Liberal Candidates are now debating the decriminalization of marijuana

[Hicksey]

Why treat illicit drugs differently?

Uh, because there's no victim when someone likes to smoke pot when they watch TV?

I agree. I do not think it is wrong. My question comes from the double standard.

We cannot measure crimes by who or whether they hurt others. What's wrong is wrong. It shouldn't matter that it doesn't hurt someone.

Actually, it should matter because otherwise you are dictating moral behavior and tradition and personal preference. That is none of your business.

If I do not hurt you or anybody else, what do you care???

Why do we have a fine for a small amount but a criminal record for a large amount???

Either it is a crime or not. Either it is wrong or it is not.

Reasonable people would not think that way for other transgressions.

I do not understand how anti-drug people can think it is reasonable to have that double standard.

[i understand the assumption of large amounts suggest trafficking, however, that is just a stupid triple standard.]

I would support that double standard solely from the standpoint that a lot of people try it and to have one mistake mar one's life with a criminal record is a tragedy. But unlike the law we have now, I think that courtesy should stop at the first offense.

Isn't "dictating moral behavior and tradition" what laws do? As a society we have decided what should and should not be allowed. Invariably some things have been disallowed not because we seek to protect potential victims, but to promote values that are thought to maintain a healthy, productive society. Laws aren't only designed to punish wrongs.

[Charles Anthony]

I would support that double standard solely from the standpoint that a lot of people try it and to have one mistake mar one's life with a criminal record is a tragedy. But unlike the law we have now, I think that courtesy should stop at the first offense.

Would you extend that power -- I mean, "courtesy" to me so that I may tell YOU what you can or can not do? and exact punishment upon you?

Isn't "dictating moral behavior and tradition" what laws do?

Yes and that is what is wrong with a lot of laws -- if not all of them.

As a society we have decided what should and should not be allowed.

You decided nothing. We use the term "society" as a label when we want to hide behind personal responsibility.

Invariably some things have been disallowed not because we seek to protect potential victims, but to promote values that are thought to maintain a healthy, productive society.

No. Laws are a strategic way to exert power over people.

[Hicksey]

I would support that double standard solely from the standpoint that a lot of people try it and to have one mistake mar one's life with a criminal record is a tragedy. But unlike the law we have now, I think that courtesy should stop at the first offense.

Would you extend that power -- I mean, "courtesy" to me so that I may tell YOU what you can or can not do? and exact punishment upon you?

Why is it that when people do not wish to play within the rules they simply seek to change the rules?

As a society we have decided what should and should not be allowed.

You decided nothing. We use the term "society" as a label when we want to hide behind personal responsibility.

I didn't decide anything. Society has made those decisions over many years. The difference between our positions is that I agree with them and you do not. I view them as rules to live by and you view them as restrictions upon how you wish to live.

[Charles Anthony]

Why is it that when people do not wish to play within the rules they simply seek to change the rules?

The reason is that some people reject your "rules" because they did not consent to them.

The difference between our positions is that I agree with them and you do not.

No. The difference is that you justify exerting control over people whereas I do not.

[Hicksey]

Why is it that when people do not wish to play within the rules they simply seek to change the rules?

The reason is that some people reject your "rules" because they did not consent to them.

These are not my rules. These are the rules of society. They were not adopted on my say so. I just profess to agree with them.

The difference between our positions is that I agree with them and you do not.

No. The difference is that you justify exerting control over people whereas I do not.

And if we lived under either socialist or communist rule there would not be some sort of control exerted over us? There will always be rules to live by in a civilized society. Living outside those rules will always make one's like harder. You have chosen the hard way. I have not.

I can live within the rules. It is not hard. I fail to see why others cannot.

[Charles Anthony]

There will always be rules to live by in a civilized society.

Slavery was once a rule. Congratulations. Your social outlook is enlightening.

I can live within the rules. It is not hard. I fail to see why others cannot.

Are you open to changing "rules"??

[geoffrey]

I tend to agree, with trafficking a criminal record. The big contention of the left on this one is that crime will disappear when the dealers are out of business. I disagree. Their profit margins are huge, they could compete with legit outlets. And if they couldn't compete... they'd move on to selling other things.

How's the bootlegging business doing these days?

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

You do have the opportunist bootleggers like the Kennedy's for example, but 98% of grow op people aren't really on that level. Like 98% of the bootleggers.

They just moved on to something else.

[BubberMiley]

If someone stole something from you that you were going to throw out eventually, is that still theft? It didn't hurt you ...

