Why Are So Many Still Against Hemp / Marijuana ?

[steveh_131]

Steve, I think your challenge is not something I would pursue. In short, it smells too much like non-sequitur. It is irrelevant. I don't care if the arguments are the same or are completely different. I care about the answers to these two questions: 1) Are the stated goals of the current law being achieved? 2) Are the current laws causing more harm than the original problem?

I think the challenge is extremely relevant to both of the questions that you posed. We don't have to wonder or speculate; we know that prohibition did not achieve its goals. We know that it caused more harm than the original problem. We know because we have the data available from before, during and after prohibition.

And my challenge illustrates that there is no practical difference, in this context, between drugs and alcohol. Which means that if we repeal drug prohibition, we should expect the same effects that took place when we repealed alcohol prohibition. Blood in the streets? No. Safer, cheaper drugs. Less crime.

Also I think it's not surprising that most people would resist an all out end to drug prohibition. You might as well convince people IoF is the best principle to base law upon. You should know from experience that just doesn't work on the majority of people who can resolve the concept of "it depends".

I've been told by several people that my arguments in favor of both drug legalization and the non-aggression principle caused them to change their views to some extent. I enjoy that more than convincing a few statists to be slightly less statist because guns and drugs 'just ain't that bad'.

In a plural world the pragmatic approach seems best. You're not going to convince many people to just sweep all the anti-drug laws off the books in one motion. Pick a battle. One that you can actually win. How much sense does mandatory sentencing make? How many criminals do we make of people who go to jail for things like that? Is it really worth it? Is it bringing us any closer to winning the war on drugs? Are people smoking fewer joints because we lock them up? No. Let's stop that nonsense then. And then, let's move on to the next winnable nonsensical law.

Your 'pragmatic' approach has been the status quo for at least a century in the U.S. The 'Libertarians' that you seem to like are the ones who advocate a freedom here and there, then turn around and announce that business owners should be forced by the government to provide services against their will. How has this compromising pragmatism worked out for the last century? Do you think we have more liberty now than we did then?

I don't.

 

[D-Ric902]

What about you, D-Ric902? Can you come up with an argument in favor of drug prohibition that did not equally apply to alcohol during its days of prohibition.

Hello.....
hello.....
Is this thing on?

post
#404
#405
#406
#407

and finally
#454 evaluates the effects of MJ vs alcohol

alcohol has benefits (gasp) in moderation

MJ may (epic gasp)

more research, study, evaluation once chemicals are refined into a more pure form. That doesn't mean legalize it and throw a party while it's being studied.
We have centuries of data for alcohol but not pot.

did you miss this line?
"There are segments of the population that want to bypass the entire process, grabbing this nugget of truth … and claiming smoking marijuana can be good for your health and have medical uses," Baler said.




your telling me that you belong to that "segment of the population"

I don't.

again, and again, but the last time

where the line is drawn and who draws it is our disagreement

that does not make me or anyone who may disagree with you statist, freedom hating, liberty grabbing Prohibitionists.


​whatever that means

 

[jamil]

I think the challenge is extremely relevant to both of the questions that you posed. We don't have to wonder or speculate; we know that prohibition did not achieve its goals. We know that it caused more harm than the original problem. We know because we have the data available from before, during and after prohibition.

And my challenge illustrates that there is no practical difference, in this context, between drugs and alcohol. Which means that if we repeal drug prohibition, we should expect the same effects that took place when we repealed alcohol prohibition. Blood in the streets? No. Safer, cheaper drugs. Less crime.

Non sequitur.

I've been told by several people that my arguments in favor of both drug legalization and the non-aggression principle caused them to change their views to some extent. I enjoy that more than convincing a few statists to be slightly less statist because guns and drugs 'just ain't that bad'.

Maybe it's a character flaw, but when people act THAT condescending to me, I tend to think everything they say is full of ****. You could have left that "statist" **** on the cutting room floor, and whatever you may have said that wasn't full of ****, I'd have noticed.

Your 'pragmatic' approach has been the status quo for at least a century in the U.S. The 'Libertarians' that you seem to like are the ones who advocate a freedom here and there, then turn around and announce that business owners should be forced by the government to provide services against their will. How has this compromising pragmatism worked out for the last century? Do you think we have more liberty now than we did then?

I don't.

Oh, the all or nothing argument. THAT always wins. So your track record of success is, what exactly?

Dude, you really know how to keep people in your corner.

 

[steveh_131]

Hello.....
hello.....
Is this thing on?

post
#404
#405
#406
#407

and finally
#454 evaluates the effects of MJ vs alcohol

alcohol has benefits (gasp) in moderation

MJ may (epic gasp)

LOL that mess of incoherent posts was intended to be an answer to my question?

 

[D-Ric902]

LOL that mess of incoherent posts was intended to be an answer to my question?

I think your computer may have a glitch

cause your only seeing part of a post.


(oh wait, willful blindness)

 

[D-Ric902]

Maybe it's a character flaw, but when people act THAT condescending to me, I tend to think everything they say is full of ****. You could have left that "statist" **** on the cutting room floor, and whatever you may have said that wasn't full of ****, I'd have noticed.

 

[steveh_131]

Non sequitur.

It's really quite relevant. Stop and think about it for a moment. These are your questions:

"1) Are the stated goals of the current law being achieved? 2) Are the current laws causing more harm than the original problem? "

These are good questions. We can speculate. We can look at current research. But we're really just guessing, aren't we?

