It's just a plant...

[TehUser]

Are you willing to admit that there may be a legitimate reason for taking away someone's rights?

Yeah, when all citizens agree on it in the interests of society.

Because, if you aren't, then there is no point in me talking about what dangers marijuana poses.  If I can't get you to say my imaginary chemical Y should be illegal, then there is no way I can get you to agree marijuana should be illegal.  In the hypothetical example, chemical Y certainly posed serious dangers.  Yet you still thought it should be legal.  What difference would it make then, if I soundly demonstrated how marijuana poses a serious danger to society?

Because if you can present a decent case, I want to hear it.  I don't want to hear some excuse.

If a) qualifies in your books as an "actual crime," then so should b).  a) is a crime because of the high probability the action will cause harm to another.  b) is a crime for the same reason.

I'm pretty sure that if you shoot someone in the stomach, that is harm.  Taking a drug constitutes harm to no one but yourself.

[CrAz3D]

Maijuana leads to irresponsible choices, I don't think you're connecting the dots.

[MyndFyre]

Yeah, when all citizens agree on it in the interests of society.

For the love of all things good in the world, when are you people going to realize that the number of people who agree with something has no bearing on whether or not it is correct?

[Grok]

I never thought I'd say this but Crazed hits on a valuable point.  If you expand upon it, you realize why marijuana will not be legalized, even if it never should have been criminalized.  He states that marijuana use leads to irresponsible decisions.  Let's talk about that in terms of politics, alcohol, and money.

If you were to categorize the cultures of people who comprise alcoholics and potheads, they mostly are not the same.  Alcoholics never know when to quit, and as a result, seem to be more successful in life, i.e. congressmen.  Potheads never know when to start, and thus end up working with sheet metal one month, administering Linux the next month, and eventually end up as professors at community colleges espousing the merits of their own agendas to mostly alcoholic students who aren't listening anyway.

Alcholics have all the money and thus the power to make and shape the laws of the land.  Potheads write on forums from their basements talking about how it's their right to be potheads.  Alcholics dont care, they can already drink.  Both cultures will continue to do their own thing, but one of them has the power to keep theirs legal.

That's my take on it.

Now which am I?  Alcoholic or pothead?  I suppose decriminilization of marijuana, and decriminilization of alcohol.  Yes, alcohol is overly criminilized.

What I support is laws that govern the interaction among people.  If someone gets drunk, I have no problem with that legally.  But if they subsequently hurt someone, that should be a crime.  AND IT IS.  In fact, many of the arguments Rule has against marijuana are intensified when talking about alcohol, or even sex.  More people commit crimes involving alcohol and sex than with pot.  This should be obvious since marijuana makes you do nothing, for the most part.

What criminilization of marijuana has done is created an entire population for jails of people who did nothing bad to anyone else, for the most part, or participated in growing "illegal" plants, or selling illegal plants to someone who would smoke it and do nothing to anyone else.

The domain of the weak is to throw in terrorism and children, so don't even go there with one's "someone will sell this to children".  You know we're talking about adults and informed choices here.  And terrorism?  That's the new red scare, used to support any fearful argument against anything nonconservative.  Heck, it's even being used for support of laws restricting the use of debugging tools that could be used to circumvent DMCA copy protection.

[TehUser]

Yeah, when all citizens agree on it in the interests of society.

For the love of all things good in the world, when are you people going to realize that the number of people who agree with something has no bearing on whether or not it is correct?

That's a brilliant job of pointing out an inconsistency that doesn't exist.

[MyndFyre]

Yeah, when all citizens agree on it in the interests of society.

For the love of all things good in the world, when are you people going to realize that the number of people who agree with something has no bearing on whether or not it is correct?

That's a brilliant job of pointing out an inconsistency that doesn't exist.

Obviously there's an inconsistency, otherwise you wouldn't have noticed.  I said absolutely nothing about an inconsistency in your posts.  You must have noticed one, which apparently doesn't exist, to make the claim that I was saying there was an inconsistency.

[Rule]

I'm pretty sure that if you shoot someone in the stomach, that is harm.  Taking a drug constitutes harm to no one but yourself.

No, you're wrong.  This idea is the problem at the foundation of all of your arguments.  No single action has a definite outcome.  Rather, there is a probability attached to every possible outcome of a given action.  If you shoot someone in the stomach, there is a high probability you will cause harm to that person.  If you take the hypothetical drug I described, there is a high probability that you will cause harm to a person.  If the probabilities are the same, there should be no difference in how the actions are seen in the eyes of the law.

You just don't seem willing to concede anything, even when you must know that,
at least in the very extreme cases, certain freedoms are seen as completely trivial to a majority of people, and can be exchanged for a significantly more content and safe society.  When someone exercises a given freedom, there is a probability that the action will cause harm to someone else, even if none is intended.  If the probability, p is high enough, and enough people, r exercise the freedom, then by taking away the freedom p*r lives are saved (for example).  Hence, on a large scale, allowing people to exercise the freedom
IS HARM.

