http://www.itsjustaplant.com/story/index.html

Too bad that is stupid.

lol....
poison ivy is just a plant too

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14802.msg150847#msg150847 date=1145486563]
lol....
poison ivy is just a plant too
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that's the point.  It's not illegal.

Mephisto is a pothead? Or just a pot-supporting hippie? :p

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg150852#msg150852 date=1145487086]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14802.msg150847#msg150847 date=1145486563]
lol....
poison ivy is just a plant too
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that's the point.  It's not illegal.
[/quote]
I was more trying to say poison ivy is just a plant, that is bad.  Plants arent all good/decent.

Reminds me of what one of my teachers taught me early in my school career: avoid the word "just" at all costs.  It doesn't add anything. 

What a boring book.

If it had substance, it would be a flaming POS, but it doesn't so it only fails at life.

[quote author=Newby link=topic=14802.msg150853#msg150853 date=1145488526]
Mephisto is a pothead? Or just a pot-supporting hippie? :p
[/quote]

I don't smoke weed every day ... but what's wrong with smoking it @ parties or w/ friends?  or at work ... zzz

Perfect time for this book the big holiday is comming tomorrow, I think I am going to print this out then laugh at it all day while getting drunk with some friends can't smoke no more damn colleges with piss test

[quote author=DeTaiLs link=topic=14802.msg150873#msg150873 date=1145502818]
Perfect time for this book the big holiday is comming tomorrow, I think I am going to print this out then laugh at it all day while getting drunk with some friends can't smoke no more damn colleges with piss test
[/quote]

Meh, there's like a week worht of class left anyway..

[quote author=DeTaiLs link=topic=14802.msg150873#msg150873 date=1145502818]
Perfect time for this book the big holiday is comming tomorrow, I think I am going to print this out then laugh at it all day while getting drunk with some friends can't smoke no more damn colleges with piss test
[/quote]
1) LOL @ getting drunk on 420
2) Urine tests for college?...are they in any extracuricular activity?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14802.msg150878#msg150878 date=1145504517]
[quote author=DeTaiLs link=topic=14802.msg150873#msg150873 date=1145502818]
Perfect time for this book the big holiday is comming tomorrow, I think I am going to print this out then laugh at it all day while getting drunk with some friends can't smoke no more damn colleges with piss test
[/quote]
1) LOL @ getting drunk on 420
2) Urine tests for college?...are they in any extracuricular activity?
[/quote]
1) Meh its better then nothing not everybody just smokes 420 its basicaly a day to kick back and enjoy
2)Both when you apply for the college it says right on the paper we have a right to drug test anybody at any time, its also a dry campus if they think your drinking and you test for alcohol you can get kicked out I seen it happen to a few kids.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=14802.msg150872#msg150872 date=1145502178]
[quote author=Newby link=topic=14802.msg150853#msg150853 date=1145488526]
Mephisto is a pothead? Or just a pot-supporting hippie? :p
[/quote]

I don't smoke weed every day ... but what's wrong with smoking it @ parties or w/ friends?  or at work ... zzz
[/quote]

It's stupid, either way. I've tried it. It's no fun whatsoever. I'd rather drink.

You'll think it's just a plant when one day 10 years from now you find yourself wandering down magnoila avenue asking everyone you can find/scamming anyone you can just to get a blast off a crack rock.

You probably smoked it wrong or smoked with stupid burn outs that made it boring...

Where is the book that deals with the facts about the damage to your brain and body when smoking marijuana?

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14802.msg150917#msg150917 date=1145557864]
Where is the book that deals with the facts about the damage to your brain and body when smoking marijuana?
[/quote]

Cigarettes and Alcohol both damage your brain and body plenty, but we haven't declared war on either of those yet.

[quote author=K link=topic=14802.msg150918#msg150918 date=1145558042]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=14802.msg150917#msg150917 date=1145557864]
Where is the book that deals with the facts about the damage to your brain and body when smoking marijuana?
[/quote]

Cigarettes and Alcohol both damage your brain and body plenty, but we haven't declared war on either of those yet.
[/quote]

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have declared war on marijuana.

[quote author=K link=topic=14802.msg150918#msg150918 date=1145558042]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=14802.msg150917#msg150917 date=1145557864]
Where is the book that deals with the facts about the damage to your brain and body when smoking marijuana?
[/quote]

Cigarettes and Alcohol both damage your brain and body plenty, but we haven't declared war on either of those yet.
[/quote]


So maybe we should make crack legal too?

So how many of you are using marijuana for medical purposes and how many of you are abusing it just to get high? The book talks about using it responsibly and not abusing it. The point is that most people would abuse it.

Most people that drink alcohol drink responsibly, most people that smoke understand the damage they are doing to their body. Most people that smoke marijuana abuse it and know very little about its long term effects on their bodies.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14802.msg150920#msg150920 date=1145558562]
So how many of you are using marijuana for medical purposes and how many of you are abusing it just to get high?
[/quote]

Hahaha...  Thanks for the laugh

[quote author=Invert]Marijuana is a plant that people smoke just like tobacco, damn that is a horrible drug.[/quote]

[quote author=Invert]
Are you talking about my blunt? My cousin was rolling that and he packs it down tight when he rolls, it all fit and it all hit. You must not know how to roll.
[/quote]

Looks like you're contradicting yourself.  You draw likeness to how people smoke pot just like they smoke tobacco, yet you later try to differentiate the two.

Most people that drink alcohol drink responsibly?  Where do you get that from?

I fully support decriminilization of marijuana.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg150919#msg150919 date=1145558397]
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have declared war on marijuana.
[/quote]

No, but you can't claim that the government's concern for its citizens' heath is the reason marijuana is illegal.  Call it personal freedom if you're a gun-toting republican, claim that the government shouldn't legislate morality if you're a strung out hippie democrat. Either way, it should fall in with your political dogma. (note: 'your' in general. not you  ;))


Besides, looks like our current president needs a little more federal revenue.  I bet legalizing and taxing marijuana could help him out.


[quote author=Invert link=topic=14802.msg150920#msg150920 date=1145558562]
So maybe we should make crack legal too?

So how many of you are using marijuana for medical purposes and how many of you are abusing it just to get high? The book talks about using it responsibly and not abusing it. The point is that most people would abuse it.

Most people that drink alcohol drink responsibly, most people that smoke understand the damage they are doing to their body. Most people that smoke marijuana abuse it and know very little about its long term effects on their bodies.
[/quote]

I don't use marijuana in either way; in fact, I don't use it at all.

Yes, we should make crack legal, as well as heroin and amphetamines.  That way all the people stupid enough damage their bodies and minds so severly will make a quick exit from the gene pool.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14802.msg150923#msg150923 date=1145559275]
I fully support decriminilization of marijuana.
[/quote]

Hmm, I actually think this is a bad idea.  Although I don't think most marijuana smokers should be seen as criminals, I think possession should remain a criminal act.  It has been decriminalized to an extent in Canada, and I don't think it has really had a positive impact on the community.  Unlike when there was a prohibition on alcohol, there is almost a culture built around pot-smoking.  Marijuana is stored cumulatively in fat cells, and takes a long time (month) to deplete from the body.  Aside from an immediate high, it can alter your state of mind for quite some time, especially if you are smoking on a regular basis.  It follows that the pot smokers stick together much more closely than say alcohol drinkers or cigarette smokers: they have far more to differentiate themselves from others.  There is a lot more to the lifestyle than simply the smoking activity.

I think a lot of people start young without realizing that they will be pretty much shut out of most social circles later in life, and stuck in an unproductive group of people.  These people (perhaps depressed by the state of their life) usually go on to try harder drugs, and hence isolate themselves further -- it can be a viscious circle.  Because pot does not have any immediate or obviously dangerous side effects (e.g. hard to overdose), it can be a very dangerous drug.  It can destroy your life by slowly draining your motivation and separating yourself from ambitious and competitive people.  Since these are not immediate physiological side effects, the drug doesn't get nearly as much credit as it should for producing them.

Having written all that, I think any legal steps towards loosening the slack on
marijuana dealers/users would be seen as a great victory for their culture.  It
would encourage more to use.  I resent that part of Canada's identity comes from its "pot culture," it bothers me when I see "cannabis culture" posters at universities, and it would be horribly embarassing and degrading to be deemed the pot capital of the world -- a title which Amsterdam, a city** where marijuana is completely legal, seems to claim at the moment.

The government should go as far as it can to punish and demonize those who deal (especially), and use marijuana.  Overall it will have a positive effect on
society, and in this case, I think the ends justify the means: as long as the means aren't horribly unethical.


Edit:  **Yes, Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, very good.

[quote author=Newby link=topic=14802.msg150901#msg150901 date=1145540510]
[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=14802.msg150872#msg150872 date=1145502178]
[quote author=Newby link=topic=14802.msg150853#msg150853 date=1145488526]
Mephisto is a pothead? Or just a pot-supporting hippie? :p
[/quote]

I don't smoke weed every day ... but what's wrong with smoking it @ parties or w/ friends?  or at work ... zzz
[/quote]

It's stupid, either way. I've tried it. It's no fun whatsoever. I'd rather drink.
[/quote]

You should try smoking it the right way then.  The first time I tried it I thought it was retarded because it turned out I wasn't smoking the "right way."  Best to start with a pipe, IMO.  ;)

But seriously, I'm a "responsible" pot smoker.  I don't do it everyday, just at parties or with friend get togethers.  It hasn't destroyed my ambitions (see my college posts) and I consider myself to have a successful life so far (friends, sports, part time job, car, future plans, etc.).  Pot is great for just relaxing and easing the stress, which frankly is very welcomed in my busy life (as with other people).

Face it, it doesn't matter what you do about marijuana unless you flat out make it a capital offense and set out on search and destroy missions of the plant, it's going to remain part of America (and other parts of the world).  I know many family members that smoke it occasionally, and a lot of people I know have family members that do (in fact, I got high the first time from my friend's Mom when I was 13 :p), and the majority of them are successful people.  Meh..

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg150922#msg150922 date=1145558794]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=14802.msg150920#msg150920 date=1145558562]
So how many of you are using marijuana for medical purposes and how many of you are abusing it just to get high?
[/quote]

Hahaha...  Thanks for the laugh

[quote author=Invert]Marijuana is a plant that people smoke just like tobacco, damn that is a horrible drug.[/quote]

[quote author=Invert]
Are you talking about my blunt? My cousin was rolling that and he packs it down tight when he rolls, it all fit and it all hit. You must not know how to roll.
[/quote]

Looks like you're contradicting yourself.  You draw likeness to how people smoke pot just like they smoke tobacco, yet you later try to differentiate the two.

Most people that drink alcohol drink responsibly?  Where do you get that from?
[/quote]

What's wrong with changing my stance on things?
Also do your own research on alcohol. You will see that I'm right about most people that drink alcohol drink it responsibly.

I think the abusers to nonabusers ratio for alcohol looks better than marijuana.  However, I think that alcohol is more dangerous when abused.

I still support taxation of pot (maybe use the taxes for healthcare?)

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14802.msg150930#msg150930 date=1145565106]
What's wrong with changing my stance on things?
Also do your own research on alcohol. You will see that I'm right about most people that drink alcohol drink it responsibly.
[/quote]

There's nothing wrong with changing your stance on things.  It's just funny how your posts so directly contradicted one another, and both seemed to carry that underlying "I'm right, you're wrong" kind of tone.  Maybe they didn't, whatever.

