[Vpoll] Marijuana, Weed, Pot

[RDU Irish]

I'm sure if I really wanted to over analyze it I would end up calling myself a Republitarian or Libripublican. I find the hard line, no grey area generalities exhausting.

And as entertaining as the cartoon was, I think you could apply half of those descriptions to any three "parties" (R, D or L).

 

[ACamp1900]

I'm sure if I really wanted to over analyze it I would end up calling myself a Republitarian or Libripublican. I find the hard line, no grey area generalities exhausting.

I'm pretty much here, I'm a registered Rep. because I became very disenchanted and left the Democrat party about ten years back and went with the enemy of my enemy approach... but I've never been a 'good republican' according to the party platform.

 

[woolybug25]

Can you guys please take your Repub/Lib/Libertarian convo to the politics thread?

 

[Cackalacky]

You serious, Clark?

It maximizes itself. Houstonian plants a bunch of seeds so he can sell cheap apples. Another guy sells organic granny smiths. I need to lower my prices or improve my product to compete or I get no business. Competition drives prices down, while quality and variety go up. If prices go down too far, people leave the apple industry and go into citrus. When prices rise again, people re-enter the market. Equilibrium is reached on its own.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

It was facetious. And your Business 101 Invisible Hand example is just not true on large scale. Not even close. Well maybe for craigslist. This simple analogy has no corollary to major global markets. My point is that this libertarian idea of "free market" you are using does not work on the larger scale by itself. You really think that you could negotiate, transport, etc. on a large scale between locations (countries) that do not practice this free market you claim exists. All it takes is one person with more than you to put you out of business or a country that does not want your products. How about intellecutal property. IS that protected or also regulated by the invisible hand? Large portions of the economy are purely regulation driven. Massive amounts of money based on the implications of the actions (or inactions) of governments relative to others exist and will exist.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I'm annoyed when people use the "from the earth" argument. I understand if they are discussing the issue with someone of Christian belief, because they are likely appealing to them through Gen 1:29 where man is given "every seed-bearing plant", but outside of that context, it is misused.

And I hate the "no one has ever died from it" argument. Marijuana is a mind-altering drug and if someone is using it for the first time it's a very real possibility they could drive poorly, operate heavy machinery poorly, etc. The real purpose of that statement is probably to point out that you don't overdose on it. There is no critical amount even in heavy usage that will cause someone to die.

But, we are still talking about a drug whose most comment method of use is smoking. Smoke is bad for your lungs. Each of us has a different critical point where our genetic inheritance, development and environmental conditions will result in cancer. Anything that has statistical correlation with cancer is bad and smoking is one of those things.

It is almost guaranteed that marijuana smoking has led to cancer in countless individuals, proving that it was marijuana and not other conditions is impossible but it's not a reason to be intellectually dishonest about something.

Marijuana carries inherent risk because of it's method of consumption and it's psychoactive effects. End of story.

But, it is still a very mild drug and should be legalized for countless reasons. Alcohol can lead to liver failure/cancer and it routinely leads to bad decisions that increase the chance of injury but we keep it in our social gatherings and make it a part of most celebrations.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm sure if I really wanted to over analyze it I would end up calling myself a Republitarian or Libripublican. I find the hard line, no grey area generalities exhausting.

And as entertaining as the cartoon was, I think you could apply half of those descriptions to any three "parties" (R, D or L).

Nailed it.

 

[RDU Irish]

On the "free market," how does the market deal with capitalism's economies of scale and industries being doomed to form oligopolies? I guess what I'm saying is that if the bigger you are the cheaper your costs per item are, increasing your advantage over smaller businesses and eventually we end up with oligopolies, where the benefits of competition, which the free market folk constantly bring up, seem to diminish.

Corporate cronyism compounds that problem, doesn't it? Increasing barriers to entry only reduces new entrants. Why compete when you can have gubment regulate and mandate your way to less competition, all in the name of the common good of course.

So do we need more rules and regulations or less? Isn't that the most basic premise of whether you agree with Libertarians on any level? I am sure we could find areas that need more rules and regulations but I strongly believe we could erase 5 rules from the books for every new one for quite a while before the scales tip too far in the wrong direction.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm annoyed when people use the "from the earth" argument. I understand if they are discussing the issue with someone of Christian belief, because they are likely appealing to them through Gen 1:29 where man is given "every seed-bearing plant", but outside of that context, it is misused.

And I hate the "no one has ever died from it" argument. Marijuana is a mind-altering drug and if someone is using it for the first time it's a very real possibility they could drive poorly, operate heavy machinery poorly, etc. The real purpose of that statement is probably to point out that you don't overdose on it. There is no critical amount even in heavy usage that will cause someone to die.

