The argument here isn't so much that the harm from cannabis is mild-- though it helps-- but that the harm caused by criminal organizations and otherwise handling recreational drug use as a criminal problem is greater.
I see Kori summed this up pretty well but I'll go from my angle a bit on it. Libertarians principle tends to be slightly more to the "right" on the conservative scale in regards to governmental conservatism than your average Republican and even many general conservatives. The notion of "anything that doesn't harm others shouldn't be dealt with by the government" is part of this. Its where you have libertarians breaking with Republicans in regards to assisted suicide for example as well.
So the main argument you're making is most likely to have the greatest impact on the one group that has the largest percentage of its population already in favor of what you want.
This is not necessarily bad, and it seems this is more you having a particular theory and a pet issue, and pushing it because it interests you rather than trying to have some kind of tangible or realistic effect. In which case, you're dead on and doing a good job of that. I am simply saying that if your goal is not primarily from a philosophical and ideological but from a persuasive and activist stand point that a shift in your focus would be needed. But it seems your desire is more for the former, in which case your focus is perfectly find and well reasoned.
Not necessarily simply the bible but cultural tradition. Cultural tradition in the country is that drugs are bad. While TECHNICALLY alcohol and caffeine are drugs, technically people are animals but every day people don't normally view ourselves as such do they? Marijuana, despite all the evidence you may present, is traditionally and culturally ingrained in many people to be more in line with coke and heroin then it is Jack Daniels and Budweiser, because of no other reason but its illegality and classification as a drug for the majority of these individuals lives. The notion of legalizing it is the notion of turning a cultural norm and standard on its head, in turning what they were taught by their parents and what they've taught their children into essentially a falsehood, and to establish in their mind the slippery slope possibility of "if we let one drug in, how quick will they use the same kind of arguments to get more". Its not necessarily the "Bible", as much as it is the cultural and societal traditions amongst many in America.
There could be numerous reasons for various others to not want it. Take Diane Fienstien, an unabashed liberal democrat, in regards to California's recent efforts as needing to be defeated because, as she describe it, legalization would be "a jumbled legal nightmare that will make our highways, our workplaces and our communities less safe." ... There's also the issues of combinations, as if I remember correctly studies generally find that Alcohol + Marijuana is more dangerous in regards to it affects than either substance on its own. So you have the safety issue as one of the possibilities.
The legal issues are one as well, in regards to the difficulty of it. People talk about how much it'd save in bureaucracy in regards to law enforcement, but one must look also at the difficulties in establishing it. To my knowledge there's no easy way to test for intoxication by marijuana like there is for alcohol to manage DUI issues. You have the unquestionable public issues that would arise if outdoor smoking of it is as allowable as cigarettes due to the persistence of stereotypes and the lacking of true, thorough, long term, studies in regards to second hand smoke from marijuana. That's going to cause constant issues with regards to it. While we can use alcohol and tobacco as a baseline for many things with it, neither are a direct analog so the issue of putting laws down that makes it reasonable and addresses concerns is going to likely be far from simple.
It annoys me a bit when people suggest there's no reasonable reason to oppose legalization. There is. There may be reasons you DISAGREE with. ... But neither makes either side inherently unreasonable with regards to any and every argument being made against/for it.
(The last bit wasn't specific to you reef, just a general thing)
I'm sad to say it, but if you're even capable of naming the philosophical thinkers behind your political ideals, you're not part of the mainstream. The Enlightenment itself was a massive intellectual revolt against the authoritarian governments of the day, and almost all of its political philosophers-- except Hobbes-- formed the basis of classic liberalism. Liberalism essentially split into two movements in the early 20th Century, between those liberals who absorbed progressive ideals and those who absorbed anarchist ideals. I think most people would agree that the classic liberals today would be considered moderate libertarians, while the modern Libertarian Party is more hardline-- having absorbed many of the arguments and beliefs of the anarchist movement.
It's not really the Bible. It's the political philosophies of Calvin and Hobbes with Biblical justification.
I wasn't sure what to call the third, either. Not fiscal conservatives, quite, but anyone who considers financial responsibility and balanced budgets a paramount concern. As far as moderate conservatives, I'd say it's a matter of whether they're more heavily influenced by social conservatism or fiscal conservatism, but generally they consider the two to be intrinsically linked. Immoral and irresponsible behavior lead to financial ruin and dependence upon government programs.
