Can We Agree On These Few Things?

[palerider]

You compare marijuana with murder? Prohibition is a much, much more apt comparison, as both center on recreational substances.

No. The point was that just because a law hasn't eliminated a thing is not a valid justificaton to make that thing legal.

 

[vyo476]

Yes. I don't know of anyone who actually argues that the earth is 6,000 years old.

I don't know anyone personally who does so either.

No I can't and that is exactly the point.

Then provide a hypothetical. You're saying we're inventing a "special right" and I'm wondering if you invented the concept of "special rights."

Tell me. Where, exactly, would you draw the line with regard to marriage? Would you allow anyone to marry anyone or anything? And once you grant one group to marry based on no more than their sexual preference, how do you justify denying ANY other group who want to marry based on any preference?

I would allow anyone to marry anyone else, so long as they are of the age of consent to do so (rather like sexuality). I really don't see a problem with letting some guy marry his sister or two men and three women entering into a polygamous marriage. It doesn't have anything to do with me - just like a man and a woman getting married has nothing to do with me.

Show me a right to marry in the constitution. Marriage is what it is. A nation can't go about redefining the meaning of institutions based on the sexual preference of some of its citizens either.

The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Once upon a time, the institution of slavery was considered just fine. It was redefined as an intolerable evil. Voting is an institution that has been redefined to be a right of all citizens - not just white male landowners. Even marriage itself has already been "redefined" - where it was once a purely religious institution a government-issued marriage license is now required.

So you think 3 corrupt parties or 5 corrupt parties will be better?

I think that much of the corruption of the two major parties come from their excessive size. Elections should be based on individuals, not party lines.

And on the side, damn you're cynical.

My position is that it is hypocritical to force me, by the power of law to do anything for my "own good" and then legalize a drug that is most certainly not good for me or anyone else.

And I'm saying that I probably don't agree with these laws that force you do anything that is "for your own good." Whether or not it's hypocritical, though, has nothing to do with whether or not marijuana (which isn't, arguably, as harmful as nicotine or alcohol) ought to be legalized.

Do you have any reasons against the legalization of marijuana that don't involve you disliking being forced to wear a seatbelt?

No. The point was that just because a law hasn't eliminated a thing is not a valid justificaton to make that thing legal.

No, it's more of a tag. There are few if any legitimate reasons for marijuana to remain illegal, and (here comes the tag!) it's not like making it illegal is really doing much to deter its use. This tag serves to offer the logical question of, "So...what's the point?"

So far, the only point you seem to have offered is that you dislike laws that force you to do "what's good for you" and so long as those stand you won't consider legalizing marijuana.

 

[9sublime]

The prohibition against murder hasn't worked either, should we abandon that one as well? Just because people continue to do a thing that is against the law is not sufficient reason to make that thing legal.

As vyo has already stated, this is not a good example. Legalizing skunk has health benefits, for example, eliminating grit weed.

Grit weed was something that came on the market a few years ago, and is cut with sugar and sand sometimes (pretty harmless to smoke), but sometimes small glass beads and quartz which went into the lungs and ripped them to shreds, causing long lasting damage to the respiritory system.

Cannabis resin has also been found to be cut with car tyres, and I have seen friends pull plastic bag shreds out of larger quantities before. And thats what the kids smoke because its cheaper.

A video on grit bud:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8zSPTsMhX0

Sure, you can say you shouldn't be smoking the stuff in the first place, but making it legal is going to stop this inevitably happening.

 

[palerider]

I would allow anyone to marry anyone else, so long as they are of the age of consent to do so (rather like sexuality). I really don't see a problem with letting some guy marry his sister or two men and three women entering into a polygamous marriage. It doesn't have anything to do with me - just like a man and a woman getting married has nothing to do with me.

Then in the name of your ideology, you would see civilization go right down the toilet. Refer to history. If you are unable to learn from it, you are doomed.

Once upon a time, the institution of slavery was considered just fine. It was redefined as an intolerable evil. Voting is an institution that has been redefined to be a right of all citizens - not just white male landowners. Even marriage itself has already been "redefined" - where it was once a purely religious institution a government-issued marriage license is now required.

