Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[i2amroy]

I made a helpful (yet horrible ) graph of the way I see things:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As you can see most legalization attempts cause less harm, but they overshoot where I'm going for. Since it's much easier to move right than left on the graph, it would be better to simply write a properly limiting law that slightly relaxes the rules than to go all of the way to where most current attempts land and then try to work our way back.

Are you seriously doubling down on curbing people's freedoms for the 'greater good' as decided arbitrarily by yourself...? At this point I can't tell if you're trolling or just severely misled by your own paternalism.

Once again, give me a link or ten backing up your assertion that cannabis a) causes any amount of harm, injury, grievance to people who aren't the ingester. This includes robbery, rape, and assault. I'm giving you a large net to cast. Go find the numbers. b) is safer because it's illegal. Have fun!

As I've mentioned before, the hard numbers don't exist in a lot of cases, simply because nobody has studied them in-depth yet, or because we do studies with titles like "Paranoia effects of Cannabis" without pointing out how, exactly, paranoia causes harm. I've already given you one link, which is by itself, enough to give me reasonable cause to defend my point. I could throw more data at you, but I don't really see the point since you are already ignoring the data I've given.

And yeah, as I've said I would gladly go all of the way and if I could magically stop everyone from doing harm to others I would. As that's currently impossible in the real world I'm forced to place a single goal above it, preservation of your own life, but otherwise that is my ultimate goal. So if you wanna call that paternalism than yeah, I'd double down on it gladly. As I've already stated, the difference between us on that point comes down to that I am willing to push all of the way in trading freedom for inability to hurt others and you are not.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

but I don't really see the point since you are already ignoring the data I've given.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/marijuana.pdf

Here you go since you can't find it yourself mate. Go ahead and let me know which of these deaths were caused by cannabis. This is a compilation of deaths tenuously linked to cannabis up till 2005. I'm sure you can find one which must be caused by just cannabis and not cocaine and other intake. This will justify you wanting to cut off people's freedoms. Slippery slope, that's what you're on.

[4maskwolf]

I'm not liking the hostility I'm reading off of certain people.  If this keeps up I'm going to have to lock the thread for a day to let people cool off.

[AlleeCat]

And how about over-the-counter drugs that can be abused, should those be banned as well? How about Mcdonalds for causing people to die of heart attacks with non-food?

Over-the-counter drugs have significant medical benefits, so I'd be against them being banned, but I would favor making it harder to obtain any that have had their abuse linked with increased harm to others (without a valid medical reason).

THC has medical benefits. Pain suppressant, anxiety relief, stress relief, mood stabilization... They make stuff that has all of these effects, without the impairing effects of a high. Also, look at states where it's legal. If anything, crime goes down. I guarantee you nobody has killed anyone because they were high on pot unless they had a pre-existing mental condition that was exacerbated by it. Weed doesn't make you want to hurt people. In fact, in most cases, it's been shown to help people with anger management problems.

[Frumple]

As I've already stated, the difference between us on that point comes down to that I am willing to push all of the way in trading freedom for inability to hurt others and you are not.

... no, the difference is you're showing you're willing to strongly advocate for massively harming those who might harm others, for no notable gain towards your desired goal. And that's about it.

Let me put it this way. Full legalization and then bringing the law back up to whatever arbitrary level you're wanting would involve considerably less harm than fixing the system as-is -- and honestly bring you about as close to that level, because the system as-is is actively counterproductive for dealing with drug use. That's just how badly the system as-is is doing damage, both to seeking whatever level of restriction you would prefer and to societal good in general. Decriminalization of possession and use, at the very least, is the minimum of what would be required to do anything positive going into the future. Any level of criminalization (short of unenforced, I guess) is just making the situation worse. Because criminalization does. Not. Help. Drug use. In any way, shape, or form.

... and yeah 4M, I'll back off a bit, just in case it's starting to come off as particular acerbic. I've been entirely too close and viewed entirely too much of the damage our penal system has inflicted for non-harmful drug use, so the subject is a bit tetchy for me.