As I've already said, if you are unwilling to admit the obvious -- that practically speaking it may be in the best interests of society to legally deny a certain freedom -- then I am unwilling to make an honest effort to rigorously justify how the right to smoke marijuana poses a danger to society.  There's just no point.


Grok:  I am curious if you also believe that every single freedom should be preserved at all costs.  That practically speaking there should be no compromise, at all, ever .  Yes, I understand your "getting drunk and not doing anything is not a crime" argument.    You must also understand that by not having legal deterrents to exercise certain freedoms (e.g. driving without speed limits, getting on airplanes without "having your privacy invaded," owning extremely dangerous weapons) that harm is undoubtedly caused.  This is why if someone is caught driving drunk, that they are legally made to stop operating their vehicle.  It would be irresponsible to "wait" for something bad to happen when it most probably will. 

[Grok]

Why must one agree to preserve all freedoms at any cost, to swim in your pool?  It is more reasonable to enforce laws against harming another individual than it is to enforce laws against peaceful activities which only might lead a person to future behaviors that could possibly harm another individual.

Continuing your example, the drunk driver.  He is now on the road in control of a vehicle and could take someone's life, another individual.  Should he be charged with DUI?  Why isn't he charged with UI if he is in his home drinking?  If the point you're trying to drive home is the action of drinking alcohol should be illegal because it might lead to this individual harming another human, I disagree.  I believe the action of being UI in public (not in home) should be met with treatment.  The action of DUI should lead to forfeiture of license AND treatment, not a criminilization of an addict.

The person sitting in his home smoking grass has practically no potential to harm anyone else, compared to the potential of a woman putting on make up in her car while talking on the cell phone during rush hour.  Yet the latter gets a civil fine while the former gets a felony and a ruined life.

[CrAz3D]

The person sitting in his home smoking grass has practically no potential to harm anyone else, compared to the potential of a woman putting on make up in her car while talking on the cell phone during rush hour.  Yet the latter gets a civil fine while the former gets a felony and a ruined life.

That's why I support banning women from the roads

Yes, alcohol is overly criminilized.

How is alcohol over criminalized?  You get busted for DWI and its a misdemeanor until you hit #4 (in NM I believe)...then it is a felony.  You get hit with the interlock device at DWI #1 (passed in like Jan 05), but thats about it.

[Rule]

Why must one agree to preserve all freedoms at any cost, to swim in your pool?  It is more reasonable to enforce laws against harming another individual than it is to enforce laws against peaceful activities which only might lead a person to future behaviors that could possibly harm another individual.

For us to discuss whether any drug should be illegal, we must first come to an understanding that it may be in the better interests of society to not protect every single freedom at any cost.  If such a reasonable and obvious admission cannot be made, then there is just no point in talking about whether drug use should be legal or not.  It won't go anywhere.  It's just so boring to have to argue over such an extreme notion that is so obviously delusional, and not have any compromise or concessions made at all -- probably because we're more interested in our egos and saving face and "being right" than having an honest discussion.

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.

[Grok]

erested in our egos and saving face and "being right" than having an honest discussion.

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.  It is neither reasonable nor practical to accept that society would be worse off if not deterring people's rights.

Can I assume that this is your destination if someone refuses to argue your tired an delusional opposite case, of preserving all freedoms at any cost?  You want to deny someone else their extreme (and it's certainly not my extreme, I didn't pose one), and not be denied your own delusional extreme?

Stop arguing about not being able to argue and make your point, I did.  Marijuana use being criminalized is a poor use of the law, and not very effectual.  Nearly everyone who wishes to use it does, everyone can get it if they want it, and almost no one is an addict.  We have far more harmful chemicals in society that are addictive and cause people to do direct damage to other people, yet are legal to use and considered personal choice.  If while using those far more harmful chemicals the citizen commits crimes against others, then he is charged with and prosecuted for those actual crimes.  Marijuana should be the same way.  Instead, we spend billions of dollars on half-hearted enforcement that merely turns people into criminals.  People who were not affecting the rights of others, but just making personal choices.  I say yes, prosecute them when they hurt other people, but not when watching My Three Sons and enjoying a joint.

[Rule]

erested in our egos and saving face and "being right" than having an honest discussion.

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.  It is neither reasonable nor practical to accept that society would be worse off if not deterring people's rights.

Can I assume that this is your destination if someone refuses to argue your tired an delusional opposite case, of preserving all freedoms at any cost?  You want to deny someone else their extreme (and it's certainly not my extreme, I didn't pose one), and not be denied your own delusional extreme?

Stop arguing about not being able to argue and make your point, I did. 