But, we are still talking about a drug whose most comment method of use is smoking. Smoke is bad for your lungs. Each of us has a different critical point where our genetic inheritance, development and environmental conditions will result in cancer. Anything that has statistical correlation with cancer is bad and smoking is one of those things.

It is almost guaranteed that marijuana smoking has led to cancer in countless individuals, proving that it was marijuana and not other conditions is impossible but it's not a reason to be intellectually dishonest about something.

Marijuana carries inherent risk because of it's method of consumption and it's psychoactive effects. End of story.

But, it is still a very mild drug and should be legalized for countless reasons. Alcohol can lead to liver failure/cancer and it routinely leads to bad decisions that increase the chance of injury but we keep it in our social gatherings and make it a part of most celebrations.

All of those things are swell reasons to choose not to smoke pot, but not very compelling reasons to ban it.

 

[ACamp1900]

All of those things are swell reasons to choose not to smoke pot, but not very compelling reasons to ban it.

Did you read his last two sentences?... I agreed with his entire post.

 

[RDU Irish]

I'm annoyed when people use the "from the earth" argument. I understand if they are discussing the issue with someone of Christian belief, because they are likely appealing to them through Gen 1:29 where man is given "every seed-bearing plant", but outside of that context, it is misused.

And I hate the "no one has ever died from it" argument. Marijuana is a mind-altering drug and if someone is using it for the first time it's a very real possibility they could drive poorly, operate heavy machinery poorly, etc. The real purpose of that statement is probably to point out that you don't overdose on it. There is no critical amount even in heavy usage that will cause someone to die.

But, we are still talking about a drug whose most comment method of use is smoking. Smoke is bad for your lungs. Each of us has a different critical point where our genetic inheritance, development and environmental conditions will result in cancer. Anything that has statistical correlation with cancer is bad and smoking is one of those things.

It is almost guaranteed that marijuana smoking has led to cancer in countless individuals, proving that it was marijuana and not other conditions is impossible but it's not a reason to be intellectually dishonest about something.

Marijuana carries inherent risk because of it's method of consumption and it's psychoactive effects. End of story.

But, it is still a very mild drug and should be legalized for countless reasons. Alcohol can lead to liver failure/cancer and it routinely leads to bad decisions that increase the chance of injury but we keep it in our social gatherings and make it a part of most celebrations.

I was going to berate you for promoting a nanny state until I read the bolded. Yeah, if people want to do bad things to themselves that is the dirty underbelly of a free society.

 

[wizards8507]

Did you read his last two sentences?... I agreed with his entire post.

Yes. But his post taken in its entirety (including the last two sentences) implies that the story would be different if the effects of smoking marijuana were more than "very mild." Again, I'm very big into intellectual consistency, and I'm guessing that Veritate is happy with heroin, cocaine, and other "hard" drugs being illegal.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Yes. But his post taken in its entirety (including the last two sentences) implies that the story would be different if the effects of smoking marijuana were more than "very mild." Again, I'm very big into intellectual consistency, and I'm guessing that Veritate is happy with heroin, cocaine, and other "hard" drugs being illegal.

I don't believe it is intellectually inconsistent to say that some things should be allowed and some things should not. I'm okay with people fist fighting but I'm not okay with murder. It's not all or none because this isn't an issue of morality (at least for me and many arguing on either side). If it were morality and we were discussing something like the sanctity of life, then I will quickly tell you I am pro-life and anti-death penalty because I want to be consistent.

I believe any drug that doesn't lead to society-degrading behavior should be legal. Marijuana doesn't result in physiological dependance and it doesn't result in outlandish behavior (unless you think tie-dyed shirts fall in this category). Outlandish behavior, in this post, is deemed to be what you often see with users of heroine, cocaine, PCP, meth, etc.

Hard drug use reduces stability of it's users, of the families of users and ultimately of the government. It's in the country's best interest to minimize it's use through law. Meth destroys the teeth and rots the nasal septum and it's users are often the burden of taxpayers as they age. It could be considered an epidemic in the midwest (not sure about the rest of the country). It also causes irrational behavior that can harm the public.

Same can be said for cocaine, heroin, meth and PCP. I'm not saying that all drugs don't harm, because they do but we're talking about gradations here. Hard drugs result in the above with greater frequency and greater deleterious effects. So I draw a line, not arbitrary but rather, defined by evidence.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't believe it is intellectually inconsistent to say that some things should be allowed and some things should not. I'm okay with people fist fighting but I'm not okay with murder. It's not all or none because this isn't an issue of morality (at least for me and many arguing on either side). If it were morality and we were discussing something like the sanctity of life, then I will quickly tell you I am pro-life and anti-death penalty because I want to be consistent.

