Print

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

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Ideally the prevention of something with laws will shift the majority to not use a thing, meaning we will be voluntarily limiting ourselves from things rather than being forced to.

Forcing people via coercion and fear to not do things that harm no-one is forcing them to not do something. Making it illegal to do stuff you don't like morally isn't freeing people up from the burden of bad decisions, like, what? Do you even know how the constitution works? Find me some numbers on assaults, crime or deaths attributed to cannabis and I'll continue to pander to you.

[martinuzz]

I have worked in a pub and a music hall for many years.
I have seen numerous occasions over the years, too many to count, of drunk people beating each other, even up to 'need ambulance' severity levels.
People fighting in the nightlife scene? Always alcohol, or cocaine. Have I ever seen a stoner get into a fight? Yes, but only when they were drunk.

I think a lot of nightlife security doormen will all tell you the same. They love stoners, for never causing trouble, and they hate drunks, for being aggressive and unpredictable.
(that is, in countries / states where recreational use is decriminalized)

[i2amroy]

Why is it preferable to ban drugs for their negative effects rather than educate people about their risks and try to ensure their safe use?

It's not, necessarily. More education is always good, and may be a sufficient thing to do for drugs with lesser harmful effects (such as caffeine). But in cases of things that have shown significant negative effects my goal line lands closer to "totally illegal" than "legal with light restrictions". (As well as the fact that it's generally easier to go from harder laws to easier ones than vice-versa, as I noted in my huge post).

Forcing people via coercion and fear to not do things that harm no-one is forcing them to not do something. Making it illegal to do stuff you don't like morally isn't freeing people up from the burden of bad decisions, like, what? Do you even know how the constitution works? Find me some numbers on assaults, crime or deaths attributed to cannabis and I'll continue to pander to you.

The point of laws is to prevent you from causing more harm to other people through the giving up of your freedoms. Ideally we shouldn't need laws, because everyone would voluntarily prevent themselves from harming other people in all possible ways. If there was some magic spell that would literally prevent people from harming others would I use it? Hell yes. I'd be willing to sacrifice all of my freedoms that directly harm others more than the basic "I exist" risk that I cause just by existing. I guess that that is just the difference between the two of us, I value the prevention of harm to others as the penultimate goal (short only of prevention of direct harm to yourself), and you draw a line at some point where personal freedom becomes more important than prevention of harm to others.

As for hard data, I've already linked to one study that found that 7% of the polled murderers said that their use of cannabis was a factor in them committing murder in my large post. And I've also noted that in many cases the data just doesn't exist, meaning you can't argue for or against it with raw data.

Edit Clarification: "Direct harm to yourself" is more of a moral goal than a legal one. I'd don't believe in any form of afterlife, so I condone anyone who takes steps to prevent direct harm to themselves, but if you want to commit suicide in a way that other's aren't hurt that's your decision. I won't agree with you, but I won't legally try to prevent you from harming yourself if you don't harm others. "don't harm others" is my higher legal goal, "don't harm yourself" is my highest moral one.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

As for hard data, I've already linked to one study that found that 7% of the polled murderers said that their use of cannabis was a factor in them committing murder in my large post.

Okay.. and what would your course of action be if 100% had said it was the reason they murdered? I'm amused to see where you go with this. You have a fascinating definition of hard data and I want to explore you further.

I'm waiting for a link showing the number of deaths attributed to cannabis.

[Helgoland]

I'd be against it, but once again it's a matter of seeing things that are possible to change and ones that aren't. In approximately descending order my general goals are:
1) Prevent people from doing harm to others
2) Lower use of drugs that have been shown to increase your chances of harming others (or limit the way they can increase your chances)
3) Stop smaller things, like parents forcing McDonalds food on their children

Currently my "this is possible to accomplish" limit sits somewhere in the middle of 2, where some drugs are fightable (like marijuana) and others are not (like alcohol). That's way above the "McDonalds food" spot.

Whoa, weird stuff happened, so I'm editing right now.

Could it be that your assessment of what is 'possible to accomplish' is, well, just plain wrong? Cannabis has been criminalized for decades, and still I - a non-pothead with no pothead friends - could get some within a couple of days. Good stuff, too! Heroin has been criminalized even longer, and there's a societal consensus against it so broad that even many cannabis legalization advocates spout baseless nonsense about the drug; but still millions of people around the globe keep shooting up. What you propose has again and again been shown not to work; if you say cannabis can be eliminated, _how_ will you accomplish that goal?

[Criptfeind]

No, I'd stop them from smoking around other people. They want to have kids and I'm fine with it. They want to smoke around their kids and I'd have a problem.

I don't get it. For cigarets you think people should be allowed to do the action, but make it illegal to do it in a way harms others. But for other things you think that it should be the opposite away around, the action illegal to avoid the possibility of someone illegally doing it in a way that could harm others?

[Frumple]

Okay, a bit of clarification. "Affects your perceptions and judgement in negative ways that are known to increase your chances of harming others".

... yes, when you end up going in for a coronary without insurance (or with insufficient insurance) that harms others. Yes, if your fast-food clogged heart kicks it on the road that, s'know, harming others. Yes, you taking horrible care of yourself and the subsequent effects on your family, friends, dependents, community, etc., is... harming others. And so on.

I don't actually care about the harm that people do to themselves, I only care about that harm that they do or could do to others. As such a law making marijuana illegal serves that purpose perfectly. If I don't use it, and I remove myself from situations where people do, then it's impossible for me to be penalized by the marijuana laws (assuming I'm not framed).