[Yoink]

I'm not liking the hostility I'm reading off of certain people.  If this keeps up I'm going to have to lock the thread for a day to let people cool off.

I always have a good laugh when someone starts a topic such as this and then complains when things get heated. Heck, I don't even care much either way about legalization and reading this thread made me angry. If anything, if you really wanted to keep things chill, maybe you should have simply asked people to link to hard data without opening the door for any actual debate on the pros-and-cons of the topic?

[Neonivek]

I'm not liking the hostility I'm reading off of certain people.  If this keeps up I'm going to have to lock the thread for a day to let people cool off.

I always have a good laugh when someone starts a topic such as this and then complains when things get heated. Heck, I don't even care much either way about legalization and reading this thread made me angry. If anything, if you really wanted to keep things chill, maybe you should have simply asked people to link to hard data without opening the door for any actual debate on the pros-and-cons of the topic?

That and right now it is only one person who is taking this conversation waaaaaaaay too seriously.

Okay, do you actually believe this? Do you genuinely think that making cannabis illegal has served the purpose of removing cannabis from circulation? It is painfully obvious it has not.

Or here is a crazy thought. Maybe we should redo how we handle these laws and enforcement. That is equally valid to just tearing down the laws.

Full legalization and then bringing the law back up to whatever arbitrary level you're wanting would involve considerably less harm than fixing the system as-is

Well you know... except that it moves the goalpost to a harder drug. Having an ineffectual drug as the illegal gateway drug might honestly be saving lives.

Though at the same time one could say that having such a safe illegal drug makes people more willing to go to harder drugs.

There is something to be said about making "cannabis" legal means we should make all drugs legal.

[TamerVirus]

Bah, law or no law people will be toking and blazing. Honestly, weed is EVERYWHERE. Some people I know even have the thing delivered to their doorstep.

[Neonivek]

Bah, law or no law people will be toking and blazing. Honestly, weed is EVERYWHERE. Some people I know even have the thing delivered to their doorstep.

Same with just about any drug like Cocaine.

[i2amroy]

I'm not liking the hostility I'm reading off of certain people.  If this keeps up I'm going to have to lock the thread for a day to let people cool off.

Gotcha, I'll try to dial it back. Sorry if it seemed I was acting that way.

-Snip-

Here's my argument in the form of a proof:
Assertions:
1)7% of murderers polled in one study said cannabis use was a factor in them committing homicide.
2)The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration article: “Cannabis/Marijuana”, (which I sadly don't have a viewable link for ATM) states that your chance of wrecking your car while high on cannabis more than doubles
3) The average number of people other than the driver at fault hurt in car wrecks > 0, i.e. "victims"
4) The average number of people other than the murderer hurt in murders > 0, i.e. "victims"

Steps
1) (increased chance of wreck w/ cannabis) > 0 + (increased chance of murder w/ cannabis) > 0 = (increased chance of wreck or murder w/ cannabis > 0),
Therefore using cannabis on average increases your overall chance of getting in a car wreck or committing murder

2) (number of  victims of wrecks) > 0 + (number of victims of murder) > 0 = (number of victims for murder and wrecks) > 0,
Therefore the number of other people hurt by both murders and car wrecks is > 0

3) (increased chance of wreck or murder w/ cannabis) > 0 * (number of victims of wrecks or murder) > 0 = (increased number of victims of wrecks or murder w/ cannabis) > 0,
Therefore the number of other people hurt by wrecks or murder is increased through the use of cannabis.
4) Q.E.D

If you have some data that shows how cannabis use decreases the amount of harm or disproves one of my assertions then I'll happily reconsider the proof, but otherwise me looking up more data isn't needed since the burden of proof is on you now. The data I already have is more than enough to prove my point logically (in fact just looking at murders or car wrecks alone would be enough to prove my point logically). Alternatively if you find a logical fallacy I made in there than feel free to point it out.

