101Walterton wrote:Yep yep yep you've all got a point that I dont disagree with but it is not as simple as that. None of us want to be told how to live or behave by politicians but unfortunately society needs rules to operate. It doesnt get any pettier than having laws controlling what side of the road you can drive on but if you dont roads dont work.
Except that your analogy is overly simplifying things as well. Draconian prison sentences have done nothing to stop rampant drug abuse, whereas traffic laws are for the most part sensible ways to insure smooth day to day societal operations.
The prohibition of alcohol led to increased criminality while not significantly diminishing the use of the drug. Legalizing and regulating drugs will keep the mob out of the picture and remove the incentive for youths to deal them. And rehabilitation programs to help addicts quit are far more effective than filling the prisons with the poor and minorities who's main crimes are poor impulse control and no education.
I have to go, so I can't elaborate now on how much worse legal alcohol and cigarettes are than marijuana.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
Oh yeah and re: traffic laws, people break those all the time anyway. I stay in the slow lane and go the speed limit and it gives people apoplexy. These are the same people who are patriotic, while I'm the law-abiding anarchist. Apparently it's not a speed limit, it's a Suggested Speed Guideline.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
101Walterton wrote:Yep yep yep you've all got a point that I dont disagree with but it is not as simple as that. None of us want to be told how to live or behave by politicians but unfortunately society needs rules to operate. It doesnt get any pettier than having laws controlling what side of the road you can drive on but if you dont roads dont work.
Come on man, driving laws are very different than drug laws.
No they arent. I once had an argument with a barrister about laws (not usually a good idea) he argued that laws are based on what is right and what is wrong morally however I pointed out to him that that wasnt true and that laws were based on allowing society to function. What other reason is there for having a law telling you what side of the road to drive on.
101Walterton wrote:Yep yep yep you've all got a point that I dont disagree with but it is not as simple as that. None of us want to be told how to live or behave by politicians but unfortunately society needs rules to operate. It doesnt get any pettier than having laws controlling what side of the road you can drive on but if you dont roads dont work.
Come on man, driving laws are very different than drug laws.
No they arent. I once had an argument with a barrister about laws (not usually a good idea) he argued that laws are based on what is right and what is wrong morally however I pointed out to him that that wasnt true and that laws were based on allowing society to function. What other reason is there for having a law telling you what side of the road to drive on.
So what about marijuana or drugs in general hampers society's functioning as compared to legal alcohol and legal tobacco?
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
101Walterton wrote:Yep yep yep you've all got a point that I dont disagree with but it is not as simple as that. None of us want to be told how to live or behave by politicians but unfortunately society needs rules to operate. It doesnt get any pettier than having laws controlling what side of the road you can drive on but if you dont roads dont work.
Except that your analogy is overly simplifying things as well. Draconian prison sentences have done nothing to stop rampant drug abuse, whereas traffic laws are for the most part sensible ways to insure smooth day to day societal operations.
The prohibition of alcohol led to increased criminality while not significantly diminishing the use of the drug. Legalizing and regulating drugs will keep the mob out of the picture and remove the incentive for youths to deal them. And rehabilitation programs to help addicts quit are far more effective than filling the prisons with the poor and minorities who's main crimes are poor impulse control and no education.
I have to go, so I can't elaborate now on how much worse legal alcohol and cigarettes are than marijuana.
Legalizing will not keep the mob out of it in the same way that legalising prostitution in NZ (or anywhere) did not remove the problems associated with prostitution i.e. street walkers, kerb crawlers, pimps, violence etc... If its legalized it will be taxed and there is always someone who willl sell it cheaper.
"I can't elaborate now on how much worse legal alcohol and cigarettes are than marijuana". I wont dispute that although strongly disagree with the "weed doesnt hurt you" statement.
101Walterton wrote:Yep yep yep you've all got a point that I dont disagree with but it is not as simple as that. None of us want to be told how to live or behave by politicians but unfortunately society needs rules to operate. It doesnt get any pettier than having laws controlling what side of the road you can drive on but if you dont roads dont work.
Come on man, driving laws are very different than drug laws.
No they arent. I once had an argument with a barrister about laws (not usually a good idea) he argued that laws are based on what is right and what is wrong morally however I pointed out to him that that wasnt true and that laws were based on allowing society to function. What other reason is there for having a law telling you what side of the road to drive on.
So what about marijuana or drugs in general hampers society's functioning as compared to legal alcohol and legal tobacco?
I dont think anyone would argue that if someone discovered alcohol today it would be deemed a lethal drug and made illegal.
The chief difference that I see between drug laws and traffic laws is that the former is a private act and the latter governs public behaviour. As long as I stay in my house, I should be able to get as fucked up as I want. But if I take it out in public, that's another matter, and laws regulating public behaviour come into play (e.g., drunk driving laws).
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Dr. Medulla wrote:The chief difference that I see between drug laws and traffic laws is that the former is a private act and the latter governs public behaviour. As long as I stay in my house, I should be able to get as fucked up as I want. But if I take it out in public, that's another matter, and laws regulating public behaviour come into play (e.g., drunk driving laws).
Thats fine if you grow your own weed in your own home for your own use, but thats not usually the case. What if you want to get fucked up on heroin, you may be on your own at home but you have involved a lot of people in several countries in order to do so.
Dr. Medulla wrote:The chief difference that I see between drug laws and traffic laws is that the former is a private act and the latter governs public behaviour. As long as I stay in my house, I should be able to get as fucked up as I want. But if I take it out in public, that's another matter, and laws regulating public behaviour come into play (e.g., drunk driving laws).
Thats fine if you grow your own weed in your own home for your own use, but thats not usually the case. What if you want to get fucked up on heroin, you may be on your own at home but you have involved a lot of people in several countries in order to do so.