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. It is equally painfully obvious that it is in no way meaningfully impacting the rate of use, as is strongly noted by usage trends in areas that legalize. Criminalizing cannabis has not served to sqelch use, it has not made anyone safer, and it is actually outright counterproductive in regards to keeping users from potentially harming others (because it leads to them being in situations with poor or adulterated product and in situations where they are considerably more likely to cause harm, i.e. regularly interacting with criminals). Throwing people in jail for drug use does. Not. Work.

Do you actually think that you are in no way effected by the societal effects related to criminal activity in the US? Do you not realize that, yes, there is a notable and significant economic and societal cost to turning many millions of individuals in this society into second class citizens? Do you actually think that something like drug use -- the potential to, maybe, harm some one -- justifies throwing them into a situation where rape and assault is orders of magnitude more likely, to rob them of the right to vote, and to significantly impair their ability to support themselves through gainful work? How the zog does that help anything?!

If the situation as is is your idea of "serving the purpose perfectly", then in my eyes you have an incredibly twisted idea of what perfect is. The US penal system is literally one of the world's atrocities and you're speaking praise of it and suggesting it's actually doing something positive. Blows my freaking mind.

Criminalization of drug use does not work to stop drug use. It serves to depress it, sometimes, but it mostly just utterly fucks with a lot of peoples' lives, makes actual help exponentially harder to get, and makes everything for basically everyone involved that much worse. The reason recreational drug use in general needs to be decriminalized -- and in cases like with cannabis, where the harm is no more than current legal recreational drugs, outright legalized -- is because criminalizing it does not freaking help. Basically everything about the criminalization process in the US is freakishly maladaptive for dealing with drug use! You're literally suggesting we should cause more harm than drug use itself would, and then do the exact wrong things to stop or adjust for the addictions involved!

Gah!

[Helgoland]

Shit - I had to edit my post on the last page, and in the meantime Frumple's bringing up the very same points...

[Caz]

Imo rampant incarceration and disfranchisement due to laws criminalising drugs is far more damaging to society than the drugs themselves. Can you really say that you're safer with crime being funded by the production and sale of cannabis rather than it being a taxable commodity that can go on to pay for schools and the like? That's not even considering how fucked up Mexico has become due to all this.

[4maskwolf]

Imo rampant incarceration and disfranchisement due to laws criminalising drugs is far more damaging to society than the drugs themselves. Can you really say that you're safer with crime being funded by the production and sale of cannabis rather than it being a taxable commodity that can go on to pay for schools and the like? That's not even considering how fucked up Mexico has become due to all this.

I agree.

Also, title changed.

[Caz]

Also just noticed you actually changed the name of the thread. Neat.


* Caz goes mad with newfound realisation of the power of the Word.


Edit: dammit, ninja'd.

[i2amroy]

As for hard data, I've already linked to one study that found that 7% of the polled murderers said that their use of cannabis was a factor in them committing murder in my large post.

Okay.. and what would your course of action be if 100% had said it was the reason they murdered? I'm amused to see where you go with this.

The same as it is with 7%. I'd be against it because it violates the "increases your chances of harming others" goal, and if I viewed it as a viable, obtainable goal I would be actively working for it just as I am for the idea of keeping cannabis illegal.

No, I'd stop them from smoking around other people. They want to have kids and I'm fine with it. They want to smoke around their kids and I'd have a problem.

I don't get it. For cigarets you think people should be allowed to do the action, but make it illegal to do it in a way harms others. But for other things you think that it should be the opposite away around, the action illegal to avoid the possibility of someone illegally doing it in a way that could harm others?

The problem here isn't that I'm against the use of cannabis, it's that I'm against the use of cannabis without proper restrictions in place. As I noted in my large post, I would be totally fine with its legalization if, for example, you could only smoke it at designated facilities and had to pass a "perceptions" test to ensure you were unimpaired before you were allowed to leave. Once again the idea is that "totally illegal" is closer to obtaining my eventual legal goal (that of not being able to use it in ways that harm others) than the current light restrictions "legalize cannabis" proposals are saying should be placed on it.

I don't know how many times I have to keep saying it. My goal is somewhere that is closer to the "illegal" end of the spectrum than the "legal" one for cannabis, and it's easier to modify current laws to slowly remove some of the restrictions than to say "open season!" and try to later add them back. Laws for the legalization of cannabis that I would approve of are more in the nature of "illegal except in X, Y, and Z" than in the nature of "legal except in X, Y, and Z". Should a law that fit that criteria show up I'd gladly vote for it, but so far? None of them have even come close.

-Snip-

As I've noted fast food is well below my "this is possible to accomplish" threshold. That's the last I'm going to say on the fast food subject.

I realize the system is horrible, but as I've said several times now it's closer to my eventual goal of making the system tough but still lenient enough to get help than any attempt at "legalization" I've seen so far. I'd be fine with voluntary, penalty-free use of rehabilitation programs. I'd be fine with legalization in specific, controlled situations that prevented you from harming others.

And this may be crossing a line for some, but yes, I set the value of all of the future damage that can be prevented through the approach of the perfect system (where you can't harm others, only yourself) higher than the value of all of the current harm going on because of the current state. In my view the prevented harm in the future through working against lenient legalization attempts not only outweighs the current harm being done under the current system, but outweighs it by an order of magnitude. Just because we are standing next to a local minimum doesn't mean there isn't an absolute one just on the other side of the hill that will lead to an overall lower value over time.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

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!

[Caz]

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.

The road to hell is paved with idealism.

[4maskwolf]

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.

The road to hell is paved with idealism.

Don't push it, you two.  I'm keeping a careful eye on the thread.