| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/17/2013 09:41:15 PM · #51 |
In order to seek a conciliatory tone, I think we need to realize we are all employing a similar cost/benefit approach to the issue. Do the benefits of legalized pot outweigh the costs? The reason different, reasonable, people arrive at different conclusions is they weigh costs and benefits differently. I know many on these threads value the benefit of personal liberty greatly and this figures in their conclusions. I was explaining that in my personal experience and worldview, the cost of a destroyed life (especially a destroyed life through a means condoned by society) is high and this figures in my own conclusions. I have anecdotal, but personal, experience to back this up. (Ed should ask himself the difference between qualitative and quantitative data and whether anecdotal evidence is more acceptable in one of them over the other).
If we want a "new" question on the issue. I'd be interested in Ray's life's experience to weigh in on a question both WA and CO are struggling with which is how to enforce DUIs. We have no means to test whether someone is impaired by cannabis while driving like we do with alcohol. It seems it would be back to a subjective judgement by the enforcement officer and I would think that would make a number of you libertarians cringe. |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 09:58:17 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Seems the Big Round Chancellor has become the Big Gulp Canceller. |
Ha! Good one, bvy! |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 10:50:15 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Seems the Big Round Chancellor has become the Big Gulp Canceller. |
Ha! Good one, bvy! |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 11:23:49 PM · #54 |
| So Skewsme is now Chancellor of the Echoer? |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 11:46:49 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am concerned with those least capable of handling such freedoms. |
“Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.â€
When we begin to ban thing because a few of us are incapable of handling them, we can start with wheat, milk, peanuts, fish, shellfish, alcohol, tomatoes, soy and the list would go on and on. In fact if we limit what is available to what can do no harm to the few, your average Costco will be small enough to fit in the corner store. |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 12:03:26 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am concerned with those least capable of handling such freedoms. |
“Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.â€
When we begin to ban thing because a few of us are incapable of handling them, we can start with wheat, milk, peanuts, fish, shellfish, alcohol, tomatoes, soy and the list would go on and on. In fact if we limit what is available to what can do no harm to the few, your average Costco will be small enough to fit in the corner store. |
You dare mock the "consistent" Doc? |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 12:24:04 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am concerned with those least capable of handling such freedoms. |
“Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.â€
When we begin to ban thing because a few of us are incapable of handling them, we can start with wheat, milk, peanuts, fish, shellfish, alcohol, tomatoes, soy and the list would go on and on. In fact if we limit what is available to what can do no harm to the few, your average Costco will be small enough to fit in the corner store. |
You missed the whole point of the post which was to say we are all applying cost/benefit analysis but just arriving at different conclusions. I don't think your position is unreasonable. It's just not mine.
You should post the sentence that starts with, "when we ban things because a few of us are incapable of handling them..." over in the gun thread. It would be fun.
Message edited by author 2013-03-18 00:33:42. |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 12:26:22 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by yanko:
You dare mock the "consistent" Doc? |
Twelve words or less. My consistency pales in comparison to yours Richy. ;) |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 01:42:30 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
You dare mock the "consistent" Doc? |
Twelve words or less. My consistency pales in comparison to yours Richy. ;) |
But only six this time and even that was overkill. |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 01:49:17 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You should post the sentence that starts with, "when we ban things because a few of us are incapable of handling them..." over in the gun thread. It would be fun. |
The analogy did occur to me, but few of those who end up not being able to handle acess some food or drink end up killing anyone but themselves. |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 07:20:54 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am concerned with those least capable of handling such freedoms. |
“Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.â€
When we begin to ban thing because a few of us are incapable of handling them, we can start with wheat, milk, peanuts, fish, shellfish, alcohol, tomatoes, soy and the list would go on and on. In fact if we limit what is available to what can do no harm to the few, your average Costco will be small enough to fit in the corner store. |
Soda isn't being banned, merely the serving size is being limited. if you want to indulge you still can, you just buy more but the amount that and establishment can OFFER you is being cut down.
