As balm for Christiane Amanpour’s bruises from being kicked off her ABC Sunday show back to CNN, the network honchos let her try a different format this weekend (since nobody was watching anyway.) Styled “the Great Debate,” it pitted conservatives Paul Ryan, the GOP House intellectual, and columnist George Will against soon-to-be-retired Democratic Congressman Barney Frank and Clinton’s former Labor Secretary and perpetual Munchkin Robert Reich for the full hour, exchanging familiar talking points on the usual suspect national issues. The debate wasn’t so great, for several reasons, prime among them being the natural motor-mouth tendencies of Reich and Frank, who, I would guess, took up approximately twice the air time as the conservative pair. The teams were similarly unbalanced in cheer, with Reich as perky as his Lollipop Guild training would suggest, and Frank full of his trademark wisecracks, while Will was dour as ever (when faced with liberal cant, the columnist always looks like my high school Latin teacher did when I was botching the day’s translation) and Ryan radiated the charisma of a certified public accountant.
The most interesting exchange was when George Will derided proposed federal regulations against “distracted driving” as the latest installment of the nanny state encroachment on personal rights, saying that individual freedom should trump the government’s concern for public safety except in the most extreme circumstances. One of the good uses of absolutist reasoning is that it raises a very high bar before breaching a valid principle can even be considered, since it has to be considered as an exception if it is to be contemplated at all. Barring unsafe conduct that increases the likelihood of automobile accidents, however, is not the place for absolutism, but for utilitarianism—rational balancing.
Will’s argument makes some sense when applied to mandatory seat belt use: not using a seat belt is a personal risk that does not endanger others (at least directly: more on that shortly.) Talking on a cell phone, texting, reading a Facebook update and other forms of distracted driving do endanger others, and making laws that punish fools who think keeping up with the Kardashians is worth risking the lives of my family is an easy call, ethically speaking. So a driver has to pull off the road and park before answering a call or reading a text…big deal. George needs to get out more: if he was behind the wheel with any frequency, he would know that the number of inattentive drivers weaving in and out of traffic, shifting speeds and missing lights and signals because of the Blackberry in their hands is frighteningly high.
Ethically, the trade-off is minor inconvenience—-in most cases, minor to the point of irrelevance—versus human lives saved. I have listened to the conservative talk-show chorus mocking the proposed ban, and it is an extraordinary example of placing abstract principle over common sense and reality. Ethics, in the end, are determined by rational conclusions, based on observation, experience and analysis, about what kind of conduct and standards most benefit individuals, society and civilization. Doctrinaire elevations of minor infringements of principle to priority over undeniable risks to human life are not ethical. Ideological purity divorced from reality is no friend of ethics.
Barney Frank’s cause was, predictably, legalizing marijuana, which he analogized to gay marriage. I wouldn’t say his argument was worse than Will’s, but like Will, he Will-fully ignored the harm prohibited individual conduct does to others. Pot use is not like gay marriage. Same-sex marriage harms no one; prohibiting it harms the loving couple that is stigmatized and handicapped by laws that prevent them from enjoying the same legitimacy and respect in their union as traditional spouses. Pot advocates like Frank, and I have been listening to them most of my life, pretend that recreational marijuana use consists of single, unencumbered, financially secure and mature individuals with no obligations and no responsibilities to others sitting in their homes or dorm rooms toking away and being blissfully and harmlessly stupid for an hour or three. If pot use was restricted to this, I would agree with him. But it is not, and cannot be.
In society we are all bound to each other by bonds of mutual dependence and trust. A bus driver who smokes pot is risking the lives of young children. A student who smokes pot is sabotaging his education, and making it likely that you and I will have to pay the costs of his progressively unsuccessful life as a result. A husband who smokes pot and makes mistakes at work is jeopardizing the welfare of his children and family. Every hour stoned on a recreational drug is one less hour spent on productive activity that could benefit one’s dependents, colleagues, community and society. Every dollar spent on getting stoned is one less dollar that could be used to start a business, feed a child, pay a debt, or save. It is purely selfish behavior with real social costs and minimal benefits.
Like getting drunk, using marijuana may be relaxing or fun, but there are many, many ways to have fun and relax in America that don’t undermine the rest of society. Once again, the ethical trade-off is an easy one—a society without people wasting their time and money making themselves periodically slow-witted, inarticulate and stupid is undeniably a better society to live in than one that encourages such conduct, and making the conduct legal does encourage it.
Frank’s sneering mockery of those who, unlike him, think responsibly about the unavoidable and almost entirely negative consequences of permitting another alcohol to take permanent root is society, is even more obnoxious that Will’s airy dismissal of thousands of highway deaths as insignificant when compared to losing the freedom to Google “crash” while you are crashing. Barney likes his weed; it poses no danger to him, he can handle it, and he’s annoyed that he has to break the law to get high. And all the less intelligent, less responsible, younger, vulnerable Americans–and those who support or depend on them— whose lives will be diminished by free access to pot? Barney just doesn’t care, so he talks as if they don’t exist.
Sometimes giving up a small amount or personal freedom to promote a more stable society and to protect fellow citizens is the most ethical course. The fact that neither of the ideological opposites in this Great Debate seemed to understand that is troubling.
I think I’ll smoke a joint to calm myself down, and then chat with my sister about my concerns on my cell while I drive to the supermarket.
Ethics Alarms 
You could even argue that not wearing a seat belt makes other people safer because, psychologically, if you are not wearing a seat belt, you will feel less protected and will therefore drive more safely. Wearing a seat belt is still a really good idea, though, because even if you drive more safely, it doesn’t mean others will (especially if they are busy texting).
Your logic about pot, however, could be used to ban a lot of activities that bring individual pleasure but add very little to society at large.
Using your seat belt does affect others. The number of injuries requiring extensive and expensive medical care is well documented. And a certain significant percentage of the injured have no health insurance and at least some have no auto insurance. As a result we all pay for those who require such care. Additionally other family members are affected by an individual’s choice to “be free” and not wear seat belts.
You did see part where I wrote, “not using a seat belt is a personal risk that does not endanger others (at least directly: more on that shortly.)”, right? Because the rest of the post was about how the indirect effects of conduct in an interdependent society are also worth preventing.
Distracted Driving is bigger than cell phones. It’s putting on make-up, eating, playing with the radio, giving your baby a bottle in the back seat, etc.
The law should not be to ban these activities, but to penalize when these activities observably lead to poor driving actions. i.e. Swerving, failing to signal, etc.
If the law is to ban these activities, then unless your hands are at 10 & 2, you should be in violation. Even then, shouldn’t it be considered that radio and passengers also produce distractions? In some states, beginner drivers can’t even carry a passenger on the road until they turn 18, and even then it’s under certain restrictions.
Here’s another question. Why does our country and states tolerate any amount of inebriation in connection with driving?
But that’s the old “you can’t fix everything, so why fix anything?” argument, Tim. OK…there are lots of ways to distract yourself. But I’ve nearly been run off the road by a lot of drivers chatting away or looking down at their phones, and not yet by someone putting on lipstick.
As to your last question, I assume it has to do with the accuracy of measurement and false positives. Aside from that, yes, any inebriation is drunk driving and should be punished as such.
I’ve nearly been run off the road by a lot of drivers dealing with their kids, but not once due to a cellphone. Therefore, by your logic, we should ban kids in cars and do nothing about texting.
I’m strongly with Tim. We have laws governing acceptable driving. If you can meet all those while talking on two cellphones, changing the station on the radio, and reading Macbeth, then go for it.
Aside from that, yes, any inebriation is drunk driving and should be punished as such.
Define inebriation. If you’re violating rules of the road or driving dangerously (swerving, great changes in speed, failing to signal, etc) then you should be ticketed. If you’re not, then does it matter if you drank a beer with dinner?
See my response to Tim, tgt. Why not let someone drive without glasses until they kill somebody? And by the way, someone whose kids are out of control in a car should be pulled over.
Why not let someone drive without glasses until they kill somebody?
Honestly, if you can drive by echolocation, I’m all for it.
And by the way, someone whose kids are out of control in a car should be pulled over.
Really? If they’re still driving fine, but the kids are bouncing around, they need to be pulled over? Under what authority?
The “No Kids Bouncing Around While Driving Law.” I’m all for it.
In this situation, they can’t fix anything, so why bother. Are you telling me that cops can discern that a driver is texting when the phone is in the driver’s lap and the driver has tinted windows?
Cell Phone use and distracted driving is a Secondary Offense at best (much like seat belt use.) That alone should not be a reason to be pulled over. I’d like to see people pulled over for Primary Offenses first and cited for the Secondary when warranted as aggravating factors.
Since the data indicates that talking on a cell phone is about as debilitating as having a few drinks, I don’t see the logic. You forget that a lot of people like to obey the law. For example, it’s illegal to use cell phones while driving in DC, not in VA (or is it the other way around?) Any way, I often hear people say. “Oops, gotta hang up—its illegal here.” It’s VERY easy to see if someone has a cell phone to their ear. So its hard to catch…so what?
Since the data indicates that talking on a cell phone is about as debilitating as having a few drinks, I don’t see the logic.
Boo. Drivers who have been drinking exhibit different driving behaviors to those that are on cell phones.
Using the word debilitation is also a bit rich. For instance, the infamous Utah study shows a 9 percent slower breaking time for being distracted.
You honestly think that someone should be pulled over because, on average, they may take 1.09 seconds to break instead of 1 second? Should we also give tickets to any drivers that we know are 9% worse than average?
I can’t believe we’re having this discussion; it seems to be pure confirmation bias. You believe the data that supports the result you favor.