Re: Alcohol.  Are you suggesting you've done some research that I should take seriously?  Because I don't see you referencing any study showing that most people drink alcohol responsibly.  In fact, I've found generally people are more irresponsible with alcohol than they are with pot.  Most college students are purposefully wreckless with alcohol, and I'm sure alcohol is more responsible for
family breakups, etc, than pot is.  There just isn't the same social stigma attached to it, so it's not as though you're going to have a nice joint with your lobster dinner in a 5 star restaurant.  I'm just being speculative though.  You sound as though you are an authority because you have done research on it.  Are you?  Let's see it.

[quote]Thirty percent of the alcohol in New Mexico is consumed by underage drinkers, according to Joanne Ferrary, area coordinator of the Dońa Ana County DWI Resource Center.[/quote]
From the Las Cruces Sun-News, today's issue.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=14802.msg150927#msg150927 date=1145563377]
But seriously, I'm a "responsible" pot smoker.  I don't do it everyday, just at parties or with friend get togethers.  It hasn't destroyed my ambitions (see my college posts) and I consider myself to have a successful life so far (friends, sports, part time job, car, future plans, etc.).
[/quote]
Yeah, but it did destroy your ability to think.  See: your neverending posts supporting liberals.  :P

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=14802.msg150927#msg150927 date=1145563377]
Face it, it doesn't matter what you do about marijuana unless you flat out make it a capital offense and set out on search and destroy missions of the plant, it's going to remain part of America (and other parts of the world).  I know many family members that smoke it occasionally, and a lot of people I know have family members that do (in fact, I got high the first time from my friend's Mom when I was 13 :p), and the majority of them are successful people.  Meh..
[/quote]
That's like the argument that "The drinking age should be lowered to 18 because there are a lot of 18 year olds who do it and are responsible."  Bullshit.  There is no "responsible" way to break the law.  Breaking the law is innately "irresponsible" (see: Locke). 

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14802.msg150923#msg150923 date=1145559275]
I fully support decriminilization of marijuana.
[/quote]
...and actually, I do too, as well as all the other illegal drugs.  I believe that when they're legalized, less people will want to use them for their "flair," and as long as employers can still not hire people because of drug use, I think that usage will go down substantially. 

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=14802.msg150927#msg150927 date=1145563377]
You should try smoking it the right way then.  The first time I tried it I thought it was retarded because it turned out I wasn't smoking the "right way."  Best to start with a pipe, IMO.  ;)
[/quote]

I'm sorry. Me and a few friends managed to nearly go through an ounce, and I still didn't get high.

I'm surprised with your awesome stoner attitude that you didn't tell me (like my friends) that the reason was that sometimes you just don't get high the first time. Funny, I got drunk my first time. I think I'll stick with something that's legal and works better!

It doesn't cost as much, either. $15-20 for a dimebag? I could get a fat bottle of JD that'll last me way longer for about the same price.

And for your information, I did use a pipe.

[quote author=Newby link=topic=14802.msg150959#msg150959 date=1145585242]
[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=14802.msg150927#msg150927 date=1145563377]
You should try smoking it the right way then.  The first time I tried it I thought it was retarded because it turned out I wasn't smoking the "right way."  Best to start with a pipe, IMO.  ;)
[/quote]

I'm sorry. Me and a few friends managed to nearly go through an ounce, and I still didn't get high.

I'm surprised with your awesome stoner attitude that you didn't tell me (like my friends) that the reason was that sometimes you just don't get high the first time. Funny, I got drunk my first time. I think I'll stick with something that's legal and works better!

It doesn't cost as much, either. $15-20 for a dimebag? I could get a fat bottle of JD that'll last me way longer for about the same price.

And for your information, I did use a pipe.
[/quote]

Newby, you getting drunk is not legal.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg150954#msg150954 date=1145578441]
That's like the argument that "The drinking age should be lowered to 18 because there are a lot of 18 year olds who do it and are responsible."  Bullshit.  There is no "responsible" way to break the law.  Breaking the law is innately "irresponsible" (see: Locke). 
[/quote]First of all, it's inherently irreponsible to make an argument based on a treatise that justifies itself using God because it speaks to the arbitrary nature of morality.  Second, I don't know how you can claim that breaking that law is "innately 'irresponsible'" when Locke advocated overthrowing a government in which the people had no confidence  (See: Locke).  Last time I checked, treason was a crime just about everywhere.  This further speaks to the arbitrary nature of law and ethics.  We shouldn't be examining the statement, "It's against that law to have marijuana, therefore having marijuana is illegal." because it's an empty statement.  It has no real meaning.  We should be asking, "Why is it against the law to have marijuana?" and "Are the reasons for marijuana prohibition legitimate concerns?"  And ultimately, there aren't good reasons.  This is just one more example of a foolish Christian morality being enforced through law.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg150974#msg150974 date=1145604260]
Newby, you getting drunk is not legal.
[/quote]

In uh, ~5 years it will be!

I doubt it will be legal to smoke weed in my lifetime.

[quote author=Newby link=topic=14802.msg150980#msg150980 date=1145624254]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg150974#msg150974 date=1145604260]
Newby, you getting drunk is not legal.
[/quote]

In uh, ~5 years it will be!

I doubt it will be legal to smoke weed in my lifetime.
[/quote]mmmm....I dunno, I'd think it will be

I <3 Canada

Drinking Age is 19 and Canada is ~40 mins away from me :)

[quote author=Savior link=topic=14802.msg150986#msg150986 date=1145636257]
I <3 Canada

Drinking Age is 19 and Canada is ~40 mins away from me :)
[/quote]
...Juarez, dirnking age 18 but they don't care, so long as you can see over the bar ;)

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150979#msg150979 date=1145623379]
First of all, it's inherently irreponsible to make an argument based on a treatise that justifies itself using God because it speaks to the arbitrary nature of morality. 
[/quote]
Uh, you mean, a treatise upon which almost all of Western society originated?

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150979#msg150979 date=1145623379]
Second, I don't know how you can claim that breaking that law is "innately 'irresponsible'" when Locke advocated overthrowing a government in which the people had no confidence  (See: Locke). 
[/quote]
Because Locke also said that when you enter into a social contract, you are willingly giving away particular rights. 

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150979#msg150979 date=1145623379]
Last time I checked, treason was a crime just about everywhere. 
[/quote]
Yeah, but we're not talking about overthrowing the government because it's infringing on our basic, natural rights.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150979#msg150979 date=1145623379]
This further speaks to the arbitrary nature of law and ethics.  We shouldn't be examining the statement, "It's against that law to have marijuana, therefore having marijuana is illegal." because it's an empty statement.  It has no real meaning. 
[/quote]
What exactly does that mean?

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150979#msg150979 date=1145623379]
We should be asking, "Why is it against the law to have marijuana?" and "Are the reasons for marijuana prohibition legitimate concerns?"  And ultimately, there aren't good reasons. 
[/quote]
I think several people, including Rule, have posted very good reasons for not supporting the legalization of marijuana.  I disagree with them, but I still think they are legitimate concerns.  You just dismissed them out of hand by completely ignoring his post and saying that there are no good reasons, under the guise that you were responding to me.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150979#msg150979 date=1145623379]
This is just one more example of a foolish Christian morality being enforced through law.
[/quote]
Who brought Christianity into it?  I didn't realize that there was a big political difference.  Ask Hillary what she'd think about legalizing marijuana.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg150988#msg150988 date=1145641126]
Uh, you mean, a treatise upon which almost all of Western society originated?[/quote]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?

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg150988#msg150988 date=1145641126]
Because Locke also said that when you enter into a social contract, you are willingly giving away particular rights. 

Yeah, but we're not talking about overthrowing the government because it's infringing on our basic, natural rights.[/quote]We aren't?  I wasn't aware that the government restricting our basic, natural right to do what we like with our own bodies didn't count as the government infringing upon a basic, natural right.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg150988#msg150988 date=1145641126]
What exactly does that mean?[/quote]It means exactly what it says.  There's no objective reason to support the law.  It's just a ridiculous, arbitrary imposition.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg150988#msg150988 date=1145641126]
I think several people, including Rule, have posted very good reasons for not supporting the legalization of marijuana.  I disagree with them, but I still think they are legitimate concerns.  You just dismissed them out of hand by completely ignoring his post and saying that there are no good reasons, under the guise that you were responding to me.[/quote]You think?  Oh, that must make it correct!  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.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg150988#msg150988 date=1145641126]
Who brought Christianity into it?  I didn't realize that there was a big political difference.  Ask Hillary what she'd think about legalizing marijuana.
[/quote]Who brought politics into it?  I don't much care what any politician thinks on the matter because there's no guarantee they even hold that position.  I just want to see some objective ethical reason for supporting the government's decision to intrude into the private lives of its citizens.

[quote author=TehUser]This further speaks to the arbitrary nature of law and ethics.  We shouldn't be examining the statement, "It's against that law to have marijuana, therefore having marijuana is illegal." because it's an empty statement.  It has no real meaning. [/quote]
Wouldn't that mean marijuana is illegal, that being the meaning?....

[quote author=TehUser]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.[/quote]
When you go on to other drugs, or drive impaired, or become a bum then it becomes an issue of society.  You can hurt society by going to a hospital, by collecting welfare, or by driving impaired.

[quote author=TehUser]I just want to see some objective ethical reason for supporting the government's decision to intrude into the private lives of its citizens.[/quote]
Driving impaired.  "Gateway drug."  Becoming apart of the drug dealing cycle.  Contributing to the deliquency of a minor (by providing them with drugs).  Creating more violence related to the drug cartel.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14802.msg150993#msg150993 date=1145644622]
Driving impaired.  "Gateway drug."  Becoming apart of the drug dealing cycle.  Contributing to the deliquency of a minor (by providing them with drugs).  Creating more violence related to the drug cartel.
[/quote]Those are all stupid for the same reason.  They all predict that you're going to commit an additional crime.  I shouldn't be charged with a crime based on the possibility that it will lead to an actual crime.  That's the whole point here, there's no reason to say that using marijuana damages anyone's life but the person using it.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150997#msg150997 date=1145647568]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14802.msg150993#msg150993 date=1145644622]
Driving impaired.  "Gateway drug."  Becoming apart of the drug dealing cycle.  Contributing to the deliquency of a minor (by providing them with drugs).  Creating more violence related to the drug cartel.
[/quote]Those are all stupid for the same reason.  They all predict that you're going to commit an additional crime.  I shouldn't be charged with a crime based on the possibility that it will lead to an actual crime.  That's the whole point here, there's no reason to say that using marijuana damages anyone's life but the person using it.
[/quote]

I wasn't going to get into it much, because I could write for days on this subject, but TehUser and I seem to be aligned on decriminilization logic.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150992#msg150992 date=1145643942]
You think?  Oh, that must make it correct!  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.
[/quote]

Thought I'd address this point.

You claim that my argument is not legitimate because the "government has no place dictating what [you] can and cannot do with [your] body or mind until [you] start infringing on someone else's rights."  This sounds to be more like an highly debatable personal opinion than a fundamental truth that should be
acknowledged without question; your questionable, and in my mind, short sighted opinion does not take away from the legitimacy of any arguments.

I believe that it is the governments place to foster a society where people are as content and safe as they can be.  Do you agree?  If not, please tell me what you think the role of a government should be.

Sometimes, but not always, it is in the best interests of a society to have certain restrictions placed on its people to protect them from themselves, and to pre-emptively prevent others from being hurt.  I often hear an argument comparable to yours used in gun-control debates: "The government has no place telling me that I do not have a right to own a gun until I start using it inappropriately."  Unfortunately the preservation of this so-called "right" has repeatedly been shown not to be in the best interests of the general population.
Further, it is generally agreed that certain types of pornography should be illegal.  While viewing the pornography, the user is indeed only affecting his/her body and mind.  However, our decisions are strongly influenced by various levels of neurotransmitters in our brains, or more generally, by the state of our minds.  By exercising your prerogative to change your mind in certain ways, you could become an uncontrollable danger to society, in the same way a rabid dog could be seen as a danger to its owners.  In the last few sentences, the word "pornography" could easily be replaced by "marijuana."

