ninatroup

I read your presentation and I agree with you. Stricter drugs laws don't do anything to stop drugs being used, and only serve to create more problems than they solve. Putting drug dealers behind bars isn't going to stop drugs being sold, and, like you said, will probably just encourage them to turn to increasingly more dangerous and violent crimes.

__________________
- Freedom of speech is man's greatest luxury -

gue0

Yes, and hand guns also need to be worn!

Locke9-05

That is one of the most absurd things I've ever read. Laws don't "stop" anything, laws can't prevent human choice. Drug addicted rejects will continue to use drugs no matter whether it's legal or not. The same "logic" can be applied to any criminal, immoral, or irresponsible activity. Thieves will continue to steal no matter whether the law says it's wrong or not. People will continue to speed in motor vehicles no matter whether it's legal or not. People will continue to murder despite that it's illegal. So by the logic you presented, by the basis of your argument, because people disregard those laws and those laws aren't perfectly 100% effective at preventing those crimes (which isn't the purpose of laws anyway), the law should just let people get by with such criminal activities...

The anarchical logic in defense of recreational marijuana is as blatantly absurd as any I've ever heard:

"Since people [criminals] will break laws despite their actions being illegal, society and the legal system should simply allow them to get by with it"

That's the idea of what you posted and it makes no logical sense. Laws against things like recreational marijuana are designed to punish those who are too stupid to understand that their actions are illegal because they're outwardly negative and have no place in a civil society. Laws don't prevent crime. Laws punish those who cause the crimes.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

LiveUninhibited

I think he was referring mostly to the futility of supply-side reduction efforts in lowering drug use, and how the solution is worse than the problem. Many people agree with the drug war because they think that if we did less to punish those who use/sell, then both drug use and crime would skyrocket. Crime would actually be lower without drug prohibition, and use may be slightly higher, but probably only in the short term. I am glad to see that you do not believe in the deterrence effect of drug control policy, because there isn't any evidence for that that I know of.

I guess it's a matter of being both pragmatic and fair. Both alcohol and tobacco are legal, and they are worse than any illegal drugs in some ways. For example, nicotine is the most likely of all drugs to cause dependence. Alcohol is the most intoxicating, and this impairment often increases violent behavior and leads to fairly obvious harm to others in society.

I am not saying that these legal drugs should be made illegal, but rather that it makes no sense to have marijuana illegal while these drugs aren't. In fact, I would prefer that people use marijuana over cigarettes, because marijuana is easier to quit. I would also prefer they use marijuana over alcohol, as they are less likely to be violent or dangerously intoxicated.

But whatever the relative harm of marijuana, in a free society, individuals should be free to hurt themselves so long as they don't harm others. People need to be free to choose sin for abstention to be meaningful. The law shouldn't exist to enforce some notion of morality, it is to protect people from each other. What we need for all drugs is to punish those who use them irresponsibly but not those who use them responsibly. Yes, it should be illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol or even pot. But that doesn't mean we need a moratorium on their use. It is a waste of resources, because many regular users are not grossly irresponsible about it, and most people who try drugs do not continue to use them. There is no need to ruin these people's lives and prevent them from becoming or continuing to be productive members of society.

presluc

Well there is one law will that will be broken less,and that would be smugeling.
Also there is the possibility of tax evasion, another law that might be less in the spotlight.

Locke9-05

"in a free society, individuals should be free to hurt themselves so long as they don't harm others."

Yes. I agree. Recreational marijuana doesn't fit in that category, though. It's an unnecessary risk to those around the user as well as the user. Marijuana users experience a variety of side-effects ranging from paranoia to hallucinations to psychosis, even... Recreational marijuana users are mentally unstable at best. Recreational marijuana creates an environment that is unpleasant, unhealthy and potentially hazardous for non-users. And because it's nothing more than an individualistic "indulgence," the side it tips to on the scale of this debate is negative/harmful. It has no collective societal benefit, yet it is unpleasant, unhealthy, and potentially hazardous to nonusers. It's illogical to allow such a drug in society legally. The same goes for alcohol, and cigarettes as well. It's irrational to allow them within this society, and I maintain the same constant/consistent logic, but I can't exactly change the fact that alcohol and cigarettes are unfortunately legal. They shouldn't be.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

ninatroup

You clearly don't get what I mean. I am saying that making pot legal won't change anything. The laws surrounding marijuana (at least in England), are barely enforced and aren't even strict to begin with. Making that one drug legal will change nothing, as I don't see how it's affects on society are any worse than the affects of alcohol and cigarettes.

I am not talking about all drugs in general, or all types of crime, which you seem to suggest I am.

__________________
- Freedom of speech is man's greatest luxury -

TheHat

Well condone something that destroys families?

Better yet, what good does doing drugs do for you? Does it make life better for you? Does it create oppurtunities? Most drug addicts I know cant keep a job or cant comprehend the situation they are in. Anybody watched that show called Intervention? That is what drugs do to you. Why legalize that crap? It does nobody any good.

The Lying Dutchman

little green plant, destroyer of families. if all it takes is a plant to destroy a family in the US than you should worry more about the state families are in rather than the plant.

Locke9-05

I "get" exactly what you mean. It would seem that you're the one who may not understand the point here. Legalizing pot would bring about a change. Why? Because people wouldn't be punished for "indulging" in a substance that has no value to society--a substance that also creates an environment that is unpleasant, unhealthy, and potentially hazardous to nonusers as well as users. Such irrational and irresponsible behavior (that puts nonusers in such unpleasant situations) is punished here in the United States as it well should be in a civilized society.
Would you care to provide some standard of evidence or factual material with which to support that baseless claim?
They're all in equal playing field--no societal benefit, hazardous and unhealthy to nonusers as well as users. Making one drug legal just because some marijuana addicts (who continue to break and defy society's laws) demand that it be done is absurd and would accomplish nothing productive. The only effects it would have would be negative. It's not worth it. Society knows it.
That's not what I was suggesting, it seems you misunderstood/misinterpreted my argument. My point was that the logic you presented in this topic ("society should just let them do what they want because they're going to do it anyway"--that absurd "logic") can be applied in defense of literally any crime or any drug. The logic was what I was pointing out, I was not suggesting you were "talking about all drugs in general or all types of crime." I was pointing out that the logic you've presented in your "defense" of marijuana legalization is absurd and paradoxical because it completely goes against the structure of the legal system as a necessary part of government. The legal system does not just roll over and let people do absurd, irresponsible, and immoral things that are against the law simply because "they're going to do it anyway." What I was pointing out is that if that "logic" was applied on a wide scale, you would undoubtedly find a society that would allow thieves to steal, murderers to kill, and then of course drug dealers and addicts to do what they do merely because "they're going to do it anyway." That "logic" doesn't make sense because it's anarchical. The legal system is not supposed to prevent people from breaking the law, because the choice is up to them. The legal system punishes them for doing so after the fact.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________