be generated both in the private sector due to manufacturers, government due to taxes, and the economy in general by bringing cash out of the black market. Push how it will help spur job creation as growers, factory workers, retail locations, businesses catering to it, etc will all open up. Between the increased government funds for democrats, increased economical funds for republicans, and increased jobs and decreased money spent on law enforcement for both, you have a factual and useful argument that actually has the chance of touching a base of people your strictly libertarian argument may not.
You can do this one the Social side as well. Highlight the potential aid it could provide for border relief as it takes one of the main goods causing the smuggling and violence associated with it to occur out of the equation. Highlight how low level offenders who’ve done nothing criminal other than partaking in the use of it would no longer being hounded by the system. Point out how by no longer putting it essentially on par with far harder drugs you reduce part of the “gateway” nature associated with it because you no longer have situations where someone goes “I’m having to hide this activity and I could get in legal trouble for it, so what more harm can come from doing additional things”.
Obviously the libertarian point is not reaching a broad base, as evident by their generalized numbers at the polls, their numbers of people that self identify as such, and the general issues with legalization as it stands. The more you and others branch out and start thinking “what will convince them” rather than “what would convince me” I think there’s going to be a larger chance of getting some change in a far faster time span.
I am trying to attract conservatives. I have always said that I think it is a natural issue for conservatives. That may be me confounding a libertarian mindset on conservatives, although I have my parents convinced. Personal responsibility and individual freedom are conservative principles, right?
When I caught the bug to setup the site, I had just been turned down for an interim security clearance. My 2nd turn down. All because I used to smoke pot 4 years ago. It is a ****ty thing, it pissed me off and I created the site.
Excellent! I look forward to hearing your opinion about it!I’ll give you site a peak though and look over once I’m home and on my computer. Anxious to see it.