In my opinion, the feeling that it should be a right to possess and use marijuana is not as important as preventing the after-effects its widespread use may have on a community.  I do not see the right to use marijuana in particular as something very important or fundamental, so I feel that in the better interests of society the right should be denied.  It is certainly not always prudent to wait for something terrible to happen rather than to address the underlying problems that
will most certainly lead to trouble in the future. 

While I agree it may be unethical to deny certain rights, it should be done if it is in the long-term best interests of a group of people.  As I wrote in my earlier post,  marijuana control should be a case where the "ends justify the means."  Now what in particular is in the best interests of a society is not firmly established.  I have given my opinion on the matter, and have left the question open for you to address.

Note that, for example, charging someone with murder for owning a gun is very different than banning gun ownership (because of how the gun may be used).

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151002#msg151002 date=1145650002]
Thought I'd address this point.

You claim that my argument is not legitimate because the "government has no place dictating what [you] can and cannot do with [your] body or mind until [you] start infringing on someone else's rights."  This sounds to be more like an highly debatable personal opinion than a fundamental truth that should be
acknowledged without question; your questionable, and in my mind, short sighted opinion does not take away from the legitimacy of any arguments.[/quote]Excuse me for holding personal freedoms in high esteem.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151002#msg151002 date=1145650002]
I believe that it is the governments place to foster a society where people are as content and safe as they can be.  Do you agree?   If not, please tell me what you think the role of a government should be.[/quote]If I wanted a government to make me "as safe as I can be", I'd go live in a dictatorship where even the most miniscule of crimes was punished by death.  Hey, as long as I'm not a criminal, everything's good, right?  (Notice the parallel to the NSA spying logic.)

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151002#msg151002 date=1145650002]
Sometimes, but not always, it is in the best interests of a society to have certain restrictions placed on its people to protect them from themselves, and to pre-emptively prevent others from being hurt.  I often hear an argument comparable to yours used in gun-control debates: "The government has no place telling me that I do not have a right to own a gun until I start using it inappropriately."  Unfortunately the preservation of this so-called "right" has repeatedly been shown not to be in the best interests of the general population.[/quote]I hate guns and I would love to see all guns done away with, because I feel that they pose an enormous risk to people and that they are more often used for criminal or irresponsible actions than their intended ones.  But what I won't do is claim that there should be a law banning guns.  It's my choice to hate them, and darn it, those rednecks might shoot each other up or some gang kids might have a war, and I won't like it, but that's just no reason to limit their freedoms.  The only reason they should lose their freedoms is if they start using that gun to shoot other people.  Then they're taking away the freedom of someone else and it becomes necessary for government to step in.  That's a long winded way of saying that I don't think the purpose of the government is bureaucratic mostly.  They're there to do governmental things that I don't care to do, like go on diplomatic missions, having foreign nationals over to my house, or firebombing kids in Iraq.  Domestically, they should be responsible for preserving the rights of the citizens, not curtailing them until there is sufficient justification.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151002#msg151002 date=1145650002]
Further, it is generally agreed that certain types of pornography should be illegal.  While viewing the pornography, the user is indeed only affecting his/her body and mind.  However, our decisions are strongly influenced by various levels of neurotransmitters in our brains, or more generally, by the state of our minds.  By exercising your prerogative to change your mind in certain ways, you could become an uncontrollable danger to society, in the same way a rabid dog could be seen as a danger to its owners.  In the last few sentences, the word "pornography" could easily be replaced by "marijuana."[/quote]Fine, when I'm a danger to society and act upon those "uncontrollable" impulses, lock me away.  After all, I've committed a real crime and deserve it at that point.  By your logic, we ought to just jail victims of childhood abuse because statistics show they're much more likely to beat their own children.  But more importantly, I could become an uncontrollable danger?  You want to lock me up because I could commit a serious crime?  Well hell, give me several hundred million dollars and a couple Nobel prizes because I could win those as well.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151002#msg151002 date=1145650002]
In my opinion, the feeling that it should be a right to possess and use marijuana is not as important as preventing the after-effects its widespread use may have on a community.  I do not see the right to use marijuana in particular as something very important or fundamental, so I feel that in the better interests of society the right should be denied.  It is certainly not always prudent to wait for something terrible to happen rather than to address the underlying problems that
will most certainly lead to trouble in the future.  [/quote]How can you not see anything wrong with finding excuses to punish people for crimes they haven't committed yet?

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151002#msg151002 date=1145650002]
While I agree it may be unethical to deny certain rights, it should be done if it is in the long-term best interests of a group of people.  As I wrote in my earlier post,  marijuana control should be a case where the "ends justify the means."  Now what in particular is in the best interests of a society is not firmly established.  I have given my opinion on the matter, and have left the question open for you to address.

Note that, for example, charging someone with murder for owning a gun is very different than banning gun ownership (because of how the gun may be used).
[/quote]You don't even know that it's in anyone's best interests to maintain the illegality of marijuana.  You assume that it's in society's best interests because that's the position you agree with.  I guarantee, if marijuana were legal, society would not crumble.

You're being far too black and white on this issue. 

You cannot reasonably argue that personal freedoms should always trump all other considerations.  You have to consider different circumstances in context. It is often decided whether it would be more responsible to allow someone to exercise a so-called "right" in a society with laws and regulations, or to restrict that freedom for the safety of others. 

If Billy-Bob shoots an innocent kid with his gun, yes it becomes a problem.  If thousands of innocent lives are lost all the time because of a right to firearms, then yes, that is a problem.  If it reasonably obvious that through tightening gun-control laws, or even completely barring the civilian use of firearms, that these lives will no longer be lost, then something should be done.
Since the audience here will have mixed opinions on gun-control, I will use some more extreme examples to drive my point home. 

Should we all be allowed the right to have rocket launchers?  Should we all have the right to own nuclear weapons?  Should we all have the right to drive as fast as we want?  After all, driving as fast as I want and getting in a car accident are different situations.  To reflect that, there are different legal punishments for each action.  However we should not completely separate effects from their most common causes.

I identified happiness and safety as two important considerations in a society.  I believe that certain rights are important enough that they should be preserved in spite of safety considerations.  In other circumstances safety is more important than personal freedom.  I am not asking you to live in a dictatorship, but do you want to live in an anarchy? 

Legalizing marijuana may not crumble society, but by enforcing its prohibition I think the general population would be more motivated, productive, intelligent, safe, and that other criminal activities would decrease.  In my opinion, this is more important than someone's right to smoke, which to most people is trivial anyways.

[quote author=TehUser]
Hey, as long as I'm not a criminal, everything's good, right?  (Notice the parallel to the NSA spying logic.)
[/quote]
I don't see the parallel in this case.  I'm not saying marijuana is ok as long as it isn't abused.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151015#msg151015 date=1145669477]
You're being far too black and white on this issue. 

You cannot reasonably argue that personal freedoms should always trump all other considerations.  You have to consider different circumstances in context. It is often decided whether it would be more responsible to allow someone to exercise a so-called "right" in a society with laws and regulations, or to restrict that freedom for the safety of others.  [/quote]And why can't I?  Because you say so?  What could possibly be more important than freedom?

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151015#msg151015 date=1145669477]
If Billy-Bob shoots an innocent kid with his gun, yes it becomes a problem.  If thousands of innocent lives are lost all the time because of a right to firearms, then yes, that is a problem.  If it reasonably obvious that through tightening gun-control laws, or even completely barring the civilian use of firearms, that these lives will no longer be lost, then something should be done.
Since the audience here will have mixed opinions on gun-control, I will use some more extreme examples to drive my point home.  [/quote]Yet, even though it's completely obvious that in the interests of society, guns should be banned, the government (in the U.S.) sees fit to let people kill one another with them anyway.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151015#msg151015 date=1145669477]
Should we all be allowed the right to have rocket launchers?  Should we all have the right to own nuclear weapons?  Should we all have the right to drive as fast as we want?  After all, driving as fast as I want and getting in a car accident are different situations.  To reflect that, there are different legal punishments for each action.  However we should not completely separate effects from their most common causes.[/quote]Damn right we should.  If I want a rocket launcher for hunting rabbits or a nuke for...  Whatever the societally accepted use of nukes is, then yeah, I should be able to have it.  Until I demonstrate that my usage of said items is infringing upon the rights of other people, the government shouldn't have a say in the matter.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151015#msg151015 date=1145669477]
I identified happiness and safety as two important considerations in a society.  I believe that certain rights are important enough that they should be preserved in spite of safety considerations.  In other circumstances safety is more important than personal freedom.  I am not asking you to live in a dictatorship, but do you want to live in an anarchy?[/quote]Now who's getting black and white?  I'm not for any form of extreme government, what I'm advocating is a system in which I am afforded freedom until I prove myself incapable of conducting myself appropriately (meaning when I use my freedoms to curtail someone else's).

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151015#msg151015 date=1145669477]
Legalizing marijuana may not crumble society, but by enforcing its prohibition I think the general population would be more motivated, productive, intelligent, safe, and that other criminal activities would decrease.  In my opinion, this is more important than someone's right to smoke, which to most people is trivial anyways.[/quote]It's not for you to decide that society should be motivated, productive, intelligent, or safe.  That should be the choice of the individual.  If I want to lay on my couch all day smoking weed, then I'll have to deal with the consequences of that lifestyle.  But I chose that lifestyle with my right to choose what I do with my life and my body, and that's what's important.


[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151015#msg151015 date=1145669477]I don't see the parallel in this case.  I'm not saying marijuana is ok as long as it isn't abused.
[/quote]You said that it's the responsibility of the government to make people as safe as they can be.  The U.S. government believed they were doing that by violating the privacy of American citizens.  That's how it's analogous.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151016#msg151016 date=1145670608]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151015#msg151015 date=1145669477]
You're being far too black and white on this issue. 

You cannot reasonably argue that personal freedoms should always trump all other considerations.  You have to consider different circumstances in context. It is often decided whether it would be more responsible to allow someone to exercise a so-called "right" in a society with laws and regulations, or to restrict that freedom for the safety of others.  [/quote]And why can't I?  Because you say so?  What could possibly be more important than freedom?
[/quote]

I just don't think it's so black and white!  I think freedom can be very important, but also that certain freedoms can seriously endanger innocent people.  In some cases I'm convinced it's better to prevent a tragedy than to wait for it to happen, and then to react.  Sometimes this will be at the cost of a freedom.  If the freedom is trivial enough, and the tragedy is serious enough, then the tragedy must be avoided at the expense of the freedom.    Whether the punishment should be the same for breaking a law (in place to prevent harm) and for actually harming others is a different argument.

I think, for example, that the thousands of lives lost due to slack gun control are more important than the freedom to own a gun.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151016#msg151016 date=1145670608]
Damn right we should.  If I want a rocket launcher for hunting rabbits or a nuke for...  Whatever the societally accepted use of nukes is, then yeah, I should be able to have it.  Until I demonstrate that my usage of said items is infringing upon the rights of other people, the government shouldn't have a say in the matter.
[/quote]

I was surprised by this response! I am now curious how far you will go with these beliefs, so I am going to write up an hypothetical situation.

