It's just a plant...

[TehUser]

Oh, that sounds very practical.  We only act when we know things are absolutely going to happen.  If there is a 99.99999999999999999999% chance someone is going to take a gun and kill me, we shouldn't stop him until he does the deed.  In fact, that is so practical we should base a society on legislation that never takes into account situations that are almost certainly going to happen.  I'm sure it will have a .00000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of being successful.  Good luck with that.

Except things are only up to this probabilities in your examples.  Real life is much, much less certain.

Make up statistics for some unspecified unknown hypothetical drug?  The statistics are used for illustrative purposes.  You know, the same way that numbers are made up in economics textbooks for pedagogical reasons.  I'm teaching you a lesson.

You aren't teaching me anything except that you can't make a good case for the criminalization of marijuana.

First of all, my proof doesn't fail because you say it does.  Secondly, these certain actions you specify are not harm!  When blood is dripping from his nose, yes harm has been done.  When someone initiates the punching action, harm is probably going to be done.  This is why it would be smart to try and block a punch.  Well, at least I would, because I believe that if there is a very good chance something bad is going to happen it is reasonable to stop it.

You're right, it fails because it's not accurate.  You know, unrelated to the topic?  Now would it kill you to get back on topic and address why marijuana is harmful to society like I've been asking for the last 4 pages of this thread?

[Rule]

Oh, that sounds very practical.  We only act when we know things are absolutely going to happen.  If there is a 99.99999999999999999999% chance someone is going to take a gun and kill me, we shouldn't stop him until he does the deed.  In fact, that is so practical we should base a society on legislation that never takes into account situations that are almost certainly going to happen.  I'm sure it will have a .00000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of being successful.  Good luck with that.

Except things are only up to this probabilities in your examples.  Real life is much, much less certain.

Sorry, some things in life are not much less certain.  Believe it or not, sometimes things are very likely to happen, and it would be stupid not to act on those probabilities "out of principle," which is what you are condoning.

Make up statistics for some unspecified unknown hypothetical drug?  The statistics are used for illustrative purposes.  You know, the same way that numbers are made up in economics textbooks for pedagogical reasons.  I'm teaching you a lesson.

You aren't teaching me anything except that you can't make a good case for the criminalization of marijuana.

I'm not making a case for criminalization of marijuana until you admit that it may
hypothetically be reasonable to act on a very likely occurence.

First of all, my proof doesn't fail because you say it does.  Secondly, these certain actions you specify are not harm!  When blood is dripping from his nose, yes harm has been done.  When someone initiates the punching action, harm is probably going to be done.  This is why it would be smart to try and block a punch.  Well, at least I would, because I believe that if there is a very good chance something bad is going to happen it is reasonable to stop it.

You're right, it fails because it's not accurate.  You know, unrelated to the topic?  Now would it kill you to get back on topic and address why marijuana is harmful to society like I've been asking for the last 4 pages of this thread?

It's unrelated to the topic that your idea that certain actions definitely cause harm
is false, and that your positions that a freedom is always more important than anything else and that deterrent laws should never ever be used are inconsistent?  That's funny, because I thought that it was directly related to the topic.  If you can't agree that it is reasonable to stop a murder that is 99.999999% likely to happen, simply because the action isn't 100% sure to happen, we are never going to get anywhere with marijuana.

[Grok]

Nah go ahead and make your case for criminalization using the real numbers and the probability you outlined.  I think we've all been ready for that for some pages now.  The only person being difficult is yourself.  You're the one who refuses to outline your case unless everyone else bows down and agrees to your conditions first.  I don't have any problem making my case whether you agree to anything, or not.  I'm quite comfortable with stating my opinion and supporting it.

Now can you show me how marijuana usage is 99.999999999999999% likely to cause harm to another person and therefore should be criminalized?


And calm down, I know you didn't say marijuana usage is 99.999999999999999% likely to cause harm to another person, but the way you're throwing that around, you might as well have said it.

[Rule]

Grok, you're just being immature, which is why I am no longer going to continue with you in this thread.

If we were having a moderated debate, I would point out that your reason for wanting marijuana to be legal is the same as your reason for wanting no speeding limits, for wanting someone to be legally allowed to drive drunk, for wanting someone who is very likely to commit a murder not be stopped because he is only merely likely to do it, for not wanting luggage checks at airports, for believing it is right for someone certifiably insane to be legally aided in buying weapons capable of extreme destruction.  It would be irresponsible to legalize marijuana as part of a general policy of legislation that would have an extremely negative impact on society.  If marijuana is to be legalized, it should be done for a reason that can be practically applied, not one that suggests we should turn society into a dystopia.