That's a separate question as far as I'm concerned. That's getting into the political economy of dope production, not its actual usage. It is, I would say, a matter of personal morality, whether you're talking about being vegetarian because of inhumane and environmentally destructive ranching practices, the oppressive labour conditions in clothing factories, or the violence surrounding the dope production process.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Dr. Medulla wrote:The chief difference that I see between drug laws and traffic laws is that the former is a private act and the latter governs public behaviour. As long as I stay in my house, I should be able to get as fucked up as I want. But if I take it out in public, that's another matter, and laws regulating public behaviour come into play (e.g., drunk driving laws).
Thats fine if you grow your own weed in your own home for your own use, but thats not usually the case. What if you want to get fucked up on heroin, you may be on your own at home but you have involved a lot of people in several countries in order to do so.
That's a separate question as far as I'm concerned. That's getting into the political economy of dope production, not its actual usage. It is, I would say, a matter of personal morality, whether you're talking about being vegetarian because of inhumane and environmentally destructive ranching practices, the oppressive labour conditions in clothing factories, or the violence surrounding the dope production process.
They all come under drug laws, growing, manufacture, distribution, selling, using ??
101Walterton wrote:Thats fine if you grow your own weed in your own home for your own use, but thats not usually the case. What if you want to get fucked up on heroin, you may be on your own at home but you have involved a lot of people in several countries in order to do so.
There is no evidence to suggest that a legalized drug economy would develop any differently than tobacco or alcohol have. You brought up prostitution, but there are a myriad of reasons why alcohol/tobacco are better test cases than prostitution. For example, if you have, say, cocaine readily available at a few pennies more (due to tax) than its illegal counterpart, you pay the few extra cents and ensure that a) you're getting regulated primo stuff and b) you won't get arrested. When prohibition ended, illegal distribution networks for alcohol evaporated overnight. There's no real reason to think the same wouldn't happen with "hard" drugs.
Heroin, I guess, may be a little different than most of the rest. Something to ponder a bit.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Dr. Medulla wrote:The chief difference that I see between drug laws and traffic laws is that the former is a private act and the latter governs public behaviour. As long as I stay in my house, I should be able to get as fucked up as I want. But if I take it out in public, that's another matter, and laws regulating public behaviour come into play (e.g., drunk driving laws).
Thats fine if you grow your own weed in your own home for your own use, but thats not usually the case. What if you want to get fucked up on heroin, you may be on your own at home but you have involved a lot of people in several countries in order to do so.
That's a separate question as far as I'm concerned. That's getting into the political economy of dope production, not its actual usage. It is, I would say, a matter of personal morality, whether you're talking about being vegetarian because of inhumane and environmentally destructive ranching practices, the oppressive labour conditions in clothing factories, or the violence surrounding the dope production process.
They all come under drug laws, growing, manufacture, distribution, selling, using ??
Okay, I obviously misunderstood your original response—I thought it was about labour practices in other nations. So I'm not sure of your objection. In principle at least, I don't have a problem with the state regulating the manufacture and distribution of drugs, as well as controlling who can have access to them, along the same lines as tobacco and alcohol. If I want to ingest a substance in the privacy of my own home, I don't see where the state should do various end-arounds to prevent me by criminalizing various stages of the process. Some regulation a la tobacco and alcohol, sure, but not an outright ban.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Dr. Medulla wrote:The chief difference that I see between drug laws and traffic laws is that the former is a private act and the latter governs public behaviour. As long as I stay in my house, I should be able to get as fucked up as I want. But if I take it out in public, that's another matter, and laws regulating public behaviour come into play (e.g., drunk driving laws).
Thats fine if you grow your own weed in your own home for your own use, but thats not usually the case. What if you want to get fucked up on heroin, you may be on your own at home but you have involved a lot of people in several countries in order to do so.
That's a separate question as far as I'm concerned. That's getting into the political economy of dope production, not its actual usage. It is, I would say, a matter of personal morality, whether you're talking about being vegetarian because of inhumane and environmentally destructive ranching practices, the oppressive labour conditions in clothing factories, or the violence surrounding the dope production process.
They all come under drug laws, growing, manufacture, distribution, selling, using ??
Okay, I obviously misunderstood your original response—I thought it was about labour practices in other nations. So I'm not sure of your objection. In principle at least, I don't have a problem with the state regulating the manufacture and distribution of drugs, as well as controlling who can have access to them, along the same lines as tobacco and alcohol. If I want to ingest a substance in the privacy of my own home, I don't see where the state should do various end-arounds to prevent me by criminalizing various stages of the process. Some regulation a la tobacco and alcohol, sure, but not an outright ban.
I was referring to the legalising of possession / usage but not manufacture etc..I thought you meant it should be legal to do what you want in your own home however was pointing out that in order to do so many others have performed illegal acts on your behalf. You want full state manufacture and distrubution ? That will be taxed, manufacturers licensed, production governed by Health and Safety Food Hygene legislation...it all costs and this cost is passed on. There is always someone who will do it cheaper therefore you end up with legal and illegal drug trade as per prostitution.
101Walterton wrote:I was referring to the legalising of possession / usage but not manufacture etc..I thought you meant it should be legal to do what you want in your own home however was pointing out that in order to do so many others have performed illegal acts on your behalf. You want full state manufacture and distrubution ? That will be taxed, manufacturers licensed, production governed by Health and Safety Food Hygene legislation...it all costs and this cost is passed on. There is always someone who will do it cheaper therefore you end up with legal and illegal drug trade as per prostitution.
Not necessarily—is this there a huge black market for alcohol and tobacco? The widespread availability—the convenience factor—of legal booze and cigarettes seems to trump cheaper black market alternatives.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