It has been proven that upon consumption of chemical Y, one is 90% likely to go on an homicidal rampage and kill at least three people.  Most people
live in fear of this chemical, and avoid it at all costs.  However, there are a group of sociopaths who legally distribute it, often selling it to children who are poorly
informed about its side effects.  The substance is very addictive and is responsible for a majority of the murders that take place in this imaginary community.  It is established that by outlawing chemical Y its use will discontinue, and the people of the community would thereafter be more at ease and content. 

Should the right to consume Y be taken away, or should the community continue to suffer in order to preserve this right?
 

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151016#msg151016 date=1145670608]
You said that it's the responsibility of the government to make people as safe as they can be.  The U.S. government believed they were doing that by violating the privacy of American citizens.  That's how it's analogous.
[/quote]
I said as safe and content as they can be.  If taking away a right will result in discontent that is obviously more significant than whatever safety benefits would result, then the right should be preserved.  I think the right to privacy is incredibly important, and substantial justification would be needed for me to accept it being violated.  In the NSA situation, I think the fight is over whether it is unclear how much danger the citizens actually are in, and to what degree violating privacy rights has and will protect people.

[hr]

I feel as though safety is a right.  Or is it only a lowly privilege?  It should be comparable to certain freedoms.  I think most people would rather feel safe than have certain rights.  Is it not their right to make this decision? :)   

I don't trust that all people are responsible and sensible.  If legally maintaining a personal freedom is very likely to facilitate harm, death, or unhappiness to many, then it is irresponsible not to limit this freedom by law.  For example, I don't think it would be just to allow someone who is certifiably insane to legally purchase a nuclear missile from the US government.  Endangering the world is
not worth such a trivial freedom to most.  (I am now purposely using extreme examples).

Yes, some things are just obviously more important than legally preserving some so-called "freedoms."  If you don't agree, then we must agree to disagree  on this point, which is really behind my whole "illegalize marijuana" argument.  In this regard, we must have very different priorities.

If Trudeau had not initiated the War Measures Act, temporarily suspending various freedoms, it is likely many lives would have been lost, Canada would probably be separated, and hence large groups of people would be trapped in a state of poverty and despair.  I don't think anyone missed the freedoms too much either.  The ends justified the means.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151028#msg151028 date=1145686625]
I just don't think it's so black and white!  I think freedom can be very important, but also that certain freedoms can seriously endanger innocent people.  In some cases I'm convinced it's better to prevent a tragedy than to wait for it to happen, and then to react.  Sometimes this will be at the cost of a freedom.  If the freedom is trivial enough, and the tragedy is serious enough, then the tragedy must be avoided at the expense of the freedom.    Whether the punishment should be the same for breaking a law (in place to prevent harm) and for actually harming others is a different argument.[/quote]First of all, unless you're some amazing psychic, the best you can do is throw statistics at me until this "tragedy" that you're trying to prevent occurs.  I don't know if you've realized it, but people have free will--you know, the ability to choose to do what they like and to be responsible for those actions.  Second, what the hell kind of "tragedy" is going to result from legal marijuana usage?

"Quick, some kids are unmotivated, we have to do something!"
"Oh my God, what have we done?!"

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151028#msg151028 date=1145686625]
I think, for example, that the thousands of lives lost due to slack gun control are more important than the freedom to own a gun.[/quote]I disagree.  Freedom affects everyone.  While I can sympathize with those who have lost family or friends to gun violence, taking away personal liberties by criminalizing certain actions is not a solution.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151028#msg151028 date=1145686625]
I was surprised by this response! I am now curious how far you will go with these beliefs, so I am going to write up an hypothetical situation.

It has been proven that upon consumption of chemical Y, one is 90% likely to go on an homicidal rampage and kill at least three people.  Most people
live in fear of this chemical, and avoid it at all costs.  However, there are a group of sociopaths who legally distribute it, often selling it to children who are poorly
informed about its side effects.  The substance is very addictive and is responsible for a majority of the murders that take place in this imaginary community.  It is established that by outlawing chemical Y its use will discontinue, and the people of the community would thereafter be more at ease and content. 

Should the right to consume Y be taken away, or should the community continue to suffer in order to preserve this right?[/quote]Hmm, sounds a lot like alcohol.

But seriously, that's an interesting question because even I'm tempted to say it should be illegal because 9 out of 10 people who take it are going to kill people.  But then the argument becomes, "What percentage is acceptable?"  Fortunately, this isn't a scenario I have to worry about though.  For instance, in the United States, we have laws that make a person guilty of murder if they disregard a substantial risk, even indirectly, that leads to a murder.  Thus, in this case, any person who creates, distributes, sells, or gives away this chemical is just as guilty for the murder and can be prosecuted for his role.  So disregarding the fact that a) such a chemical would never be legal, b) such a chemical would probably be impossible to create, there are still legal repercussions if the drug is taken irresponsibly and induces homicidal rampages.  Thus, I think that I can safely say that the freedom to take this chemical should be protected.  The mere probability that someone's going to commit a crime is not sufficient justification to find a way to charge them with a crime now.  I simply won't disregard free will and say that people should be punished for actions they might commit in the future.  That's not justice.  People should be punished for crimes they commit, not crimes it's possible (or even probable) they might commit.

But again, we're talking about marijuana.  It doesn't make people kill people.  Hell, it doesn't even have the same effect that drinking does on driving abilities.  I just can't see this "tragedy" that you're foretelling resulting from legalization of marijuana.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151028#msg151028 date=1145686625]
I feel as though safety is a right.  Or is it only a lowly privilege?  It should be comparable to certain freedoms.  I think most people would rather feel safe than have certain rights.  Is it not their right to make this decision? :)   

I don't trust that all people are responsible and sensible.  If legally maintaining a personal freedom is very likely to facilitate harm, death, or unhappiness to many, then it is irresponsible not to limit this freedom by law.  For example, I don't think it would be just to allow someone who is certifiably insane to legally purchase a nuclear missile from the US government.  Endangering the world is
not worth such a trivial freedom to most.  (I am now purposely using extreme examples).

Yes, some things are just obviously more important than legally preserving some so-called "freedoms."  If you don't agree, then we must agree to disagree  on this point, which is really behind my whole "illegalize marijuana" argument.  In this regard, we must have very different priorities.

If Trudeau had not initiated the War Measures Act, temporarily suspending various freedoms, it is likely many lives would have been lost, Canada would probably be separated, and hence large groups of people would be trapped in a state of poverty and despair.  I don't think anyone missed the freedoms too much either.  The ends justified the means.
[/quote]I don't believe there there should be anything more important to government than preserving the freedoms of all citizens.  That said, when all citizens agree on a restriction of a certain right in the name of safety or public interest or whatever, that's fine.  For instance, an explicit "No killing other people." rule.  But marijuana?  Surely in the midst of all of your massively ridiculous examples, you've realized that people smoking a little dope is not a big deal.  But if not, how is marijuana "very likely to facilitate harm, death, or unhappiness to many"?

You guys need to stop typing so much, and smoke some weed.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151036#msg151036 date=1145712743]
First of all, unless you're some amazing psychic, the best you can do is throw statistics at me until this "tragedy" that you're trying to prevent occurs.  I don't know if you've realized it, but people have free will--you know, the ability to choose to do what they like and to be responsible for those actions.
[/quote]

We have free will? 

When someone makes the "decision" to take mind-altering substances, the decisions this person will make afterwards will be affected by the substance; his options, or "free will," becomes limited.  If someone is shown to likely be a sufficient danger to others after taking a substance or exercising a certain right, then it is only responsible to try to prevent the person from taking the substance or to remove the legal option to exercise that right.

Now, what should qualify as "sufficient danger"? 

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151036#msg151036 date=1145712743]
"What percentage is acceptable?"  Fortunately, this isn't a scenario I have to worry about though.  For instance, in the United States, we have laws that make a person guilty (of murder) if they disregard a substantial risk, even indirectly
[/quote]

What is a substantial risk?  I could say by operating powerful radio equipment in a commercial airplane that I may not consciously be putting other passengers at risk.  However, there is a good chance (e.g. > 30%), that these activities will endanger the lives of the passengers.  I would not be allowed to
take such a risk.  In the same way, by driving too fast I may not consciously be putting others in danger, but there is a good chance (e.g. > some percentage)
that I will injure someone else by driving in this way.  Hypothetically, if there is a 50% chance someone will get in an accident and kill someone if they drive
> 190 mph for a day in the city, then if X represents the number of people who do this/day,  as  X --> infinity,  the number of people who die because of this action becomes precisely 0.5*X.  By having legal driving limits, we pre-emptively
save lives: something an overwhelming majority of people would agree is a good idea.

Every time we do something we are putting someone else at risk.  Even if it is
merely a walk in the park.  If the probability that a given action will cause harm
to someone is sufficiently high, we have an illusion that this action is a direct risk to that person and basically everyone agrees that this action should be punished by law.  For example, if I shoot an AK-47 at someone's stomach, it may not have been my intent to hurt anyone.  We can never be sure of someone's intent.  We are only somewhat sure of the risks associated with any action. If the risk is great enough, that person is punished for their "choice," and the choice is outlawed for the "greater good of society." 

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151036#msg151036 date=1145712743]
Second, what the hell kind of "tragedy" is going to result from legal marijuana usage?

"Quick, some kids are unmotivated, we have to do something!"
"Oh my God, what have we done?!"
[/quote]
Off with their heads  >:(.

For the most part, I have been trying to get you to admit it is sometimes a good idea to compromise freedoms in exchange for some other benefit (e.g. safety).  It is never guaranteed that the exchange will result in the said benefit -- like everything else, that is a matter of probability.

You will not argue that shooting someone is a freedom that should be preserved.  This is because it is so obviously putting someone else in danger.  By the same token,
[quote author=Rule]
You cannot reasonably argue that personal freedoms should trump all other considerations
[/quote]

What differentiates the act of shooting someone from the act of doing drugs is merely the difference in probability that each action will cause harm to someone else.  We cannot prove intent.

You argue that it is a choice to use drugs.  I respond that by using drugs your later choices become limited to ones that will most probably hurt other people, in the same way shooting someone will most probably hurt that person.  The initial choice is seen as innocuous to others (and being short sighted creatures this is really all we consider), but that initial choice leads to a probable sequence of events that does harm others.  Although taking a drug initially only involves one person, it is unusual for this choice not to later affect others.

What am I saying now?  That using marijuana is as bad as shooting people? Surely not.  As I said earlier, I think the freedom to use marijuana can be exchanged for a more productive, intelligent, safe, motivated and less criminal society.  Is it my place to insist that the exchange be made?  Maybe, maybe not.  I have my reasons for wanting marijuana to be illegal though.
[hr]

Your response to the "Y" situation seems to amount to:  it would be illegal anyways, but in the unlikely event it weren't, I think the right to consume Y should be protected.  It would most probably be illegal for good reasons!  By saying you think the right should be protected, you are saying you think the decision to take Y should be legal, even though this helps facilitate an action that will most probably kill other people?  Should the law really differentiate between taking Y and shooting someone?  I don't think it should: the risks associated with each action are roughly equal.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151036#msg151036 date=1145712743]
People should be punished for crimes they commit, not crimes it's possible (or even probable) they might commit.
[/quote]

I've agreed with that point several times.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and illegalize actions that will probably lead to certain crimes, as a preventative measure.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151113#msg151113 date=1145813687]
We have free will? 

When someone makes the "decision" to take mind-altering substances, the decisions this person will make afterwards will be affected by the substance; his options, or "free will," becomes limited.  If someone is shown to likely be a sufficient danger to others after taking a substance or exercising a certain right, then it is only responsible to try to prevent the person from taking the substance or to remove the legal option to exercise that right.