I believe any drug that doesn't lead to society-degrading behavior should be legal. Marijuana doesn't result in physiological dependance and it doesn't result in outlandish behavior (unless you think tie-dyed shirts fall in this category). Outlandish behavior, in this post, is deemed to be what you often see with users of heroine, cocaine, PCP, meth, etc.

Hard drug use reduces stability of it's users, of the families of users and ultimately of the government. It's in the country's best interest to minimize it's use through law. Meth destroys the teeth and rots the nasal septum and it's users are often the burden of taxpayers as they age. It could be considered an epidemic in the midwest (not sure about the rest of the country). It also causes irrational behavior that can harm the public.

Same can be said for cocaine, heroin, meth and PCP. I'm not saying that all drugs don't harm, because they do but we're talking about gradations here. Hard drugs result in the above with greater frequency and greater deleterious effects. So I draw a line, not arbitrary but rather, defined by evidence.

But if the "victim" of these acts is the user, who cares? The government is responsible for protecting the innocent from bad actors, but not protecting the bad actors from themselves. I firmly believe that a person should be allowed to poison themselves but, in response to the bolded, this could never be implemented as long as we have healthcare and other welfare systems that put the burden of those decisions on the taxpayers.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Does anyone know the percentage of addicts that started out using pot and then went to the harder drugs? Pot is known as a gateway drug and I would think that the costs associated with hard drug addiction can be traced back to first using pot. For the record, I smoked pot one time in my life. I decided I liked beer better at the time. Thankfully, I don't drink any more. My reference point for any type of illegal drug usage isn't there.

 

[RDU Irish]

Baby steps, wiz.

Most drugs are legal, you just have to spend $150/visit at your doctor getting a script. Then go to rehab if you get a dependency. Unless you are poor, then you go to the drug dealer and risk ending up in jail if you get caught. Until people acknowledge the hypocrisy of the current system of "Poor people go to jail, rich go to rehab", we will have to settle for marginal improvements like pot legalization. Most choose to ignore the hypocrisy and live in a bubble. Don't see that changing in my lifetime.

 

[RDU Irish]

Does anyone know the percentage of addicts that started out using pot and then went to the harder drugs? Pot is known as a gateway drug and I would think that the costs associated with hard drug addiction can be traced back to first using pot. For the record, I smoked pot one time in my life. I decided I liked beer better at the time. Thankfully, I don't drink any more. My reference point for any type of illegal drug usage isn't there.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Marijuana as a Gateway Drug: The Myth That Will Not Die | TIME.com

If anything, I think drug dealers create the gateway, such as the touch on in this article. I can easily see the scenario where legal pot reduces the number of people trying other hard core drugs.

 

[Cackalacky]

What's everyone's thoughts on privatized jails? Should we have them to hold drug offenders with the profit motive being the same as a commercial hotel (100% occupancy)?

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

But if the "victim" of these acts is the user, who cares? The government is responsible for protecting the innocent from bad actors, but not protecting the bad actors from themselves. I firmly believe that a person should be allowed to poison themselves but, in response to the bolded, this could never be implemented as long as we have healthcare and other welfare systems that put the burden of those decisions on the taxpayers.

Sorry, I thought I was being more clear. The users aren't just hurting themselves, they are hurting their families and they are hurting the taxpayer with our current healthcare and welfare structures. You called it out at the end but I want to make sure it's understood, this is what I was alluding to.

And hard drug behavior is a threat to society at large. I don't want to get a bullet to the chest because some tweaker thought I was po-po. Irrational behavior is dangerous.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Marijuana as a Gateway Drug: The Myth That Will Not Die | TIME.com

If anything, I think drug dealers create the gateway, such as the touch on in this article. I can easily see the scenario where legal pot reduces the number of people trying other hard core drugs.

Thanks. Interesting article.

 

[RDU Irish]

Sorry, I thought I was being more clear. The user isn't just hurting themselves. They are hurting their family and they are hurting the taxpayer with our current healthcare and welfare structures. You called it out at the end but I want to make sure it's understood, this is what I was alluding to.

They are also ruining the springs on the couch in their mom's basement. People make plenty of non-drug decisions in life that have the same negative consequences. You could argue many of the same things about cheeseburgers and 32 oz sodas. Oh, wait. Nanny state is already all over that, right Mr. Bloomberg.

