• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Marijuana be legalized?

Should Marijuana be legalized?


  • Total voters
    78
I am curious as to who the invisible troll is that is stuffing the ballot box.

So far 38 of the 40 no votes have been anonymous. mrbassline is that you?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

I would love to see Kori and a well composed, informed libertarian go the rounds on morality and the role of government.

The idea that libertarians are more conservative that Conservatives takes some getting used to. I don't think a linear axis is suitable.

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.

I would like it to be persuasive, of course. :) This is why I am trying to get at the root of these other conclusions about harm, see if I can construct an argument to address them.

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.

This makes sense, but it is a sad thing. In the 1930's there was a concerted campaign to paint marijuana as "reefer madness", to paint it as a racist drug with corresponding dangers to white women, and to establish it as a drug promoting immorality. These activities created the cultural tradition that we are now faced with. The only way I can think to address this is to call out the activities originally used to paint it in a negative light.

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.

As far as screening goes, they have this technology: 5 Panel Oral Saliva Test :: Oral Drug Tests :: Arham International, Inc.. That will only get more sophisticated.

So let me try to sum up the various interpretations of harm due to marijuana, by various groups:

  • Social Conservative: violates a cultural tradition of marijuana being viewed as a drug, in a negative light. Viewed as immoral. Counter: deconstruct "reefer madness" and observe that marijuana is no more immoral than alcohol.
  • Progressive: harm is done to self. Counter: some mild harm may occur, especially in chronic users. This is not as bad as the harm from alcohol.
  • Economic Conservative: widespread use will lead to loss in productivity. Counter: most users are not chronic and would not lead to productivity loss. May lead to productivity gain. Chronic users would be dealt with like alcoholics.
  • Liberal: harm due to tangled legal situation. Safety is a concern, especially combining marijuana use with alcohol. Counter: clean up the laws. Issues such as enforcement - use saliva testing, outdoor smoking - establish smoking zones, and risks from second hand smoke - begin research. Responsibility to be safe when consuming drugs like alcohol and marijuana.
  • Libertarian: harm done to others - violence, operating vehicles, second hand smoke. Counter: studies show violence is unrelated to marijuana use. It is the responsibility of the use to not operate vehicles, just like with alcohol. Studies show that people are safer drivers when high from marijuana. Safe smoking zones and other rules prevent second hand smoke risks, just like with cigarettes.


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 understand it wasn't. ;-) The first bit was, since I was claiming that a "harm to others" interpretation of the Harm Principle was the only correct one. My ways have been exposed! I see the need to create arguments on the ground others occupy and on the "harm" issues they are concerned about.

My list above is an attempt to summarize both the perceived harm and the counter argument. If you have the time and are willing, feedback on my understanding of the harm done from each perspective would be very helpful. Feedback on the coherency of my counter arguments would likewise be useful.

Thanks!
Rob
 
Scenario #1: Marijuana is ILLEGAL
Marijuana is produced in foreign countries under uncontrollable conditions by cartels. The cartels expend much money and manpower in their own countries bribing officials, fighting authorities, etc... in order to ensure steady production. These cartels exploit poor people as mules and spend a lot of money/energy on attempting to get it in to the country. In turn, the US government spends billions annually on diverting manpower to attempt to track and catch these criminals, and to prevent the drugs from entering the country. The drugs that do get through are sold on the street by individuals and gangs, which leads to a massive increase in violence due to drug-related crimes. The US government spends billions of dollars on law enforcement, processing and incarcerating criminals. The legal system gets backed up months or even years due to these drug related cases. Prisons get packed with criminals incarcerated for drug-related offenses. The US government spends billions expanding and maintaining this extensive prison system, including a diversion of manpower into these prisons. Meanwhile, users are prone to being robbed/killed, purchasing bad product, running the risk of having their product tainted or laced, and also have to pay an extremely inflated price due to the illegality of the drug, which diverts disposable income into illegal activities and ultimately out of the US economy.

Scenario #2: Marijuana is LEGAL
Companies produce the product competitively in controlled environments under FDA regulation. Product is taxed by the government. The price is driven down due to competition. Consumers pay much less. The health risks are known and advertised on the packaging. There is no more gang violence based on marijuana distribution. The prison and legal systems are no longer congested. The government saves trillions that it was previously diverting into "fighting the war on drugs". Abroad, cartel activity is severely damaged due to the black market on marijuana no longer being a source of revenue.

