Liberal Candidates are now debating the decriminalization of marijuana

[geoffrey]

Most of the mobsters moved on to other criminal business. Legalising a crime doesn't make for less criminals.

Yes, they conveniently made marijuana illegal around the same time prohibition ended. They moved on to that. So long as there is prohibition, there are criminals to take advantage of it. Take away the prohibition, and there's nothing to move on to.

So your ok with legalising every crime in order to prevent criminals from moving on to others? Where do you stop, bank fraud? Conning seniors? What?

Uh huh.

[BubberMiley]

So your ok with legalising every crime in order to prevent criminals from moving on to others?

Only the victimless crimes. You can count them on one hand, so it shouldn't be too big a deal.

[Hicksey]

.

What I am saying is that "society's interests to prevent people from scewing up their lives" is false.

Unless their screw up affects society. A heroin addict is not a social problem. Crime committed by that heroin addict is.

Who's going to pay for the inevitable rehab for our addict? And if our addict has children who is going to step up and take care of them when their addiction prevents them from doing so themselves? How many addicts can hold down a job? Who's paying for the inevitable welfare check?

This IS a social problem. That's been my whole point all along. The argument that drugs only hurt the user is false.

My point was that the laws that exist, exist not only to protect people from themselves, but also to protect society from drug users. The other examples I listed were other areas of precedence where society previously did so (Medicare) and currently is debating (Child Care) stepping in to protect people from their own irresponsibility as laws that forbid drugs already do.

The real question that remains is where that line is between government intervention and and government intrusion. Where and when is it appropriate for government to step in?

A co-worker suggested this to me at work tonight and it almost made sense ...

Maybe a systemic approach to drug legalization could be worked out. Only the government could produce and sell drugs. They would be sold by a single crown controlled corporation in stores much like liquor stores. They would be taxed as cigarettes are in that about 20% would be the actual cost and 80% taxes to pay for the effects on social, law enforcement and health care programs. In purchasing their indulgence drug users would be paying in advance for any and all care they may need as a result. And they would be portaking in the activity at their own risk and defacto give up any rights to sue the government for compensation from the side effects of the drugs. If we can nationalize everything else why not this?

[jdobbin]

Unless their screw up affects society. A heroin addict is not a social problem. Crime committed by that heroin addict is.

Heroin is a social problem in that an addicts don't take care of themselves or their surroundings. Their impairment is such that they overdose, share needles, leave needles and human waste in their paths. For this reason, Insite was set up in Vancouver.

This, of course, is a separate issue from decriminalizing drugs.

[BubberMiley]

This, of course, is a separate issue from decriminalizing drugs.

One could argue that the criminalization of their disease isolates them from society, contributing to the social problems you describe.

[jdobbin]

One could argue that the criminalization of their disease isolates them from society, contributing to the social problems you describe.

That could be true. But even if heroin was decriminalized, it would still be a social problem according to many health experts.

[Drea]

No one is advocating legalizing heroin. And if you don't know the difference between heroin and marijuana perhaps some research is in order.

Children of pot smokers are far less affected than children of alcoholics yet no one has stepped in and criminalized alcohol.

I buy my weed from a guy that grows just enough for him and his buddies -- I don't want to support organized crime -- so how exactly are "Bob the small time weed seller" and "Me" hurting society?

[Hicksey]

This, of course, is a separate issue from decriminalizing drugs.

One could argue that the criminalization of their disease isolates them from society, contributing to the social problems you describe.

No, their choices in life and their refusal to take responsbility for those choices in life does that. In society today if you do not know that drugs are addictive and that if you take drugs you are likely to become addicted, you are an idiot of the highest order.

People too often confuse the freedom to do something with being free of the consequences of doing it. If you do not wish to be known as a crack whore, it is smart not to do crack and not to be a whore.

[BubberMiley]

No, their choices in life and their refusal to take responsbility for those choices in life does that.

I though you said personal responsibility didn't apply in this case?

In society today if you do not know that drugs are addictive and that if you take drugs you are likely to become addicted, you are an idiot of the highest order.

Fortunately marijuana, though habit-forming, is not addictive. It's like a big bowl of ice cream that you can't resist, but you don't get DTs from abstaining.