 

[wizards8507]

And hard drug behavior is a threat to society at large. I don't want to get a bullet to the chest because some tweaker thought I was po-po. Irrational behavior is dangerous.

Have you ever been shot in the chest because some tweaker thought you were po-po?

Do you honestly think there's a line of people wanting to try cocaine if only it were legal? I don't. Anyone who wants to do hard drugs already is. It's not like legalization will cause a huge spike in drug use, because those who WANT to do hard drugs are ignoring the law anyways.*

If someone commits a crime while under the influence of drugs, punish them for that crime. You don't ban something because it MIGHT make someone more likely to act out. It's called "proximate cause."

Disclaimer: I am NOT saying "drugs should be legalized because people do it anyways." That's a weak argument. I'm just illustrating that the impact of legalization would be much less than you imply.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

They are also ruining the springs on the couch in their mom's basement. People make plenty of non-drug decisions in life that have the same negative consequences. You could argue many of the same things about cheeseburgers and 32 oz sodas. Oh, wait. Nanny state is already all over that, right Mr. Bloomberg.

Are you okay with a tax on unhealthy foods since your taxes will be paying for healthcare? I am, same reason I'm okay if hard drugs are criminalized. I'm not for big government but if they have systems in place that require my taxes to cover those who make bad choices, I want bad choices taxed or outlawed.

And the totality of your argument is a bit of a non-sequitur. I can't argue that cheeseburgers and 32 oz sodas destroy families, destroy the user 'as quickly' (remember, we're talking gradations here) or lead to irrational behavior.

Have you ever been shot in the chest because some tweaker thought you were po-po?

Do you honestly think there's a line of people wanting to try cocaine if only it were legal? I don't. Anyone who wants to do hard drugs already is. It's not like legalization will cause a huge spike in drug use, because those who WANT to do hard drugs are ignoring the law anyways.*

If someone commits a crime while under the influence of drugs, punish them for that crime. You don't ban something because it MIGHT make someone more likely to act out. It's called "proximate cause."

Disclaimer: I am NOT saying "drugs should be legalized because people do it anyways." That's a weak argument. I'm just illustrating that the impact of legalization would be much less than you imply.

I don't believe acquiescing in situations where something is known to: harm the user, increase relative incidence of violence and destroy families. I could keep going with the negative effects seen in hard drug user populations.

Furthermore, there should be a need to reverse a previous ruling. Marijuana was given a scheduled drug status because a myriad of misinformation (and possibly other groups lobbying for it, still uncertain about those claims). So in revisiting those issues, I believe America would be justified in legalizing marijuana because prior claims have been deemed invalid, and no further evidence has been put forth to show major negative effects/consequences.

When looking at hard drugs, I still see major issues for it's users. I also see a problem with a country reversing it's ruling on hard drugs when those issues are known. America does what's in it's best interest, it appears to me that it's in America's best interest to keep these drugs illegal. What positives come from legalizing hard drugs? Clean needle programs? Help me because I've really never entertained this idea far enough to count the positives.

 

[Cackalacky]

 

[Buster Bluth]

Does anyone know the percentage of addicts that started out using pot and then went to the harder drugs? Pot is known as a gateway drug and I would think that the costs associated with hard drug addiction can be traced back to first using pot.

How many rapists start out as masturbators?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Are you okay with a tax on unhealthy foods since your taxes will be paying for healthcare? I am, same reason I'm okay if hard drugs are criminalized. I'm not for big government but if they have systems in place that require my taxes to cover those who make bad choices, I want bad choices taxed or outlawed.

I can't say I'm for taxing unhealthy foods as much as I think we should eliminate many of the subsidies for corn, soybean, etc, and switch them to healthier organic foods. Spinach and kale should be ridiculously cheap, the processed crap shouldn't be.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't think we'll agree at the end of this, but I think we'll understand one another.

Are you okay with a tax on unhealthy foods since your taxes will be paying for healthcare?

No, not even a little bit.

I am, same reason I'm okay if hard drugs are criminalized. I'm not for big government but if they have systems in place that require my taxes to cover those who make bad choices, I want bad choices taxed or outlawed.

...or just eliminate the system that "requires your taxes to cover those who make bad choices." People like to talk about "safety nets" and completely ignore moral hazard. Risky behavior is encouraged when you're not forced to bear the burden of your own stupid decisions.

And the totality of your argument is a bit of a non-sequitur. I can't argue that cheeseburgers and 32 oz sodas destroy families, destroy the user 'as quickly' (remember, we're talking gradations here) or lead to irrational behavior.

