Senator Paul, forever young.
“I think that’s the real hypocrisy, is that people on our side, which include a lot of people who made mistakes growing up, admit their mistakes but now still want to put people in jail for that. Had he been caught at Andover, he’d have never been governor, he’d probably never have a chance to run for the presidency.”
—Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky), in reaction to Jeb Bush’s admission that he smoked marijuana heavily as a student. Bush currently opposes the legalization of medical marijuana.
Oh, great: Rand Paul is 16 years old.
The chip off the old libertarian block Ron Paul (who would legalize heroin, ecstasy, LSD, you name it) now proves that he has no idea what hypocrisy is. It is troubling: Senator Paul is an MD, and can be an articulate and powerful speaker; he can take bold strategic political steps that his Republican colleagues are too timid to try, like correctly charging Hillary Clinton with complicity in her husband’s sexual predation, but he repeatedly conveys the impression that he’s just not all that bright. This quote is a sterling example.
See, Senator Paul, hypocrisy would be if Jeb Bush were currently smoking pot like a fiend (and to be fair, we don’t know he’s not; at least that might explain his wacked-out, tie-dyed justification of illegal immigration as as “act of love.”) Admittedly, we hear this desperate defense from our children–“Like YOU never drove drunk!”…”Like YOU never cheated on an exam!”…”Like YOU never had illicit sex without protection!”…”Like YOU never tried to poison your chemistry teacher!”—but it’s unsettling to learn that a highly regarded potential Presidential candidate thinks that’s a cogent argument when one is attempting to convey wisdom purchased dearly.
Paul’s phrase “admit their mistakes but now still want to put people in jail for that,” after all, would apply with equal logic and cogency—none—if “that” were cooking Ecstasy, driving drunk, or knocking over a bank. As for his capper, “Had he been caught at Andover, he’d have never been governor, he’d probably never have a chance to run for the presidency,” it’s nice that Rand remembers the concept of moral luck from his philosophy class. He should, considering that no profession is more hostage to moral luck than doctors, who are often considered brilliant or negligent based on future results of their professional conduct over which they have no control. However, his statement IS hypocrisy, while Bush’s opposition to legal marijuana is not. I would bet that there is not a single Presidential candidate of either party, or President, for that matter, in the nation’s history who doesn’t or didn’t owe his success to moral luck.
What matters for those considering Jeb Bush as a potential President is not what his drug policy would have been when he was a teenager, but what it would be now. What should matter to anyone considering Paul for the job is that he’s currently, and frequently, saying things that he doesn’t believe, or worse, does.
Ethics Alarms 
If they did it, and recognize it was a mistake, wouldn’t that mean they’re clear it ISN’T hypocrisy? Now, if they did it, don’t fess up to it, claim that there was nothing wrong with it, or that they didn’t inhale – and yet still want to put people in prison for it? That would be hypocritical.
Exactly. I’m sorry for his fans, but I can’t remember any GOP presidential candidate who has said so many dumb things—well, if you don’t count Bachmann— and one filibuster can’t make up for it.
I feel like I should zip up a swat vest before wading into this, but I take his comments a little differently that you.
I just don’t understand putting people in jail for marijuana related crime in jail. I don’t understand marijuana related crime having mandatory sentences longer than certain violent crimes. I don’t understand making someone all but unhireable for life for a choice that, I think, either a slight majority or a large minority of Americans had tried at least once in their life. Perhaps this is a rationalization, but if the system suddenly started to work at 100% efficiency and everyone who smoked marijuana was held to the letter of the law, America would break. Utterly. And I don’t think it’s a great idea for laws to be on the book that would make society cease to function if they were actually enforced.
As it is, drug laws don’t address the problem. They just don’t They punish discriminately, they create a short term cash flow intake and a long term prison expense, they cripple people economically, and they are part of the problem of perpetual poverty. And at the end of all that, there is absolutely no evidence that the laws actually deter people. People will move to areas where marijuana is legal to avoid risk, but I think we’re deluded if we think that those people were not smoking illegally on the other side of the border the day before.