Now, what should qualify as "sufficient danger"?  [/quote]Oh, don't be ridiculous.  Everything that people do causes neurochemical changes, be it eating a piece of chocolate or smoking an enormous joint.  Furthermore, if you're going to claim that people who smoke marijuana are "likely to be a sufficient danger to others", then cite some evidence instead of continuing to rely on these asinine extreme examples.

Everything you says has to do with this risk that's posed to society.  What is this risk?  Where is your evidence?

Hell, while we're at it, let's make carrying mirrors illegal because they can reflect UV radiation and result in cancer.  Oh, and food, we have to ban that because its full of carcinogens and other natural poisons.  In fact, we might as well make life illegal since every being poses a risk to every other being.  In your "examples", if you can even call them that, you make up probabilities that you feel are appropriate.  That's ridiculous.

So keep the argument to marijuana and if you want to continue saying that the use of marijuana poses a significant risk to others, let's see some actual evidence supporting it instead of the deluded creations of your own mind.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151126#msg151126 date=1145820178]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151113#msg151113 date=1145813687]
We have free will? 

When someone makes the "decision" to take mind-altering substances, the decisions this person will make afterwards will be affected by the substance; his options, or "free will," becomes limited.  If someone is shown to likely be a sufficient danger to others after taking a substance or exercising a certain right, then it is only responsible to try to prevent the person from taking the substance or to remove the legal option to exercise that right.

Now, what should qualify as "sufficient danger"?  [/quote]Oh, don't be ridiculous.  Everything that people do causes neurochemical changes, be it eating a piece of chocolate or smoking an enormous joint.  Furthermore, if you're going to claim that people who smoke marijuana are "likely to be a sufficient danger to others", then cite some evidence instead of continuing to rely on these asinine extreme examples.

Everything you says has to do with this risk that's posed to society.  What is this risk?  Where is your evidence?

Hell, while we're at it, let's make carrying mirrors illegal because they can reflect UV radiation and result in cancer.  Oh, and food, we have to ban that because its full of carcinogens and other natural poisons.  In fact, we might as well make life illegal since every being poses a risk to every other being.  In your "examples", if you can even call them that, you make up probabilities that you feel are appropriate.  That's ridiculous.

So keep the argument to marijuana and if you want to continue saying that the use of marijuana poses a significant risk to others, let's see some actual evidence supporting it instead of the deluded creations of your own mind.
[/quote]
driving impaired + whateverelse i said before

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151126#msg151126 date=1145820178]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151113#msg151113 date=1145813687]
We have free will? 

When someone makes the "decision" to take mind-altering substances, the decisions this person will make afterwards will be affected by the substance; his options, or "free will," becomes limited.  If someone is shown to likely be a sufficient danger to others after taking a substance or exercising a certain right, then it is only responsible to try to prevent the person from taking the substance or to remove the legal option to exercise that right.

Now, what should qualify as "sufficient danger"?  [/quote]Oh, don't be ridiculous.  Everything that people do causes neurochemical changes, be it eating a piece of chocolate or smoking an enormous joint.  Furthermore, if you're going to claim that people who smoke marijuana are "likely to be a sufficient danger to others", then cite some evidence instead of continuing to rely on these asinine extreme examples.

Everything you says has to do with this risk that's posed to society.  What is this risk?  Where is your evidence?

Hell, while we're at it, let's make carrying mirrors illegal because they can reflect UV radiation and result in cancer.  Oh, and food, we have to ban that because its full of carcinogens and other natural poisons.  In fact, we might as well make life illegal since every being poses a risk to every other being.  In your "examples", if you can even call them that, you make up probabilities that you feel are appropriate.  That's ridiculous.

So keep the argument to marijuana and if you want to continue saying that the use of marijuana poses a significant risk to others, let's see some actual evidence supporting it instead of the deluded creations of your own mind.
[/quote]

Haven't I made it extremely clear that it isn't so black and white?  I am making up probabilities?  Tell me something that isn't obvious.  I am giving you concrete examples to illustrate how different actions pose different risks, and that at some point it is clearly necessary to draw the line.  I could have been more abstract and used variables instead of specific numbers, but I think that would have unnecessarily complicated the argument.

I have repeatedly emphasized that I do not wish to see people punished for crimes they have not committed, but that it would be irresponsible to not restrict certain freedoms that are probably going to cause a lot more trouble than they're worth.  I have to establish this point before we can talk too much about marijuana.  If you disagree, then I cannot help but think it is you who is being delusional.

Since you are now asking me to argue more specifically why it is in society's best interests to illegalize marijuana, then you must first concede that it is sometimes in society's best interests to give up certain freedoms in exchange for some other benefit.  Everything has a price.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151131#msg151131 date=1145824791]
Haven't I made it extremely clear that it isn't so black and white?  I am making up probabilities?  Tell me something that isn't obvious.  I am giving you concrete examples to illustrate how different actions pose different risks, and that at some point it is clearly necessary to draw the line.  I could have been more abstract and used variables instead of specific numbers, but I think that would have unnecessarily complicated the argument.[/quote]If it's so obvious, why do you persist in making an argument on an imaginary premise?

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151131#msg151131 date=1145824791]
I have repeatedly emphasized that I do not wish to see people punished for crimes they have not committed, but that it would be irresponsible to not restrict certain freedoms that are probably going to cause a lot more trouble than they're worth.  I have to establish this point before we can talk too much about marijuana.  If you disagree, then I cannot help but think it is you who is being delusional.[/quote]You can't "not wish to see people punished for crimes they have not committed" and then turn around and say that laws based on preventing crimes are warranted.  That's a direct contradiction unless you can establish a some sort of direct harm that results from the original crime.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151131#msg151131 date=1145824791]
Since you are now asking me to argue more specifically why it is in society's best interests to illegalize marijuana, then you must first concede that it is sometimes in society's best interests to give up certain freedoms in exchange for some other benefit.  Everything has a price.
[/quote]What the hell?  Do you have any idea how stupid what you just said was?  "I won't give you a reason unless you accept the fallacious premise of my reasons."  That's called circular reasoning and it doesn't fly with me.

You simply aren't making sense.  I make it painfully obvious why every single freedom shouldn't be preserved at all costs, and you ask me to talk about marijuana, not other examples that drive my point home beyond doubt.  Then when I ask you to concede a point, you say that by doing that you are accepting a premise to my "illegalize marijuana argument." 

Good job, you're right.  If you are not mature enough to accept the reality that
not all freedoms should be preserved at absolutely all costs, then we cannot talk about whether marijuana should be legal or not. 

I am not practicing circular logic; I am not saying "accept that marijuana should be illegal then we will talk about why marijuana should be illegal."  I have asked you to acknowledge a premise pretty much any reasonable person would agree with.  I have used the so-called "asinine" examples to see how far you are willing to go to protect the idea that any freedom is more important than anything else. 

Laws based on preventing crimes are to punish those who have wrecklessly decided to exercise a so-called "freedom" even though it may pose a significant danger to others.  That is worthy of punishment in my opinion.  Sometimes artifical deterrents are needed to maintain a society a majority of people are comfortable being part of.  I couldn't have made this more obvious.  Besides, it's not really a big step to understand that point: it is something that pretty much every desirable first world society acknowledges.

Would you prefer that we didn't have speeding limits?  That we didn't have luggage checks at airports?  That we didn't have laws making it more difficult for anyone, even those who are certifiably insane, to obtain extremely dangerous weapons? 

(Edit: Something I found somewhat interesting, but to avoid being too long-winded I will leave it as an amusing aside, and would prefer that the above content be considered more seriously)
Incidentally, and really, as an aside, I think one interesting conclusion that followed from the series of "extreme examples" was that there really isn't much to differentiate shooting someone in the stomach, something so clearly and directly wrong, to exercising some other freedoms (e.g. intake of chemical Y).

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151137#msg151137 date=1145829145]
You simply aren't making sense.  I make it painfully obvious why every single freedom shouldn't be preserved at all costs, and you ask me to talk about marijuana, not other examples that drive my point home beyond doubt.  Then when I ask you to concede a point, you say that by doing that you are accepting a premise to my "illegalize marijuana argument."  [/quote]Your examples aren't applicable.  I've already stated that freedom is freedom, now make you case for the point at hand, not some imaginary example that you feel is better suited.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151137#msg151137 date=1145829145]
Good job, you're right.  If you are not mature enough to accept the reality that
not all freedoms should be preserved at absolutely all costs, then we cannot talk about whether marijuana should be legal or not.  [/quote]Wow, excellent work there, Rule.  When someone has an ideological difference, they're "not mature".  That's brilliant reasoning.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151137#msg151137 date=1145829145]
I am not practicing circular logic; I am not saying "accept that marijuana should be illegal then we will talk about why marijuana should be illegal."  I have asked you to acknowledge a premise pretty much any reasonable person would agree with.  I have used the so-called "asinine" examples to see how far you are willing to go to protect the idea that any freedom is more important than anything else.  [/quote]And I've been consistent in my application.  You just don't seem to have any problem with taking away peoples' rights without any legitimate reason for doing so.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151137#msg151137 date=1145829145]
Laws based on preventing crimes are to punish those who have wrecklessly decided to exercise a so-called "freedom" even though it may pose a significant danger to others.  That is worthy of punishment in my opinion.  Sometimes artifical deterrents are needed to maintain a society a majority of people are comfortable being part of.  I couldn't have made this more obvious.  Besides, it's not really a big step to understand that point: it is something that pretty much every desirable first world society acknowledges.[/quote]FOR THE UMPTEENTH FREAKING TIME, WHAT SIGNIFICANT DANGER DOES MARIJUANA POSE?  I have asked that question a number of times, I want to hear you justify it for once.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151137#msg151137 date=1145829145]
Would you prefer that we didn't have speeding limits?  That we didn't have luggage checks at airports?  That we didn't have laws making it more difficult for anyone, even those who are certifiably insane, to obtain extremely dangerous weapons?   [/quote]Yes!

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151137#msg151137 date=1145829145]
(Edit: Something I found somewhat interesting, but to avoid being too long-winded I will leave it as an amusing aside, and would prefer that the above content be considered more seriously)
Incidentally, and really, as an aside, I think one interesting conclusion that followed from the series of "extreme examples" was that there really isn't much to differentiate shooting someone in the stomach, something so clearly and directly wrong, to exercising some other freedoms (e.g. intake of chemical Y).
[/quote]Let's think here...  I have a) shot someone in the stomach or b) taken chemical Y.  I'll clue you in here, Rule.  In one of those scenarios, an actual crime has been committed.  Someone else's rights have been infringed upon.  I'll give you a hint.  It's not 'b'.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150992#msg150992 date=1145643942]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg150988#msg150988 date=1145641126]
Uh, you mean, a treatise upon which almost all of Western society originated?[/quote]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?[/quote]
It might not have a bearing on whether something is correct, only if there is an absolute.  While I tend to favor an absolute in most things, some gray areas exist for me.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150992#msg150992 date=1145643942]You think?  Oh, that must make it correct!  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.
[/quote]
Yes, I think, I believe.  Of course, you're saying that you believe that government has no place dictating[...]. 

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150997#msg150997 date=1145647568]
Those are all stupid for the same reason.  They all predict that you're going to commit an additional crime.  I shouldn't be charged with a crime based on the possibility that it will lead to an actual crime.  That's the whole point here, there's no reason to say that using marijuana damages anyone's life but the person using it.
[/quote]
You're not being charged with a crime that you haven't done yet.  This crime is set up as a deterrent to socially high-probability problems. 

