|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 30, 2011 12:17:43 GMT -5
Vesus, you're forgetting that they already tried illegalizing alcohol, & it caused more problems than keeping it legal did.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 30, 2011 15:53:58 GMT -5
If you think that drugs should be illegal based on the idea that their use may lead to unwanted behaviors, then you better make the same argument for alcohol. There is no question that alcohol intoxication leads to poor decision making. You DO realize he's going to agree with this statement, right? :V
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 30, 2011 17:01:39 GMT -5
If you think that drugs should be illegal based on the idea that their use may lead to unwanted behaviors, then you better make the same argument for alcohol. There is no question that alcohol intoxication leads to poor decision making. You DO realize he's going to agree with this statement, right? :V Both marijuana and ethanol are recreational drugs, they should be held to the same standards when making policy.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 30, 2011 17:18:26 GMT -5
See, I agree with it in theory, but we do have a real world reason not to make alcohol illegal. Whereas marijuana is already illegal, so it does not have that problem.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 30, 2011 17:27:55 GMT -5
See, I agree with it in theory, but we do have a real world reason not to make alcohol illegal. Whereas marijuana is already illegal, so it does not have that problem. The theory still applies, Lithp. Banning alcohol demonstrably didn't reduce crime, it increased it, so the theory states we shouldn't ban it. The theory is not that we should either ban all drugs or make all drugs legal. The theory is that we only ban recreational drugs if the harm caused by allowing them to be legal is worse than the harm caused by banning them. It is entirely possible to logically and consistently conclude that drug A should be banned and drug B should be legal. Although, I kind of suspect banning marijuana has fostered an environment where there is more crime than if it was legal; Art brought up this point on page one. Black markets do not attract nice people.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 30, 2011 22:08:32 GMT -5
The problem is, prohibition only proved that it would be too problematic to ban alcohol. As far as I know, the prohibition of cocaine didn't cause that many problems. So, if I was in Congress, I would want to know how you KNOW what effect legalization would have on society. Because once that bill is passed, it may very well be much harder to take it back if it turns out to be a mistake.
But I do suspect what you suspect.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 30, 2011 23:25:28 GMT -5
The problem is, prohibition only proved that it would be too problematic to ban alcohol. As far as I know, the prohibition of cocaine didn't cause that many problems. So, if I was in Congress, I would want to know how you KNOW what effect legalization would have on society. Because once that bill is passed, it may very well be much harder to take it back if it turns out to be a mistake. Thankfully for us there have been many natural experiments done on drugs throughout history, but lack of omniscience always makes finding the optimal solution harder.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Dec 1, 2011 4:33:47 GMT -5
The problem is, prohibition only proved that it would be too problematic to ban alcohol. As far as I know, the prohibition of cocaine didn't cause that many problems. So, if I was in Congress, I would want to know how you KNOW what effect legalization would have on society. Because once that bill is passed, it may very well be much harder to take it back if it turns out to be a mistake. But I do suspect what you suspect. Cocaine prohibition has probably caused more problems than you realize. It's a big revenue source for gangs/cartels, and putting it on the black market makes it much more unsafe than it would be if it was legal, where there would be regulations on dosage and purity. You tend not to see these kinds of problems when you treat prohibition as the "default position" and are afraid to make any changes because things might get worse. Some of the money saved could also be put into treatment programs, which are immensely more effective in cutting drug use than the law enforcement/military side. Also, it is a lot easier to ban something than to legalize it, especially if it has been historically illegal. A combination of "Think about the children" types, and them actually having a point (as unlikely as that would be) would be one of the only things in the world that could make congress move at a decent pace. Edit: I should also add that if you held every bill to that standard, nobody would pass any new laws. Ever.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Dec 1, 2011 15:41:26 GMT -5
The problem is, prohibition only proved that it would be too problematic to ban alcohol. As far as I know, the prohibition of cocaine didn't cause that many problems. So, if I was in Congress, I would want to know how you KNOW what effect legalization would have on society. Because once that bill is passed, it may very well be much harder to take it back if it turns out to be a mistake. But I do suspect what you suspect. Cocaine prohibition has probably caused more problems than you realize. It's a big revenue source for gangs/cartels, and putting it on the black market makes it much more unsafe than it would be if it was legal, where there would be regulations on dosage and purity. You tend not to see these kinds of problems when you treat prohibition as the "default position" and are afraid to make any changes because things might get worse. Some of the money saved could also be put into treatment programs, which are immensely more effective in cutting drug use than the law enforcement/military side. Also worth mentioning that many of the problems that happened with Prohibition are going on currently with the drug trade. They just aren't happening as much in the US, so it's easy to over look. For example, look at all the violence and corruption going on in Mexico that results directly from drugs.
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Dec 1, 2011 20:37:14 GMT -5
Getting buzzed does not hurt people. Getting buzzed and beating up people does. If you consensually take mind-altering drugs and hurt somebody while under their influence, you are still responsible.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 1, 2011 23:29:04 GMT -5
We should probably be more careful about passing laws, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Dec 2, 2011 0:19:42 GMT -5
We should probably be more careful about passing laws, anyway. I wouldn't disagree, but it's pretty much a pipe dream until the dumbest and/or most corrupt members of congress are voted out.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 2, 2011 6:40:01 GMT -5
We should probably be more careful about passing laws, anyway. I wouldn't disagree, but it's pretty much a pipe dream until the dumbest and/or most corrupt members of congress are voted out. > Dumbest/Corrupt > Congress > Vote Out I'm not following. I thought "Congress" was synonymous with "dumbest" and "corrupt".
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 2, 2011 22:54:18 GMT -5
Yeah, I have to admit, I'm being pretty idealistic here. It doesn't really matter how good your arguments are when at least half of the people who are supposed to be examining them critically are holding odd double standards.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Dec 3, 2011 4:30:57 GMT -5
I wouldn't disagree, but it's pretty much a pipe dream until the dumbest and/or most corrupt members of congress are voted out. > Dumbest/Corrupt > Congress > Vote Out I'm not following. I thought "Congress" was synonymous with "dumbest" and "corrupt". Close, but not the precise definition. Pro is the opposite of Con, so we all know what the opposite of progress is...
|
|