 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000 time: 07:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by yavoon
there's "futility" in lots of laws. heroine, murder, child abuse, etc...do u think the way to solve these is to decriminalise them? u just need to giveup on the futility of enforcement thing. cuz when someone thinks something should be illegal they aren't gna be like well "since ppl do it neway" I guess I"ll make it legal. |
Let me guess: when people use the phrase "cost-benefit analysis," you assume they're speaking Swahili or something, don't you?
If not, can you possibly make an argument that the damage marijuana does outweighs the massive cost of policing pot use? (Remember, this is not just the cost of busting users and dealers, but also the cost of incarcerating people for years -- at tens of thousands of dollers per person -- and the cost of providing military and financial support to other nations for the purpose of policing pot.)
Bonus points if you can make such an argument about pot AND explain why alcohol shouldn't be treated the same way.
Otherwise, why not just admit that you don't think things through much, and move along?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001 time: 00:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
If not, can you possibly make an argument that the damage marijuana does outweighs the massive cost of policing pot use? (Remember, this is not just the cost of busting users and dealers, but also the cost of incarcerating people for years -- at tens of thousands of dollers per person -- and the cost of providing military and financial support to other nations for the purpose of policing pot.)
|
And that's not to mention the increased public revenue that would be gained instead, if pot was legal and taxed like alcohol and tobacco.
PS If governments stopped wasting resources trying to stop it, and taxed it instead, they could easily lower income taxes a notch or two. Now wouldn't that do wonders for the American economy these days?
Last edited by Willem on 09-05-2003 at 19:09
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Frogman
|
|
Its interesting that in the US, cities can decriminalize marijuana. I went to the University of Michigan and in Ann Arbor, less than an ounce was a $5 fine. Of course no one got fined either so possession was basically legal.
The only problem is that as you go up the supply chain, you eventually have some real criminals involved.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
sorry rufus I dont cost/benefit my morality. and I imagine I'm not alone. mind u I don't care if marijuana is legal or not. just consider me the logic police.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
yah well willem alcohol isnt legal cuz its cough drops. so to say that weed should be legal because its less harmful when alcohol legality isnt based on its harm.
is tenuous.
and I only brought up murder to introduce a point, which I then stated. if u have someone who finds something should be immoral/illegal(regardless of how "wrong" u think that postition is). he's not going to want it decriminalised just because other ppl do it. and infact the very idea is laffable. so now I've stated it twice.
u seem blinded by ur fervor to flame me instead of ne logical progression.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
I never supported marijuana prohibition. which I have already said. I merely said u rnt going to convince ppl to make it legal cuz lotsa ppl do it. Imagine for a thot exercise that for wutever reason u thot marijuana was wrong and should be illegal. now imagine someone coming up to u and saying "but man ppl smoke anyway!" would u be like "oh well crap lets make it legal then. perhaps not.
I'm sorry u didnt make this connection. I should be much plainer when talking to some ppl. cough drops=very harmless. alcohol isnt legal cuz its harmless.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:28
|
|
There is no way to make a case for why marijuana smoking is "immoral": the reason it, and other drugs are illegal, are based on the supposed cost of drug addiction on society: the better comparison is not to Murder, but to Seat Belt laws. In essence, the state is saying that the cost to society of allowing the use of hard drugs is so great and damaging that they must be banned, just as the cost of having people ride without seatbelts is greater than the cost of forcing people to wear them.
This is why your "muder" argument is fallacious: the case against Drugs is primarilly one of costs, as Rufus stated, not one of "morality". The "moral" argument about addiction applis just as well to alcohol, gambling, and tabacco, which are generally legal (with a few exceptions for gambling).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
first of all the murder thing is not a direct analogy. it was outrageous on purpose(duh?) and infact I've even explained it further. but to go at it again. if u think something SHOULD be illegal, u r not going to be dissuaded by the fact that lots of ppl do it. I certainly wouldn't legalize(insert crime here) just cuz it was rampant!
and I'm pretty libertarian so protecting me from myself is something I will never be in favor of(just to ward off all those psycho ppl who still think I wna keep marijuana illegal). so in that way I am sincerely against all seat belt laws(save infants).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
to say marijuana "prohibition" is not working on the same level of alcohol prohibition is insane. alcohol consumption is the vast majority of the nation. marijuana consumption is a most definite minority. and probably a small minority at that.
lots of ppl have smoked, very few smoke when they are adults tho. so I'd say that prohibition is actually WORKING.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|