We already do this, the size and quantity of alcohol that you can buy is often limited at sporting and recreational events.
im surprised they haven't been forced to apply big warning labels to the soda containers, a la cigarettes and alcohol |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 10:57:47 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You should post the sentence that starts with, "when we ban things because a few of us are incapable of handling them..." over in the gun thread. It would be fun. |
The analogy did occur to me, but few of those who end up not being able to handle acess some food or drink end up killing anyone but themselves. |
I think we can agree that two categories exist. Things that should be banned in society and things that shouldn't. We just might disagree on what belongs where. |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 10:59:59 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think we can agree that two categories exist. Things that should be banned in society and things that shouldn't. We just might disagree on what belongs where. |
pretty profound logic there. :P |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 11:27:38 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think we can agree that two categories exist. Things that should be banned in society and things that shouldn't. We just might disagree on what belongs where. |
pretty profound logic there. :P |
Isn't is? :). I was making sure Brennan knew that I didn't think he was holding the position that nothing that can cause harm should be banned and that I wasn't arguing that everything that can cause harm should be banned. Rant often devolves into painting your opponent into an extreme position. |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 12:05:25 PM · #65 |
| Think of limiting over-the-counter portion sizes in soda as analogous to speed limits for motor vehicles and it may begin to make more sense. |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 12:33:49 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think we can agree that two categories exist. Things that should be banned in society and things that shouldn't. We just might disagree on what belongs where. |
I'd add a third category, things that should be banned, things that should be regulated, and things that shouldn't. Some people, both in Rant and in the NRA, conflate regulation with outright banning, when they aren't the same at all.
I'm okay with regulation on a lot of things (including both soda sizes and guns) that I wouldn't want to ban.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2013 12:38:15 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Ann:
I'd add a third category, things that should be banned, things that should be regulated, and things that shouldn't. |
aren't all goods and consumption of goods regulated in some way? |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 01:15:12 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Ann:
I'd add a third category, things that should be banned, things that should be regulated, and things that shouldn't. |
aren't all goods and consumption of goods regulated in some way? |
And how does regulation work better than banning? What group of people is going to use whatever we're talking about while it is illegal, but then NOT use it when regulated if they fall outside the regulations? (eg. minors) |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 01:58:04 PM · #69 |
well for one, regulation, even very heavy, doesn't create a black market.
Message edited by author 2013-03-18 13:58:19. |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 02:05:55 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And how does regulation work better than banning? What group of people is going to use whatever we're talking about while it is illegal, but then NOT use it when regulated if they fall outside the regulations? (eg. minors) |
I think you're still conflating regulation with prohibition. A lot of regulation isn't prohibition, and isn't trying to be. The soda size thing would be an example of this. I don't think anyone sensible wants to completely ban sodas. They're just trying to reduce the number of people consuming a single 1000+ calorie drink as a single "serving". Another example would be the regulations on Sudafed. Used correctly, it's a useful, beneficial product. Used incorrectly, you'll end up getting dumped in a barrel full of acid by Walter White. Not even my friend who has 9 kids needs more than a box of it a month for any legitimate purpose, though, so there are regulations to limit how much you can buy.
Secondly, you're forgetting the part about enforcement. As an example, we've regulated alcohol for the past 80 years, and part of that regulation has been prohibition for minors. History (and common sense) has shown that if the regulations aren't enforced, that minors will drink anyway. History has also shown that strong enforcement of regulations does work, especially if the enforcement is focused on the people who are making money selling the regulated product, rather than the consumer. And we know for damn sure in the case of alcohol, that regulation works better than prohibition, which was an utter disaster. I would argue that regulation would work better than prohibition with most other drugs as well.
edit....Bear helped me with the spelling of sudafed.