It’s interesting to me, the differences in how we treat certain crimes. Drugs and Prostitution, for instance. With drugs, we criminalize both the behavior of the buyer and the seller… While with prostitution, we criminalize only the buyer. The difference, I think, is that prostitution involves women, and women are seen as victims, and laws love victims. I think there’s an argument to be made that drug addicts are victims and they need help as opposed to jail time.
I’m not saying throw the baby out with the bathwater. I’m not in favor of legalisation with the current situation. I would like to see roadside tests for THC and some real thought put into other related logistics first.
We criminalize the seller as well.
” While with prostitution, we criminalize only the buyer.”
“We criminalize the seller as well.”
We’re coming a bit closer to the second statement but its about what happens in that space between cup and lip. [brackets mine]
From http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024779850_sexbuyerprogramxml.html [October 15, 2014] : A “national program called “The CEASE Network” [Cities Empowered Against Sexual Exploitation] . . . got its official start in Boston, Denver and Seattle earlier this year, with seven more cities — including Portland, Chicago and Phoenix . . . is aimed at holding men accountable for fueling the demand side of the sex trade — and at deterring them by increasing their risk of getting caught.”
Previous attemps at equalizing buyer & seller accountability:
Report from Boston: “A person seeking the services of a prostitute (that is, a “john”) also violates Massachusetts law, . . . (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, §53A(b).) This violation carries a greater penalty than that prescribed for engaging in prostitution. However, [as of 90s]. . . not one person charged with offering to pay a prostitute was arraigned on that charge since the law that made it a crime was enacted in 1983.”
Report from Denver [2013]: An Assessment of Prostitution Arrests in the City and County of Denver [under a law that equalized penalties for buyer and seller] “… the data still shows: johns are “everyday men” and prostitutes are “drug-addicted criminals” . . . (W)omen involved in prostitution were arrested up to 10 times more often than sex buyers, and were three to four times more likely to face prosecution.”
Report from Seattle: [headline to link above] Tougher police tactics stinging sex buyers . . . “Nine men were arrested for patronizing a prostitute, ……………………………………………..
a ……………………………………………………………………………..
misdemeanor ……………………………………………………………
charge. …………………………………………………………………….
[Meanwhile, back at the police report:] “The Internet has really made it risk-free to buyers … It’s created a market that wasn’t there before, men who wouldn’t go on the street to encounter someone who was prostituting,” Satterberg said. “They’re comfortable on the computer, and with a couple [of] clicks of a mouse, they can order someone up for sex.”
Same with drugs, believe it or not. One click.
Your homework: 1) Identify the Rationalizations and Logical Fallacies above. 2) Distinguish between the arguments that we shouldn’t enforce immigration laws with the arguments that we shouldn’t enforce drug laws. As someone who thinks we have to enforce both laws, I think there fewer, much fewer (NONE), mitigating circumstances to excuse drug law breakers. Nobody’s desperate to use pot. It’s not difficult to obey the law; it’s not hard NOT to get stoned.
Okay, I literally spent about 3 minutes on this, so I could be wrong about some of these, but at first glance:1,1A,6,8,18,19,22,25,27,30,33,maybe 38,41,42,44,45,46. I’ll scrutinize after study time.
Great job!
“I literally spent about 3 minutes on this…” So you used up all your summer vacation reading up on next grade’s assignments. And now I get to copy your homework? Hey, thanks.
But Bob Dylan said that everybody MUST get stoned. This is a dilemma.
Dylan was speaking biblically.
1) I realize they were in there, but I struggle with some of them anyways. And I don’t think there were nearly as many as Joe said. Regardless, I don’t think it’s as simple as you dismiss it. For instance “Everyone does it.” We have a law on the book, and a large portion of the nation DOES break it. And treating everyone equally would require about (completely made up number, but I think I’m going light) a fifth of the country to get a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence, which should make your head explode as an ethicist when thinking about Kant. But we don’t care, we’ll catch who we can, explaining away the differences in arrest, prosecution and sentencing rates with moral luck, and continue on the course. Because it works so well. It hits me as a massive disconnect where people who are arguing for the status quo have these huge blinders on and just aren’t looking at the situation, because I’m not necessarily arguing that marijuana is a good thing, I’m saying that the laws don’t work, and they actively do harm.