I wish that it wasn’t true that using cell phones was as dangerous as it is, but there is no doubt in my mind that the more people who do it, the more people will die—and there is no reason to do it. I see it all the time. I’ve been in cars where the driver narrowly missed an accident because she was paying attention to the cell phone. Waiting to see whether someone engaged in risky driving behaviors actually kills someone makes no sense to me at all. It is like the prohibitions against drinking alcohol openly while driving. Would you use the same logic there? It is reasonable to presume that a drinking driver is or will be an impaired driver. Ditto a texting, cell using driver. Enforcement is an entirely different issue. OK, it will be tough to enforce. The law itself will save lives.
“I wish that it wasn’t true that [driving with kids in the car] was as dangerous as it is, but there is no doubt in my mind that the more people who do it, the more people will die—and there is no reason to do it. [Kids can walk] I see it all the time. I’ve been in cars where the driver narrowly missed an accident because she was paying attention to the [kids]. Waiting to see whether someone engaged in risky driving behaviors actually kills someone makes no sense to me at all.”
I fixed it for you.
It is like the prohibitions against drinking alcohol openly while driving. Would you use the same logic there?
Yup.
It is reasonable to presume that a drinking driver is or will be an impaired driver.
No, actually, it’s not. If I take a couple sips of a beer, does that mean I am or will be impaired?
The law itself will save lives.
Other laws that will save lives:
* No driving after dark
* No kids out after dark
* No driving in the rain
* Speed limits of 10 MPH for all roads
* Heck, no driving. Period.
* No fast food restaurants
* No guns in the home
* No swimming less than an hour after eating.
* No walking outside in Thunderstorms.
Yes, they all will save lives. Yes, they are all stupid overreaches.
But this is just reductio ad absurdum, slippery slope stuff that can be used to justify eliminating almost any laws or regulations.
There is always a balance between the moderate and the excessive. Lowering the speed limit to 10 would save more lives than seat belts. That’s a pretty lazy argument against seat belts. People will always find stupid ways to risk their lives, and the law can’t cover all of them without becoming oppressive. Saying you can’t drink liquor or text while driving is hardly oppressive. Your arguments are consistent with George Will’s view, which is to say, placing ideology above common sense.
My argument was that your argument “The law itself will save lives. [So that’s enough reason to support it]” was hogwash. It’s not slippery slope, it’s cost benefit, but you only look at the benefit side of the equation.
I doubt that I will ever comprehend your oft-stated difficulty with this concept. Society declaring conduct wrong (illegal) has a posiitive effect all by itself.
You didn’t bridge the gap. If it’s wrong, why shouldn’t it be prosecuted?
To further this discussion, I need a response to the below:
What behavior will be illegal? What will allow a LEO to pull you over?
Holding a phone to your ear.
Being on an active phone call.
Typing a message.
Reading a message.
Looking for music to stream to your radio.
Changing the track to skip “Mmm Bop”.
Holding your phone.
Holding something that looks like a phone.
Holding an iPod Touch, which is not a phone.
Holding a phone to your ear. CHECK
Being on an active phone call. CHECK
Typing a message. CHECK
Reading a message. CHECK
Looking for music to stream to your radio. CHECK
Changing the track to skip “Mmm Bop”.CHECK
Holding your phone. CHECK
Holding something that looks like a phone. NO.
Holding an iPod Touch, which is not a phone. CHECK
And doing all of this while stuck in gridlock on the PCH not moving? Do people actually have to pull off the road to use a phone when they’re stopped in the middle of the road?
I do!!!
Instead of gay marriage, which I agree is not the same arguement, he should have analogized it to alcohol. If pot isn’t legal, alcohol shouldn’t be. Everything above stated about pot applies to alcohol. They should both be legal or not.
“A husband who smokes pot and makes mistakes at work is jeopardizing the welfare of his children and family.”
Whereas your plan to throw him in jail will be wonderful for his family.
It’s one thing to say that something is unethical on utilitarian grounds, and quite another to say it should be treated as a crime. Your utilitarian calculations should include the harm caused by enforcement, otherwise you can make any policy sound great if you don’t count the cost.
A husband who drinks and makes mistakes at work is jeopardizing the welfare of his children and family.
A husband who stays up all night with his sick child and makes mistakes at work is jeopardizing the welfare of his children and family.
Bring back prohibition! Make the womenfolk do all the child rearing!
SAame problem as your other arguments. The fact that it isn’t practical to prohibit everything doesn’t mean that it isn’t reasonable to prohibit something.
There is utility to staying up with a sick child. There is no social utility for getting stoned whatsoever.
As for prohibition—it didn’t work, because it was tried far, far too late. I wish it had worked. We would have a healthier and happier society if it did.
Criminalizing pot isn’t working either. Just because it is hard to accomplish doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. Criminalize both or de-criminalize both. Pick one option but don’t tell me that one can be done and the other can’t because that has no vailidity as an arguement. It is a rationalization for someone who wants to drink but doesn’t want their kid smoking pot and from what you say, Jack, it sounds to me like you are not that person. So why support their arguement for them?
Jack, you appear to be living in some strange parallel universe, one where “prohibition actually works if started earlier.”
May I draw your attention to the testimony of Judge Alfred J Talley, given before the Senate Hearings of 1926:
“For the first time in our history, full faith and confidence in and respect for the hitherto sacred Constitution of the United States has been weakened and impaired because this terrifying invasion of natural rights has been engrafted upon the fundamental law of our land, and experience has shown that it is being wantonly and derisively violated in every State, city, and hamlet in the country.”
“It has made potential drunkards of the youth of the land, not because intoxicating liquor appeals to their taste or disposition, but because it is a forbidden thing, and because it is forbidden makes an irresistible appeal to the unformed and immature. It has brought into our midst the intemperate woman, the most fearsome and menacing thing for the future of our national life.”
“It has brought the sickening slime of corruption, dishonor, and disgrace into every group of employees and officials in city, State, and Federal departments that have been charged with the enforcement of this odious law.”
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/HISTORY/e1920/senj1926/judgetalley.htm
And the following paragraphs are from WALTER E. EDGE’s testimony, a Senator from New Jersey:
“Any law that brings in its wake such wide corruption in the public service, increased alcoholic insanity, and deaths, increased arrests for drunkenness, home barrooms, and development among young boys and young women of the use of the flask never heard of before prohibition can not be successfully defended.”
“I unhesitatingly contend that those who recognize existing evils and sincerely endeavor to correct them are contributing more toward temperance than those who stubbornly refuse to admit the facts.”
“The opposition always proceeds on the theory that give them time and they will stop the habit of indulging in intoxicating beverages. This can not be accomplished. We should recognize our problem is not to persist in the impossible, but to recognize a situation and bring about common-sense temperance through reason.”
“This is not a campaign to bring back intoxicating liquor, as is so often claimed by the fanatical dry. Intoxicating liquor is with us to-day and practically as accessible as it ever was. The difference mainly because of its illegality, is its greater destructive power, as evidenced on every hand. The sincere advocates of prohibition welcome efforts for real temperance rather than a continuation of the present bluff.”
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/HISTORY/e1920/senj1926/walteredge.htm
If you genuinely believe that prohibition is an effective policy for dealing with substance use and addiction, then why are you not calling for drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, along with non-drug activities such as gambling or even dangerous sports that also pose a high risk to people’s health, to be assessed according to the same criteria? Or are you quite happy for the majority of us to carry on regarding you as a disingenuous hypocrite whose tirade against the users of drugs, other than those you favor, is not based on genuine concern for people’s wellbeing but on your own personal prejudices?
Your last comment is so completely off the mark that it is barely worth responding to. Tobacco is a dangerous drug, and should be banned. Alcohol was too imbedded in the culture to ban, but it would have been a good thing to start earlier—the Jewish culture actively discourages consumption except for ceremonial purposes, and that has worked. The rest of us missed that boat. Pot was not accepted in the culture until an arrogant group in the Sixties worked to make it semi-respectable BECAUSE the establishment objected to it, and now it is a full fledged problem. But it is far from where alcohol was at the time of Prohibition, which means if we can just get pot-lovers to think about the long-term consequences to society of providing free access to the drug, we can keep the number of drug-abusers to a minimum.
I have condemned legalized casino gambling and lotteries—you throw around hypocrite without bothering to check out what I have written—good, now I know your level of integrity. Dangerous sports are not addictive, you can’t play them while at work or driving or in school, and your analogy is idiotic. Lacking bullets, you resort to a personal attack—this is all so familiar. Nobody seems to be able to articulate what’s so good about pot use that it justifies doing all the harm legalization will do. This is utilitarian territory…you guys want to pretend it,s absolutism, because then you don’t have to justify anything.
As to the rest–yes, the opinions of two individuals sure are conclusive on the topic. Does that really seem like persuasion to you? Or proof? Or is it just easy to find a long quote supporting your position on the internet? My dog can do that. Well, with a little help.
You can insult my argument all you want, but insult me again, and 1) your comment won’t make it and 2) you’ll be banned.
You can’t conclude that two people don’t conclude anything, or prove anything if you actually want to prove something or make a point. Discrediting his sources discredits you.
Ban him, it’ll get us exactly where we’re going to get in this debate with you, nowhere. It’ll also show you’re butt hurt. Thing is welcome to the internet where we don’t like it when you spread the poor dissemination of information. We’re not going to eat it up. We’ve come at you with quotes, numbers, and dates. We’ve tried to show you failed policies. Through that we’ve discovered that you’re not even really an ideal “American” who actually believe in the bill of rights, and doesn’t have it in his head that they can just be forgotten about when it’s something that harms people. Thing is everything harms people in some way or another. And just like we have you here there are others who think things should be made illegal. These idea conform to communism, socialism. Ideas where our government not only organizes our lives for us but tells how to live it.