-Snip-

It seems we have a difference of opinion in what the future outcomes of different paths are then. And since it's impossible to gather hard data on what is going to happen in the future, I guess that particular point will just have to remain in contention. Time won't even tell here, since our suggested paths are mutually exclusive to one another.

[Helgoland]

But you need to weigh the harm prevented against the harm caused by legislation, like the huge incarceration rate, the destruction of many young lives, and Mexico being quite literally a war zone. All you've shown is that there's something these things need to be weighed against.

[i2amroy]

But you need to weigh the harm prevented against the harm caused by legislation, like the huge incarceration rate, the destruction of many young lives, and Mexico being quite literally a war zone. All you've shown is that there's something these things need to be weighed against.

Sure, and if somebody wants to bring some numbers to the table to compare against we can both look up numbers and have a number fight! Should that happen we can happily discuss things and my opinion might change, but at the moment my gut feeling is that the harm caused overall will outweigh the reduction of harm, which is the reason why I am against marijuana legalization (which was what my original post way back when, was intended to do, address Lord Buckets question about why I had that stance).

However the main idea of that post was to stop Mictlantecuhtli from just constantly asking me for more proof when I don't need any yet as I'm currently standing unopposed (number-wise) against him. (If there have already been some links thrown dealing with reduction of harm through reduced chance of X in the thread already my deepest apologies, I must have missed them and a link would be greatly appreciated).

Edit Small clarification: Remember, harm dealt to others, not harm you bring upon yourself.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Here you go then!


What the World Can Learn from Drug Policy Change in Switzerland
http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/from-the-mountaintops-english-20110524_0.pdf

Drug Policy in Portugal: The Benefits of Decriminalizing Drug Use
http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/drug-policy-in-portugal-english-20120814.pdf

[i2amroy]

See the Switzerland Policy is basically exactly what I've been trying to push for in this thread. A country where possession and use of cannabis are still illegal (except in very small quantities), but the government extends services aimed at helping those who have already become entrapped. Personall I think Portugal is still a little bit on the lenient side, but it's definitely closer to what I'm aiming for.

As I've said a couple times, my basic stance is that I'd rather do like Switzerland did here and go from what we currently have to offering programs to help people, rather than go to where most legalization attempts have tried to place us at, because it's more difficult to come back than it is to just go down a little bit.

A policy like that would allow for the removal and minimization of the current harm done by the legal system, but would still work to stop the harm being done to others by the drug itself.

[Helgoland]

But you need to weigh the harm prevented against the harm caused by legislation, like the huge incarceration rate, the destruction of many young lives, and Mexico being quite literally a war zone. All you've shown is that there's something these things need to be weighed against.

Sure, and if somebody wants to bring some numbers to the table to compare against we can both look up numbers and have a number fight! Should that happen we can happily discuss things and my opinion might change, but at the moment my gut feeling is that the harm caused overall will outweigh the reduction of harm, which is the reason why I am against marijuana legalization (which was what my original post way back when, was intended to do, address Lord Buckets question about why I had that stance).

The only two numbers in your post are from sources which are quite possibly biased - any federal bureaucratic institution almost certainly is, and 'one study' is not exactly a citation that can be checked. Even if they're neutral, the numbers they provide are only tangentially related to your point: 'A factor' can mean practically everything, and there's no information in your post about the number of cannabis-inebriated drivers.

But there's one thing we can do even without resorting to pseudo-mathematics (god, I loathe Bentham for brinnging the idea of quantifiable good into the world): We can look at the state of various countries (and their neighbors) with different approaches to legalization. I grew up in a major smmuggling area, right across the border from the Netherlands - but we hardly ever noticed the smuggling, except when there was a newspaper article about some bust. There was one hilarious story: A guy had placed a cargo container next to the Autobahn and grew weed inside. He was caught because people noticed that he went in there twice a day with a watering can...
Now compare that to the situation along the Mexican border. I wonder which causes more harm...
Do point out the negative effects inside the Netherlands, we need a fair comparison after all!