BF2S Forums How to stimulate the economy: Legalise marijuana

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lawsuits

Yep. Malpractice insurance is like $100,000. Ketamine is probably more expensive when it's used for humans than for animals. Why? Animals can't sue for malpractice.

They also don't give just Ketamine by itself to humans (well, not any more, sadly )

Dilbert_X wrote:

I thought you guys spent 20% of GDP on healthcare already, about 4 times higher than most other developed nations.

Letting people eat, drink and smoke their way to cancer, heart disease, obesity and diabetes doesn't seem a brilliant outcome for 'letting people make their own mistakes'.
Its too costly, nations can't afford to let their citizens do whatever feels good.

In the UK, the tax on Alcohol and Tobacco generates more than enough revenue to cover what they cost the NHS.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-02-04 15:01:50)

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Even if it has consequences affecting other people?

It's situational.  There is no blanket rule for these things.  However, the precedent of letting people make their own mistakes is usually better than one where the government makes decisions for you.

In principle, I agree fully and completely with you. This is just one of these things in which I see the immense potential for harm grossly outweighing the leisurely benefits of the people who can control it. Realistically, no government can please everyone, and you sometimes need to take the sweet with the sour. It sucks, but we're in a world where not everyone can live up to the ideals that we seek to enforce.

It's sorta like making seatbelts mandatory to wear. You may never crash your car, but other people invariably will.

OK.

But, where is the evidence that marijuana users, comparatively, cause all that much harm?

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

In principle, I agree fully and completely with you. This is just one of these things in which I see the immense potential for harm grossly outweighing the leisurely benefits of the people who can control it. Realistically, no government can please everyone, and you sometimes need to take the sweet with the sour. It sucks, but we're in a world where not everyone can live up to the ideals that we seek to enforce.

It's sorta like making seatbelts mandatory to wear. You may never crash your car, but other people invariably will.

OK.

But, where is the evidence that marijuana users, comparatively, cause all that much harm?

While we have differing beliefs on this, and while I know that you're never going to change your mind on it no matter how much evidence people will find you, as you'll always have opposing views to cite, I have witnessed many people who simply could not control their marijuana addictions, and threw their lives away as a consequence. Empirical evidence aside, the argument I have is more against the abolition of legislation against "what you can put into your body", as this extends far into some very bad places. As you can see from my posts, I have absolutely nothing against people smoking marijuana, providing that they can control the habit. The problem to me is that many people I have met simply can't.

There are slippery slopes in both directions.

Quick question, sorry if I missed it earlier in the thread kinda just jumped in. But have you ever smoked marijuana?

Anyway back to the point, Like I said earlier in the thread these debates over drugs legalization always boils down to people's life experiences.

Personally, I struggle to name people who lives turned out as nice as mine (in the material sense) and where at one point heavy smokers. But it was their own choice and I don't think I or anyone else has any right to decide what people could do with their bodies.

If you seek extremes on a slippery slope, choose which you would you rather have a nation of potheads or a police state. Extremes of what could happen either way on a long enough time line but it's a possibility.

Either way people will find ways to destroy their lives, I don't see the point of taking away something some people could use perfectly fine under the mask of safety.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The high cost of healthcare in America has less to do with our lifestyles and more to do with privatization and lawsuits.

But Americans are generally a good deal sicker than a lot of other countries, can't be helping, and doesn't make much sense to give them a whole new way of 'letting people make their own mistakes'.

Insert argument about how must people overact to a cold.

Completely serious; I would rather watch all of society collapse at once then live under a government that regulates what should be going in my body.

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Even if it has consequences affecting other people?

It's situational.  There is no blanket rule for these things.  However, the precedent of letting people make their own mistakes is usually better than one where the government makes decisions for you.

In principle, I agree fully and completely with you. This is just one of these things in which I see the immense potential for harm grossly outweighing the leisurely benefits of the people who can control it. Realistically, no government can please everyone, and you sometimes need to take the sweet with the sour. It sucks, but we're in a world where not everyone can live up to the ideals that we seek to enforce.

It's sorta like making seatbelts mandatory to wear. You may never crash your car, but other people invariably will.