The government is a bureaucracy, and therefore it’s slow and full of problems, Madison will point this out. He’ll even argue that it will never do anything right. 200+ years later he’s right! And you’re clamoring to have that very government take over our society. Allow it to decide what music we’ll listen to, and what music we won’t. Go to war as it sees fit. Jail you for looking at a senator wrong. Get certified to flip a burger.
You deserve the names you’ve been called. After calling our ideas stupid, and throwing them aside as if they have no proof to back them up when that has been provided. Thing is you wrote about this without looking it up and you call that reasonable, ethical that you’re making this call and writing this article without the evidence that you simply can’t believe doesn’t exist. But you’re not going to have your mind changed on YOUR blog, oh god no way.
Some simple facts:
* A rather large majority of people will always feel the need to use drugs, such as heroin, opium, nicotine, amphetamines, alcohol, sugar, or caffeine.
* Just as it was impossible to prevent alcohol from being produced and used in the U.S. in the 1920s, so too, it is equally impossible to prevent any of the aforementioned drugs from being produced and widely used by those who desire to do so.
* Due to Prohibition (historically proven to be an utter failure at every level), the availability of most of these mood-altering drugs has become so universal and unfettered that in any city of the civilized world, any one of us would be able to procure practically any drug we wish within an hour.
* The massive majority of people who use drugs do so recreationally – getting high at the weekend then up for work on a Monday morning.
* A small minority of people will always experience drug use as problematic.
* Throughout history, the prohibition of any mind-altering substance has always exploded usage rates, overcrowded jails, fueled organized crime, created rampant corruption of law-enforcement – even whole governments, while inducing an incalculable amount of suffering and death.
* The involvement of the CIA in running Heroin from Vietnam, Southeast Asia and Afghanistan and Cocaine from Central America has been well documented by the 1989 Kerry Committee report, academic researchers Alfred McCoy and Peter Dale Scott, and the late journalist Gary Webb.
* It’s not even possible to keep drugs out of prisons, but prohibitionists wish to waste hundreds of billions of our money in an utterly futile attempt to keep them off our streets.
* Prohibition kills more people and ruins more lives than the prohibited drugs have ever done.
* The United States jails a larger percentage of it’s own citizens than any other country in the world, including those run by the worst totalitarian regimes.
* The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
– H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) American editor, essayist and philologist.
I just don’t buy this—it’s a “think of the children!” rationalization. Sure, families suffer when parents break the law. The responsibility for the consequences, however, are 100% on the lawbreaker. And as you know, I apply this to immigration enforcement as well.
Huh? You’re the one who brought the children into this. I’m just trying to be consistent in counting the costs. You say “There is no social utility for getting stoned whatsoever,” so the fact that dad enjoys getting high doesn’t count. But dad gets high at some cost to his family, so that counts. But when the police arrest him and lock him up, thus hurting his family even more, that doesn’t count. It seems like you’re just picking and choosing whatever benefits and costs support your intuition that pot smoking is wrong.
No, Mark, that’s not right. I brought the children in as individuals that the parent has an absolute duty to care for and that society has an interest in seeing that he doesn’t make it impossible for him to do so. The legal system considers family impact as a secondary factor in sentencing, but it should never be a factor in making a law and enforcing it. The presumption, first and foremost, when a law is made is that responsible, ethical, law-abiding citizens will obey it, thus greatly reducing the conduct the law seeks to prevent. Those who choose not to obey the law can’t blame either the law or the government for the consequences of their actions, and neither should we.
I brought the children in as individuals that the parent has an absolute duty to care for and that society has an interest in seeing that he doesn’t make it impossible for him to do so.
How is this any different than limiting sugar in breakfast cereals? In that case, we rely on adults to do the right thing, but in this case we need a law?
If one is “Do it for the children” stupid, then so is the other.
The presumption, first and foremost, when a law is made is that responsible, ethical, law-abiding citizens will obey it, thus greatly reducing the conduct the law seeks to prevent.
That only works for responsible, ethical laws. There’s a reason the government’s power is limited by the constitution.
Those who choose not to obey the law can’t blame either the law or the government for the consequences of their actions, and neither should we.
No, we don’t blame the government for the consequences of our actions, but we’re right to blame the government for the consequences of their laws.
Your quote: “A husband who smokes pot and makes mistakes at work is jeopardizing the welfare of his children and family.”
The point of my 2 silly examples above was to show that your logic was simply “think of the children!” rationalization. Now you’re accusing Windy of that? When he was just following YOUR logic?
No, no, no. The point is that “victimless crimes” are not victimless, and in a society individuals have an obligation to remain functional. The adverse of “think of the children!”—the cynical use of children as an absolute priority to trump all opposition to bad policy, is not “Don’t think of the children” but “Child welfare is one consideration, not the only or primary consideration. I cited family neglect as one of many ways pot users harm people other than themselves and society generally. And that’s true. Obviously the need for anti-drug laws doesn’t rest on this alone, or this necessarily.
Using children as an excuse not to make harmful conduct illegal or to fear enforcement, however, is the “children trump everything argument.” My argument doesn’t rely on the child welfare angle–go ahead, ignore it. You still have all the other ways citizens making themselves irresponsible, sluggish and stupid for significant parts of their existence is a burden on others.
You still have all the other ways citizens making themselves irresponsible, sluggish and stupid for significant parts of their existence is a burden on others.
Aside from the bus driver, all the negatives in your argument also apply to video games…and television…and novels…and pretty much all modes of entertainment. You must work. And when you’re not working, you must work some more!
Your argument breaks down to: “think of possible negative consequences, and don’t think about other activities that have the same exact negative consequences. Moreover: children!”
It’s not even like you just had one example of negative effects of children. It was in every sentence of that paragraph.
* Bus driver -> death of children
* Student -> is a child
* lose job -> effect on children.
* every hour -> less benefit to dependents
* every dollar -> less for children
Your argument was dependent on “Think of the children!” While you could make a valid argument against pot, you didn’t do it here.
Jack, an important aspect of Individual freedom is the right to self-medicate, or to do with yourself as you please, as long as your actions cause no unnecessary suffering or direct harm to others. You’re may disagree with this, and you should be free to believe what you wish. But the moment you are willing to use force (paid for with our own hard-earned taxes) to impose your will on the rest of us, is the exact same moment that the petty criminals/dealers, the Mafia, drug barons, terrorists and corrupt government officials/agencies enter the equation. It’s never been any other way, Jack:
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada recently reviewed 15 studies that evaluated the association between violence and drug law enforcement. “Our findings suggest that increasing drug law enforcement is unlikely to reduce drug market violence. Instead, the existing evidence base suggests that gun violence and high homicide rates may be an inevitable consequence of drug prohibition and that disrupting drug markets can paradoxically increase violence.”
Stephen Anderson, a former New York Police Department (NYPD) narcotics detective, recently testified that he regularly saw police plant drugs on innocent people as a way for officers to meet arrest quotas. This practice has cost New York city $1.2 million to settle cases of false arrests. In Anderson’s own words: “The corruption I observed … was something I was seeing a lot of, whether it was from supervisors or undercovers and even investigators,” — Anderson was busted back in 2008 for planting cocaine on four men in a Queens bar.
“This has been going on for forty years. These corruptions are emerging all over the country. It’s not systemic to a police department, per se, but it is systemic to the War on Drugs in the context that the federal government is basically corrupting local government with their funds and the helter-skelter way of putting these task forces together and diverting local police from their basic public safety duties to the priorities of the federal government in terms of the War on Drugs.” — Former Deputy Chief Stephen Downing, a 20-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), who was in charge of implementing Nixon’s War on Drugs in Los Angeles.
Correction for my second sentence: You may disagree with this
What will allow a LEO to pull you over?
Holding a phone to your ear. CHECK
Being on an active phone call. CHECK
Typing a message. CHECK
Reading a message. CHECK
Looking for music to stream to your radio. CHECK
Changing the track to skip “Mmm Bop”.CHECK
Holding your phone. CHECK
Holding something that looks like a phone. NO.
Holding an iPod Touch, which is not a phone. CHECK
So, in your world, a LEO can pull you over for holding your phone, but not holding something that looks like a phone. So, if I hold a banana, or my wallet up to my ear like a communication device, the cop can’t pull me over.
Let me back up and write out my position…
I agree. Distracted Driving is a problem and it needs to be addressed. I think fines and penalties are appropriate measures to help address the issue. I do not believe that a LEO should be able to pull you over for the sole reason that he *thinks* you are distracted. How can one person legitimately testify that another is *distracted* when they weren’t even in the same private space?
Luckily, there already exists common ground where both our views can co-exist. It’s the secondary offense area. By making Distracted Driving a secondary offense, you are making the activity illegal and giving enough broad coverage to extend to risky behaviors beyond talking on a cell phone. At the same time, you limit the LEOs ability to abuse and arbitrarily impact their power to pull over motorists.
If you think about it, this is already the system in place for Drunk Driving. How many people have been pulled over by LEOs for the only reason that they were drunk? I have to believe the answer to that is *zero*. A LEO will observe behavior of the vehicle that will provide the impetus for stopping a vehicle.
Do you believe that this process / procedure is deficient? Do you think all cars should be equipped with breathalyzers that communicate to squad cars to alert if there is a drunk driver? If so, then you would probably believe that all cars should be equipped with a camera to detect if you were holding a phone.
Though, until we get that technology, we can just set up roadside cameras to look inside each car and if the driver is holding a phone, we can send them a ticket with a fine. Think of the revenue! ….and if you must….think of the children!
Pingback: The boy who cried Ethics « Drug WarRant
wow… you do realize a scientist just developed a strain of bird flu that’s capable of killing 60% those it infects? Now that’s dangerous…
And pot? Really? You want to go there? Ok… I’ll start…
Do you believe that laws should be based on facts or racial hysteria?
Do you believe laws that produce racially discriminatory enforcement, should be maintained in spite of that civil imbalance?