Slavery is today exactly what it was then, one human being owning another. It has not and never was redefined. Voting is today exactly what it always has been, casting a ballot for a person or initiative, it has not been redefined. Marriage is what it is and always has been. An institution between men and women.

And on the side, damn you're cynical.]/quote]

Exactly what makes you think a third party would not be as corrupt as the two that exist now?

And I'm saying that I probably don't agree with these laws that force you do anything that is "for your own good." Whether or not it's hypocritical, though, has nothing to do with whether or not marijuana (which isn't, arguably, as harmful as nicotine or alcohol) ought to be legalized.

Read some modern research. Pot isn't the harmless little weed users would like you to believe it is.

 

[palerider]

Cannabis resin has also been found to be cut with car tyres, and I have seen friends pull plastic bag shreds out of larger quantities before. And thats what the kids smoke because its cheaper.

Under your "legalization scheme" you would let kids buy pot? And have you seen how expensive a pack of cigarettes has become due to taxes? You don't think that pot would be just as, if not more expensive and don't you think that a black market will spring up trying to beat the price?

Sure, you can say you shouldn't be smoking the stuff in the first place, but making it legal is going to stop this inevitably happening.

No it won't. Even though you can go to any liquor store and buy pretty much whatever you want today, there are still those who are brewing and selling their own and every year people are permanantly injured or killed by moonshine liquor. There will always be people who try and skirt the system, so it won't stop.

 

[9sublime]

Under your "legalization scheme" you would let kids buy pot? And have you seen how expensive a pack of cigarettes has become due to taxes? You don't think that pot would be just as, if not more expensive and don't you think that a black market will spring up trying to beat the price?

No I wouldn't let kids buy pot, but under legalization I'm sure they would be able to get their hands on its, because they can get it now, but off dodgey people who cut it and try and flog them pills etc. at the same time.

Sure, a black market might spring up if the government doesn't know how to handle it, but if the government grows it economically, they will be able to charge the same amount as it costs now. The black market in ciagrettes is simply foreign cigarettes being sold because they were purchased tax free, not from people growing their own tobacco (which incidentally would be much better than the 3,000 chemicals thrown into a fag).


No it won't. Even though you can go to any liquor store and buy pretty much whatever you want today, there are still those who are brewing and selling their own and every year people are permanantly injured or killed by moonshine liquor. There will always be people who try and skirt the system, so it won't stop.

Haha. Maybe in America. I know one person who made moonshine and they never even drunk the stuff after they smelt the oven. I have never seen or heard of a moonshine death in the UK, but I'm sure they happen very occassionally.

 

[palerider]

Sure, a black market might spring up if the government doesn't know how to handle it, but if the government grows it economically, they will be able to charge the same amount as it costs now.

Didn't you just say that people are cutting it with all sorts of stuff because of the present cost? How will making it legal and selling for the same cost make things any better. By the way, growing one's own tobacco is quite an operation. It isn't the sort of thing one can grow in a back yard or wooded plot. Pot, on the other hand can be very easily grown across the countryside and legalization and taxation would surely not diminish the black market.

 

[Coyote]

I've always been ambivalent about the legalization of pot. On the one hand, I think there are far worse drugs and arresting and prosecuting people for the relatively minor crime of possesion takes money and manpower away from more important crimes and fills our jails unnecessarily.

On the other hand - would legalization lead to an industry committed to growing, selling, advertising pot and towards horticulture geared towards maximizing THC - much like the tobacco industry does with nicotine levels?

It probably would....and that wouldn't be a good thing.

 

[vyo476]

Then in the name of your ideology, you would see civilization go right down the toilet. Refer to history. If you are unable to learn from it, you are doomed.

Educate me. Where is the historical precedent for liberalization of marriage?

Slavery is today exactly what it was then, one human being owning another. It has not and never was redefined. Voting is today exactly what it always has been, casting a ballot for a person or initiative, it has not been redefined. Marriage is what it is and always has been. An institution between men and women.