2) First off, I’m not talking about not enforcing the law, I’m talking about changing it. If the law does not make sense, it should change, I haven’t seen a compelling argument for prohibition. There just aren’t many. And part of the reason for that is because there just haven’t been real studies done on marijuana, partly because of the stigma and partly because of the legality. When we think back to the temperance movement (and anti marijuana advocates share many qualities with the prohibitionists) their reasons for prohibiting alcohol were anecdotal and often completely false. Alcohol doesn’t actually kill brain cells, but prohibitionists said so, and today’s we still generally believe that, because the lie was Big enough and no one can actually see their brain cells to test it. Other claims, like that drinking alcohol would cause a man’s sweat to become flammable, were much easier to debunk. My point is that anti-marijuana activism isn’t rooted in fact or logic, and I can’t take it seriously until it is.
1. There’s no mandatory minimum sentence for first time pot possession without intent to distribute. Most such charges are dropped.
2. Why does “treating everyone equally” mean the harshest sentence? And why do you think treating everyone equally makes sense? Sentencing is based on many factors, and legitimately so.
3. Prove it. Prove that the level of enforcement we have now doesn’t prevent a fill-fledged health and education crisis, with pot use quadrupling, and younger and younger kids emulating stoned mom and dad. Well, wait a few years, and we’ll find out.
4. “I haven’t seen a compelling argument for prohibition” WHAT? A. Alcohol. B. Tobacco. Two legal drugs that cause billions in death, suicide, auto accidents, broken families, ruined businesses. Of course, pot has other benefits, like permanent cognitive damage.
5. “Their reasons for prohibiting alcohol were anecdotal and often completely false.” HT, this is a ridiculous statement. See Ken Burns’ documentary on prohibition. Read about the extent of alcoholism in the US and its costs. The factual documentation for prohibition was strong and undeniable. Liquor was just too imbedded in the economy and culture for it to work, that’s all. It is just as deadly and destructive as represented…but also had more legitimate uses than pot ever has had.
I have no idea how you came to believe this stuff. It’s not like the facts aren’t easily researchable.
2) It doesn’t, necessarily, but if you’re going to have laws with prescribed punishments, you should be prepared to enforce those laws and carry out those punishments. America isn’t capable of doing that with it’s drug laws. Doling out justice discriminately with punishments that seem disproportionate to the crime has me in a hankerin’ for some Judge Dredd.
3) Prove that it does. We shouldn’t make laws out of fear. We don’t know that will happen, it doesn’t follow when you consider places withere marijuana is legal. Holland’s test scores aren’t lower than America’s.
4) Exactly? I don’t know how you can talk about personal responsibility (the other comment you made further down) and talk about the state needing to make decisions for people without irony. But we as a society have drawn a really curvy line on what does us damage and what we ban. I want to point out, yes again, that there is middle ground between what we’re doing now, and legalization, and my point is not for legalization, but lower prison sentences for what is a non-violent crime.
5) Be that as it may, you’d figure if something was so bad you wouldn’t have to outright lie about it. Temperance movement propaganda was not based in fact. You want to talk about moral luck? If some of their posters actually ended up being accurate, there was a pretty good chance that it was coincidence, because they made a lot of claims that they could not have measured with the science of the time. They claimed that alcohol was distilled with hemlock and cockroaches, that it was as deadly as arsenic, that alcohol caused minorities to rape and murder indiscriminately, that it was distilled from excrement, that drinking could disfigure not only your children, but your grandchildren, that it caused your organs to bloat, that it would cause you to die of “Dropsy” (Edema), and that drinking would cause you to murder your family.
Now I’m not going to defend alcohol in it’s entirety. It’s a poison. But. The things that were said about it before it was actually studied were very often bullshit, and while it did do damage, not nearly the damage as advertised. And I think there are a whole lot of parallels.
I don’t understand why you think the way you do on this issue. Things like the kinds emulating mom and dad. We’ve had three generations born since the 70’s that don’t smoke nearly as much as their hippie parents. What evidence do you have for your claim? There are more than 30 first world countries that have at the very least decriminalized pot, and you don’t see stoners in the streets. Do you think American citizens are less able to cope?
I could be wrong, I also think I’ll get to see whether I am or not.
Brain damage from alcohol: you apparently have never heard of Wernicke–Korsakoff Syndrome, or the interruption of neurogenesis.