How would they know what would happen eventually? You would likely still feel violated that someone was rooting through your personal property and taking stuff. Until that object is thrown out, it's theft with an identifiable victim.

If a prisoner shivs a man that is on his final walk to the electric chair is he not still guilty of murder even though that man was to die only a short 5 minutes from the time he was killed? Was anyone hurt that wasn't going to be?

Again, you can't predict the future. There could have been a last-minute call from the governor. It is not in that prisoner's power to take the law into his own hands. Society as a whole is victimized by vigilantism because the authority of the state is compromised.

We cannot measure crimes by who or whether they hurt others. What's wrong is wrong. It shouldn't matter that it doesn't hurt someone.

I agree: what's wrong is wrong. And if it doesn't hurt someone and can't potentially hurt someone, then it's never wrong.

[BubberMiley]

Isn't "dictating moral behavior and tradition" what laws do? As a society we have decided what should and should not be allowed. Invariably some things have been disallowed not because we seek to protect potential victims, but to promote values that are thought to maintain a healthy, productive society. Laws aren't only designed to punish wrongs.

Do you think it's reasonable then to outlaw overeating among the obese? They're actually killing themselves with their indulgence, unlike pot smokers. They are compromising their health and productivity, and ultimately costing the taxpayer with healthcare costs.

Or should they just be fined for possession of candy?

[BubberMiley]

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.

[Hicksey]

There will always be rules to live by in a civilized society.

Slavery was once a rule. Congratulations. Your social outlook is enlightening.

I can live within the rules. It is not hard. I fail to see why others cannot.

Are you open to changing "rules"??

I am open to changing rules. But I see no benefit to legitimizing a bad habit, nor how allowing a few potheads to get high legally improves any "social outlook".

And likening yourself to a slave is an insult to all who have been such a victim. They were true victims who were truly oppressed, you are merely whining because you wish your indulgences to be legalized.

[Hicksey]

If someone stole something from you that you were going to throw out eventually, is that still theft? It didn't hurt you ...

How would they know what would happen eventually? You would likely still feel violated that someone was rooting through your personal property and taking stuff. Until that object is thrown out, it's theft with an identifiable victim.

How so? They may not have known, but the person who would have been indentified as the victim knew and would likely have just laughed it off and silently thanked the thief for saving them the trouble of throwing it out.

I can speak from experience on this one. I have had this happen to me.

If a prisoner shivs a man that is on his final walk to the electric chair is he not still guilty of murder even though that man was to die only a short 5 minutes from the time he was killed? Was anyone hurt that wasn't going to be?

Again, you can't predict the future. There could have been a last-minute call from the governor. It is not in that prisoner's power to take the law into his own hands. Society as a whole is victimized by vigilantism because the authority of the state is compromised.

While I agree with your point on vigilantism, the future of the example wasn't unknown -- we knew the future. Jails don't randomly execute prisoners. In 99% of executions there is no last minute call. That man was going to die anyway.

We cannot measure crimes by who or whether they hurt others. What's wrong is wrong. It shouldn't matter that it doesn't hurt someone.

I agree: what's wrong is wrong. And if it doesn't hurt someone and can't potentially hurt someone, then it's never wrong.

There are way too many ways for marijuana use to go wrong. It starts from intoixcation while driving which we cannot measure for to determine if one is fit to drive, and we all know that marijuana has been proven to be the springboard from which people jump to other, more destructive drugs. There are more ways that allowing marijuana use can harm society as a whole than there are ways it can help.

Its funny, its the liberals that want to nanny people through life and here they are demanding to let people screw up their lives. Speaking of double standards ... Parents cannot be trusted their own money to provide child care for their own children, but we can trust illicit drug users to not screw up their lives. I'm sure if we contact the people at Mastecard we can get this into a commercial somewhere.

Before you scream strawman, consider this: these are two positions taken by the parties representing the two sides in this dispute that both are personal responsibility issues. The question is why we can trust a drug user to not mess up their life and a not parent to choose who would care for their children. It sets a precedent of the government stepping in to prevent someone's life from possibly being irreparably damaged. If we can do it with child care, why not drug use?

[Charles Anthony]

In 99% of executions there is no last minute call. That man was going to die anyway.

Hearing you justify killing others by saying that the victim "was going to die anyway" makes me feel very comfortable. We need more public policy, law and order generated with such a perspective.

Before you scream strawman, consider this: these are two positions taken by the parties representing the two sides in this dispute that both are personal responsibility issues.