People too often confuse the freedom to do something with being free of the consequences of doing it. If you do not wish to be known as a crack whore, it is smart not to do crack and not to be a whore.

If someone doesn't mind being known as a crack whore, let them do crack and be a whore.

[Hicksey]

No, their choices in life and their refusal to take responsbility for those choices in life does that.

I though you said personal responsibility didn't apply in this case?

What I said is that those that do not do drugs should have to bear the responsibility for your mistakes. And that response was to the comment quoted.

People too often confuse the freedom to do something with being free of the consequences of doing it. If you do not wish to be known as a crack whore, it is smart not to do crack and not to be a whore.

If someone doesn't mind being known as a crack whore, let them do crack and be a whore.

I hope you don't mind if I quote you on that.

[BubberMiley]

What I said is that those that do not do drugs should have to bear the responsibility for your mistakes.

Too bad criminalization makes that necessary, with all the costs of enforcement, incarceration, loss of tax revenue. Not to mention how it fuels organized crime and an unfettered black market that sells drugs to kids in school. What were your reasons for defending the status quo again? So that hypocritical puritans can create artificial consequences for what would otherwise be harmless pleasure?

If someone doesn't mind being known as a crack whore, let them do crack and be a whore.

I hope you don't mind if I quote you on that.

Put it on a T-shirt for all I care.

[geoffrey]

So your ok with legalising every crime in order to prevent criminals from moving on to others?

Only the victimless crimes. You can count them on one hand, so it shouldn't be too big a deal.

You don't think the 15 year old kid that gets approached by the adult dealer in a school yard is a victim? Truly, your moral compass needs re-alignment.

[Hicksey]

So your ok with legalising every crime in order to prevent criminals from moving on to others?

Only the victimless crimes. You can count them on one hand, so it shouldn't be too big a deal.

You don't think the 15 year old kid that gets approached by the adult dealer in a school yard is a victim? Truly, your moral compass needs re-alignment.

Like the truest of liberals, when they cannot win the game they move the goal/goalposts to suit their needs instead of seeking to become a better player within the rules.

So instead of obeying the rules, they seek to make up their own.

Jamie Hynerman of mythbusters says it best. "Well, I reject your reality ... and subsitute it with my own."

[Hicksey]

What I said is that those that do not do drugs should have to bear the responsibility for your mistakes.

Too bad criminalization makes that necessary, with all the costs of enforcement, incarceration, loss of tax revenue. Not to mention how it fuels organized crime and an unfettered black market that sells drugs to kids in school. What were your reasons for defending the status quo again? So that hypocritical puritans can create artificial consequences for what would otherwise be harmless pleasure?

If I were to pick between the burdens of paying for your screwups and paying to keep it illegal, I'll keep things as they are now. IMO if you need drugs to have a good time you've got a wire or ten crossed. Try being high on life instead.

[Charles Anthony]

If I were to pick between the burdens of paying for your screwups and paying to keep it illegal, I'll keep things as they are now.

What YOU call "screwups" I call freedom. Respecting individual freedom at all costs is a virtue.

[BubberMiley]

You don't think the 15 year old kid that gets approached by the adult dealer in a school yard is a victim? Truly, your moral compass needs re-alignment.

Yes, a victim of criminalization because criminalization fuels unregulated access.

But the kid smoking dope is committing no criminal act against another human.

If you're gung-ho about eliminating the sale of weed to minors, then you're with me on decriminalization! Hoo-ray, a convert. We'll restrict the sale of marijuana to adults and there will be no more victims. Your moral compass has been realigned.

[BubberMiley]

Like the truest of liberals, when they cannot win the game they move the goal/goalposts to suit their needs instead of seeking to become a better player within the rules.

Like how you've gone back and forth on whether people should just be able to take personal responsibility for their drug use?

[BubberMiley]

If I were to pick between the burdens of paying for your screwups and paying to keep it illegal, I'll keep things as they are now. IMO if you need drugs to have a good time you've got a wire or ten crossed. Try being high on life instead.

But it's not an either/or situation, because criminalization does nothing to reduce access. Under the status quo, anyone who wants to buy weed can buy weed, anytime they want, including children. So you're already paying for your hypothetical screwups and to keep it illegal.