Seatbelts also don't generate a massive illegal market for criminals.

The costs in terms of crime due to pot being in high demand (no pun intended) and highly profitable (because of its illegality) make the ban more trouble than any repercussions caused by people smoking up legally.

If pot was legalized, its usage would probably go up, but not enough to outweigh the costs generated by criminals who deal in pot while it remains illegal.

uevjHEYFFQ wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The high cost of healthcare in America has less to do with our lifestyles and more to do with privatization and lawsuits.

But Americans are generally a good deal sicker than a lot of other countries, can't be helping, and doesn't make much sense to give them a whole new way of 'letting people make their own mistakes'.

Insert argument about how must people overact to a cold.

Completely serious; I would rather watch all of society collapse at once then live under a government that regulates what should be going in my body.

I totally fucking agree.

The burden of living in a free society sometimes involves dealing with the mistakes of others, but that's still better than living under a government that doesn't even allow you to make mistakes.

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

uevjHEYFFQ wrote:

Let the people decide what is best for them. Some will destroy their lives some won't. No person has any right to tell any other person what they can or cannot put into their own body.

Even if it has consequences affecting other people?

Not legalizing it has consequences on other people.. Wasted police man hours, tax payer money.

FDA is a waste of taxpayer money. Let the market decide.

I'm waiting for the twinky and doughnut community to go underground.

I was keeding. At least if we want to live in a stupid society with more than 500 people.

Of course if we didn't certain persons with certain distinctively small facial hair fashions have figured out better ways to do that.

Okay still keeding.

In seriousness this issue is not important enough either way for it to be on the agenda. It will neither fix economic problems inherent to the system nor is it worth wasting time arguing against lifting the ban.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

In seriousness this issue is not important enough either way for it to be on the agenda. It will neither fix economic problems inherent to the system nor is it worth wasting time arguing against lifting the ban.

If pragmatism is the concern, I would advise researching the costs of law enforcement involving pot and also the amount of money that criminals make from pot.

The general idea is that banning something that is easy to produce and has a high demand is usually not worth banning.

If it's not in the vicinity of 800 billion, there are more pressing matters.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

In seriousness this issue is not important enough either way for it to be on the agenda. It will neither fix economic problems inherent to the system nor is it worth wasting time arguing against lifting the ban.

If pragmatism is the concern, I would advise researching the costs of law enforcement involving pot and also the amount of money that criminals make from pot.

The general idea is that banning something that is easy to produce and has a high demand is usually not worth banning.

If it's not in the vicinity of 800 billion, there are more pressing matters.

Creating criminality is srs biz. The harsher the punishment (for really stupid shit to begin with) the more desperate the criminal. I saw a trend that showed that each time the punishment was raised the more shadier the dealers became. In other words, instead of just having a middle man distributor they were getting all types of real nasty (violent) types. I believe it related to the cost going up.

I forget, it was a long time ago. I hope that made sense..lol.

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If pragmatism is the concern, I would advise researching the costs of law enforcement involving pot and also the amount of money that criminals make from pot.

The general idea is that banning something that is easy to produce and has a high demand is usually not worth banning.

If it's not in the vicinity of 800 billion, there are more pressing matters.

Creating criminality is srs biz. The harsher the punishment (for really stupid shit to begin with) the more desperate the criminal. I saw a trend that showed that each time the punishment was raised the more shadier the dealers became. In other words, instead of just having a middle man distributor they were getting all types of real nasty (violent) types. I believe it related to the cost going up.

I forget, it was a long time ago. I hope that made sense..lol.

Pretty much...  speaking of harsher penalties, a lot of the reason why murderers and rapists get shorter sentences now is because of mandatory drug sentencing.  This extends beyond the topic of pot, but the idea is the same as you mentioned.

Heroin lands a much higher punishment than pot, so the most shady dealers tend to choose that or cocaine due to their value.

At the same time, because of mandatory drug sentencing, we have more emphasis put on drug policy than on preventing murders and rapes.  We're filling up prisons with drug offenders. We really fucked our law enforcement priorities up with the War on Drugs.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-02-04 20:34:11)