How we view slavery and voting have both changed. Once upon a time, it was acceptable for people to own other people. Once upon a time, it was acceptable that only white male landowners could vote. When those sentiments changed the institutions themselves were changed.

Your definitions were oversimplifications.

Exactly what makes you think a third party would not be as corrupt as the two that exist now?

Much of the corruption in the Democratic and Republican Parties come from their ungainly size and their attempts to remain the only viable political parties in America. Doing away with the two-party system would decrease their size and divert their attention from "holding the party line" to winning on the merits of the individual.

Read some modern research. Pot isn't the harmless little weed users would like you to believe it is.

No, pot certainly isn't harmless. I know that. However, its harmful affects aren't as strong as those associated with nicotine. Hell, if you want to just talk about what's not good for you, cholesterol can screw you up a whole lot more than pot can.

I'm just going to keep track of your points against marijuana legalization.

1. You won't support it because of the plethora of laws that are "for your own good" that you don't like, since marijuana legalization would be hypocritical.

2. You won't support it because marijuana "isn't the harmless little weed" it's made out to be by users. Yet you've already stated that you dislike laws that are "for your own good" so this must just be an extension of your first point, ie, why it'd be hypocritical to legalize marijuana.

So far, according to what you've provided, it looks to me as though you'd be all for the legalization of marijuana if we were to get rid of those "for your own good" laws. So let's take them off the table. It's tomorrow and they're gone. Do you still disagree with legalizing marijuana?

Just in case the answer is yes, I'll outline here the various pro arguments:

ECONOMIC
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reported 5,599 marijuana-related arrests during 2005. Think of all the money that is being used to arrest, try, sentence, and punish all those people and ask yourself if it is worth it.

Also consider the fact that those are just the people who got caught. Who knows exactly how many people in the United States are involved with marijuana? The point here is that were it legal marijuana would become a major industry. It would create legitimate jobs and, through regulation, would help to stop the production and distribution to unsuspecting costumers of weed that is laced with much stronger drugs or similarly more dangerous.

SOCIAL
The gateway theory proposes that marijuana use leads directly to usage of much harder drugs. I've seen this happen personally and I accept that, as things are now, it is true. However, the reason it is a gateway drug has as much to do with its illegal nature as it does with the properties of the drug itself. Marijuana is a euphoric drug. There are plenty of ways to get euphoric out there; however, marijuana users who start to need a stronger high naturally associate marijuana with "harder" drugs, like cocaine or heroin. Is this because cocaine and heroin are similar substances to marijuana? No, it's because they're both illegal.

If you legalize marijuana, the gateway aspect disappears. People who get into marijuana no longer have to do so illegally. Since they're no longer introduced to the world of illegal substances, if they want to go out and get involved in cocaine or heroin, they'll have to figure it out from the ground up; marijuana will, at that point, not have introduced them to the black market. And, over time, the natural societally-programmed comparison between marijuana and "harder" drugs will fade and we'll see that people won't naturally turn to cocaine as the "next step" nearly as much.

Think of it like cars.

Let's say you have a Pontiac and it breaks down. This isn't your first Pontiac and you're sick of the fact that they're just not all that reliable. Do you naturally go out and buy a Ford, right away, without considering your options? No, you shop around. You look at Volvos and Hondas as well as Fords.

The same will be true of marijuana. When the high loses its appeal (which, by the way, it only does for people who abuse the drug, whereas most marijuana users are not abusers) the user goes looking for other ways of inducing that euphoric affect. Maybe they go for cocaine, but it's no longer the natural choice. Maybe they go for alcohol. Maybe they go out and get laid a whole hell of a lot. Maybe they have a "spiritual awakening" and find God.

In the face of these reasons I find it hard to believe that you can still sit there and say that you won't even consider marijuana legalization because you dislike being forced to wear a seatbelt.

 

[9sublime]

Didn't you just say that people are cutting it with all sorts of stuff because of the present cost? How will making it legal and selling for the same cost make things any better. By the way, growing one's own tobacco is quite an operation. It isn't the sort of thing one can grow in a back yard or wooded plot. Pot, on the other hand can be very easily grown across the countryside and legalization and taxation would surely not diminish the black market.