With decriminalization, the market could actually be regulated, eliminating the black market trade so that it would be less likely to be sold in junior high schools, etc. I bet you would find consumption to actually be reduced (as alcohol consumption did when prohibition ended).

[geoffrey]

You don't think the 15 year old kid that gets approached by the adult dealer in a school yard is a victim? Truly, your moral compass needs re-alignment.

Yes, a victim of criminalization because criminalization fuels unregulated access.

But the kid smoking dope is committing no criminal act against another human.

If you're gung-ho about eliminating the sale of weed to minors, then you're with me on decriminalization! Hoo-ray, a convert. We'll restrict the sale of marijuana to adults and there will be no more victims. Your moral compass has been realigned.

Explain to me why that dealer can't sell to a minor when it's decriminalised? Your argument is logically bankrupt.

[Hicksey]

Like the truest of liberals, when they cannot win the game they move the goal/goalposts to suit their needs instead of seeking to become a better player within the rules.

Like how you've gone back and forth on whether people should just be able to take personal responsibility for their drug use?

No, I haven't. I have made isolated comments regarding different scenarios. You keep applying them wherever you please and then proceed to make accusations.

In a perfect world people would just be smart enough not to do drugs and this whole issue would be moot. The only reason we are here is because a bunch of you potheads refuse to obey the law. Taking responsibility doesn't mean changing the rule. It means adhering to it. Taking responsibility means that if you choose to do drugs even though they are illegal and you get caught, you don't whine about being victimized -- you swallow your pride and take the punishment your actions garnered.

[BubberMiley]

Explain to me why that dealer can't sell to a minor when it's decriminalised? Your argument is logically bankrupt.

Because criminalization of marijuana has created a multi-billion dollar black market. If that trade were legal and regulated, as it is with alcohol, that black market trade would dry up, just as it did when alcohol prohibition ended.

You don't see people selling beer in junior high schools very often. It may happen, but it's nowhere near the same level of trade as there is with criminalized drugs.

[BubberMiley]

responsibility means that if you choose to do drugs even though they are illegal and you get caught, you don't whine about being victimized -- you swallow your pride and take the punishment your actions garnered.

I'm not whining about being victimized. In fact, I'm not even sure I personally want marijuna decriminalized because I like the fact that it's readily available, tax-free, and of good quality. I don't think it's likely I'll be busted, but if I am, I can take what they dish out. I just recognize that the law is irrational and counter-productive to what it sets out to do.

[geoffrey]

Explain to me why that dealer can't sell to a minor when it's decriminalised? Your argument is logically bankrupt.

Because criminalization of marijuana has created a multi-billion dollar black market. If that trade were legal and regulated, as it is with alcohol, that black market trade would dry up, just as it did when alcohol prohibition ended.

You don't see people selling beer in junior high schools very often. It may happen, but it's nowhere near the same level of trade as there is with criminalized drugs.

I disagree. I think there is as much, if not more, bootlegged alcohol as pot in schools. I'm not that long out of high school, and unless all the kids are all switching over, there was an equal abundance of both.

Decriminalisation won't change 15 year olds getting coerced into pot smoking, the dealers will still be there, with the rest of the dealers moving on to conning seniors or something like that.

[Hicksey]

responsibility means that if you choose to do drugs even though they are illegal and you get caught, you don't whine about being victimized -- you swallow your pride and take the punishment your actions garnered.

I'm not whining about being victimized. In fact, I'm not even sure I personally want marijuna decriminalized because I like the fact that it's readily available, tax-free, and of good quality. I don't think it's likely I'll be busted, but if I am, I can take what they dish out. I just recognize that the law is irrational and counter-productive to what it sets out to do.

If you potheads would obey the law it wouldn't cost the rest of us.

You're the ones out there breaking the law and then blaming society for punishing you. The grand total of your argument is telling me that because you refuse to obey the law (as if it is our fault that enforcement costs are high, God forbid we blame the lawbreakers for that) we should reward your actions and just make it legal.

[BubberMiley]

My pot use doesn't cost you anything, I assure you. And some of us actually believe in personal freedom, autonomy, and responsibility. The state does not have dominion over my body, so uninformed laws that try to govern what I do with it are inconsequential