[Did you know that the US imprisons young black males at a rate nearly six times greater per capita than South Africa at the peak of Apartheid? (and not that there ever was a “peak” to apartheid)]
Cannabis played an important role in the founding of this nation. It was a benign and useful agricultural staple. It was a common over-the-counter medicine up until it’s banning.
Why was it banned? Because it threatened to turn lily white youth into black jazz musicians… and it drove Mexicans to maniacal acts of homicide.
And finally…
Are you aware of the 1988 report from DEA (that’s the Drug Enforcement Administration) administrative law judge Francis Young in which he called cannabis “one of the safest therapeutic substances known to man?” He further went on to call its criminalization “cruel and capricious.”
I guarantee you’ll lose any argument on the issue of Cannabis Prohibition. Unless you’re a supporter of laws based on lies and racially discriminatory law enforcement unwilling to be swayed by science, facts, history or common sense, any discussion on the topic ends with Prohibition II losing.
Snottiness isn’t persuasion.. I don’t “lose” that argument. I’ve lived with stoned people; I’ve seen what drugs do to kids. There is no logical reason to legalize pot, and create another addictive drug to go along with alcohol. None. The race arguments are really pathetic. So because a disproportionate number of criminals are black, the laws are racist. Wow. You’re either dishonest or dim-witted, because that theory is utter nonsense….boot-strapping, upside-down, and blatant rationalizing. I guess rape laws are sexist, by your logic.
Pot makes people stupid, and stupidity is epidemic already. Stopping it would be easy, were it not for elitist pot-heads who don’t care what their little toy does to the more vulnerable in society—those who can’t afford to spend hours every day being mellow.
Science is pretty clear that pot is a harmful drug in excess. There is no need for it, and that’s a fact.
“There is no logical reason to legalize pot, and create another addictive drug to go along with alcohol.”
We wouldn’t be “creating” another drug to go along with alcohol. Cannabis is here, and it’s not going anywhere. The argument that we’d be ADDING to the problems that we already have with alcohol is misguided. Alcohol and cannabis, as recreational intoxicants, are SUBSTITUTES. And cannabis is, by every objective measure, infinitely safer and less socially destructive than alcohol. Alcohol is toxic. People can and do die from alcohol overdose. Alcohol is physically addictive. You can be so addicted to alcohol that you can literally die from withdrawal. Cannabis is not physically addictive. If you want to talk about “psychological addiction,” be my guest (of course, that’s also possible with alcohol… or sex, or shopping, or video games, or a thousand other things that people find pleasurable). But let’s at least acknowledge that there’s no cannabis equivalent to delirium tremens. And (in my view, most importantly), alcohol, as a disinhibitor, is a MASSIVE contributor to violence. Alcohol is involved in something like half of all violent crimes and 70% of domestic abuse cases. In contrast, cannabis use has never been linked to violence. If anything, it DECREASES the risk of violence by pacifying the user. While they can be overstated, there’s a reason we have the stereotypes of the “belligerent drunk” and the “mellow stoner.” I know which one I prefer to be around. We won’t be “adding a vice” when we finally re-legalize cannabis, we’ll simply be providing a safer, legal alternative.
We learned from alcohol prohibition (or at least we should have) that prohibition doesn’t eliminate the very real problems associated with substance abuse. It simply adds NEW prohibition-related problems. We haven’t eliminated the market for cannabis by keeping it illegal, instead we’ve granted an incredibly lucrative monopoly on that market to violent criminal gangs. And drug prohibition fuels violence in the illicit drug trade because prohibition IS violence. It’s the policy of sending men with guns to arrest sellers and lock them in government cages. All of the other violence that surrounds the (non-alcohol, non-tobacco) drug trade is fundamentally a REACTION to that initial state-sponsored violence. Prohibition also renders contracts unenforceable and makes it impossible for competitors to use the courts or the police to challenge intimidation or settle disputes. Those conditions promote violence. Today you don’t see rival beer distributors engaging in deadly shoot-outs over turf, but you USED TO — during alcohol prohibition. A few of prohibition’s other unintended consequences include empowering and enriching organized crime, promoting official corruption, undermining respect for the law, and driving a wedge between police and the communities they’re supposed to “serve and protect.”
And you ARE losing the argument. Badly. Run a google image search for “Gallup poll cannabis” (not all together in quotes) and take a look at the trendline. Support for maintaining the idiocy of cannabis prohibition is CRUMBLING.
There are lots of self-destructive, societally harmful conduct that wins polls. I love your word-parsing. Pot isn’t “physically addictive.” Neither is gambling. You don’t fool me: I’ve seen marijuana psychological addiction up close. Arguing that alcohol is worse—and I’m not 100% convinced of that—isn’t an argument at all. OK, it’s worse. Pot is still bad enough. (Alcohol, at least, is often enjoyed without the intent of intoxication—not pot; it’s only purpose is mental impairment.) You HAVE no argument. It’s just “I like my weed; the hell with everyone else.” How noble. How mature. Do yoga. Get a hobby. Grow up. You want to inflict another addiction on lower class Americans and younger and younger kids because you can handle it. Bully for you.
“It’s here.” That is, “everybody does it.” Bankrupt logic, but that’s all you have. It’s a harmful drug, harms lives, harms families, harms businesses, wastes money, and if a bunch of arrogant weed fans didn’t have so much exposure giving credibility to the idea that smoking yourself dumb is “cool”, we wouldn’t have a drug problem, we wouldn’t be spending millions chasing smugglers, and a lot of people wouldn’t be in jail. Your dream pot-filled world stinks, literally and figuratively, a place where buzzed out jerks cost businesses and taxpayers money by screwing up in a thousand little ways, and where kids come to school high. To be so self-righteous about something so useless! Revolting.
“Arguing that alcohol is worse—and I’m not 100% convinced of that—isn’t an argument at all”.
Actually, it is a very compelling argument, if we are concerned about ethics, because, whether or not you believe that the dangers of a drug justify criminalising people who use that drug, if you use the dangers to justify criminalisation, then if there are two drugs being compared, to punish people who use the more dangerous drug while not punishing the less dangerous one is clearly unjust. And the overwhelming weight of scientific consensus is that alcohol carries greater health risks to the individual, as well as greater societal risks in terms of unleashing violence against others. The most obvious one is that you cannot give yourself a fatal overdose of cannabis, whereas you can with alcohol. And as regards addictiveness, I challenge you to find any credibly sourced statistics that suggest that cannabis is more addictive than alcohol. As regards DUI, most studies show that, while cannabis impairs your driving skills, it impairs them less than alcohol does (and doesn’t tend to impair people’s ability to recognise their own impairment like alcohol does). You might like to consider the fact that the states that have legalised medical cannabis (and therefore created some inevitable leakage into recreational use) have actually seen a reduction in road traffic fatalities; the most likely hypothesis is that some people have substituted cannabis for alcohol, and those of them that drove under the influence were less likely to get into a crash than they would have been if drunk (even though the risk was still higher than if they had been sober).
You simply cannot have it both ways; if cannabis users deserve to be criminalised, so do alcohol users, if alcohol users don’t deserve to be criminalised, neither do cannabis users.
And yes, I am aware that driving under the influence is still something we would wish to criminalise; I just mean that I cannot see how that can possibly justify punishing drug users who don’t drive, whether that drug is alcohol or cannabis.
Furthermore, this really needs addressed: “You want to inflict another addiction on lower class Americans and younger and younger kids because you can handle it.”
The overwhelming evidence is that criminalisation of drugs does not prevent children accessing them. You live in a country where more schoolchildren say the can easily access cannabis than alcohol, and where the numbers of schoolchildren actually using cannabis has caught up with the numbers using cigarettes. This is a spectacular failure if the purpose of prohibition is to protect children from the dangers of drugs. Moreover, the reason is obvious; regulated dealers of legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol have a licence to lose; illegal dealers do not, and in the case of cannabis, the illegal dealers have a government-backed monopoly over the market.
Plus, those cannabis uses who do suffer addiction are a minority, and it is at best ethically questionable to want to throw the entire cannabis-using population in jail, or otherwise derail their lives with a criminal record, just to protect a minority from themselves, especially when we consider that the stigma of being criminalised is likely to prevent people who genuinely do have a problem from coming forward and seeking treatment.
Those who are arguing for the legalisation of the cannabis industry are doing so not just because the criminalisation of millions of people whose drug of choice is less dangerous than alcohol is a manifest and absurd injustice, but also because the legal regulation of the market actually offers the possibility of government control over the production, sale and use of the drug – control designed to actually reduce harm, rather than merely punish use.
This is before you even begin to address the carnage abroad in producer countries like Mexico that arise because the USA has decided to enact laws against behaviour which simply does not fall into what people normally conceive of as crimes, that it cannot enforce to a degree adequate to eliminate the terrible side effects they produce. Yes, none of this would happen if people all voluntarily refrained from using cannabis, but the evidence of the last several decades is that lots and lots of Americans like cannabis and are not deterred by the law, therefore the ethical position from a lawmaker’s perspective is: “what law will actually cause the least harm in the real world?”; not “what law would cause the least harm in an ideal world of perfect obedience?”
“You live in a country where more schoolchildren say the can easily access cannabis than alcohol, and where the numbers of schoolchildren actually using cannabis has caught up with the numbers using cigarettes.”
I’m sure you would like to believe that. It’s not true, but if it was, it makes my argument. You think this is a good thing, do you?
It is true, governments numbers themselves. You can’t just say “that’s not true” just because you don’t believe it.
A fatuous and logically inert argument. Alcohol was too imbedded in the culture to ban; that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have been good to ban it. This is how cultures get progressively worse—each gradual acceptance of bad behavior is justified because something worse is tolerated.