Message edited by author 2013-03-18 14:10:12. |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 02:26:01 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Ann:
I'd add a third category, things that should be banned, things that should be regulated, and things that shouldn't. |
aren't all goods and consumption of goods regulated in some way? |
And how does regulation work better than banning? What group of people is going to use whatever we're talking about while it is illegal, but then NOT use it when regulated if they fall outside the regulations? (eg. minors) |
Do you have any idea how silly that question is? I don't drink alcohol and I don't smoke pot, so I've got no horse in this race, but... when I was a teenager it was a hell of a lot easier to obtain illegal substances than legal ones. I could go to the person selling joints in the high school bathroom and buy one no problem. I couldn't go to the liquor store and buy beer. If you want to stop minors from doing illegal drugs, the easiest way would be to make them legal, sell them from a regulated, inspected store, and make them produce ID showing their age. Impose severe penalties for selling it to underage people (just like alcohol), and also for people that are of age and get it for a minor. The reason it isn't done this way is purely motivated by money. Fill the jails with people that smoke pot, make tons of money off it. Fill the juvie halls with kids that smoke pot, make tons of money off it. The powers that be care not that this turns them into much worse criminals than smoking a joint did. They've made their profit, with the added benefit of knowing that a once innocent person will most likely be back at some point in the future to make them some more money. |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 02:37:03 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
well for one, regulation, even very heavy, doesn't create a black market. |
Well, yes it does. Practically any prescription drug you can buy at the corner drugstore you can buy from the guy on the corner.
However, it doesn't usually create organized crime (smuggling, gang warfare, expanding prisons and legal costs) unless you have outright prohibition.
In most cases, the physiologic harm done by the use of any of the (currently) completely illegal drugs is dwarfed by the harm done by mass incarceration (and subsequent blackballing) which is heavily weighted toward non-white males, use of non-pharmaceutical preparations, dealing in cash with criminals, broken families forced onto welfare, etc. The position of certain drugs on Schedule I is 99.9% a political decision, not one based on any rational analysis of the risk/benefit ratio, or in comparison with similar compounds. |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 02:51:51 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by mike_311:
well for one, regulation, even very heavy, doesn't create a black market. |
Well, yes it does. Practically any prescription drug you can buy at the corner drugstore you can buy from the guy on the corner.
However, it doesn't usually create organized crime (smuggling, gang warfare, expanding prisons and legal costs) unless you have outright prohibition.
|
i wasn't thinking about prescription drugs, the black market for certain drugs is for those that wish to use them for purposes other than what they are generally prescribed.
i have a bottle of painkillers in my cabinet that would fetch a nice sum on the open market, i was given them without asking when i had my kidney stone, i never even open the bottle, i just keep them around just in case.
but i agree with your points, outright prohibition in the case of mind altering substances will always cause a foundation for crime and i agree that there are those who wish to keep it that way. the war on drugs is a big money maker for police and politicians.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2013 02:53:14 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
the war on drugs is a big money maker for police and politicians. |
And many more large corporations than you know.
eta: I'll add a link to one I know of offhand, but I'm sure you can look up many others... //thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/19/1214071/facing-rates-of-17-for-15-minutes-fcc-takes-up-regulation-of-prison-phone-industry/
another eta: the bigger picture... //www.cnbc.com/id/44762286
Message edited by author 2013-03-18 14:59:38. |
|
|
|
03/18/2013 05:13:05 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Secondly, you're forgetting the part about enforcement. As an example, we've regulated alcohol for the past 80 years, and part of that regulation has been prohibition for minors. History (and common sense) has shown that if the regulations aren't enforced, that minors will drink anyway. History has also shown that strong enforcement of regulations does work, especially if the enforcement is focused on the people who are making money selling the regulated product, rather than the consumer. And we know for damn sure in the case of alcohol, that regulation works better than prohibition, which was an utter disaster. I would argue that regulation would work better than prohibition with most other drugs as well.. |
I'll use some hypothetical numbers to make my point. Let's say currently, while pot is illegal, there are a million minors who use it. We then change our policy and make it legal to purchase, but still illegal for minors. Do you think the number of minors using pot under the new system will go up, down, or stay the same? If your answer is up or stay the same then the follow up question is what have you gained with the regulation when it comes to use among minors? |
|