Now, I really don't believe you're all that extreme.  If I had messaged you a few weeks ago asking if you thought speeding limits were a good idea, you probably would have thought the question was crazy -- the answer is obvious.  You're just so suspicious that if you agree with something I say, you will somehow be trapped.  Or it just pains you so much to concede anything, because you don't want to appear wrong.  It's just a simple question: do you think someone should never be stopped or punished (under any circumstance) for wrecklessly endangering someone else's life?  Yes or no.  To be honest, I don't think you do when it comes down to it.  This is TehUser's belief, and you've been manipulated into agreeing with it.

[Grok]

In your reply, you refuse to continue until you have things your way.

In my reply just previous to that, I specifically asked you to go ahead and make your case for how marijuana usage is 99.999999(etc)% likely to cause harm to another person and should be criminalized.  It was a direct response to your previous "proof" that I wholly reject because you are not using numbers related to pot usage.

I have no emotional investment in this argument.  I don't smoke pot, never did, not even to the degree Bill Clinton did (non inhaler).  I don't even directly know anyone who does, and don't care if they do if I did know them.  Even if you did, it wouldn't sway my argument or response in the tiniest.

If we were having a moderated debate, I would point out that your reason for wanting marijuana to be legal is the same as your reason for wanting no speeding limits

Quote where I said this.

, for wanting someone to be legally allowed to drive drunk

Quote where I said this.

, for wanting someone who is very likely to commit a murder not be stopped because he is only merely likely to do it

Quote where I said this.

, for not wanting luggage checks at airports

Quote where I said this.

, for believing it is right for someone certifiably insane to be legally aided in buying weapons capable of extreme destruction.

Quote where I said tihs.

It would be irresponsible to legalize marijuana as part of a general policy of legislation that would have an extremely negative impact on society.  If marijuana is to be legalized, it should be done for a reason that can be practically applied, not one that suggests we should turn society into a dystopia.

There you go with your end-of-the-world scenarios again.  Legalizing marijuana "would have an EXTREMELY NEGATIVE IMPACT on society."  Who the heck are "society"?  If decriminalizing marijuana and legalizing it are the same thing, then it is merely the removal of laws which punish people for possession and recreational use of a plant for smoking.  The same people who use it now would continue to use it, without fear from their servant government.  They would be able to buy it openly and the government would get a windfall of tax revenue from its sale.  Some people who hadn't tried it before would try it because they would be able to, and of those, some would like it and continue, others would say no big deal and stop.

The entire western civilization would not collapse.

[Rule]

Answer my question, Grok. 

The question: Do you think someone should never be stopped or punished (under any circumstance) for wrecklessly endangering someone else's life?

If the answer is yes, then you are saying all those things that I claim you are.  That is because if you say yes, then like TehUser, you do not want speeding limits, you do not want to legally stop people who are drunk from driving while they are intoxicated.  If you answer no that does not mean that a good case can't be made for legalizing marijuana.  It does not mean a case cannot be made that the right to smoke marijuana is more important than the negative effects this legal right may have on society.

However, if you are arguing that marijuana should be legalized because a freedom should always be allowed to be exercised then I would address your argument in the way I did in the post above.

I did not say legalizing marijuana would have an extremely negative impact on society because not having speeding limits would.  That is another misinterpretation.  You just aren't understanding what I'm saying.  Stop being defensive and just think about it if you really are still confused. Re-read my last post from a neutral standpoint. 

I've been asked by several people why I continue this discussion with you, when you are so unwilling to to listen or understand or acknowledge anything I say, or accept the most obvious premises.

Answer the question!  I think cross examination is an important part of debate, and if you simply refuse to answer, it does not bode well for your case!

Of course, I simply point TehUser to paragraph 2/3 of this post, and let it end there.  I could go on and on about how senile his position is.  It means he would never advocate finding someone guilty on any charge.  If there is a witness, there is a chance that he is lying.  If there is DNA evidence, there is a chance it is inaccurate.  We must and do act on probabilities!
 

[Grok]

In your entire response you didn't answer one of my questions.

In your entire response you repeatedly try to tell me what I think.

In your entire response you do not once state your own position, which I have repeatedly asked for.

But let's play your games.  You think it's not transparent, but for the sake of continuing I'll let you play with me.

The question: Do you think someone should never be stopped or punished (under any circumstance) for wrecklessly endangering someone else's life?

If this question is standalone, the answer is no.

Now, I've directly answered your question.  Please answer my questions.  You directly accused me of saying all those things before.  I would like you to show me where I said them.