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151014#msg151014 date=1145667460]
Excuse me for holding personal freedoms in high esteem.
[/quote]
So long as you realize that it's your opinion and not the end-all of truth.  You know, like you accused me of.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151014#msg151014 date=1145667460]
If I wanted a government to make me "as safe as I can be", I'd go live in a dictatorship where even the most miniscule of crimes was punished by death.  Hey, as long as I'm not a criminal, everything's good, right?  (Notice the parallel to the NSA spying logic.)[/quote]
Why is it necessary to go to such an extreme when the issue is much more moderate than you're suggesting?  The government isn't killing you because you're taking a hit of marijuana.

I believe that this is really why the libertarian movement hasn't taken off.  It's the same reason why Linux hasn't taken off.  Libertarians and other conservatives really believe in most of the same fundamental principles (as I've stated before, I'm also in favor of the decriminalization of all drugs).  But instead of compromising to get a larger part of the agenda in place, you have to go and make extreme examples and fight to the death over stupid things.  You're as bad as the environmentalist wackos who argue that we're causing global warming by making the air cleaner, and nobody wants to listen to it.

It's very similar to the Linux attitude -- a coworker of mine in IT said she recently saw a Usenet post of Linux users saying that they don't want to make Linux more accessible because then stupid people will use it.  It's clear that the attitude will never hit the mainstream if this attitude doesn't change. 

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151144#msg151144 date=1145834143]
FOR THE UMPTEENTH FREAKING TIME, WHAT SIGNIFICANT DANGER DOES MARIJUANA POSE? I have asked that question a number of times, I want to hear you justify it for once.
[/quote]
He (and CrAz3D) have made attempts to answer the question.  You have dismissed (at least CrAz3D) by calling it "stupid."  You're the one with the problem with this argument.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151144#msg151144 date=1145834143]
You just don't seem to have any problem with taking away peoples' rights without any legitimate reason for doing so.
[/quote]

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

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151144#msg151144 date=1145834143]
FOR THE UMPTEENTH FREAKING TIME, WHAT SIGNIFICANT DANGER DOES MARIJUANA POSE?  I have asked that question a number of times, I want to hear you justify it for once.
[/quote]

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?

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151137#msg151137 date=1145829145]
Would you prefer that we didn't have speeding limits?  That we didn't have luggage checks at airports?  That we didn't have laws making it more difficult for anyone, even those who are certifiably insane, to obtain extremely dangerous weapons?  [/quote]

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151144#msg151144 date=1145834143]Yes!
[/quote]
:o.  After that admission I don't see how we can continue seriously.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151144#msg151144 date=1145834143]
I have a) shot someone in the stomach or b) taken chemical Y.  I'll clue you in here, Rule.  In one of those scenarios, an actual crime has been committed.  Someone else's rights have been infringed upon.  I'll give you a hint.  It's not 'b'.
[/quote]

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.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg151146#msg151146 date=1145834741]
Yes, I think, I believe.  Of course, you're saying that you believe that government has no place dictating[...].  [/quote]No, government has no place dictating.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg151146#msg151146 date=1145834741]
You're not being charged with a crime that you haven't done yet.  This crime is set up as a deterrent to socially high-probability problems.  [/quote]You're being charged with a crime that shouldn't be a crime and that is only a crime because someone had the audacity to say that the action in question would lead to other crimes.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg151146#msg151146 date=1145834741]Why is it necessary to go to such an extreme when the issue is much more moderate than you're suggesting?  The government isn't killing you because you're taking a hit of marijuana.[/quote]No, but it has a habit of taking 10 years off of an individual's life.  That's much better.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg151146#msg151146 date=1145834741]
I believe that this is really why the libertarian movement hasn't taken off.  It's the same reason why Linux hasn't taken off.  Libertarians and other conservatives really believe in most of the same fundamental principles (as I've stated before, I'm also in favor of the decriminalization of all drugs).  But instead of compromising to get a larger part of the agenda in place, you have to go and make extreme examples and fight to the death over stupid things.  You're as bad as the environmentalist wackos who argue that we're causing global warming by making the air cleaner, and nobody wants to listen to it.[/quote]First of all, I'm not arguing an agenda.  I'm not arguing legislation.  I couldn't care less whether or not anyone likes or dislikes my argument and/or whether or not they want to put it to practical use.  I'm arguing theory.  I want reason.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg151146#msg151146 date=1145834741]
It's very similar to the Linux attitude -- a coworker of mine in IT said she recently saw a Usenet post of Linux users saying that they don't want to make Linux more accessible because then stupid people will use it.  It's clear that the attitude will never hit the mainstream if this attitude doesn't change.  [/quote]Once again, I'm not trying to make my argument "mainstream".  It's whether or not it's right that matters.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg151146#msg151146 date=1145834741]
He (and CrAz3D) have made attempts to answer the question.  You have dismissed (at least CrAz3D) by calling it "stupid."  You're the one with the problem with this argument.
[/quote]Did you even read the objections?  If so, did you understand them?  You're clearly not connecting the dots here.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151147#msg151147 date=1145834954]
Are you willing to admit that there may be a legitimate reason for taking away someone's rights?[/quote]Yeah, when all citizens agree on it in the interests of society.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151147#msg151147 date=1145834954]
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?[/quote]Because if you can present a decent case, I want to hear it.  I don't want to hear some excuse.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151147#msg151147 date=1145834954]
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.
[/quote]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.

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

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151155#msg151155 date=1145838473]
Yeah, when all citizens agree on it in the interests of society.
[/quote]

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150992#msg150992 date=1145643942]
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?
[/quote]

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.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg151191#msg151191 date=1145898453]
[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151155#msg151155 date=1145838473]
Yeah, when all citizens agree on it in the interests of society.
[/quote]

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150992#msg150992 date=1145643942]
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?
[/quote]
[/quote]That's a brilliant job of pointing out an inconsistency that doesn't exist.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151193#msg151193 date=1145901388]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg151191#msg151191 date=1145898453]
[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151155#msg151155 date=1145838473]
Yeah, when all citizens agree on it in the interests of society.
[/quote]

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150992#msg150992 date=1145643942]
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?
[/quote]
[/quote]That's a brilliant job of pointing out an inconsistency that doesn't exist.
[/quote]

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.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151155#msg151155 date=1145838473]
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.
[/quote]

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. 

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.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14802.msg151203#msg151203 date=1145909847]
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.
[/quote]
That's why I support banning women from the roads ;)

[quote author=Grok]Yes, alcohol is overly criminilized.[/quote]
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.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14802.msg151203#msg151203 date=1145909847]
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.
[/quote]

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.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151211#msg151211 date=1145916367]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.
[/quote]

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.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14802.msg151216#msg151216 date=1145917214]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151211#msg151211 date=1145916367]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.
[/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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?

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg151196#msg151196 date=1145905974]
[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151193#msg151193 date=1145901388]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=14802.msg151191#msg151191 date=1145898453]
[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151155#msg151155 date=1145838473]
Yeah, when all citizens agree on it in the interests of society.
[/quote]

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg150992#msg150992 date=1145643942]
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?
[/quote]
[/quote]That's a brilliant job of pointing out an inconsistency that doesn't exist.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]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.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151199#msg151199 date=1145907687]
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.[/quote]No, you're wrong.  Bullet in stomach = definite harm.  Drug Y = possible harm.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151199#msg151199 date=1145907687]
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.[/quote]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.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151199#msg151199 date=1145907687]
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.[/quote]It doesn't really strike me as "obvious", probably because it's not obvious.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151220#msg151220 date=1145919376]
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.
[/quote]

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?
[hr]

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.

Pay attention to how you phrase things.  This is why you're looking so extreme... nearly every statement you just made is an extreme one.  Read this not from a defensive standpoint, but from someone else's eyes.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151218#msg151218 date=1145918592]What?  You don't understand me.  My position is not extreme at all.[/quote]  OK, you're not extreme "at all" (an extreme way of not being extreme).

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151218#msg151218 date=1145918592]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.[/quote]  Sounds extreme.  From "some specific" vs "EVERYTHING ELSE" (you don't call everything else being an extreme position?

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151218#msg151218 date=1145918592]Sorry for the emphasis but at this point I'm f*cking pissed off at how thick headed people are being.[/quote]  It's not other people's thickheadedness, it's your inability to communicate with them.  Don't put your failure on them.  Step back a second, realize that the people here are reading and responding to what you're saying, but what you're saying is indeed using extremes nearly throughout.  In addition, you're manipulating your arguments in transparent attempts to guide people to agree with you.  The frustration you feel is that these people are not lambs being led to the slaughter, they are thinking individual humans, each with their own opinions and reasons for having their viewpoints.  Work with that.  You'll get more production.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151218#msg151218 date=1145918592]I am not arguing about NOT BEING ABLE TO ARGUE MY POINT.[/quote]  Sure you are, you just did in the previous quote of yours, about people being thickheaded and you blaming them for not conceding to you so you can guide them into the pen.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151218#msg151218 date=1145918592]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.[/quote]  Count how many "extreme" words you used there.
(1) NO SPEED LIMITS
(2) NO LUGGAGE CHECKS
(3) NO REASONABLE LAWS ...
(4) VERY DANGEROUS WEAPONS
(5) ABSOLUTE MESS
Now do you see why your verbage looks extreme TO THE MAX?  (extreme ending intended)

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151218#msg151218 date=1145918592]My position is EXTREMELY MODERATE[/quote]  LOL .. wtf?

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151218#msg151218 date=1145918592], 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.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151218#msg151218 date=1145918592]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?[/quote]  There you go again complaining how impossible it is to argue your points.

This post has been for illustrative purposes.  Really, I'll enjoy conversing with you about this, but give the caps a break.  More importantly, try to argue with less extreme words.  Don't ask me to concede the "one specific freedom compared to the end of all civilization since the beginning of time" scenarios, to guide me into a pen.  I won't Baa-aaaa-aaaa, any time soon.[/quote]

Thanks for the laugh Grok  :-*.

I think you had hastily misinterpreted what I am saying.  I will calmly rephrase my point.  I assure you I am being logical.

You, and others, want to argue about whether giving up the legal right to use marijuana would be in the best interests of society.  However, if you (or others) cannot agree that it might ever be appropriate (practically speaking) to exchange a freedom for any reason, how can I make a case for marijuana in particular? 

There is no point in talking specifically about whether it is necessary to take away the freedom to use marijuana or any other specific drug, if you will not agree that is may be necessary to take away a freedom in some (unspecified?) circumstance.
When I say "no point," I mean that we could never reach an agreement that marijuana should be illegal, regardless of whether I could prove that marijuana is very dangerous or not.