But if we could find a parallel in history and look at how it turned out, doesn't that supply us with much better answers to both of your questions? Alcohol prohibition gives us that parallel, assuming that we can control the other variables between drugs and alcohol. My challenge was exactly that: Show me any variables that would suggest that the effects of repealing alcohol prohibition would be any different than the effects of repealing drug prohibition.

There are some slight variations, but the situation honestly mirrors that of prohibition quite well. This is me providing the very best answer that can be provided for your questions.

Maybe it's a character flaw, but when people act THAT condescending to me, I tend to think everything they say is full of ****. You could have left that "statist" **** on the cutting room floor, and whatever you may have said that wasn't full of ****, I'd have noticed.

Why do you assume I'm talking about you? (I'm not)

There are a few statists here arguing with me, and you're not one of them.

Oh, the all or nothing argument. THAT always wins. So your track record of success is, what exactly?

Dude, you really know how to keep people in your corner.

I think you're taking my comments more personally than I intended them.

You and I agree on most things. There are a small number of areas where you might compromise liberty for a legitimately utilitarian benefit... and if it ended there, the society that you envision would be a gigantic improvement over the status quo.

Except I don't think that it ever will end there. I think that the utilitarian mindset can work out great when it's used by a guy with some common sense like you. But what happens when the general populace uses it? 'There oughtta be a law' becomes a common phrase, and the government becomes the answer to every societal problem (as it has been for a very long time).

 

[steveh_131]

LOL let's not pretend that anybody here thinks you're making any sense. (Except the guy who gets high on his morning commute)

 

[Ericpwp]

Let's not pretend you are convincing anyone of anything other then how not to gain friends or influence people.

 

[D-Ric902]

Let's not pretend you are convincing anyone of anything other then how not to gain friends or influence people.

 

[steveh_131]

Let's not pretend you are convincing anyone of anything other then how not to gain friends or influence people.

On the contrary, I've had several people tell me they shifted their viewpoints on various subjects based on my posts.

 

[Ericpwp]

In real life? when is the last time you have actually dealt with someone in person?

Does it hurt to know not everyone shares your views?

 

[D-Ric902]

On the contrary, I've had several people tell me they shifted their viewpoints on various subjects based on my posts.

Shifted away from your viewpoint in various subjects

 

[steveh_131]

In real life? when is the last time you have actually dealt with someone in person?

There is one prolific poster here who I influenced towards a libertarian viewpoint (in person).

Does it hurt to know not everyone shares your views?

No

 

[mrjarrell]

No such thing as a successful "pothead". Yeah, right.

[video=youtube_share;A6c6eUeoa9Q]http://youtu.be/A6c6eUeoa9Q[/video]

 

[Ericpwp]

Well you are doing a bad job of it. You have fun being the ruler of your world.

 

[Ericpwp]

No such thing as a successful "pothead". Yeah, right.

Pretty sure that was never uttered.

 

[mrjarrell]

Pretty sure that was never uttered.

It's been said many times here on INGO. Some people just live with their preconceptions and refuse to accept reality.

 

[jamil]

It's really quite relevant. Stop and think about it for a moment. These are your questions:

"1) Are the stated goals of the current law being achieved? 2) Are the current laws causing more harm than the original problem? "

These are good questions. We can speculate. We can look at current research. But we're really just guessing, aren't we?

But if we could find a parallel in history and look at how it turned out, doesn't that supply us with much better answers to both of your questions? Alcohol prohibition gives us that parallel, assuming that we can control the other variables between drugs and alcohol. My challenge was exactly that: Show me any variables that would suggest that the effects of repealing alcohol prohibition would be any different than the effects of repealing drug prohibition.

There are some slight variations, but the situation honestly mirrors that of prohibition quite well. This is me providing the very best answer that can be provided for your questions.

I did not say that the comparison between alcohol and drug prohibition is irrelevant. I said that comparing the similarity between the arguments favoring both prohibitions is a non sequitur. Comparing the similarities of both prohibitions is very relevant, especially if the consequences of one correlates with the consequences of the other, which they seem to correlate. However, that one argument used to justify one may be similar to the other, doesn't prove anything about the similarity of consequences.

Why do you assume I'm talking about you? (I'm not)

There are a few statists here arguing with me, and you're not one of them.



I think you're taking my comments more personally than I intended them.

I probably did. But it didn't matter so much who it was directed at. I just hate the term. I think it's horribly condescending. And it has been directed at me a time or two or three.

You and I agree on most things. There are a small number of areas where you might compromise liberty for a legitimately utilitarian benefit... and if it ended there, the society that you envision would be a gigantic improvement over the status quo.

Except I don't think that it ever will end there. I think that the utilitarian mindset can work out great when it's used by a guy with some common sense like you. But what happens when the general populace uses it? 'There oughtta be a law' becomes a common phrase, and the government becomes the answer to every societal problem (as it has been for a very long time).

I think there is room for "it depends" among a well informed populace who respects rule of law and personal freedom. I do recognize that "it depends" can be dangerous in an uninformed populace. I think IoF meshes with my philosophy 95% of the time. But I reserve the right to believe that last 5% is within the purview of the people to say, "it depends".

 

[D-Ric902]

The "Roseanne" star, who wants to legalize marijuana, also said the drug can release us from "mind control."

"It's a good medicine, you know," she told the Daily Beast at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City. "It's expansive. It opens your mind. You're like...Wow, you’re in awe. You look up into the stars. It makes you wonder. It doesn’t close that down"



Roseanne Barr is a believer