Pot Legalization - Yes or no?

[Josiah]

Here's the liberal logic here.....

Tobacco is bad and legal and is the cause of lots of problems...... booze is bad and legal and is the cause of lots of problems.... pot is bad and illegal so if we make it legal, all the problems will go away. Three bad but legal things make it all good."

 

[tango]

I'm not sure about that question but it isn't the scenario I described in my post.


Nor is that one.

However, I think that the answer to all of these may be that what you do to yourself is quite different from what you do to others.


Of course it is. The effects are entirely different....and so is the opportunity.



So if we get back to what I spoke about in my post and deal with that instead of these diversions, how do you justify the distribution of a fatal or very harmful or instantly addictive drug which is either mixed into something else or comes with the promise that it is not harmful at all--or is packaged so that it looks like candy to a child?

They aren't diversions, they are simple comparisons. You're saying the state is there to protect me from myself but apparently not seeing the comparison to me asking whether the state is there to protect me from myself.

As far as the law is concerned I am allowed to drink a glass of whisky. I am allowed to drink a bottle of whisky. I am allowed to drink an entire case of whisky. A glass won't hurt me, a bottle will leave me in a bad way and if I did manage to drink a case it would almost certainly kill me. Should the state intervene there?

If I go mountain climbing, base jumping, hang gliding, there is a substantially increased chance of suffering an accident and dying. Should the state intervene?

If I go out into the woods and eat the berries or mushrooms I find, there's a chance I will die horribly. Pokeweed berries are toxic, as are deadly nightshade berries, as are destroying angel mushrooms. Should the state intervene?

Apparently the answer is no in all cases, but if I take a specific drug the state happens to dislike then it is mysteriously critically important that the state should intervene to protect me from myself.

Bringing children into it is the diversion here. We already have laws to say we're not allowed to give children alcohol or have sex with children, so how is it any different to say that we're not allowed to give drugs to children?

 

[Albion]

They aren't diversions, they are simple comparisons.

Oh, comparisons. Then that means that they are NOT what I referred to but are only somewhat like them in some ways. Okay, we do not have to call that a diversion but it certainly is changing the subject.

You're saying the state is there to protect me from myself but apparently not seeing the comparison to me asking whether the state is there to protect me from myself.

I believe that I already said that the issue is not protecting you from yourself but protecting others, innocents and people who might be deceived about whatever the substance is.

Get back to me if you want to face up to the issue. Its not a lot different from laws against speeding at over 100 miles an hour on the expressway or you owning a machine gun. Yes, there might be a concern over your own safety, but you know very well that it is the lives and safety of OTHER PEOPLE that is the issue.

 

[Andrew]

People who smoke marijuana for whatever reason cannot get work insurance and have to work low paying and part time jobs but other more harmful drugs are ok... :/
Marijuana is a threat to big pharma and that's the truth...
Do we not have dominion over Gods plants?
Im sure God created marijuana for medicinal reasons, natives knew this, but governments will outlaw a simple plant to create a mega pharmaceutical strong hold against it... Yep that's how it works and it is due to the great evil of Love of Money, big pharma is banking on prohibition of Marijuana, also drug smuggling is great business for crooked patrol.

 

[Jason76]

Well, pot certainly isn't good for people, just like porn isn't. In fact, both are just gateways for demons. However, though, I have to say that banning won't make any difference. In fact, the change has to be a free choice for those to follow Christ and reject those things.

 

[tango]

Oh, comparisons. Then that means that they are NOT what I referred to but are only somewhat like them in some ways. Okay, we do not have to call that a diversion but it certainly is changing the subject.



I believe that I already said that the issue is not protecting you from yourself but protecting others, innocents and people who might be deceived about whatever the substance is.

Get back to me if you want to face up to the issue. Its not a lot different from laws against speeding at over 100 miles an hour on the expressway or you owning a machine gun. Yes, there might be a concern over your own safety, but you know very well that it is the lives and safety of OTHER PEOPLE that is the issue.

Not sure how I missed this reply before, just saw the thread pop up in my "subscribed threads" feed. Sorry for the delay.