My original statement is correct. Alcohol is a blight on society, causing horrible health, economic, domestic and economic consequences, and if pot causes just 25% as much, that is an additional burden on society worth preventing. And, may I add, obviously. This isn’t called “having it both ways.” It is called common sense.
“Arguing that alcohol is worse—and I’m not 100% convinced of that—isn’t an argument at all. OK, it’s worse. Pot is still bad enough.”
Er… actually it IS an argument. But it’s apparently one to which you’re incapable of providing a substantive response
“You HAVE no argument. It’s just ‘I like my weed; the hell with everyone else.'”
Maybe it’s my cannabis-addled brain, but that doesn’t strike me as a very fair characterization of my previous comment. I’ll let your readers judge.
“To be so self-righteous about something so useless! Revolting.”
Hey, finally a statement I can agree with! But cannabis prohibition is worse than just “useless.” It’s incredibly destructive.
“Arguing that alcohol is worse—and I’m not 100% convinced of that”
Alcohol is a factor in the following:
* 73% of all felonies * 73% of child beating cases * 41% of rape cases * 80% of wife battering cases * 72% of stabbings * 83% of homicides.
According to the Australian National Drug Research Institute (2003): “Tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs are prematurely killing around seven million people worldwide each year, and robbing tens of millions more of a healthy life. The research into the global burden of disease attributable to alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs found that in 2000, tobacco use was responsible for 4.9 million deaths worldwide, equating to 71 percent of all drug-related deaths. Around 1.8 million deaths were attributable to the use of alcohol (26 percent of all drug-related deaths), and illicit drugs (heroin, cocaine and amphetamines) caused approximately 223,000 deaths (3 percent of all drug-related deaths).”
According to DrugRehabs.Org, national mortality figures for 2009 were: tobacco 435,000; poor diet and physical inactivity 365,000; alcohol 85,000; microbial agents 75,000; toxic agents 55,000; motor vehicle crashes 26,347; adverse reactions to prescription drugs 32,000; suicide 30,622; incidents involving firearms 29,000; homicide 20,308; sexual behaviors 20,000; all illicit drug use, direct and indirect 17,000; and marijuana 0.
Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime. Alcohol scored 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual.
The American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that in the U.S. alone, an estimated 79,000 lives are lost annually due to “excessive” drinking. The study estimates that the overall cost of excessive drinking by Americans is $223.5 billion each year.
Health-related costs per user are eight times higher for those who drink alcohol when compared to those who use marijuana, and are more than 40 times higher for tobacco smokers, according to a 2009 review published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal.
It states, “In terms of [health-related] costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user.”
Having three or more alcoholic drinks a day increased lung cancer risk by 30 percent.
“Heavy drinking has multiple harmful effects, including cardiovascular complications and increased risk for lung cancer,”
– lead researcher Stanton Siu, MD, of Kaiser Permanente
Apart from the fact that legal drugs kill far more people than all the illegal drugs combined, debating whether a particular drug is harmless or not is missing the whole point. Are drugs like Heroin, Meth or Alcohol dangerous? It simply doesn’t matter, because if we prohibit them then we sure as hell know that it makes a bad situation far worse. And who wants to give criminals, terrorists and corrupt law enforcement agents a huge un-taxed, endless revenue stream?
Dr. Tashkin. look him up and tell me science is sold on the idea that Cannabis is bad for you.
You can’t just throw out the race argument because you don’t believe it. Our own government collects that information (they also try to tell us what it means), and often report it to our media. Black men are six times more likely to be jailed for a cannabis offense as a white person, who are equally likely to smoke it.
There is no need for the constitution (written on hemp paper)? What about the ropes used to sail early Americans across the sea for the prospect of a new life? The first law of the land was for requiring property owners to grow the stuff. Washington’s main crop on Mt. Vernon was hemp. I doubt he didn’t smoke pot.
There is no need for alcohol or tobacco. No need to drive either (it’s not a protected right because there is no real need to do it). If it made you stupid explain President Obama’s success (he smoked it in COLLEGE), George W. Bush, or Clinton’s.
If there truly is no need for it why does there exist a need to charge me to get rid of it for you? If it were easy to get rid of then it would be gone. You’ve had decades to do as much, more and more money to do it with too. So it isn’t easy. What exactly is our spending hours mellow harming? Who? How? Are you going to propose we do it at work? Then I’ll propose you drink at work. While driving? Then you drink while you drive. This is why anecdotal evidence like “I’ve lived with stoners” gets you nowhere.
Sorry, but no to all of the above. Penalizing people is not a way to reduce risks involved with risky behavior, or to reduce the prevalence of risky behavior. I agree that distracted driving is a problem on the roads. I also would like to point out it’s been a problem on the roads since driving motor vehicles. So why, after the invention of cell phones, handheld devices, and other tools that can distract drivers, has there been a reduction in fatalities on the road? Probably because of increased safety in our cars in general. Oh and how driving distracted is OBVIOUSLY dangerous even to drivers who commit it, so there is a likely hood that most drivers actually avoid it. Most of your arguments in the comments seem based on your own anecdotal evidence based on what you’ve “seen”, but I’m left asking myself if you might have crossed the line while looking to see what another driver was doing.
Instead of looking to see what other people are doing on the road you could look into why your local PD isn’t pulling the people who almost ran you off the road over. See they broke the law when they did that, you don’t need to pretend your preventing their behavior only show that the consequences of distracted driving are unacceptable.
You fail to provide proof as to marijuana’s harming those who don’t smoke it. I won’t argue that it is a form of impairment that can be a problem operating heavy machinery. That is not a good enough reason for banning any substance, because then I could ban helpful substances like morphine. Thing is I don’t think morphine is helpful. I think it’s addictive, and can be very much a life destroying drug. I don’t want it made illegal though, because then more criminals would be inclined to provide it on a regular basis giving rise to entire criminal syndicates who don’t check your ID.
I was promised a drug free world decades before I was born. Now there is a 14 trillion dollar debt, and more drugs being used by more people. If you want to do something about that you should take a long hard look at our drug laws. Or are you just another cheerleader for insanity?
I see no argument here at all. The data on distracted driving isn’t made up. I won’t get into statistic games with you— a waste of time, but I think the data is persuasive, and it confirms my personal experience. And so what if I crossed a line observing some jerk taking on a cell phone? You disqualify yourself for an ethics argument. What do you think that means? Because I am reckless too, I can’t report on the recklessness of others? Wrong. Because there are other forms of distracted driving, that means we shouldn’t prohibit the ones we can? Wrong.
I grew up in the 60’s, my friend. I saw academic careers, work and relationships wrecked by pot obsessions. I saw people get hurt. I can point you to a lot of people who gave it up, because it screwed up their lives. And it’s unhealthy, a lot like cigarettes. There’s no cost-benefit analysis that justifies legalizing it, because it is 100% unnecessary. If playing Clue led to the same kind of consequences as pot use, I’d say banning Clue was an easy call. But a bunch of selfish Clue fanatics would be out writing how “nobody can prove” that the game harms anyone. It’s a damn game. Play chess.
I’ve heard the same lame arguments for decades, and you know what the difference is between the people I argued with then and the people I argue with now? The ones I argued with then agree with me now. They don’t want their kids using, and the don’t use themselves. I wonder why?
The war on drugs argument is another invalid cliche. That’s right…let’s just make everything legal when the criminals seem to be winning. Saves money, and that’s all that really counts. If you can’t beat em, join ’em. That’s how societies rot; you’re right on the cutting edge.
Great countries go bankrupt. They don’t rot. I’ve herd your same lame arguments over my close to three decades. Only difference between your rhetoric and mine is that yours is tried and failed. What your arguing for is more of the same which since it began has only made worse the “problems” it set out to correct. We aren’t loosing a war against murder, thievery, and rape (funny how we don’t have those), but we are loosing the war on drugs. And it’s costing our country billions annually to fail. It is not a solution to the “problem”. When we made alcohol illegal it exasperated the social problems that comes with alcoholism. When our government decided that the problem was alcohol is when prohibition really took hold.
The problem wasn’t alcohol, but the people who use it. When you get drunk you likely go to bed without issue. You enjoy your night and speak highly of it after. likely millions of Americans drink without the social negatives that come with it. But because of a few people who get drunk and beat their wives alcohol was banned. Alcohol didn’t beat the wives. Nor did it force itself down the throat of her attacker. Simply put it is more efficient and reasonable (as well as ethical) to punish a person for doing something that is obviously wrong. Punishing them for something only a part of our society might commit is wrong, but punishing a person for beating their spouse is not wrong by most standards.
Adults in the Netherlands have had free access to pot since 1975. Adults in California have had quasi-free access to pot since 1976. Can you provide a shred of evidence that the lives of vulnerable people in either place have become increasingly diminished as a result? Has either place suffered decreases in educational attainment or worker productivity?
Your claim that ceasing to arrest people for a particular behavior amounts to encouraging said behavior is simply risible. Homosexuality is legal. So is Scientology. Following your logic, one would have to conclude that our government is encouraging us to have gay sex and read the works of L. Ron Hubbard.
Ethically speaking, how does one support arresting over 800,000 of one’s fellow citizens each year despite the lack of any hard evidence that this improves public health or safety?
The fact that you don’t comprehend the links between law, ethics and social norms is not my problem. Sue your college. Society’s approval and disapproval of conduct does set social norms as well as reflect them. That you don’t get that well-established fact of human civilization is what is risible. When government declares something legal, it declares social approval, and the conduct increases. It has nothing to do with “arresting people.” it’s called law. The point of law is to set standards, not to punish anyone.
woah back up a sec chuck. You’re an American right? Then you know that Government is not supposed to tell us what is right and wrong, good and bad. They provide redress of grievance, national border defense, and sort out issue’s between the states. If the point of law was to set any standard in this country we wouldn’t have the bill of rights. Freedom of speech is often in the way of the “standards”. Many prohibitionists insist that merely talking about cannabis makes it look alright. If there is a socially acceptable use for some land our government has to build a case to actually take it away from you.