People cut it with stuff to increase the weight, thus they can sell 3 ounces for the price of four ounces etc. Dealers have set rate because its what people are willing to pay, and so the dealers buy it off the "wholesale" dealers for a similair price accordingly. If the government grew and sold the stuff, it could sell it at the same price because it would cut out the middle man and all the other money incurring costs that come from the chain of events that gets illegal cannabis onto the street.

Making it legal will not raise the price, unless the government chooses to do so for the sake of making more money, which would be foolish as it would encourage a black market. Making it legal will also make the purity better.

Growing cannabis is more of an operation that I think you have been led to believe. To grow buds that people are going to want, potency wise, you need to have a UV light running for hours, fertilizers, soil nutralisers, regular watering systems, and space to put the thing. And from one plant each harvest your only going to get a few ounces unless you have a 6ft plant or something. The casual smoker may have a plant, and sell an ounce or two to his mates and keep the rest for personal consumption as a general rule. The real dealers have whole rooms with the entire floor filled with cannabis plants.

 

[Coyote]

Slavery is today exactly what it was then, one human being owning another. It has not and never was redefined. Voting is today exactly what it always has been, casting a ballot for a person or initiative, it has not been redefined. Marriage is what it is and always has been. An institution between men and women.

If one were to define marriage in unalterable terms as you seem to feel slavery and voting are, it would be as follows: a legal union between two individuals. No more, no less. Same sex marriage has existed in other cultures.

But in reality the definitions have changed.

Slavery has varied from ownership of a person's labor to ownership of the person himself to ownership of the person and all the person's progeny.

 

[palerider]

If one were to define marriage in unalterable terms as you seem to feel slavery and voting are, it would be as follows: a legal union between two individuals. No more, no less. Same sex marriage has existed in other cultures.

Same sex marriages have not existed in any culture. While there might have been acceptable arrangements, they were never called marriages and you have admitted as much yourself in other posts.

 

[top gun]

Ok Folks, lets take a true common sense approach and look at some issues and cut to the chase and come to some common ground in the name of common sense to be had by all.

The Earth is billions of years old, and not 6,000?

Whether the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be left up the person carrying the baby and the male counterpart?

Some people are born as homosexuals and some choose homosexuality, but some accomodation needs to be made to those who choose to live in long term relationships as homosexual couples?

It is time for the rise of a viable third party in American politics?

The war on drugs has been a huge policy failure?

Im curious to see what comes of this. Please post away

I think you've pretty much nailed it.

I always worry a little about what kind of split a third Party might create. For instance a Green Party that couldn't win would hurt the Democrats much more. Same way a Religious Ultra-Conservative Party would probably more hurt the Republicans.

But I agree that if there were a broad based 3rd Party... it would be benificial... so I guess I'm in total agreement.

 

[Bunz]

Top Gun, I would support a centrist party that advertises as such, that puts its priority to listen to people, be above board in thier financial araingements and minimize the effectiveness of lobbies. I know the name common sense party is already taken, but one that prides itself on cutting to the chase on coming up with the most reasonable solution to the most people concerned with a focus on retaining liberties and helping where government needs to and keeping out of the way of society when it doesnt.

Palerider, in regards to marriage/civil unions. Marriage is often based on religious beliefs that dont apply to many people in modern times. Nobody is realistically suggesting people marrying non-human animals etc. But in terms of benefits such as health care, taxes, property ownership, there needs to be some accomodation. This wouldnt even have to apply to same sex unions.

Civil Unions: A government recognized long term relationship between two consenting adults with all the legal rights otherwise granted to a marriage.

 

[top gun]

Top Gun, I would support a centrist party that advertises as such, that puts its priority to listen to people, be above board in thier financial araingements and minimize the effectiveness of lobbies. I know the name common sense party is already taken, but one that prides itself on cutting to the chase on coming up with the most reasonable solution to the most people concerned with a focus on retaining liberties and helping where government needs to and keeping out of the way of society when it doesnt.

I think your train of thought on all of the issues you've raised here are very common sense my friend.