If you cannot, you are attempting to misrepresent my position to help bolster your own.  I must once again add, the position you hold which you do not offer support for.  You offered statistics which support a hypothetical argument.  Fine, I asked you to now apply those to marijuana usage.  You won't even attempt to address that question, or acknowledge its value.

If you have somehow concluded that 1 in X times pot is smoked that someone else is harmed, I am interested in talking about that.  But I don't think you will, no matter how many times it is brought up.  Reason?  Facts just don't agree with your position.

I'm ready, willing, and able to discuss this with you.
Exactly one of us is resorting to name calling.
Exactly one of us is asking loaded multipart questions.
Exactly one of us refuses to present his arguments.
Exactly one of us is threatening to break off all conversation.

[Grok]

Mexico set to legalize personal amounts of pot, cocaine, heroin

[Rule]

In your entire response you didn't answer one of my questions.

Like what?

In your entire response you repeatedly try to tell me what I think.

Where?

Now, I've directly answered your question.  Please answer my questions.  You directly accused me of saying all those things before.  I would like you to show me where I said them.

Ok

Can't we just we just be reasonable and practical, and accept that society would be worse off if there were not at least some legal deterrents for exercising what some people (in some cases very subjectively) see as rights? 

If not, we will never get anywhere towards agreement in a discussion more specific to drug use.

Ah, if you put it THAT way, I say NO.

In that answer you've advocated everything I've said you do here.



Grok: 
I believe that in a debate, both sides are supposed to present their case with the idea that it is at least hypothetically possible for an agreement of some sort to be reached.  If you claim that it is never in society's best interests to legally revoke a right (as I have pointed out what is or is not a right is quite subjective),
then that idea -- that idea that we might possibly agree in a debate specific to marijuana use -- isn't there, and the argument is not worth pursuing.  I am not a monster, I'm not trying to trick you or make you seem foolish.  I don't have an hidden agenda.  I'm not arguing this because I get pleasure out of controlling people.  I think the position I've articulated in this paragraph is very reasonable, don't you?  You know, if you are willing to be reasonable and admit that a deterrent law might possibly benefit society (it seems you've sort of done this), I am perfectly happy to hear you out on marijuana.  I am not however, interested in pursuing an argument that is based on what I see as beliefs that are totally deluded and couldn't possibly be translated into a workable policy of legislation.

If you have somehow concluded that 1 in X times pot is smoked that someone else is harmed, I am interested in talking about that.  But I don't think you will, no matter how many times it is brought up.  Reason?  Facts just don't agree with your position.

OK, we might be ready to talk about this.  I guess that depends on how you respond to this.

Exactly one of us is resorting to name calling.

Not me.

Exactly one of us is asking loaded multipart questions.

Most questions have many implications.  I don't see what's wrong with asking them.  You are still free to answer however you wish.

Exactly one of us refuses to present his arguments.
Exactly one of us is threatening to break off all conversation.

I've explained why it would be senseless to continue to a discussion specific to marijuana if we have established that we disagree on a much larger point that precludes any freedom from ever being taken away.


One more question (partly related to the link you just posted):  Do you believe that all drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc) should be legal
a) to own?
b) to sell?

[Arta]

I'm rather sorry I missed out on this splendid thread!

I fully agree with Grok and TehUser. Early on, TU said this, and Rule never really adequately responded to it:

The reason I don't address Rule's post is because it's not a legitimate argument.  It amounts to, "It can screw up your life, therefore it should be illegal."  Government has no place dictating what I can and cannot do with my body or my mind until I start infringing on someone else's rights.  If I want to waste my life stoned out of my mind with my circle of pothead friends and supporting the "cannabis culture" then the government shouldn't be telling me that I can't.

TU really did hit the nail on the head. Numerous times, Rule has been asked to provide evidence that marijuana causes harm to others, and has failed to do so. Instead, a dubious statistical proof has been offered. Grok is absoultely right to point out that the same proof applies to many innocuous things: the thought had occurred to me several pages before in response to one of Rule's posts.

Of course there should be laws that restrict people's freedom to do things that harm others. When you're talking about things that *could* harm others -- in other words, about indefinites -- proportionality is key. I think that people should not be able, for example, to posess nuclear weapons. The potential harm is so huge that the propotionate response is to criminalise ownership of these weapons. The same does not apply to other things that can and do cause harm: driving, for example, or alcohol consumption.

So far as I am aware, marijuana causes little or no harm to others. I am quite willing to review evidence pointing to the contrary. In the absence of such evidence, I must conclude that the consequences of its use are little, and that its criminalisation is thus massively disproportionate.