Or “alcohol.” I think HT was thinking of “sody pop.“
Mmmm, sody pop!
Neither could the temperance movement, Wernicke–Korsakoff Syndrome was coined in 1881, neurogenisis in 1962 and the temperance movement started in 1820. That some of their claims were right was irrelevant. THEY DIDN’T KNOW IT. Pure moral luck.
They didn’t now what it was called. Not moral luck at all. Pure, accurate observed phenomena.
“drug addicts are victims and they need help as opposed to jail time.” That may be true, in the sense that addicts arguably have a genetic predisposition towards a powerful reward reaction to certain drugs, but you NEVER want to tell an addict he/she is a victim. Also, jail and other harsh consequences are, unfortunately, often absolutely necessary to help the addict. Often, using has to become so unpleasant, has to have so many negative associations, that the addict quits from sheer exhaustion. This rock-bottom varies from person to person, but it often means jail, homelessness, loss of marriage, family, friends, career, possessions, and all dignity. Treatment alone, as a rule, usually fails.
Hitting rock bottom is necessary, Rock bottom does not necessarily need prison time. And definitely doesn’t need life sentences. There are people serving 30 year prison terms for pot. Reconcile that fact with your assertion that prison should be used as a dry-out. And let’s face reality… There are a whole slew of addictions that don’t involve crime. Alcohol, Gambling, Sex, Sugar, Prescriptions, Bacon…. We think prison when we think drugs because that is the reality we face, but people commonly get help through treatment and support groups, I think in larger numbers than ever see the inside of a prison cell.
And no aggravating factors were involved?
Depends what you call aggravating and what I call ‘for pot’. A person who owns a legal firearm and has it on them at the time of a drug bust gets extra time. Because it’s legal to have a gun, is the extra time Pot related? I’d argue yes. And is for pot only first time busts? Of course not. Selling gets you the biggest time.
But that’s academic. Yes there are people who are serving life sentences for possession. I suggest Google. It’s not hard to find.
http://clemencyreport.org/antonio-bascaro-nations-longest-serving-marijuana-prisoner/
40 years. Sure he was importing with a boat, But no guns, no violence, nothing but pot.
I’m really not talking about pot, and definitely don’t think anyone should be in jail for it for 30 years unless there was some sort of violence involved. I’m really thinking of opiates and stimulants, particularly heroin and methamphetamine. Yes, people get help, over and over and over again. Meanwhile, the attendant destruction in their lives and the cost to society is enormous. I’ve seen this, up close and personal, with many people. Treatment alone working is extremely rare. It’s shocking what people will go through before giving this stuff up.
Also, I probably share many of your libertarian leanings, but on this I’m torn. I realize that necessity is the plea of every infringement on freedom (paraphrasing a quote), but at what point is the risk/benefit ratio ridiculously one-sided? It’s an epidemic of outsized proportions, and the human misery alone, personal and collateral, is far beyond where a typical person’s imagination takes them. I’m not at all convinced that decriminalization would mitigate the impact. Our alcoholism epidemic attests to that, and violent, impoverished criminals will find some other violent means of making a quick buck. The imprisonment part is more about deterrence and collecting enough negative associations before real disaster strikes, rather than punishment for its own sake. There are things far worse than a couple months or years in prison. Many addicts will tell you that they thank God they were locked up, and that they never would have stopped otherwise.
Humble:
You stated: I just don’t understand putting people in jail for marijuana related crime in jail. I don’t understand marijuana related crime having mandatory sentences longer than certain violent crimes.
The implication is that users have little impact on the rest of society and punishing them does little but impose huge costs on everyone.
Let us turn this around an evaluate the effects of use from a purely supply and demand perspective. Illegal use creates an illegal opportunity in the supply chain for MJ. The demand creates supply because someone is willing to fill the void. Because the product is not permitted, profits are high because competition is effectively blocked allowing only the most inscrutable persons from attempting to make it available. These persons, blocked from using the courts to litigate contractual transgressions, opt for their own brand of justice to protect such profits. This may include executing competitors to eliminate competition or intimidation tactics to prevent exposure of their activities. Such violence often causes street level dealers to impose health care costs via trauma centers that must patch them up after a turf battle – which usually involves guns. Sometimes the violence to protect profits inflicts collateral damage – bullets miss the intended target and hit a 6 year old playing in the park.