As far as modern liberals go, you're looking at people who basically agree with your concept of harm, except they believe you have to have the means to exercise your rights in order for the existence of those rights to be meaningful; they're the people who took on the progressive mantle of seeking to alleviate poverty and establish strong social safety nets. It's a matter of convincing them that keeping people out of prison is more important than keeping them off drugs. Aside from libertarians, they're the group most likely to support legalization already.
They're the people that gave us the first Prohibition. You tell me.
I try not to speak for other people; I'm painting with a broad enough brush already. But yes, generally they believe that people do need to be protected from themselves and from the power of exploitative marketing. This is close to my own position, which is why I support legalization only in the context of strict regulatory controls.
The argument here isn't so much that the harm from cannabis is mild-- though it helps-- but that the harm caused by criminal organizations and otherwise handling recreational drug use as a criminal problem is greater.
This is dead on target here, and deserves to stand by itself.Korimyr the Rat said:The argument here isn't so much that the harm from cannabis is mild-- though it helps-- but that the harm caused by criminal organizations and otherwise handling recreational drug use as a criminal problem is greater.
After a quick read through of your post I will at least give you a few of the initial thoughts I had as to what walls and rebuttals you could potentially run into regarding your counters.
Social Conservative: Alcohol is immoral too and/or why should we add another negative behavior to the list then?
Progressive: interestingly enough on the basis of the assumed argument/counter a similar rebuttal to the conservative.. why add another?? Hit them with freeing up of monies from legal proceedings and incarcerations and let them fill in the blanks as to what that money can be used for.. perhaps suggest that a fraction of the criminal justice savings can go a long way towards education prevention and rehabilitio, and thus potentially offset the harm you conceded in the long term.
Economic Conservative: with your counter argument their first thought may be.. how do we deal with loss of productivity due to alcoholics?
Liberal: gloss over the thoughts on public smoking, many people (not just liberals) would rather not see it an option in public at all, mere mention of this instantly brings up thoughts and images of public intoxication driving while intoxicated and since i made mention of that.. quick tangent ty for the saliva test link, that is news to me, I need to look into that more.
Libertarian,, I would stay away from the studies show people are safer drivers argument as much as you can, it is always met with incredulity, and people will automatically start to doubt your credibility before you even have a chance to elaborate.. plus despite the studies they are still intoxicated, and they are likely only appearing to be safer because they are driving like paranoid old ladies. best avoid that argument altogether
edit:well i was gonna edit this a bit when i saw it was sloppy and kinda hard to read, but its 5am, which also explains why it is sloppy in the first place. no edit other than this disclaimer... too tired.
What do you mean: "they believe you have to have the means to exercise your rights in order for the existence of those rights to be meaningful"? How does that apply to marijuana?
Since it is close to your position, do people make such bad decisions that they need protecting from themselves? I can see how exploitative marketing will target such people. How do you protect the people, regulation?
Classic liberals believe in freedom as the absence of government (or other coercive power) intervention. Modern liberals believe that government intervention is necessary to protect freedom, and that in order to be free a person must have not just permission to act on their rights, but the ability to do so-- the root of "liberal" big government is their attempts to ensure that people have, or can get, the basic necessities so that they can be free to exercise their rights. As for how it applies to the marijuana debate, their philosophy splits between the idea that a person might ought to have bodily sovereignty and the idea that a person impaired by or dependent upon drugs might not be capable of making effective decisions for themselves.
As a direct case in point, look at all the financial and legal havoc wreaked upon peoples' lives because of misguided drug policy and how they still use cannabis and other, more directly harmful drugs. Even with all of the advertising and educational efforts we make to steer people away from drug abuse, people still destroy their lives with alarming regularity.
Or to stray from the topic, we can examine the obesity epidemic and some of its root causes. Tobacco. Multi-level marketing schemes. Email scams. High-risk mortgages.