Any questions?
 
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.

I am sorry to say that I have only a passing knowledge of classical liberalism. I have all these books I have been intending to read... I am reading John Locke currently.

Even still, I would consider myself a classic liberal - a moderate libertarian. I have detected the stronger line that the Libertarian Party throws down. I like to think of the Whigs as that moderate position, even though we are going nowhere fast.

It's not really the Bible. It's the political philosophies of Calvin and Hobbes with Biblical justification.

That's awesome! :)

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.

My dad is a fiscal conservative, and as you just described it a social conservative - he feels irresponsible behavior leads 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.

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?


They're the people that gave us the first Prohibition. You tell me.

"Reefer Madness" was a brilliant, sustained propaganda campaign. They created a cultural animosity to smoking pot among social conservatives.

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.

You are very knowledgeable and I am glad you are painting with that size brush. I believe it is called comparative politics.

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?

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.

You mentioned this before ("It's a matter of convincing them that keeping people out of prison is more important than keeping them off drugs."). I totally agree with it, I've mentioned it before, and so I need to make reference to it when evaluating the total harm done by legalization. I'll defer to Marduc's quote of this.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
This is dead on target here, and deserves to stand by itself.

I totally dig this too. It makes me want to write equations showing the harm done in an illegal environment versus the harm done in a legal environment. Here ya go:

  • Harm(total illegal) = Harm(illegal users) + Harm(illegal supply) + Harm(criminal justice)
  • Harm(total legal) = Harm(legal users) + Harm(legal supply) + Harm(rehabilitation)
  • ----
  • Harm(criminal justice) = Harm(law enforcement) + Harm(foreign policy) + Harm(incarceration)
  • Harm(legal users) = Harm(illegal users) - The user population does not change, as shown by studies.
  • Harm(legal supply) << Harm(illegal supply) - No criminal organizations when legal.
  • Harm(legal supply) < 0 - Taxes collected
  • ----
  • Harm(total legal) << Harm(total illegal)
 
Last edited:
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.

Here's my update - what do you think? Thanks for the feedback!


So let me try to sum up the various interpretations of harm due to marijuana, by various groups:

  • Social Conservative: violates a cultural tradition of marijuana being viewed as a drug, in a negative light. Viewed as immoral. Counter: deconstruct "reefer madness" and observe that marijuana is no more immoral than alcohol. There is a difference between what is legal/illegal and what is moral/immoral. It is better to have a high-demand intoxicant like marijuana in a legal status so we can regulate and monitor use for rehabilitation.
  • Progressive: harm is done to self. Counter: some mild harm may occur, especially in chronic users. This is not as bad as the harm from alcohol. What it will do is free up monies from legal proceedings and incarcerations. This money can go a long way towards education prevention and rehabilition, and thus potentially offset the harm conceded in the long term.
  • Economic Conservative: widespread use will lead to loss in productivity. Counter: most users are not chronic and would not lead to productivity loss. May lead to productivity gain. Chronic users would be dealt with like alcoholics. Education and rehabilitation will offset this and be paid for by criminal justice savings.
  • Liberal: harm due to tangled legal situation. Safety is a concern, especially combining marijuana use with alcohol. Counter: clean up the laws with issues such as enforcement - use saliva testing, outdoor smoking - establish smoking zones - no smoking in public? Responsibility to be safe when consuming drugs like alcohol and marijuana.
  • Libertarian: harm done to others - violence, operating vehicles, second hand smoke. Counter: studies show violence is unrelated to marijuana use. It is the responsibility of the use to not operate vehicles, just like with alcohol. Safe smoking zones and other rules prevent second hand smoke risks, just like with cigarettes.
 
ok.. im still awake although I am half brain dead, damn insomnia, so this is just going to be things that kind of jump out at me I am not thinhking deeply int to this.

Social conservative: You are not going to persuade them to change what they think is moral or immoral, so with this new angle and especially in light of your harm concept, perhaps get them thinking about the immoralities that result from prohibition: trafficking, gang culture,violence, disrespect for authority.

progressives .. replace "potentially" with "eventually".

econ conserv. i dunno nothing jumps out, but i know there wil be objections, some will balk at the idea of paying for rehab despite it coming from newly freed up monies.