I could go on and on about the costs of interdiction and rehabilitation of users costs but in the end if users simply decide not to use the product whether because the personal cost associated with the loss of economic livelihood or incarceration the social costs we all bear that relate to the supply of the product would evaporate.
The idea that users are simply engaging in a social activity that is illegal but otherwise benign is a fallacy. They are the point source of the violence that is endemic in the drug trade. That is why we should impose high costs on the users of illicit products.
I read that as a giant argument for decriminalization, if it weren’t illegal, it wouldn’t be associated with the things that go hand in hand with crime…. mainly violence.
Think about it: Marijuana is legal. People can buy weed-arettes at corner stores, people cultivate marijuana in fields. From a crime and violence perspective, this becomes indistinguishable from tobacco, there aren’t many armed conflicts over smokes. This is a bad argument that amounts to: “It should be illegal because it is illegal, and illegal things foster more illegal things”
I don’t believe that the drug trade would be violent if it weren’t illegal first.
It goes hand in hand with being stoned, dropping out of productive society, letting down those who trust them, harming initiative, education, socialization and productivity; wasting money, resources, and human potential. It’s harmful to families, the workplace and the schools. Those are more than enough justifications for the government to state “this is wrong, don’t do it” and to make laws and policies consistent with that unavoidable conclusion.
Now is about the time that someone says, “But it’s legal in Amsterdam!” Let me know the next time Holland accomplishes anything.
The nanny state, socialist-leaning, personal responsibility-minimizing and personal accountability ignoring anti-capitalist forces see nothing wrong with people responding to stress, challenges, expectations and the rest by using drugs to get stupid, get fired, get broke, so they can become dependants of the state, with those of us who know we need to be alert to function paying the freight.
His comment was that marijuana is correlated with violence. And my point was that he got his causality backwards, violence doesn’t surround marijuana because marijuana fosters violence, violence surrounds marijuana because it is illegal and things that are illegal tend to attract violence. If marijuana were not illegal, I do not think it would be associated with violence. In fact, we can look at history, when marijuana was not illegal, and note that there wasn’t any associated violence. I don’t think you even disputed that.
As for Holland…. That’s the most famous example, sure. But I reject the dichotomy that the only two positions are the status quo and legalization. Marijuana could remain completely illegal, but we could do away with jail time in favor of fines and mandatory help programs, for instance. Decriminalization is not legalization, and for examples of that: Canada. And if Canada is still too left for you: Israel.
Not too left, just too not America. The nation works hard, plays hard and fights hard. The culture is different, the people are different. It’s not laid back, and doesn’t need to be more laid back. Laws have to be enforced. Enforcement requires penalties. I honestly have no idea what you’re proposing.
. . . because it is illegal and things that are illegal tend to attract violence. If marijuana were not illegal, I do not think it would be associated with violence.
Thus, all things that are illegal that attract violence should be made legal.
Is that your argument? Why not include heroin, cocaine, PCP, Meth etc.?
Or armed robbery.
Well, there are the people who want to prosecute robbery victims who shoot the robber, or say that the cop should have stayed in his car. Yep, we’ve gone full-retard, maybe even all the way to potato.
Like who?
Often, the robber’s family, and lots of liberals.
Any names?
Oh Jesus Christ.
I know…
It’s like high school debate-
“I assert that the Titanic sank on April 15, 1912”
“Prove it.”
“It’s common knowledge.”
“I want citations…”
Exactly.
I suspect that there are a few newspaper articles mentioning the Titanic’s little incident with that iceberg.
http://www.gunlaw.com/faq/29-self-defense-frequently-asked-questions.html
I was reading something on California gun law a couple minutes ago, and I found this: “WHEN CAN I USE A FIREARM FOR SELF-DEFENSE IN CALIFORNIA?
The simple answer is in a situation where a reasonable person has a reasonable fear they or another person are about to suffer death or great bodily harm.”