If the point of law is to set standards and not punish then why is there a punishment? If it’s only a standard why should there be a punishment? Law is there to maintain order, and offer redress of grievance. Not set social standards. That’s just stupid. That’s like saying there should be a law determining exactly how my controller is set up when I play a videogame, or how I personally set up my keyboard. What about where my seat is set in the car, or my mirrors. Those are standards. You don’t put a punishment to a standard.
Of course, the american judicial system has NOTHING to do with arresting people. Over 50% of ppl now favor legalizaton (look at gallup poll). Prohibition no longer reflects the view of the society. Like with slavery, education on the subject has woken people up. Educating black people used to be met by disapproval in our society. That has nothing to do with right or wrong. Do you not believe that unjust laws should be challenged? If so, you have no right using the “this is the law, so it is right” argument.
Jack, have Americans been having gay sex in greater numbers since the 2003 Supreme Court decision which legalized it (Lawrence vs. Texas)? If not, then this directly contradicts your claim that legalization of a particular behavior leads directly to an increase in said behavior.
You seem rather fuzzy on the relationship between criminal law and social norms. Criminal law exists to protect people’s lives and property -not their feelings. Feelings are protected by social norms.
For example, it is entirely legal to make fun of disabled people. I could, without fear of criminal prosecution, stand next to a blind man and mock his disability. This would however violate social norms and make me quite rightly an outcast.
Thankfully, the use of criminal law to enforce social norms is largely limited to Islamic theocracies (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Taliban Afghanistan). Your suggestion that this is a proper role for the state quite shocking coming from a fellow American.
“When government declares something legal, it declares social approval”
Jack, when we legally regulate something we do NOT automatically condone it’s use; the regulations concerning alcohol and tobacco are there to protect us from the vast increase in criminality that would otherwise exist if these substances were prohibited.
Kindly read (again) to the testimony of Judge Alfred J Talley, given before the Senate Hearings of 1926:
“It has made potential drunkards of the youth of the land, not because intoxicating liquor appeals to their taste or disposition, but because it is a forbidden thing, and because it is forbidden makes an irresistible appeal to the unformed and immature. It has brought into our midst the intemperate woman, the most fearsome and menacing thing for the future of our national life.”
You stated on this thread that you wish to see Tobacco prohibited.
Nicotine is the biggest killer of all known drugs, but it’s sale is legally regulated. Now why is that? Alcohol Prohibition made cigarette smoking a national habit. High on the evangelicals’ hit list, second only to alcohol as a substance that had to be prohibited. In 1921, cigarettes were illegal in fourteen states, and anti-cigarette bills were pending in twenty-eight others. The prohibition of cigarettes, promoted by the very people who gave us the prohibition of alcohol, made cigarette smoking almost irresistible. As the experiment of Prohibition failed, the anti-cigarette laws fell. By 1930, they were legal almost everywhere; during Prohibition, the consumption of tobacco had nearly tripled.
A regulated and licensed distribution network for all mind altering substances would put responsible adult supervision in between children and premature access to drug distribution outlets (illegal street dealers). Regulated and licensed distribution would reflect and respect society’s values, thus preventing children obtaining easy access to these dangerous substances. What we need is legalized regulation. What we have now, due to prohibition, is a non-regulated black market to which everybody has access and where all the profits go to organized crime and terrorists.
Prohibition causes massive crime and suffering, causes government/police corruption, causes America to have the highest prison population of any country in the history of the planet, causes Americans to lose all their rights and all their true values, causes the waste of trillions in taxpayer dollars, causes wars, causes violence and death in other countries, causes America to be hated by other countries, funds criminals, funds terrorists, causes the people who use drugs to be instant criminals who have to spend 100x the money for an inferior, adulterated, impure, unmeasured and thus unsafe product. Drug prohibition was started as a policy of racism and it perpetuates racism to this very day.
Jack, thanks to prohibition, our prisons are bursting, corruption is rampant, we’ve raised gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging and many of us are no longer safe in our own homes anymore.
“The race arguments are really pathetic. So because a disproportionate number of criminals are black, the laws are racist.”
No, the issue of race referred to in Allans post was that of the original sworn testimony before Congress by Harry Anslinger. Wherein he stated
“”There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”
“… the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”
Sounds pretty darn racist to me.
I also take issue with “…a disproportionate number of criminals are black…”
Not so, statiscally blacks, hispanic and asians use cannabis significantly less than whites while blacks are more likely to be charged with drug crimes. That is prosecutorial racism.
Jack, how uninformed of you to claim that “a disproportionate number of criminals are black”
Nationwide Afro-Americans are arrested, convicted and imprisoned disproportionately. Thirty-seven percent of drug-offense arrests are Afro-Americans, 53 percent of convictions are of Afro-Americans, and 67 percent — two-thirds of all people imprisoned for drug offenses — are Afro-Americans. This is depute the fact that Afro-Americans do not use drugs at a perceivable higher rate than white Americans. – 8.2% of whites and 10.1% of blacks use illicit drugs.
Much of the voting rights & victories won by the civil rights movement during the 1960s have effectively been eroded. Nearly 5 million people are now barred from voting because of felony disenfranchisement laws. The United States is the only industrial democracy that does this.
Drug prohibition has become a successor system to Jim Crow laws in targeting black citizens, removing them from civil society and then barring them from the right to vote. If harsh sentences deterred illicit drug use, America would be “drug-free” by now. But that is not the case, and never will be. The drug war has given the “former land of the free” the highest incarceration rate in the world and disenfranchised millions of citizens. It is a cure worse than the disease.
One out of three young African American (ages 18 to 35) men are in prison or on some form of supervised release. There are more African American men in prison than in college. Thats a four times higher percentage of Black men in prison than South Africa at the height of apartheid.
Let’s look at the statistics again: (2008 – illicit drug use by race) “Current illicit drug use among persons aged 12 or older varied by race/ethnicity in 2008, with the lowest rate among Asians (3.6 percent) (Figure 2.9). Rates were 14.7 percent for persons reporting two or more races, 10.1 percent for blacks, 9.5 percent for American Indians or Alaska Natives, 8.2 percent for whites, 7.3 percent of Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and 6.2 percent for Hispanics.”
That’s 8.2% of whites and 10.1% of blacks using illicit drugs. Now look at the incarceration statistics:
(2007 – incarceration rate by race) “The custody incarceration rate for black males was 4,618 per 100,000.
while the incarceration rate of white males was 773 per 100,000.
This means that there are at least 5 times more blacks incarcerated for drug offenses than should be expected. This is clearly a gross injustice!
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64
Whatever the exact dynamics involved, these horrific racial disparities are a direct result of drug-prohibition and are quite clearly unacceptable. This moronothon has done nothing but breed generations of incarcerated and disenfranchised Afro Americans and any citizen not doing their utmost to help reverse this perverse injustice may duly hang their head in shame
This is a political rant, full of dubious and in many cases outright false assertions. Here’s one:
“Much of the voting rights & victories won by the civil rights movement during the 1960s have effectively been eroded.” Utter garbage. Then we have spin: “Nearly 5 million people are now barred from voting because of felony disenfranchisement laws.” So what? The position that committing a felony should bar one from voting is defensible, and its easy to avoid: don’t commit felonies. Is that so hard? And irrelevancy: “The United States is the only industrial democracy that does this.” Again, so what? There are good reasons to do it—the fact that other countries do things differently than the US is to be expected—we’re different. We do a lot of things differently, some better, some worse. But being alone means nothing.
Your statement “Nationwide Afro-Americans are arrested, convicted and imprisoned disproportionately.” And that’s because African-Americans constitute a disproportionate percentage of the nation’s criminals, as I said. There are lots of reasons for this, but the statement is fact.
The rules for the blog clearly state “no political rants.” Stay on the ethical issues of drug use. Don’t send another one; it will be dinged.
Your statement “Nationwide Afro-Americans are arrested, convicted and imprisoned disproportionately.” And that’s because African-Americans constitute a disproportionate percentage of the nation’s criminals, as I said. There are lots of reasons for this, but the statement is fact.
Jack, Malcom Kyle used disproprotionately properly here. You misinterpreted what he said. What’s disproportionate is the rate of incarceration of law breakers, not rate of incarceration of all people.
It’s like racism ended for you after the civil rights movement.
“A political rant” – Jack, I actually presented you with facts.
* African-Americans are 13 times more likely to end up in jail for drug-related crimes than their white counterparts.
Government statistics clearly show us that all racial groups abuse drugs at similar rates, but the numbers also show that African Americans, Hispanics and other people of color are stopped, searched, arrested, charged, convicted, and sent to prison for drug-related charges at a much higher rate.
There is no single policy that does more harm to the Afro-American community than Prohibition. And even if there were no racial disparities in its application, prohibition has permanently scarred our national character as well as our individual psyches.
During alcohol prohibition, all profits went to enrich thugs and criminals. Young men died every day on inner-city streets while battling over turf. A fortune was wasted on enforcement that could have gone on education etc. On top of the budget-busting prosecution and incarceration costs, billions in taxes were lost. Finally the economy collapsed. Sound familiar?
We all have our victories and defeats as regards fear, but most of us strive not to let fear rule our hearts or our minds. Being free means being free to live and love as if death and fear had no power over us. Freedom also means that we have an ethical and moral responsibility to expose blind hate, lies and ignorance by shining eternal light, truth and love, sending such dark forces fleeing to the shadows from whence they came.