What?  You don't understand me.  My position is not extreme at all.  I am not saying freedoms should be preserved at all costs.  I am saying that in SOME SPECIFIC CASES CERTAIN SPECIFIC FREEDOMS ARE NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVERYTHING ELSE.  Sorry for the emphasis but at this point I'm f*cking pissed off at how thick headed people are being.  I am not arguing about NOT BEING ABLE TO ARGUE MY POINT.  If we had NO DETERRENT LAWS, NO SPEED LIMITS, NO LUGGAGE CHECKS, NO REASONABLE LAWS MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR DANGEROUS PEOPLE TO OBTAIN VERY DANGEROUS WEAPONS, then society would be an ABSOLUTE MESS.

My position is EXTREMELY MODERATE, and I shouldn't need to argue it much, and it is NOT A BIG CONCESSION TO THINK that at SOME point SOME freedom may not be worth the trouble it causes in society.  I am not saying "deter all people's rights," and I am NOT saying that you need to concede that it is responsible to have laws in place to deter drug use.

Do you not understand how it is impossible to continue a discussion specific to drug use if you are not willing to concede to me that a given freedom is not always more important than everything else?

[TehUser]

Yeah, when all citizens agree on it in the interests of society.

For the love of all things good in the world, when are you people going to realize that the number of people who agree with something has no bearing on whether or not it is correct?

That's a brilliant job of pointing out an inconsistency that doesn't exist.

Obviously there's an inconsistency, otherwise you wouldn't have noticed.  I said absolutely nothing about an inconsistency in your posts.  You must have noticed one, which apparently doesn't exist, to make the claim that I was saying there was an inconsistency.

Playing stupid doesn't help your case.  You didn't quote two sentences for the hell of it.  You were clearly implying that I contradicted myself with those two statements despite the fact that they are vastly different in claim.  The first has to do with the idea that any time all of society decides to give up a freedom in exchange for something else, that's okay by me, as long as everyone agrees.  The second statement regards the moral quality of that judgment.  While I do think that we should abide by things that everyone agrees to, I don't think that makes it right in any objective sense of the word.

[TehUser]

No, you're wrong.  This idea is the problem at the foundation of all of your arguments.  No single action has a definite outcome.  Rather, there is a probability attached to every possible outcome of a given action.  If you shoot someone in the stomach, there is a high probability you will cause harm to that person.  If you take the hypothetical drug I described, there is a high probability that you will cause harm to a person.  If the probabilities are the same, there should be no difference in how the actions are seen in the eyes of the law.

No, you're wrong.  Bullet in stomach = definite harm.  Drug Y = possible harm.

You just don't seem willing to concede anything, even when you must know that,
at least in the very extreme cases, certain freedoms are seen as completely trivial to a majority of people, and can be exchanged for a significantly more content and safe society.  When someone exercises a given freedom, there is a probability that the action will cause harm to someone else, even if none is intended.  If the probability, p is high enough, and enough people, r exercise the freedom, then by taking away the freedom p*r lives are saved (for example).  Hence, on a large scale, allowing people to exercise the freedom
IS HARM.

It's not necessary to make concessions here.  And you tell me, what freedom is trivial?

Furthermore, you persist in making the issue black and white.  Not all freedoms lead to death (as marijuana certainly wouldn't) and even in the cases where it does, it's still completely foolish to punish someone for something they might do.

As I've already said, if you are unwilling to admit the obvious -- that practically speaking it may be in the best interests of society to legally deny a certain freedom -- then I am unwilling to make an honest effort to rigorously justify how the right to smoke marijuana poses a danger to society.  There's just no point.

It doesn't really strike me as "obvious", probably because it's not obvious.

[Rule]

The first has to do with the idea that any time all of society decides to give up a freedom in exchange for something else, that's okay by me, as long as everyone agrees.  The second statement regards the moral quality of that judgment.  While I do think that we should abide by things that everyone agrees to, I don't think that makes it right in any objective sense of the word.

So you think that it is better to abide by things everyone agrees to than to things that are objectively right? 

Also, you claim that if say, 100000000/100000000 people agree to exchanging a freedom for a benefit, then that is in the best interests of society, but when 1 person decides it isn't, suddenly it isn't in the best interests of a majority of people?


In response to your comments above.

A bullet shot at the stomach is not definite harm -- you cannot argue that some action will have a definite outcome.  On the other hand, if exercising a certain freedom has a probability to harm another, and a sufficiently large number of people exercise that freedom, then it is a mathematical truth that allowing people to legally exercise this freedom is harm.

I am not saying freedom is trivial at all.  Freedom is very important to me, and I think you know that.  However, certain actions people consider to be a "freedom,"  for example, pissing on the front lawn, I consider fairly trivial.  I would be more willing to give up that freedom (over others) for some benefit.