Liberal.. i dunno on that one.. nothing specific jumps out but i think it needs refinement

libertarian. i like how you redid the dui part on this

its all blurring on me must sleep...
 
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?

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.

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?

Yes. 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.
 
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.

It seems as if you are talking about two concepts here. I am struggling to identify them and understand how they fit. Talking about them here may help coalesce my thinking.

First, you say that modern liberals want to ensure that people have the ability to act on their rights. This seems to translate into "ensure that people have, or can get, the basic necessities so that they can be free to exercise their rights". 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.

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.

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.

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.

I think the government role in addressing these issues should be limited. This probably makes me more of a libertarian than a Whig.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

I had meant to ask whether there are examples of the government determining someone is incapable of making decisions for themselves. The only one I can come up with is if a person is found to be crazy and institutionalized. I suppose the forcing of products out of the market so they are unavailable fits as well.
 
I updated my site to include other perspectives on harm. Feedback welcome.
 
Sorry guys, didn't realize I set the poll so that guests could vote...Seems as though someone is flooding the poll with No.

Members count as of now

Yes-29
No-2
Other-1
I'd like to see the legalization of drugs expanded beyond Marijuana-16
 
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.

That's how the thinking goes, and that's how people whose philosophy is fundamentally liberal end up supporting a larger and more intrusive government.

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.

This was speculation on my part. I really don't understand how liberals-- of any stripe-- can support drug prohibition. It doesn't make sense to me.

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.

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.

Demand has gone up over the years. You cannot force people to make good decisions.

No, but statistically you can encourage it if your methodologies are effective.

I think the government role in addressing these issues should be limited. This probably makes me more of a libertarian than a Whig.

Honestly, I cannot picture any of the classic liberals believing that the government should address these issues, either. I support the government's involvement because my political philosophy is rooted in concern for societal fitness rather than individual rights.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

Believe it or not, I share your goals to a degree: 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 do think it is acceptable to alter your consciousness with recreational drugs, but they should be used responsibly and they should not cause damage. Being a long time cig smoker, I am wary of other serious addictions. I think that is harmful. Coke, heroin, meth are all very addictive. LSD, psilocybin and ecstasy are not very addictive. Marijuana is not very addictive. Legalize all of it, restrict coke, meth, and heroin. Chronic use is something I object to. Daily use of marijuana is excessive. I think the solution for this type of problem is what worked for cigarettes - no ads promoting, ads condemning. Education on the dangers. And of course minors cannot purchase drugs.


I support the government's involvement because my political philosophy is rooted in concern for societal fitness rather than individual rights.

Are you buying that society is fittest when people have the most individual freedom?

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. The State should serve the Corporation and create a healthy business environment.

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.

Morality should not be legislated. We the people form the government, but we should not use the government to set law that defines good behavior. Only limit behavior that impacts another's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.

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.

I totally disagree with this. We are a stronger nation economically, culturally, morally, militarily than 50 years ago. There are degeneracies and shortcomings, but the overall health is better. The rise of drugs and rock'n'roll had its negatives and it's positives. It is an expression of pure individualism. We have a high divorce rate and single parent families, but most have nothing to do with drugs. Still, we have non-traditional strengths with inventions of the digital age and raising kids in spite of it all. The real danger is too much government spending.
 
What's wrong with civilians shooting or snorting a little Marijuana?
 
Seems to me this subject is already settled by most anyone you speak with on the street. Alcohol is a far more powerful drug yet because of social mores regarding its usage it is legal. Just legalise it and stop all the nonsense. You’re creating a mainstream black market that other far more addictive drugs are being brought into mainstream use because it is illegal. This is a drug that is not addictive and has relatively low social expenses even compared to alcohol use.
 
This is another one of those issues whereby: I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household, and I thought what they told me to think. For a lot of years, I believed as they did on the big, important stuff. Then I started reading and understanding the flip side of the coin, which is why at the bright old age of 52 I strongly believe marijuana should be legalized.

The fact that I also believe that alcohol should be illegal should not be held against me.

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!
 
Back
Top Bottom