Myndfyre and TehUser understand what I mean in this regard, even though TehUser still claims that it is never practically reasonable (under any circumstance, ever) to exchange a freedom, for anything.  To me, this is a ridiculous standpoint: I could find statistics showing how speeding limits save a great number of lives, how luggage checks are an essential security measure, etc.  To me, a guarantee that a law used as a deterrent would save a great deal of lives is enough to justify the law.  I am not saying it should be enough for you to agree that it should justify the law, although I think it would be unreasonable for someone to maintain that absolutely nothing could justify a deterrent law.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151232#msg151232 date=1145929236]
You, and others, want to argue about whether giving up the legal right to use marijuana would be in the best interests of society.  However, if you (or others) cannot agree that it might ever be appropriate (practically speaking) to exchange a freedom for any reason, how can I make a case for marijuana in particular?  [/quote]The only thing, as far as I'm concerned, is that legalizing marijuana is in the best interests of is freedom (which is inherently in the best interests of society, but that's another argument).  And as I explained to you last night, you can still present your case for marijuana.  You're trying to argue two entirely separate things.  Whether marijuana is detrimental to society has nothing to do with whether or not marijuana should be legal or illegal.  It can be detrimental in either case, much the same way that alcohol is.  We shouldn't have to agree with a faulty premise just to hear an argument to something that's unrelated.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151232#msg151232 date=1145929236]
There is no point in talking specifically about whether it is necessary to take away the freedom to use marijuana or any other specific drug, if you will not agree that is may be necessary to take away a freedom in some (unspecified?) circumstance.
When I say "no point," I mean that we could never reach an agreement that marijuana should be illegal, regardless of whether I could prove that marijuana is very dangerous or not.[/quote]Why are you so insistent that the purpose of arguing be to change someone's mind?  Believe it or not, people are actually capable of learning things through intelligent debate.  No one else is insisting that you come over to their point of view, we're just trying to get your reasoning explicated.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151232#msg151232 date=1145929236]
Myndfyre and TehUser understand what I mean in this regard, even though TehUser still claims that it is never practically reasonable (under any circumstance, ever) to exchange a freedom, for anything.  To me, this is a ridiculous standpoint: I could find statistics showing how speeding limits save a great number of lives, how luggage checks are an essential security measure, etc.  To me, a guarantee that a law used as a deterrent would save a great deal of lives is enough to justify the law.  I am not saying it should be enough for you to agree that it should justify the law, although I think it would be unreasonable for someone to maintain that absolutely nothing could justify a deterrent law.[/quote]I don't think it's ever reasonable to punish people for a crime that they haven't yet committed.  That's all what I'm saying boils down to.

TehUser:  I like how you didn't respond to the comments I had specifically directed towards you.  Also, the purpose of debate is to reach an agreement of some sort.  If we establish that it is impossible to reach an agreement  going into
the argument, then I see little point in having the argument.  Sure, I could argue
about how marijuana poses a danger to society, but that is a component of a bigger argument that marijuana should be illegal.  This is what we have been discussing in this thread, and it is what I would prefer to debate.  Deciding to completely ignore the legal aspect of the discussion would put us off-topic.

[u]Inconsistency in your viewpoint[/u]:

I have repeatedly said that we shouldn't punish people for crimes they haven't committed.  On the other hand, I know that by not having certain deterrent laws we are definitely causing certain harm to people, in the same way you see running someone over with a car as causing harm to that person, although in the deterrent law situation the harm is guaranteed.  Let me rephrase that --
by not having deterrent laws we are infringing on people's rights.  Since deterrent laws themselves may infringe on people's rights (although this is not always the case), I guess you have to decide now which rights are more important.


[hr]
As far as "punishing people for crimes they haven't committed"

Stopping and ticketing someone who is way above the speed limit:
punishment for wrecklessly endangering the safety of others

Checking luggage at an airport:
precaution to insure the safety of the passengers

etc.

It's ridiculous to be so extreme and maintain that your position is reasonable and could be practically applied.  All you have to find is one situation (out of an infinite number of scenarios) where you may agree that exchanging the freedom is worthwhile, and then your ideas must change.

For example, if we are in a situation where a law will facilitate selling a nuclear missile to someone who is insane and intends to use it to wipe out a north american city, you realize you are saying you would prefer that man be legally allowed to purchase the nuke at the most probable expense of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.  His right to own the nuke is more important than those lives.  "We should only take away that right after he kills the people." Hmm......  How about instead of almost certainly charging him for the death of hundreds of thousands of people, we just legally prevent the problem from arising?  Hey since I have an infinite number of situations to pick from, lets add that if he is legally allowed to purchase the nuke there is a 99.999% chance he will use it to kill innocents, but if there is a law preventing him from making hte purchase, there is absolutely no chance he will cause harm to innocents.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151258#msg151258 date=1145984198]
TehUser:  I like how you didn't respond to the comments I had specifically directed towards you.   Also, the purpose of debate is to reach an agreement of some sort.  If we establish that it is impossible to reach an agreement  going into
the argument, then I see little point in having the argument.  Sure, I could argue
about how marijuana poses a danger to society, but that is a component of a bigger argument that marijuana should be illegal.  This is what we have been discussing in this thread, and it is what I would prefer to debate.  Deciding to completely ignore the legal aspect of the discussion would put us off-topic.[/quote]What did I not respond to?  And no, whether or not marijuana poses is a danger to society is not inextricably linked to whether or not it's illegal.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151258#msg151258 date=1145984198]
[u]Inconsistency in your viewpoint[/u]:

I have repeatedly said that we shouldn't punish people for crimes they haven't committed.  On the other hand, I know that by not having certain deterrent laws we are definitely causing certain harm to people, in the same way you see running someone over with a car as causing harm to that person, although in the deterrent law situation the harm is guaranteed.   Let me rephrase that --
by not having deterrent laws we are infringing on people's rights.  Since deterrent laws themselves may infringe on people's rights (although this is not always the case), I guess you have to decide now which rights are more important.[/quote]I don't know how you can say that "we shouldn't punish people for crimes they haven't committed" when you've consistently advocated laws that do exactly that.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151258#msg151258 date=1145984198]
As far as "punishing people for crimes they haven't committed"

Stopping and ticketing someone who is way above the speed limit:
punishment for wrecklessly endangering the safety of others

Checking luggage at an airport:
precaution to insure the safety of the passengers

etc.[/quote]Endangering them is not causing them harm.  That's why people can own guns.  Sure, it's endangering them and their children, but it's their right to do so.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151258#msg151258 date=1145984198]
It's ridiculous to be so extreme and maintain that your position is reasonable and could be practically applied.  All you have to find is one situation (out of an infinite number of scenarios) where you may agree that exchanging the freedom is worthwhile, and then your ideas must change.

For example, if we are in a situation where a law will facilitate selling a nuclear missile to someone who is insane and intends to use it to wipe out a north american city, you realize you are saying you would prefer that man be legally allowed to purchase the nuke at the most probable expense of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.  His right to own the nuke is more important than those lives.  "We should only take away that right after he kills the people." Hmm......  How about instead of almost certainly charging him for the death of hundreds of thousands of people, we just legally prevent the problem from arising?  Hey since I have an infinite number of situations to pick from, lets add that if he is legally allowed to purchase the nuke there is a 99.999% chance he will use it to kill innocents, but if there is a law preventing him from making hte purchase, there is absolutely no chance he will cause harm to innocents.
[/quote]You mean except by buying a nice black market nuke.  Legality doesn't stop people who want to do something (*gasp* Just like marijuana!), except in the case of marijuana, there's not even a good case to be made that it should be illegal.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151260#msg151260 date=1145987520]
You mean except by buying a nice black market nuke.  Legality doesn't stop people who want to do something (*gasp* Just like marijuana!), except in the case of marijuana, there's not even a good case to be made that it should be illegal.
[/quote]

"Legality doesn't stop people who want to do something."  That is another over-generalization, that is certainly untrue in certain cases.  By making that claim you are saying that, for example, speeding limits have never stopped anyone from speeding if they wanted to.

Also, remember, I can make up any situation I want -- it doesn't have to be realistic.  Let's say there is no black market -- the only way he can obtain the nuke is through legal means.  There's a 99.999999999% chance he will use it once he obtains it legally.

Maybe you should stop making blanket statements?

[hr]

Also, it is quite a simple mathematical proof that practicing a freedom with an associated danger does cause harm if enough people exercise it.  Therefore there is an inconsistency in your position.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151258#msg151258 date=1145984198]
It's ridiculous to be so extreme and maintain that your position is reasonable and could be practically applied.  [/quote]

He's not maintaining that his position could be practically applied, Rule.  I tried to argue that his position, the way he was arguing it, would never be practically useful in any kind of political setting:

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151153#msg151153 date=1145837606]
First of all, I'm not arguing an agenda.  I'm not arguing legislation.  I couldn't care less whether or not anyone likes or dislikes my argument and/or whether or not they want to put it to practical use.  I'm arguing theory.  I want reason.
[/quote]

If we are to talk about whether marijuana should be legalized, we should
undoubtedly be talking about ideas that can be practically implemented.  Further, if a theory does not work in practice, then there is a problem with the theory.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151261#msg151261 date=1145988227]
"Legality doesn't stop people who want to do something."  That is another over-generalization, that is certainly untrue in certain cases.  By making that claim you are saying that, for example, speeding limits have never stopped anyone from speeding if they wanted to.[/quote]Once again, Rule, you're both wrong and advocating an extreme position.  I never said that speeding limits never stopped anyone.  But even you, in all of your madness, have to admit that it sure hasn't stopped some people.  Thus, legality doesn't stop people who want to do something.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151261#msg151261 date=1145988227]
Also, remember, I can make up any situation I want -- it doesn't have to be realistic.  Let's say there is no black market -- the only way he can obtain the nuke is through legal means.  There's a 99.999999999% chance he will use it once he obtains it legally.[/quote]Then I'll just have to hope he uses it somewhere in Canada that will prevent people who create asinine situations from doing so.  ;)

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151261#msg151261 date=1145988227]
Also, it is quite a simple mathematical proof that practicing a freedom with an associated danger does cause harm if enough people exercise it.  Therefore there is an inconsistency in your position.
[/quote]What inconsistency?  And let's see this proof.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151265#msg151265 date=1145990389]
If we are to talk about whether marijuana should be legalized, we should
undoubtedly be talking about ideas that can be practically implemented.  Further, if a theory does not work in practice, then there is a problem with the theory.

[/quote]

This is incredibly simple to implement.  Repeal the laws that criminalize marijuana.  Work complete.  Suppose that means the theory had no problem.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151297#msg151297 date=1146015526]
Once again, Rule, you're both wrong and advocating an extreme position.  I never said that speeding limits never stopped anyone.  But even you, in all of your madness, have to admit that it sure hasn't stopped some people.  Thus, legality doesn't stop people who want to do something.
[/quote]

I'm advocating an extreme position, again?  Last I checked it was you who had all the ridiculously extreme ideas on how every single freedom one can think of is more valuable than anything else.  You're entitled to your opinion, even though we both know, and have established, that the idea cannot be practically translated into a general policy of legislation.

re: "My madness"      :P

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151297#msg151297 date=1146015526]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151261#msg151261 date=1145988227]
Also, it is quite a simple mathematical proof that practicing a freedom with an associated danger does cause harm if enough people exercise it.  Therefore there is an inconsistency in your position.
[/quote]What inconsistency?  And let's see this proof.
[/quote]

You claim that one should always be allowed to exercise a freedom unless it
infringes upon someone else's rights.  You have given "punching someone in the mouth," and other situations of someone inflicting harm on another as examples of "infringing on someone's rights."

You claim that if an individual uses a drug, there is merely a probability that this action will cause harm, or will lead to that person infringing one someone else's rights.  I have pointed out that every action only has a mere probability that it will
cause harm to someone, even in your examples.

However, the inconsistency in your position does not end there, and here is where the (exceptionally simple) mathematical proof comes into play.  You claim that deterrent laws infringe on people's rights, so they should not be used.
I will prove that by not having deterrent laws, we are infringing on people's rights.  Hence, we must then decide which "wrong-doing" is worse on a case by case basis -- taking away a group of people's rights, or letting these people have these rights (which as I have said may be very trivial) to prevent
other (perhaps more significant) rights from being definitely violated.

I will be purposely be very general in the following considerations:

Probability action A causes harm to another:  p
Number of people exercising action A:  w
On average, action A is performed j times per person.
Number of times action A is performed = j*w = n

P(p*n | n) = n! / [ (pn)! * (n-pn)! ]  * (np/n)^n * (1-np/n)^(np-n)
as n becomes very large
P( p*n | n ) = 1 .  In other words, there is a 100% chance that
n*p people will suffer or "have their rights violated" if one is allowed to exercise the given freedom.