I will not scream strawman. I will scream: "Nonsense argument." You point to some other policy that is wrong and say: "Let us have this WRONG policy, too."

Who cares if your parties or somebody else's parties agrees with something??? Are you going to start quoting the Communist party policy if it suit your strawman argument???

If we can do it with child care, why not drug use?

We should not be doing it with babysitting either.

[BubberMiley]

we all know that marijuana has been proven to be the springboard from which people jump to other, more destructive drugs.

No, we don't all know that. In fact, it's rubbish. I've smoked pot every day for years and can assure you I'm not moving on to anything more destructive. The only credence I give to that argument is that criminalization of marijuana mainstreams the black market subculture. Kids see weed as fun, harmless, and irrationally illegal. This makes them consider drug laws stupid in general and are therefore more willing to disregard these laws and try other, more harmful drugs.

Its funny, its the liberals that want to nanny people through life and here they are demanding to let people screw up their lives.

My life is far from screwed up. It's funny, it's the conservatives who want government out of their lives and people to take personal responsibility, and here they are demanding a nanny state.

commercial somewhere.

The question is why we can trust a drug user to not mess up their life and a not parent to choose who would care for their children.

Actually the child care debate was just about a lack of affordable daycare spaces and having a plan to provide them. Parents would still have a choice who looked after their children. You set up some rather off-topic strawmen when your argument gets desperate.

[Hicksey]

we all know that marijuana has been proven to be the springboard from which people jump to other, more destructive drugs.

No, we don't all know that. In fact, it's rubbish. I've smoked pot every day for years and can assure you I'm not moving on to anything more destructive. The only credence I give to that argument is that criminalization of marijuana mainstreams the black market subculture. Kids see weed as fun, harmless, and irrationally illegal. This makes them consider drug laws stupid in general and are therefore more willing to disregard these laws and try other, more harmful drugs.

I've seen it happen first hand and attented the funeral. And IMO the notion that because pot is illegal young people turn to other drugs is nonsense. I have no doubt that it never enters their minds.

Its funny, its the liberals that want to nanny people through life and here they are demanding to let people screw up their lives.

My life is far from screwed up. It's funny, it's the conservatives who want government out of their lives and people to take personal responsibility, and here they are demanding a nanny state.

commercial somewhere

You are confusing conservatives with Libertarians. Both Liberals and Conservatives are okay with government intrusion into core issues they hold dear when they believe it is in the public interest.

The question is why we can trust a drug user to not mess up their life and a not parent to choose who would care for their children.

Actually the child care debate was just about a lack of affordable daycare spaces and having a plan to provide them. Parents would still have a choice who looked after their children. You set up some rather off-topic strawmen when your argument gets desperate.

Apparently you missed all the bantering about what the opponents of the tory child care plan really thought. You don't remember the 'beer and popcorn' comment? They didn't trust parents with the responsibility of providing proper child care for their children and were concerned that the children would be irreparably harmed. Because of my life experience, I don't trust drug users not to screw up their lives, and I don't think that society should have to pay for their mistakes. I think there is a greater reason than to just say no. Sometimes there are rules to protect people from themselves. I made the point about the nanny state because the liberals of this country have gone to great pains at the expense of the rest of us to establish that we are unable to act responsibly as citizens and that everyone else should have to pay for our mistakes. And as much as I hate that mentality, life experience dictates to me that (as much as it hurts to admit it) in this instance they are right on the money.

[Black Dog]

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

You do have the opportunist bootleggers like the Kennedy's for example, but 98% of grow op people aren't really on that level. Like 98% of the bootleggers.

They just moved on to something else.

Any source for your stat that says 98 per cent of grow ops are full-on, professionally organized operations?

Anyway, if you take away a majr revenue stream, soem might not bother moving on. If you legalize, some might go legit (like Seagrams). Some might move on to new opportunities, but then you'll always have those.

hicksey:

But I see no benefit to legitimizing a bad habit, nor how allowing a few potheads to get high legally improves any "social outlook".

What I'd like to know is: are the costs to society fromkeeping marihjuana illegal greater than the costs would be if it were not? I'm inclined to think that the costs of enforcement, education, prosecution etc vastly out weigh any other costs.

There are way too many ways for marijuana use to go wrong. It starts from intoixcation while driving which we cannot measure for to determine if one is fit to drive, and we all know that marijuana has been proven to be the springboard from which people jump to other, more destructive drugs. There are more ways that allowing marijuana use can harm society as a whole than there are ways it can help.