No, it was a rant. And your follow-up is gibberish. Your definition of “prohibition” extends to crack, heroin and meth. You really believe that controlling such substances causes more harm to vulnerable groups than giving the use of them the government and societal seal of approval. That position is so deluded and irresponsible that it forfeits any right to respect in the marketplace of ideas.
You really believe that controlling such substances causes more harm to vulnerable groups than giving the use of them the government and societal seal of approval.
Just because something is legal, doesn’t mean that it has the government seal of approval. You repeatedly make this incorrect assumption.
Also, I still haven’t seen you correct yourself on the race argument.
I have no idea what I’m supposed to correct myself on. Crime rates in the black population are disproportionate to their percentage in the population. That is the primary reason why the black prison population is disproportionately black. Unemployment rates are disproportionately high; births out of wedlock; high-school dropouts; AIDS—lots of stuff. The black community has problems, some of its own making. The illegal drug use problem is one that I have no sympathy for whatsoever. You want to stay out of jail for possessing/using drugs? Don’t use them. The guidance is there: it’s illegal for a reason. Do your civic duty—obey the law. That’s what citizens do. To break the law and then complain that the government is discriminating against you for making the law you decided to violate on your own volition is laughable…yet that’s the very argument being made here. I don’t know how such flawed-from-birth non-logic survives. It’s a miracle.
“Just because something is legal, doesn’t mean that it has the government seal of approval.”
This is correct regarding something that the government has no position on at all. It is not true when the government legalizes something that has been illegal. I did not and have never written what the first part of that statement implies. I have said that making laws against conduct shows cultural DISapproval, and that removing that disapproval connotes approval….both true. The government is a moral authority, always. You can find literally hundreds of places on this blog where I make it clear that the fact that something is legal does not make it right.
You’re doing it again. You’re talking about crime rates in the black community vs white community, while everyone else is talking about rate of arrests/prosecution to usage in each community.
Everyone is right in their crime states, but your stats don’t respond to the legitimate concerns brought up by others.
To break the law and then complain that the government is discriminating against you for making the law you decided to violate on your own volition is laughable…yet that’s the very argument being made here.
Strawman. The complaint is actually that the laws are enforced differently.
Even if the above argument was being made, it’s not actually laughable. If the government decides to outlaw streetball, I would definitely consider that discrimination against the mostly black, inner city poor.
[…]It is not true when the government legalizes something that has been illegal.[…]I have said that making laws against conduct shows cultural DISapproval, and that removing that disapproval connotes approval….both true.
I strongly disagree with this. You’re saying is that there is no way to go from disapprove to neutral. That appears to be your value judgment. I think repealing a law does exactly that.
Jack, what you need to correct yourself on is the attacks based on misinterpretation of arguments.
You’ve been strawmanning the race arguments. Maybe you were assuming they were going to be different argument than they were. Maybe you actually didn’t think there’s a difference in ratios if the denominators change.
In any event, if you attack someone because of untrue argument X, and then it turns out they were making valid argument Y, it’s on you to make amends. You can see an example from when proam called me out on the Krucifingle thread.
You,re completely ignoring the issue of racial disparities in drug arrests and sentencing. Here’s what I posted again. Please adress it properly!
* African-Americans are 13 times more likely to end up in jail for drug-related crimes than their white counterparts.
Government statistics clearly show us that all racial groups abuse drugs at similar rates, but the numbers also show that African Americans, Hispanics and other people of color are stopped, searched, arrested, charged, convicted, and sent to prison for drug-related charges at a much higher rate.
And here’s an example of what can be achieved with legalized regulation of heroin:
Heroin-Assisted Treatment (HAT)
At the end of 2009, 1356 patients were undergoing HAT at 21 outpatient centers and in 2 prisons.
HAT is now being carried out at centres in Basle, Bern, Biel, Brugg, Burgdorf, Chur, Geneva, Horgen, Lucerne, Olten, Reinach, Schaffhausen, Solothurn, St. Gallen, Thun, Winterthur, Wetzikon, Zug, Zürich and in two prisons Oberschöngrün (canton Solthurn) and Realtà (canton Graubünden).
Results
In many cases, patients’ physical and mental health has improved, their housing situation has become considerably more stable, and they have gradually managed to find employment. Numerous participants have managed to reduce their debts. In most cases, contacts with addicts and the drug scene have decreased. Consumption of non-prescribed substances declined significantly in the course of treatment.
Dramatic changes have been seen in the situation regarding crime. While the proportion of patients who obtained their income from illegal or borderline activities at the time of enrollment was 70%, the figure after 18 months of HAT was only 10%.
Each year, between 180 and 200 patients discontinue HAT. Of these patients, 35-45% are transferred to methadone maintenance, and 23-27% to abstinence-based treatment.
The average costs per patient-day at outpatient treatment centers in 1998 came to CHF 51. The overall economic benefit – based on savings in criminal investigations and prison terms and on improvements in health – was calculated to be CHF 96. After deduction of costs, the net benefit is CHF 45 per patient-day.
There are 7 other countries, where legal heroin is provided. How come you weren’t aware of this, Jack?
well I can see that you wish neither to discuss nor debate but choose to rely exclusively on berating those who disagree and pontificating to the world like this little backwater site matters. Fairuse has it right…
So I will ask again…
Do you believe laws FOUNDED in racism and which result in even greater racist harm are valid?
Maybe one question at a time will help.
BTW… we’re talking about you:
http://www.drugwarrant.com/2011/12/the-boy-who-cried-ethics/
come join us, we like visitors
Mr. Marshall has presented a thoroughly disingenuous argument built on a platform of half truths and hysterical rhetoric coupled with a thorough disregard for factual evidence, personal responsibility, and riddled with a nice selection of logical fallacies.
Mr. Marshall’s absurdity is that he seems to believe that he can look at cannabis addled driving in a vacuum. He seems to believe that it is not invalid on its face to argue that having more cannabis addled drivers is a per se negative. It is not. It is the total number of impaired drivers that is the concern. Without demonstrating that cannabis will cause an increase in the total number of impaired drivers this argument is a failure of logic. If the driver who is sitting behind a shot glass at this moment who is going out driving after he gets good and drunk were to instead eat space cakes until fully addled and go out driving this would be at worst a wash as far as the interests of highway safety are concerned.
Perhaps Mr. Marshall thinks there’s some particular voodoo in the pot plant which destroys any sense of social responsibility? Because the only way to get to an increase in the total sum of impaired drivers were the stupidity of absolute prohibition of cannabis ended would be to have people who today do not enjoy cannabis because of their deep seated respect for the law and to further determine that said people, allowed to enjoy cannabis legally would promptly become scofflaws and go out driving while impaired. But the really sad thing about this argument is that it just wouldn’t be that hard to keep an eye on the fourteen people nationwide who do not get high on anything because pot is illegal.
Would Mr. Marshall argue the patently absurd “reasoning” that cannabis addled driving is part and parcel of the choice to enjoying cannabis? Here I’ve thought for decades that we punish people for what they do, not for what we irrationally fear that they might do. Jack, I don’t go out driving when I’m impaired. I don’t for the purely selfish reason that I place a high value on being alive, and very much appreciate the ability to be able to walk from here to there on my own two legs. Your wholly irrational argument appears to be based on the thought that arresting me will improve highway safety. It’s not only patently absurd, it’s wrong on its face. I mean wrong as in right and wrong, evil as in good and evil. You have no logical case to make that my choice to enjoy cannabis will result in an impaired driver on our highways, because it will not. You can not rationally argue that cannabis addled driving is part and parcel of the choice to enjoy cannabis, because it quite simply is not.
Jack, one of my favorite activities in life is minding my own business. I sure wish I could turn you on to just how much fun that can be, because my business is none of yours.
Never underestimate the power of a busybody to get motivated by the sense of self-righteousness that comes from interfering in the lives of others.
Thanks, Patrick. And a rolling stone gathers no moss.
Jack, we have laws against impaired driving, they’re on the books and they are enforceable. There are even several versions of a roadside test for impairment administered by police departments around the country. It is effective and prudent to have laws against driving while impaired, while it is imprudent and INNEFFECTIVE to have laws prohibiting people from becoming impaired. If you wish to do so, be consistent and include cold medications, prescription medications, and alcohol.
Prohibition didn’t work, not because it wasn’t tried early enough, but because it couldn’t work. Not only was prohibition wildly unsuccessful at preventing people from getting drunk, it created an epidemic of crime when formerly legal behavior was suddenly made illegal.
When alcohol was legalized and regulated the violence surrounding the trade virtually dissapeared overnight. Today, Coors does not compete with Budwieser by shipping a box of severed heads from Colorodo to St. Louis.
As far as the dangers of driving stoned, there is considerable statistcal evidence that refutes the case that it is a significant cause of accidents, but “I won’t get into statistic games with you— a waste of time,” indicates that presenting you with evidence that actually refutes anything you say is “a waste of time”.
“So because a disproportionate number of criminals are black, the laws are racist.” No. Because whites use cannabis at rates higer than African Americans, yet African Americans make up around seventy percent of those arrested for cannabis. That is why the laws are racist. Racism and zenophoia was the driving force behind the laws against cannabis. The historical record is clear. Even the term “marijuana” was selected because it was foriegn and strange sounding. If they’d been upfront and called it cannabis it would have never worked, you see, hasheesh was very popular among the upper class in the Eastern United states at that time, and “Cannabis Indica”, or “extract of Indian Hemp” was the second most widely prescribed medicine.
And, just for your review, I’d like to trot out the following quotes from you: “I’ve lived with stoned people; I’ve seen what drugs do to kids. There is no logical reason to legalize pot, and create another addictive drug to go along with alcohol.” and “You don’t fool me: I’ve seen marijuana psychological addiction up close” Anectdotes are inaddmissable. For an “ethics” guy you really should go back and review the first couple of sections of your 101 Logic Class, you lose that point.