And yes, I believe the answer is regulation. Require that consumer products be as pure, wholesome, and safe as possible and that they have adequate consumer warnings when they are not. Prohibit deceptive advertising, advertising targeted to children, and for the worst products, advertising on the television or the radio. Tax unhealthy products at higher rates to discourage consumption and use the extra revenue to launch further education campaigns to help people make healthier choices. Ban exploitative business models. Limit interest rates. Take every prudent, reasonable measure to make healthier, safer choices easier for people to make and more harmful, more dangerous choices more expensive and more difficult.
For all intents and purposes, my position is best described as the combination of the social conservative and progressive positions. I tend to conflate what is normal, what is healthy, and what is moral and I believe that the State's purpose is to promote all three. I believe that people making poor choices for themselves and their families leads to moral degeneracy and more tangible social ills and strains society's resources, making it more difficult for society as a whole-- through the State, Industry, and other institutions-- to promote what is best and most fit.
Second, you say: "the idea that a person impaired by or dependent upon drugs might not be capable of making effective decisions for themselves". So here big government seems to threaten to make people's decisions for them if they are found to be incapable of doing so themselves. Very scary. How does government determine who is fit to make their own decisions or not? Can people not be free to make bad decisions? This is related to the second questions I asked below.
So people's ability to exercise their rights is a function of having their basic necessities met? This is a tough pill to swallow since it opens the door to entitlements and its scope is dependent on what you define as basic necessities. Food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, internet, ... This is one aspect of a big government - one that spends a lot of money on people that don't earn their way in the world. It fosters that dependence, which I believe you said you object to.
Second, you say: "the idea that a person impaired by or dependent upon drugs might not be capable of making effective decisions for themselves". So here big government seems to threaten to make people's decisions for them if they are found to be incapable of doing so themselves. Very scary. How does government determine who is fit to make their own decisions or not? Can people not be free to make bad decisions? This is related to the second questions I asked below.
Seems this is an argument that the War on Drugs is a failure, and that is not even accounting for all the crime that the War on Drugs creates.
Demand has gone up over the years. You cannot force people to make good decisions.
I think the government role in addressing these issues should be limited. This probably makes me more of a libertarian than a Whig.
I can agree with most of these regulations. But they have to be balanced by the cost in implementing them. That cost is a barrier to entry for small business, who can ill afford to pay it. This preserves the market to established companies and is a form of market protectionism. This is wrong.
It should not be left to the government to decide what is healthy or moral. That is up to the people and if the cost for that freedom is poor decisions, then that's a reality we must accept.
Yes, it is. But it still demonstrates my point that people make decisions so poorly that they must be protected from themselves. As I've noted before, my problem with the War on Drugs is not the goals, but the methodologies. I support legalization, but my goals are still to reduce the incidence of drug use in America, keep drugs away from kids, and reduce the amount of damage caused by recreational drug use to society.
I support the government's involvement because my political philosophy is rooted in concern for societal fitness rather than individual rights.
I don't share your assessment of market protectionism. The State should work closely with Corporations for the good of society, by ensuring that the Corporations support the State's goals.
I disagree. We are the government; it is an expression of our united Will as a nation. To say that the government cannot decide what is healthy and what is moral is to say that we, as a culture, cannot define these values for ourselves.
This opens the door to blatant defiance of cultural norms and other forms of degenerate behavior and leads to a sharp decline in the unity and fitness of a nation. I think the American people have been in such a state for the last fifty years, and every day I am reminded of the toll that it takes on our values and our ability to exert ourselves politically, economically, and militarily. I do not believe that this is a reality we must accept; if human rights or civil rights interfere with what is necessary for power, for survival, then I believe that it is those rights which must give way.
That guy is awesome in concert.
A great showman. :thumbs:
Simple but controversial question. It's a well know fact that it is less dangerous than Tobacco and Alcohol yet we imprison almost 1 million people every year for simple possession. The government spends billions every year fighting Marijuana yet it just proves to be futile. It is also considered medically useful for over 200 diseases and illnesses.
Ok my intro is somewhat biased
to counter my point
Marijuana makes black people go crazy and rape white women. It also kills brain cells and takes away all motivation and turns you into a pacifist!
It should be legalized, but only under strict regulatory controls.
Yeah, I saw him in Winston-Salem about 16 years ago. Awesome!