Marijuana as a gateway drug is a myth. Marijuana doesn't lead people to other drugs, only that people who are inclined to try other drugs are also likely to try pot. You'd find a similar correlation between hard drug use and booze, but that's not evidence of causation.

Before you scream strawman, consider this: these are two positions taken by the parties representing the two sides in this dispute that both are personal responsibility issues. The question is why we can trust a drug user to not mess up their life and a not parent to choose who would care for their children. It sets a precedent of the government stepping in to prevent someone's life from possibly being irreparably damaged. If we can do it with child care, why not drug use?

If someone smokes too much weed and screws up their life, that's their problem. If parents screw up their kids, that quickly becomes society's problem.

[Hicksey]

Before you scream strawman, consider this: these are two positions taken by the parties representing the two sides in this dispute that both are personal responsibility issues. The question is why we can trust a drug user to not mess up their life and a not parent to choose who would care for their children. It sets a precedent of the government stepping in to prevent someone's life from possibly being irreparably damaged. If we can do it with child care, why not drug use?

If someone smokes too much weed and screws up their life, that's their problem. If parents screw up their kids, that quickly becomes society's problem.

And just who is going to be there outside big brother to take care of the drug addict? He'll be just as much of a problem to society as the child.

Again, if it is in the interests of society to prevent people from screwing up lives, why then would we allow people to do that with drugs?

[Topaz]

There a guy down in Texas running against the Governor, named Kinky Friedman, and he says that it will make it legal if he is elected Governor. He started out to see if he could get support and he has and they are having a fund-rising in New York this weekend for him. He was on "Imus in the morning" show MSNBC. Kinky also does help animals and kids benefits. IF it has been decriminalizated in the US, I don't think it will here.

[Hicksey]

There a guy down in Texas running against the Governor, named Kinky Friedman, and he says that it will make it legal if he is elected Governor. He started out to see if he could get support and he has and they are having a fund-rising in New York this weekend for him. He was on "Imus in the morning" show MSNBC. Kinky also does help animals and kids benefits. IF it has been decriminalizated in the US, I don't think it will here.

Interesting he feels he needs to go to liberal population centers to get support for that ...

There are major cities in the state of Texas in which to raise funds, why does he have to go out of state to get support for a policy he wishes to initate in Texas? Could it be he knows he'd never get it in largely conservative Texas?

[Black Dog]

I found this documnt: Considerations for a ‘Public Health’ approach to Cannabis Use Control in Canada that has some figures that are germain to this discussion:

Approx. 7% of Canadians (15yrs +) used in last year

BUT: <1% of adults, <2% of students use daily; 80% of adults use less than once weekly

...

Of the social costs to the Ontario health care system attributable to drugs in 1992 (Single et al. 1996)

69.0% were for tobacco

28.4% were for alcohol

2.0% for other illicit drugs

0.5% for cannabis

...

Over 3 million arrests in last 3 decades

Approx. 600,000 Canadians with criminal record for cannabis possession offense

Impacts on: profession, citizenship, travel, personal and social stigma

Estimated costs of cannabis enforcement as proportion of CJS costs: $400 million p.a.

No evidence of general or specific deterrence of law/enforcement

Again, if it is in the interests of society to prevent people from screwing up lives, why then would we allow people to do that with drugs?

It's in society's interests to prevent people from screwing up their lives onlyu to the extent that it impacts society. Pot has a very small impact on society, yet gets what I would consider a disproportinate amount of attention and esources directed to enforcement and education, money that could be better spent on more pressing public health problems or other social issues.

[LonJowett]

Again, if it is in the interests of society to prevent people from screwing up lives, why then would we allow people to do that with drugs?

Exactly, and given Black Dog's actual, supportable facts rather than your half-baked assumptions, it seems that the only way people are screwing up their lives from pot is by getting a criminal record. If it is in the interest of society to prevent people from screwing up their lives, legalize it now.

[Charles Anthony]

[Please allow me the liberty of being a snarky smart-ass.]

Pot has a very small impact on society, yet gets what I would consider a disproportinate amount of attention and esources directed to enforcement and education,

Therefore, that would tear down your initial premise: "It's in society's interests to prevent people from screwing up their lives onlyu to the extent that it impacts society." would it not???

[Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.]

[Black Dog]

Therefore, that would tear down your initial premise: "It's in society's interests to prevent people from screwing up their lives only to the extent that it impacts society." would it not???

How so? Pot is not a big social problem. Therefore there is no need for society to regulate it.

[Charles Anthony]

Pot is not a big social problem.

I agree.

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

[Black Dog]

.

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.