“It’s just “I like my weed; the hell with everyone else.” How noble.”
I reviewed Francis’ post, and I simply could not find anything there that indicates he uses marijuana, or any argument that says anything remotely like that. That sounds like a personal attack from an intellectual scoundrel who has run out places to hide.
Good day sir.
If you wish to do so, be consistent and include cold medications, prescription medications, and alcohol.
If you’d read through this thread, you would have seen that Jack is consistent, and thinks that alcohol should be prohibited: “As for prohibition—it didn’t work, because it was tried far, far too late. I wish it had worked. We would have a healthier and happier society if it did.”
The comment about prescription medication doesn’t make much sense. It hasn’t come up, but I think I can be confident in saying that someone who things recreational drug use should stay banned agrees that recreational prescription drug use should also stay banned.
If Jack had attacked medical marijuana, then that would have made sense. I don’t see that here.
I disagree with the sanity of Jack’s position, but strawmanning him doesn’t hurt his argument.
The first paragraph turned me off, but past that, there are some better points and better writing. Foremost was this:
“It’s just “I like my weed; the hell with everyone else.” How noble.” I reviewed Francis’ post, and I simply could not find anything there that indicates he uses marijuana, or any argument that says anything remotely like that. That sounds like a personal attack…
Francis made 2 mistakes: The first was assuming that Jack isn’t against alcohol. All those comparisons are irrelevant if alcohol isn’t considered acceptable. The second was citing poll numbers as if that should affect ethics. Yes, Jack’s side is losing (he lost prohibition before he was born), but that’s not an argument that he is wrong.
Jack’s response to Francis, though, was inappropriate. Francis did make valid, coherent points about the effects of prohibition, and his points comparing pot to alcohol would be valid against most anti-potters.
Jack,
It’s your blog, and I can understand the frustration of being descended upon by a group of people who disagree with something you feel strongly about, especially when many are using arguments irrelevant to you, but that doesn’t excuse your own bad behavior.
Thanks tgt! But I’m not sure I’d agree that either of the examples you cite were actually mistakes on my part. (I mean, I did make a mistake in a comment ONCE, but that was years ago, and in my defense, I was extremely high at the time.) 🙂 My argument comparing cannabis’ harms to those of alcohol does not “assum[e] that Jack isn’t against alcohol.” It rests on the premise that alcohol prohibition is not coming back. Jack seems to concede that legal alcohol is here to stay when he says that “[a]lcohol was too imbedded in the culture to ban.” Given that fact, and the fact that cannabis and alcohol are substitutes, it seems foolish to continue a policy that has the effect of encouraging citizens to use the MUCH more dangerous substance. And I cited to the polls not because I believe that “polls should affect ethics.” It was a specific response to Jack’s claim that he doesn’t “lose” the argument over cannabis prohibition. I guess an evaluation of that claim depends on how you interpret that statement. I have no doubt that in his own mind (*shudder*) he’s “winning” the debate handily. (Self-delusion is not without its benefits.) But in the court of public opinion, he’s getting slaughtered. That was my only point. And while the fact that 51% of individuals in a poll believe X doesn’t make X true or make you wrong for believing not X, the sharp and dramatic shift we’ve seen on cannabis legalization in recent years SHOULD give you pause if you’re a prohibitionist. Or as Kipling put it: “If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too.” I think Jack could stand to make a little more allowance for those doubting him.
P.S. How exactly does legalizing marijuana “Create another drug?”
“Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.”
Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), U.S. President.
Speech, 18 Dec. 1840, to Illinois House of Representatives
Argue with that, if you think you can.
1) Abe was right about prohibiting alcohol, at that point in Western civilization. He was not talking about everything else, or anything else.
2) Abe had no reason to envision the drug scourge the country began facing thanks to the yielding of social stigmas against drug use. He may well have changed his mind. After all, he once opposed banning slavery.
3)”It goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes”= WEAK. It’s a tautology: all laws making something illegal make crimes of things that are not crimes. (Hey, every one can’t be a gem, Abe. Don’t feel bad.”) The same statement could be uses to oppose kiddie porn, man-boy love and rape laws.
2 is irrelevant to what was in the quote. There was no talk of prohibition not being necessary.
3 is a bad interpretation of a common rhetorical style. The meaning of the phrase is “turns Y into X, when Y does not meet the qualifications for X.”
tgt, I’m strawmanning nothing. He indeed did say [alcohol] prohibition. He has therefore suggested a different standard for pot and booze than is applied to prescription drugs and cold medications. If you plan to use the reasoning that highway safety is a good reason to ban a substance outright, then you need to be consistent. Why is a simple warning on the side of a prescription bottle adequate to permit a medication’s use in society? If the greater good is indeed your ability to drive to the Seven Eleven and not encounter stoned or high drivers then these things are all worthy of banning. My intent was to point out the utter absurdity of using Highway Safety as a reason for a blanket prohibition of any substance. The standard is and should be actual impairment. In our society you are allowed to drive your kid to school after drinking. Just don’t screw up (show impairment) and don’t have a BAC greater than .08 (.05 in some states). Simple. Drive impaired on any substance and I want you off the roads, I ride a motorcycle, I squish easily.
And I’ll leave out the implicit assumption that simply banning something will eliminate (or even reduce) it’s use while driving.
He indeed did say [alcohol] prohibition. He has therefore suggested a different standard for pot and booze than is applied to prescription drugs and cold medications.
No. He isn’t. If we started from scratch, he’d want both prohibited. Taking a practical position that unprohibited bad conduct X cannot be now prohibited while prohibited bad conduct Y should stay prohibited is not a different standard for X and Y. It’s bending to reality.
If you plan to use the reasoning that highway safety is a good reason to ban a substance outright, then you need to be consistent.
And Jack would most assuredly agree that highway safety is a good reason to ban alcohol. Does this reason overcome the situation? No.
Why is a simple warning on the side of a prescription bottle adequate to permit a medication’s use in society?
Strawman. It’s not the warning that permits use. It’s the great benefit for people it is prescribed to relative to the costs, the testing required before approval, and the control of the distribution.
My intent was to point out the utter absurdity of using Highway Safety as a reason for a blanket prohibition of any substance.
I agree, but you have to attack the actual argument.
In our society you are allowed to drive your kid to school after drinking.
Just because that’s the rule doesn’t make the rule right, and I agree with you on the greater point.
I fail to see how a prescription changes the equation. If it’s too dangerous to allow, it’s too dangerous to allow. The ” greater good to society”… according to that reasoning would be served by allowing some subjective suffering for measurable lives saved. That is an easy extension to make, in fact, unless I recall incorrectly, that is exactly the calculation that they make in Myanmar…opiates are illegal, period, no prescriptions for pain, nothing. Yet somehow, they seem to find a supply of drug users to execute every year…
And I accepted that he would have both alcohol and pot prohibited, I was suggesting that cold medications and prescriptions belong in that same bag. It’s “for the greater good”.
I must add, I would not want to live in the world run by Jack.
Speaking as someone who also believes that legalizing drugs would be a better route to take than banning them, I think the distinction Jack makes between pot/alcohol vs. prescription drugs is that usage of the latter is supposed to be practical in nature, with the (supposed) result of generally improving productivity and human well-being in the long run, while the former tends to be more recreational in nature, with the (supposed) result of generally depressing productivity and human well-being in the long run.
Also, I’d add that Jack’s opposition to marijuana usage is more of an unfortunate blindspot; he actually tends to oppose government intervention in most societal affairs.
Noted. Thank you. I would assert that limited recreational drug use, or occasional drinking (I don’t drink, incidentally, I dislike it’s effects both on myself and on social situaltions) do enhance well being and productivity, as well as make it easier to relax and enjoy life. I’m a psychologist, not an ethicist, or a lawyer. But from my training and perspetive, such activities are the norm for healthy individuals, not an abberance. Human beings do these things, it’s part of being human.In Re: government intervention in societal affairs, it make complete sense to limit the permissable activities of an impaired person. But as a friend of mine recently said (thanks Scott) “After scrutinizing our nation’s two most precious documents, that fact is based on the perfectly clear definition of liberty in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and amendment nine in our Constitution.
Our most famous declaration does not use vague words such as “reasonable” regarding the definition of liberty, only words clear in their meaning. The relevant words are “self-evident”, “unalienable”, and “liberty” itself.
Based on that definition, the only limit against your liberty is the right itself.”
To quote: “A bus driver who smokes pot is risking the lives of young children. A student who smokes pot is sabotaging his education, and making it likely that you and I will have to pay the costs of his progressively unsuccessful life as a result. A husband who smokes pot and makes mistakes at work is jeopardizing the welfare of his children and family.”
Except for bus drivers, none of those are societal concerns insofar as law and government should be concerned, out of the doctrine of personal responsibility. In fact, studies have found that, on average, college students who smoke marijuana score higher grades and earn more money in their careers. It’s only in high school where there is a correlation with educational delinquency. Perhaps because teenagers who lead delinquent lives would be drawn to pot and drop out of life anyway. Most marijuana users lead personally responsible lives, no less responsible than the average citizen, and there is no compelling evidence that smoking pot in the evening after work has any significant impairment the next day. A husband who smokes pot while at work, makes mistakes, may be an idiot who jeopardizes his financial support of his family, but that is no concern of the government; it is between him and his irate wife.
As for drivers, I quote Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, “If we as a society are really concerned about this then we will have impairment testing that looks for the impairment of the driver, whether that’s caused by marijuana use, whether they’re hungover, whether they’re taking too many pharmaceuticals, whether they’re sleep deficient… To deal with the accusation there will be more stoned drivers on the road after marijuana is legalized is missing the larger point, that already today there are thousands upon thousands of people who drive cars who the government could make the argument is impaired.”