You're making out that I'm somehow not facing up to the issue, yet you don't address any of my points. I'm allowed to go base jumping and there's no desire for the state to protect me from the consequences. I can go downhill riding, bungee jumping, deep sea diving, whatever I want, and get to decide for myself whether to take the risks. But somehow it's important to protect me from the possible consequences of smoking a joint?

Innocents and children are a distraction. Nothing stops a child going into the woods and eating deadly nightshade or pokeweed or poison ivy. People who are deceived about what the substance is just represent another distraction - if you're worried about being offered a cigarette that turned out to be a joint how is that any different to slipping something that is legal to own into someone's drink to get them drunk? At its most basic there's the concept of adding a couple of shots of vodka to someone's drink to try and get them drunk - the vodka is legal to own, the drink is legal to consume, but at best it's highly unethical to spike someone's drink.

Sadly your other comparisons also miss the mark by a country mile. If I drive my car at 100mph on an empty expressway nobody else is endangered at all. If I drive my car at 100mph weaving through heavy traffic I clearly put others at risk. How is sitting in my living room smoking a joint putting anyone else in danger?

 

[MeowsePad]

Why would alcohol be legal if marijuana is not? Study after study finds that alcohol consumption is far more harmful than marijuana could ever be, and marijuana is much easier to use in moderation. Legalization seems logical to me. People should be able to do what they want with their bodies as long as it does not harm others.

 

[Jason76]

Regardless of anyone's view of pot - whether it's good or bad for you, the situation of making it illegal - is a massive waste of resources, to the point it's a joke.

 

[Josiah]

Regardless of anyone's view of pot - whether it's good or bad for you, the situation of making it illegal - is a massive waste of resources, to the point it's a joke.

... the same point made against gun control, or even rape and murder. It tends to happen regardless of the law.


IMO, civil laws usually DO make a difference. Society approving or disapproving of a behavior. Especially if that law has wide spread support. In my state, many rural roads are not patrolled - there is no enforcement of the speed limits because the Highway Patrol and local authorities are simply focused on other areas. Everyone knows this. You COULD get away with driving your Porsche at 150 MPH. No cop will see it. Almost no one does, everyone drives close to the speed limit ... why? People accept the idea of limits and driving safely. BUT it is impossible to legislate morality.... a mere law will not prevent anyone from doing anything. He who wants to kill his wife may consider the odds of being caught and thethat may thus result, but the law itself won't stop him. It will be a deterrent but not a determinate. No matter how strict the laws, there will always be criminals.


Lowering crime by making less and less illegal doesn't seem particularly wise to me. True - if you have no laws, you have no crime but is that the issue? This liberal approach is one I reject. But I agree with you, having laws that are nonsensical and not agreed with by the vast majority of people are probably very limited in value.



.

 

[Josiah]

Something to keep in mind....


The movers and shakers in the Western culture today are the Hippies of the 1960's.... those "sex, drugs, rock and roll" folks...those free love boys and girls. Politicians, college profs, they are mostly grown up hippies. Study that time.... talk to your parents.... ah.... a lot falls into place.


Does that mean there is hope for the future as the Hippies die off? Nope. The younger generation was taught and raised by them. Kinda of helps you understand why guns are bad and drugs are good, etc., etc., etc., etc. Ah... the '60's brought us great music and awesome cars BUT....

 

[tango]

... the same point made against gun control, or even rape and murder. It tends to happen regardless of the law.

They aren't really comparable though. If I'm smoking a joint in my living room or shooting tin cans at the end of my yard I'm not hurting anyone else. Rape and murder are very different in that they involve the imposition of one person's will upon a non-consenting other.

Lowering crime by making less and less illegal doesn't seem particularly wise to me. True - if you have no laws, you have no crime but is that the issue? This liberal approach is one I reject. But I agree with you, having laws that are nonsensical and not agreed with by the vast majority of people are probably very limited in value.

I think it has to come down to an issue of protecting what might be called the fabric of society. Hence things like theft, rape, murder etc are illegal. Things that only affect people who are consenting to take part has no victim and therefore does not need to be regulated. Hence there's no need to outlaw smoking a joint, along with a host of other things some people think should be illegal.