I couldn’t help but wonder; what if I’m an unreasonable person that has a reasonable fear I or another person are about to suffer death or great bodily harm? What if I’m reasonable, but the other person being robbed isn’t? What if the gunman is also reasonable, but I still have a reasonable fear? I’m glad I don’t live there. Then again, maybe the idea is to get everyone embroiled in working out who’s reasonable, and forget all about the whole shooting part.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/legally_weird/2012/10/burglary-suspect-sues-homeowner-for-shooting-back.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/020102.html
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/armed-robbers-widow-suing-store-clerk-who-shot-and-killed-her-husband-during-robbery-attempt/
You don’t ask these silly questions because search engines are available. You ask these silly questions in spite of search engines being available.
What if I’m reasonable, but I have an unreasonable fear about the two other unreasonable guys?
Oh, he wasn’t looking for an actual answer, you know. This is probably in “Rules For Radicals” somewhere.
Well, what is odd and frustrating, is my general assessment of Ejercito is that he’s relatively conservative, relatively constitutional and relatively rational. But he occasionally gets on these odd kicks where I can’t tell if he’s trying to build up to gotcha moments on really mundane details or if he’s trying to build up to some grand illumination on an unseen nuance. He never seems to ever expound or bring it all together. So in the end it sounds like high school debate club “I’m just not gonna play, but I’m gonna sound like I’m going somewhere” tactics…
I always hope he rounds out where he’s going with his odd lines of questions…
Those are examples of lawsuits, not criminal prosecutions.
Of course, I suspected this ground breaking illumination had to do with his choice of words.
I think in the context, I interpreted his intent correctly as “taking the guy to court” even if Prosecution technically means a crime was committed and pursued by the State and doesn’t include civil actions.
Of course, if Joed68 DID mean criminal prosecutions, then of course your objection (which you needlessly took an ineffective round-about to demonstrate) would apply.
Come now, context in this particular comment of his allows for generosity.
FOUL. Absolute strawman. And you know better.
Your argument for the status quo was that marijuana is tied to violence, and I pointed out that violence is tied to illegal acts, and if the act wasn’t illegal, it wouldn’t be associated with violence. That was it.
If there is no reason other than violence to decriminalize something, and the violence is caused by the relationship between the law and the act, then it makes sense to decriminalize.
I expected that to be the response. Do you think that legalization will eliminate the cartels? Legalization actually gives cover to the cartels because there is little if any distinction between legal weed and illegal weed except price. Legal weed is heavily taxed and costs far more than the illicit version so users can buy from the illicit provider with fewer consequences. If you think the illegal drug trade, and its associated violence will disappear through legalization show me the declining stats in charges for distribution of CDS in states that have decriminalized the use.
From a societal POV the reasons for making it illegal are completely different than what I stated. The primary purpose of the product is to intoxicate the user. Yes, alcohol is an intoxicant as well but when used as intended in social settings it does not render the user unable to think clearly and act responsibly. Pot is designed to be used to become stoned. I don’t think that you would advocate that public drunkenness should be an acceptable behavior nor do I think that you would advocate for getting drunk in one’s home on a regular basis.
How anyone can rationalize the idea of adding to the list of legal intoxicants is beyond me: especially one that is from inhaled smoke when society wants to turn tobacco smokers into social pariahs. When we talk about hypocrisy I am bemused by the many that, if given the chance would shoot a cigarette smoker on site (hyperbole), or, at least make them unacceptable employment candidates for health insurance reasons but then advocate for decriminalization of pot that is also smoked.
Probably the best reason for not decriminalizing intoxicants is that if everyone is stoned – and not paying attention – the government will take advantage of their inattention and pass laws that harm them in other ways.
I hope you don’t find the hypocrisy surprising.
I think there’s a certain amount of hypocrisy in talking about personal responsibility on one hand, and an expectation for the government to enforce what a person cannot put into their own bodies on the other. I don’t care if people smoke, I don’t care if people get high, I’d prefer they do it far away from me and I’d prefer the government not pay for their health costs afterwards. I understand that in reality, the government would be liable for some of those things, but I can’t fathom for the life of me why THIS is the issue people decided to draw the line at. People make cripplingly stupid life choices daily. They should be able to make them, and they should be responsible for the outcomes.
HT, you act like this is the only conduct there are laws against. And you keep slipping back to #22…is this the biggest threat to society? Probably not. So what?
