Why Are So Many Still Against Hemp / Marijuana ?

[D-Ric902]

I would guess that employers would be able to make work rules just as they do now. I'm pretty sure police forces would keep that one in the rule book.

Who wouldn't though?

so the unemployed or stay at home moms can smoke pot? That's a real libertarian paradise

 

[Ericpwp]

How about in public? The guy getting sloshed next to me has zero affect on my drunkenness. The guy smoking a joint does however have an affect.

Full disclosure, I have gotten to work stoned because I was stuck in traffic behind a guy smoking a blunt. Should I just stop breathing?

 

[jamil]

This is a very interesting question, with one big issue for me: It requires me to set aside some basic assumptions about human nature that make me a libertarian to begin with. It requires me to set aside reality and assume that the government can effectively force individuals to behave responsibly. Should I also assume that this government can do so without corruption?

Thought-provoking.

That question bugs my strong preference for individualism.

I understand about human nature. Laws don't always matter to everyone equally. And though the efficacy of government bans on stuff isn't absolute, it would be hard to argue that it's completely ineffective. The people who don't care at all about rule of law will break it anyway. The people who don't engage in harmful behavior mostly because they believe in rule of law, would no longer have that barrier.

 

[jamil]

How about in public? The guy getting sloshed next to me has zero affect on my drunkenness. The guy smoking a joint does however have an affect.

Full disclosure, I have gotten to work stoned because I was stuck in traffic behind a guy smoking a blunt. Should I just stop breathing?

I don't buy that at all. In my college days I went to class NOT stoned after being stuck in the same room with several people smoking pot. I'm not saying there's no such thing as contact high, but I'm calling bull**** on your traffic story.

 

[steveh_131]

Who wouldn't though?

so the unemployed or stay at home moms can smoke pot? That's a real libertarian paradise

Most white collar employers don't drug test currently. I doubt many would start doing it just because it's legalized. Maybe if they had issues with it. But it is certainly their right to implement such policies, and sometimes wise to do so.

That question bugs my strong preference for individualism.

My belief that individuals should leave each other alone pretty well overtakes my desire for government utopia. So I'd still have to answer "no".

The people who don't engage in harmful behavior mostly because they believe in rule of law, would no longer have that barrier.

This is an interesting point. Why do they believe in rule of law? Likely because when they break that law, it results in harm to them. Which means breaking the law is classified to them as 'harmful behavior' just like whatever activity the government is trying to ban.

I would submit that the person who considers law-breaking to be 'harmful behavior' would also consider drug abuse to be harmful behavior.

 

[steveh_131]

but I'm calling bull**** on your traffic story.

Seriously. Did he really think anyone would buy that?

 

[Ericpwp]

You can call BS all you want. Maybe it was just a flashback.

 

[jamil]

Most white collar employers don't drug test currently. I doubt many would start doing it just because it's legalized. Maybe if they had issues with it. But it is certainly their right to implement such policies, and sometimes wise to do so.



My belief that individuals should leave each other alone pretty well overtakes my desire for government utopia. So I'd still have to answer "no".



This is an interesting point. Why do they believe in rule of law? Likely because when they break that law, it results in harm to them. Which means breaking the law is classified to them as 'harmful behavior' just like whatever activity the government is trying to ban.

I would submit that the person who considers law-breaking to be 'harmful behavior' would also consider drug abuse to be harmful behavior.

To some extent, yes, but I am confident that it's not a one-for-one correlation. You haven't given me anything to appease my individualist bent.

 

[steveh_131]

To some extent, yes, but I am confident that it's not a one-for-one correlation. You haven't given me anything to appease my individualist bent.

Perhaps it isn't 1:1. Do you think it might be offset by the individuals who participate in a harmful behavior simply because it's illegal?

 

[jamil]

You can call BS all you want. Maybe it was just a flashback.

Well, let's dig a bit deeper. Have you ever smoked the stuff? Have you ever been high? Would you know that you were high, or did you just believe it because you were stuck behind someone smoking it?

 

[jamil]

Perhaps it isn't 1:1. Do you think it might be offset by the individuals who participate in a harmful behavior simply because it's illegal?

I don't really believe there are people who break the law just because there's a law to break. People think of themselves. If there's something they want to do, and they don't regard the law, they'll just do it anyway. Making everything legal probably won't make people stop doing what was once illegal. And even so, not enough to wash out people who don't do what they want because there *is* a law against it.

Let me ask this. Did consumption of Marajuana increase or decrease or stay the same in the states that have legalized it. How many stories have you heard about this old guy or that old prude who went there just to see what it's like? When something is made legal, it's more likely that more people will do it. And I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing. But for the sake of this discussion...

 

[steveh_131]

I don't really believe there are people who break the law just because there's a law to break. People think of themselves. If there's something they want to do, and they don't regard the law, they'll just do it anyway. Making everything legal probably won't make people stop doing what was once illegal. And even so, not enough to wash out people who don't do what they want because there *is* a law against it.

Actually, I think that creating the 'taboo' perception does draw some people to it. But I have no evidence to support this.

Let me ask this. Did consumption of Marajuana increase or decrease or stay the same in the states that have legalized it. How many stories have you heard about this old guy or that old prude who went there just to see what it's like? When something is made legal, it's more likely that more people will do it. And I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing. But for the sake of this discussion...

I'm not sure there is any good way to measure it. I think a better question is whether the harmful effects of marijuana consumption increase or decrease or stay the same? That's really what we're discussing, right? And I've seen no evidence of any increased harm.