To more clearly illustrate my point, however, it is nice to consider a variety of situations, using numerical values.

Let's say action A is taking a drug, and that merely one out of every hundred times it is used, its influence results in harm being done to another (I would say if we were considering alcohol a probability more like 1/5 would be appropriate).
Let's say we have 200,000,000 people using the drug in our community (roughly 80% of the US).

Assume that these people use, on average, once a week.  So, after 5 years, the drug has been used 52 billion times.

Let’s calculate the probability that

[u]at least one person’s rights have been violated due to the drug use[/u]: 
1 - .99^(5200000000)  =  100%  (to about 500 significant digits)

[u]the most probable number of times people’s rights have been violated[/u]:
52000000000*.01 = 520000000, or five hundred and twenty million times.

Since these numbers are very large, it takes a great deal of time and computational effort to precisely compute certain probabilities.  However, you can verify that the probability at least 100000 (one hundred thousand) innocent people have had their rights violated as a result of the drug use is about 100% to approximately 9 significant figures.


Therefore by not violating people's rights to exercise certain freedoms, we are by probability, violating people's other freedoms.  This is one of two major inconsistencies in your position: while you think it is never appropriate to revoke a freedom by a deterrent law, you advocate violating people's freedoms by not supporting deterrent laws.  This doesn’t mean I believe that we should always use deterrent laws: it is most rational to consider these situations on a case by case basis and to come to a decision that society would be most content with.  Of course, the other much more obvious problem with your position is that certain actions "are harm," when clearly, like everything else, certain actions are only probable harm – even if the probability is very high.

QED

You could say the same thing about getting out of bed.  Therefore we shouldn't let anyone get out of bed.

What about breathing?  I'm pretty sure that living humans have nearly an infinitely higher probability (to 500 digits precision?) of infringing on another person's rights.

I think we need to kill everyone to avoid such problems.

Use real numbers.  Find out how many pot smokers there are in the United States, how many joints are smoked, and how many people high on pot are convicted of infringing on other people's rights.  Then we'll have some numbers we can put in a pipe and smoke.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14802.msg151383#msg151383 date=1146174552]
You could say the same thing about getting out of bed.  Therefore we shouldn't let anyone get out of bed.

What about breathing?  I'm pretty sure that living humans have nearly an infinitely higher probability (to 500 digits precision?) of infringing on another person's rights.

I think we need to kill everyone to avoid such problems.
[/quote]

Why are you purposely being difficult?  I said that we should consider these things on a case by case basis and come to decisions that people are most content with.  For example, is the right 100,000 people have to live definitely less valuable than the right to use a drug? 

Seems like you want to disagree with me.  Saying that everything has an associated risk to it does not conflict with my points in any way.  I acknowledge that and think that we should decide what is more dangerous -- right A or the rights that will be lost by exercising right A.  Nonetheless, not deterring certain rights has been shown to absolutely be infringing on other rights.

reply to your "real numbers edit": that sounds reasonable if we are ready to move onto a discussion specific to marijuana.  For that to be productive, we must first come to the agreement that it may be a benefit to revoke a freedom though.  I've proven this (using variables and numbers), so it really isn't much to ask for a quick nod in that regard.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151379#msg151379 date=1146172776]
I'm advocating an extreme position, again?  Last I checked it was you who had all the ridiculously extreme ideas on how every single freedom one can think of is more valuable than anything else.  You're entitled to your opinion, even though we both know, and have established, that the idea cannot be practically translated into a general policy of legislation.[/quote]No, we don't both know that.  You think that.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151379#msg151379 date=1146172776]You claim that one should always be allowed to exercise a freedom unless it
infringes upon someone else's rights.  You have given "punching someone in the mouth," and other situations of someone inflicting harm on another as examples of "infringing on someone's rights."

You claim that if an individual uses a drug, there is merely a probability that this action will cause harm, or will lead to that person infringing one someone else's rights.  I have pointed out that every action only has a mere probability that it will
cause harm to someone, even in your examples.

However, the inconsistency in your position does not end there, and here is where the (exceptionally simple) mathematical proof comes into play.  You claim that deterrent laws infringe on people's rights, so they should not be used.
I will prove that by not having deterrent laws, we are infringing on people's rights.  Hence, we must then decide which "wrong-doing" is worse on a case by case basis -- taking away a group of people's rights, or letting these people have these rights (which as I have said may be very trivial) to prevent
other (perhaps more significant) rights from being definitely violated.

I will be purposely be very general in the following considerations:

Probability action A causes harm to another:  p
Number of people exercising action A:  w
On average, action A is performed j times per person.
Number of times action A is performed = j*w = n

P(p*n | n) = n! / [ (pn)! * (n-pn)! ]  * (np/n)^n * (1-np/n)^(np-n)
as n becomes very large
P( p*n | n ) = 1 .  In other words, there is a 100% chance that
n*p people will suffer or "have their rights violated" if one is allowed to exercise the given freedom.[/quote]*yawn*  After all is said and done, the best you can do is come up with a number that is very close to 1 as n approaches infinity.  Unfortunately for you, a 9 in 10 chance of something happening doesn't mean that it happens.  A 99 in 100 chance of something happening doesn't mean that it happens.  And a 999999 in 1000000 chance of something happening doesn't mean that it happens.  It means that it's likely to happen.  And mere likelihood isn't enough for me to want to strip someone of their rights.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151379#msg151379 date=1146172776]
To more clearly illustrate my point, however, it is nice to consider a variety of situations, using numerical values.

Let's say action A is taking a drug, and that merely one out of every hundred times it is used, its influence results in harm being done to another (I would say if we were considering alcohol a probability more like 1/5 would be appropriate).
Let's say we have 200,000,000 people using the drug in our community (roughly 80% of the US).

Assume that these people use, on average, once a week.  So, after 5 years, the drug has been used 52 billion times.

Let’s calculate the probability that

[u]at least one person’s rights have been violated due to the drug use[/u]: 
1 - .99^(5200000000)  =  100%  (to about 500 significant digits)

[u]the most probable number of times people’s rights have been violated[/u]:
52000000000*.01 = 520000000, or five hundred and twenty million times.

Since these numbers are very large, it takes a great deal of time and computational effort to precisely compute certain probabilities.  However, you can verify that the probability at least 100000 (one hundred thousand) innocent people have had their rights violated as a result of the drug use is about 100% to approximately 9 significant figures.
[/quote]This is why you're not allowed to make up statistics, Rule.  Because when you make them up, they're just as meaningless as the point you try to make with them.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151379#msg151379 date=1146172776]
Therefore by not violating people's rights to exercise certain freedoms, we are by probability, violating people's other freedoms.  This is one of two major inconsistencies in your position: while you think it is never appropriate to revoke a freedom by a deterrent law, you advocate violating people's freedoms by not supporting deterrent laws.  This doesn’t mean I believe that we should always use deterrent laws: it is most rational to consider these situations on a case by case basis and to come to a decision that society would be most content with.  Of course, the other much more obvious problem with your position is that certain actions "are harm," when clearly, like everything else, certain actions are only probable harm – even if the probability is very high.
QED
[/quote]First of all, your proof fails.  Second, certain actions are harm.  You can't say that someone who has been punched in the nose "has a probability of being harmed".  He has been harmed.  Now, unless you've got some clever time machine to go back and fix his nose, I'm going to say that clearly, some actions constitute harm.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151387#msg151387 date=1146176618]
*yawn*  And a 999999 in 1000000 chance of something happening doesn't mean that it happens.  It means that it's likely to happen.  And mere likelihood isn't enough for me to want to strip someone of their rights.
[/quote]

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.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151387#msg151387 date=1146176618]
This is why you're not allowed to make up statistics, Rule.  Because when you make them up, they're just as meaningless as the point you try to make with them.
[/quote]
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.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151387#msg151387 date=1146176618]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151379#msg151379 date=1146172776]
Therefore by not violating people's rights to exercise certain freedoms, we are by probability, violating people's other freedoms.  This is one of two major inconsistencies in your position: while you think it is never appropriate to revoke a freedom by a deterrent law, you advocate violating people's freedoms by not supporting deterrent laws.  This doesn’t mean I believe that we should always use deterrent laws: it is most rational to consider these situations on a case by case basis and to come to a decision that society would be most content with.  Of course, the other much more obvious problem with your position is that certain actions "are harm," when clearly, like everything else, certain actions are only probable harm – even if the probability is very high.
QED
[/quote]First of all, your proof fails.  Second, certain actions are harm.  You can't say that someone who has been punched in the nose "has a probability of being harmed".  He has been harmed.  Now, unless you've got some clever time machine to go back and fix his nose, I'm going to say that clearly, some actions constitute harm.
[/quote]

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.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151388#msg151388 date=1146177588]
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.[/quote]Except things are only up to this probabilities in your examples.  Real life is much, much less certain.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151388#msg151388 date=1146177588]
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.[/quote]You aren't teaching me anything except that you can't make a good case for the criminalization of marijuana.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151388#msg151388 date=1146177588]
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.[/quote]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?

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151397#msg151397 date=1146183840]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151388#msg151388 date=1146177588]
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.[/quote]Except things are only up to this probabilities in your examples.  Real life is much, much less certain.
[/quote]

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.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151397#msg151397 date=1146183840]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151388#msg151388 date=1146177588]
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.[/quote]You aren't teaching me anything except that you can't make a good case for the criminalization of marijuana.
[/quote]

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.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=14802.msg151397#msg151397 date=1146183840]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151388#msg151388 date=1146177588]
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.[/quote]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?
[/quote]


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.

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.

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.

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.

[quote]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] Quote where I said this.
[quote], for wanting someone to be legally allowed to drive drunk[/quote] Quote where I said this.
[quote], for wanting someone who is very likely to commit a murder not be stopped because he is only merely likely to do it[/quote]  Quote where I said this.
[quote], for not wanting luggage checks at airports[/quote]  Quote where I said this.
[quote], for believing it is right for someone certifiably insane to be legally aided in buying weapons capable of extreme destruction.[/quote] Quote where I said tihs.

[quote]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.[/quote]

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.

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!
 

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.

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

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.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14802.msg151488#msg151488 date=1146273055]
In your entire response you didn't answer one of my questions.
[/quote]
Like what?

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14802.msg151488#msg151488 date=1146273055]
In your entire response you repeatedly try to tell me what I think.
[/quote]
Where?

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14802.msg151488#msg151488 date=1146273055]
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.
[/quote]

Ok

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14802.msg151216#msg151216 date=1145917214]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=14802.msg151211#msg151211 date=1145916367]

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.
[/quote]

Ah, if you put it THAT way, I say NO.
[/quote]

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.


[quote author=Grok link=topic=14802.msg151488#msg151488 date=1146273055]
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.
[/quote]
OK, we might be ready to talk about this.  I guess that depends on how you respond to this.


[quote author=Grok link=topic=14802.msg151488#msg151488 date=1146273055]
Exactly one of us is resorting to name calling.
[/quote]
Not me.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14802.msg151488#msg151488 date=1146273055]
Exactly one of us is asking loaded multipart questions.
[/quote]
Most questions have many implications.  I don't see what's wrong with asking them.  You are still free to answer however you wish.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14802.msg151488#msg151488 date=1146273055]
Exactly one of us refuses to present his arguments.
Exactly one of us is threatening to break off all conversation.
[/quote]
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?

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:

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

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.