I think that’s the biggest gap between our points of view. I don’t see it as a threat to society. You use a lot of colorful language to describe that marijuana is a threat to society, but very little if any to describe why. And being surrounded by places where it has been common and decriminalized for generations, and the world hasn’t ended, I just can’t put much stock into your arguments until you do. I don’t think you can, but I won’t rule it out. I will say that there is a huge amount of confirmation bias in this,
I think that if you and the other anti marijuana advocates heard the same arguments you were using against something you liked, you would discount them too. “Guns are a scourge!” Prove it. And they’re necessary. “Catholicism is a sourge!” Bullshit. “Mariguana is a scourge!” Hear Hear! We’re better than this.
1. Straw man: Threat to society. Actual issue: guaranteed to make society worse than it already is.
2. The experience with alcohol and tobacco, plus many cultures’ experiences with opium, places the burden not with opponents, but with the advocates.
3. “and the world hasn’t ended”=Rationalization #22. I will stipulate that the world won’t end.
4. Again: I have spent lots of time with stoned people, who are worthless, and watching stoned people gradually let thgeir lives and responsibilities slide. This is no mystery. And I have suffered along with the travails of many alcoholics in my life, and seen the pain that illness inflicts on them and everyone and everything around them. That’s called “experience,” and drug advocates choose to ignore it.
5. That’s the same (Bad) argument the NFL deniers have been throwing at me. I have no reason to “like” or “dislike” pot. I dislike breaking laws, which is why I have never smoked it. I dislike talking to drunks and stoned-out idiots, which is why I know it is destructive to human relations. I dislike unproductive organizations and people, and that’s why it effects are anathema to me, and I dislike having to pay for more drug-related problems than I already do. I really dislike the silly argument that people just can’t help breaking a law.
6. It’s proven. Guns have a valid purpose and do good things. Religion has a valid purpose, and does good things. Pot is one more potentially legal drug that causes behavioral and health problems, especially with young users, and we have enough experience with the legal drugs of that sort we are stuck with (and can’t possibly eliminate at this point) that it is madness to want another because some rich white elites like to get stoned after work, and don’t care about what will happen to those who are less disciplined, wealthy, rational, and able to take care of things when they get out of control. Most of the heavy pot users I knew now no longer touch the stuff, and many oppose legalization. Why is that, do you think?
I was commenting on his cigarette example. Nonetheless, I still don’t think there’s a conflict between expecting personal responsibility (and relying on it in all but a few situations to maintain an orderly society, without government intervention), and taking measures to extinguish behavior that is inherently harmful to self, and more importantly, others. Again, still talking particularly about the harder drugs. I’m thinking of destroyed families, loss of productivity, death, and crime. You really can’t expect addicts, who largely end up unemployed and destitute, to foot their own health care bill. They’re going to be a drain on society, one way or another. May as well turn up the heat and accelerate the learning process.
See…. I get what you’re saying, but no one is talking about harder drugs except you, and Chris a little higher up. They’re red herrings. My point isn’t a broad condemnation of all drug laws, it’s not even entirely about legalisation, because regulation wouldn’t necessarily hurt. Mostly, my argument is about appropriate sentencing.
What is the point of laws and sentences? To protect society and to either deter, rehabilitate or punish offenders. The laws aren’t working. marijuana is common, no one is deterred, rehabilitation doesn’t work, and the punishments seem disproportionately weighted to other non-violent crime. It just makes no sense to me. If you can explain that, I’ll try to process it.
I inferred that we got off on that tangent from about the middle of your original post, to my subsequent replies.
Or rape.
Should have used that one, too.
“You should put some ice on that…”
Reblogged this on Nevada State Personnel Watch.
Explanation, not rationalization:
Presidential primary season.
This won’t be the last stupid statement made by a potential presidential candidate. This is one reason I hate politics.
They will all say something stupid, maybe many stupid things making it impossible to feel happy with the final candidates.
Couldn’t we have just linked to the previous discussion?
My thoughts exactly. I didn’t post anything because I don’t have anything new to say.
I considered not, but I’m too stubborn. And I like Paul. I don’t think he’ll make it through the primaries, but at the very least, he might get people talking about a few important issues that they otherwise wouldn’t be.
Plus, how could I pass up one of the like… 3 topics we don’t viciously disagree on?