 

[Ericpwp]

Here's a good link on the history of drugs in a society:
Opium in China - The Downfall of Imperial China - HistoryWiz

I'm not going to go on about laws I have broken in my youth. I will just say that I am glad that what I was doing was illegal. If it was "accepted" behavior, who knows where I would be today. It was hard to be the odd guy for awhile that would not partake in the festivities. I made the decision to become a productive member of society. I got out alive, I can't say the same for everyone.

 

[steveh_131]

Here's a good link on the history of drugs in a society:
Opium in China - The Downfall of Imperial China - HistoryWiz

I'm not going to go on about laws I have broken in my youth. I will just say that I am glad that what I was doing was illegal. If it was "accepted" behavior, who knows where I would be today. It was hard to be the odd guy for awhile that would not partake in the festivities. I made the decision to become a productive member of society. I got out alive, I can't say the same for everyone.

Are you telling me that you did stupid, irresponsible things even though they were illegal?

No way bro

 

[Ericpwp]

what's your favorite band? Tool?

 

[jamil]

Actually, I think that creating the 'taboo' perception does draw some people to it. But I have no evidence to support this.



I'm not sure there is any good way to measure it. I think a better question is whether the harmful effects of marijuana consumption increase or decrease or stay the same? That's really what we're discussing, right? And I've seen no evidence of any increased harm.

Does making something illegal increase or decrease it's harmful effects on society? The only way to know is to study the effects of both kinds of societies. Judging from my observations on human nature I tend to think that it depends more on the thing and to what lengths people are willing go to break laws to get it, than it depends on anything else.

 

[rambone]

I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a minute here. Let's say we made everything legal. Pot. Meth. Cocaine. Heroin. Got rid of the entire concept of schedules. For the purpose of discussion, we'll ignore the medicinal prescription drugs.

So what if, years later, the toll to society has become very dire, such that it threatens the existence of society? Not saying it would, but just for the sake of the discussion, let's say that such conclusion is demonstrable; proven.

Does society have the right to tell people they can't do some things because those things have been proven to devolve society?

And if society has that right, do the results of those studies then matter?

ETA: I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just asking what you think.

I've heard you say that "society" is not really a thing, it is a collection of individuals (paraphrasing). I agree with this.

"Society" can never, ever be named as a victim. Only individuals can. A hypothetical devolving society is really a collection of individuals with problems. In a just environment, they should be focusing on punishment and restitution from the individuals that wronged them -- if any exist.

"Society," or rather, the people in society, do not have the "right" to take away property and liberty from their neighbors in order to alleviate their own perceived problems. Morally, that is the same as robbing Peter to pay Paul. Punishing the innocent is not a legitimate response to anyone with an appreciation for liberty.

 

[rambone]

Do you want the police to be able to smoke pot on the job. (they can smoke tobacco)
how about truck drivers?
ambulance drivers?
how about your heart surgeon before surgery? (You wouldn't want him to uptight)

No, I wouldn't approve of any of them to be high at work. I wouldn't approve of them being DRUNK either. People can rightly be fired for doing many LEGAL things.

D-Ric, pretty much every scenario you are coming up with has a direct parallel with the drug called alcohol. If you want to know what would happen to people who do ______ while using drugs, just think about how it works when people do it with alcohol. There is no mystery. Fire the drunk doctors, cops, and drivers.

 

[jamil]

I've heard you say that "society" is not really a thing, it is a collection of individuals (paraphrasing). I agree with this.

"Society" can never, ever be named as a victim. Only individuals can. A hypothetical devolving society is really a collection of individuals with problems. In a just environment, they should be focusing on punishment and restitution from the individuals that wronged them -- if any exist.

"Society," or rather, the people in society, do not have the "right" to take away property and liberty from their neighbors in order to alleviate their own perceived problems. Morally, that is the same as robbing Peter to pay Paul. Punishing the innocent is not a legitimate response to anyone with an appreciation for liberty.

You paraphrased that well. And I'm not backing away from my assertion about society. There is indeed no such thing. There are individuals and there are families. That's a paraphrase of Margaret Thatcher. That puts into words what I've always believed.

So my point isn't to establish the existence of some monolithic creature capable of being a singular victim. I'm just asking the question, is there anything so inherently dangerous that can be done by a few that affects masses of people. I mean real, provable, demonstrable, existential harm. In other words, if you do X, Y will definitely, always result. So if that were the case, does an overwhelming number of individual members have the right to say to the whole collection, "No, you can't do that. No, you can't own that. No, you can't make that."

 

[rambone]

You paraphrased that well. And I'm not backing away from my assertion about society. There is indeed no such thing. There are individuals and there are families. That's a paraphrase of Margaret Thatcher. That puts into words what I've always believed.

So my point isn't to establish the existence of some monolithic creature capable of being a singular victim. I'm just asking the question, is there anything so inherently dangerous that can be done by a few that affects masses of people. I mean real, provable, demonstrable, existential harm. In other words, if you do X, Y will definitely, always result. So if that were the case, does an overwhelming number of individual members have the right to say to the whole collection, "No, you can't do that. No, you can't own that. No, you can't make that."

If an action leads to "real, provable, demonstrable, existential harm" against another party, then we're talking real crimes with real victims. This is the kind of thing that a government is right to outlaw and punish. Liberty is not endangered by punishing people for victimizing others.

But, the above description does not apply to drug prohibition. There is no provable harm in owning a warehouse full of drugs.

I can't think of any prohibition-related crimes that fit your criteria.