The issues are like in kind and merely differ in magnitude. The problem is, if you allow a line to be drawn somewhere on the spectrum, someone (i.e. a politician) is given precedent to move that line according to her or her personal beliefs. I'd just as soon not give him the marker to draw ANY lines in the first place.

I don't believe acquiescing in situations where something is known to: harm the user, increase relative incidence of violence and destroy families. I could keep going with the negative effects seen in hard drug user populations.

The "negative effects" argument is a non-starter because we see those effects NOW and hard drugs ARE illegal. Negative effects are caused by "drug use," independent of whether that drug use is legal or illegal.

Furthermore, there should be a need to reverse a previous ruling. Marijuana was given a scheduled drug status because a myriad of misinformation (and possibly other groups lobbying for it, still uncertain about those claims). So in revisiting those issues, I believe America would be justified in legalizing marijuana because prior claims have been deemed invalid, and no further evidence has been put forth to show major negative effects/consequences.

You're viewing this based on what we have NOW and saying there ought to be a good reason to change things. I like your logic but disagree with the starting point. I start in the philosophical "state of nature" where everything is legal and there ought to be a good reason to change things. My best argument for why we should legalize drugs is that they never should have been made illegal in the first place.

When looking at hard drugs, I still see major issues for it's users. I also see a problem with a country reversing it's ruling on hard drugs when those issues are known. America does what's in it's best interest, it appears to me that it's in America's best interest to keep these drugs illegal. What positives come from legalizing hard drugs? Clean needle programs? Help me because I've really never entertained this idea far enough to count the positives.

I'm not trying to say there are "positives" from legalizing hard drugs. I don't much care about the utilitarian pros and cons list of the potential impact it would have. In a free society, individuals should be able to do whatever the heck they want, regardless of the outcome on society. "Society" is an abstract concept that is nothing more than the sum of the individuals that make it up. If hard drug use causes an individual to commit an act that hurts another individual, then that act should be punished. I categorically reject the notion that it should be punished because the individual hurts HIMSELF and therefore harms "society."

 

[wizards8507]

I can't say I'm for taxing unhealthy foods as much as I think we should eliminate many of the subsidies for corn, soybean, etc, and switch them to healthier organic foods. Spinach and kale should be ridiculously cheap, the processed crap shouldn't be.

...or just end subsidies all together maybe?

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I don't think we'll agree at the end of this, but I think we'll understand one another.


No, not even a little bit.


...or just eliminate the system that "requires your taxes to cover those who make bad choices." People like to talk about "safety nets" and completely ignore moral hazard. Risky behavior is encouraged when you're not forced to bear the burden of your own stupid decisions.


The issues are like in kind and merely differ in magnitude. The problem is, if you allow a line to be drawn somewhere on the spectrum, someone (i.e. a politician) is given precedent to move that line according to her or her personal beliefs. I'd just as soon not give him the marker to draw ANY lines in the first place.


The "negative effects" argument is a non-starter because we see those effects NOW and hard drugs ARE illegal. Negative effects are caused by "drug use," independent of whether that drug use is legal or illegal.


You're viewing this based on what we have NOW and saying there ought to be a good reason to change things. I like your logic but disagree with the starting point. I start in the philosophical "state of nature" where everything is legal and there ought to be a good reason to change things. My best argument for why we should legalize drugs is that they never should have been made illegal in the first place.


I'm not trying to say there are "positives" from legalizing hard drugs. I don't much care about the utilitarian pros and cons list of the potential impact it would have. In a free society, individuals should be able to do whatever the heck they want, regardless of the outcome on society. "Society" is an abstract concept that is nothing more than the sum of the individuals that make it up. If hard drug use causes an individual to commit an act that hurts another individual, then that act should be punished. I categorically reject the notion that it should be punished because the individual hurts HIMSELF and therefore harms "society."

It makes sense to me where you stand and it is consistent. I'm the person who believes certain lines should be drawn when the sanctity of human life is threatened or if there is a "moral" utilitarian gain to be had (meaning utility that doesn't violate morality, not moral utility). This is how my wallet votes and this is how I vote. It makes it difficult because I don't fit squarely in either political camp.

I can simply agree to disagree, Wizard. We don't begin with the same 'a priori' for this discussion and to be honest, I vacillate between wanting "zero government interference" and "limited government interference" so I'm sympathetic to your views.

 

[GoIrish41]

What's everyone's thoughts on privatized jails? Should we have them to hold drug offenders with the profit motive being the same as a commercial hotel (100% occupancy)?

In a word ... no.

 

[Buster Bluth]

...or just end subsidies all together maybe?

Plenty of subsidies make sense. Corn and soybean subsidies don't.