What's new
By:

We need to legalize marijuana. Situation in Millcreek

PearlWatson said:
legalizing pot is a libertarian view
Click to expand...
Ignorant reductionism. There are plenty of liberals/progressives who want to change drug policy for reasons that couldn't possibly be (intelligently) classified as "libertarian". Some, for example, with plenty of academic literature supporting their point of view, think using the criminal law to treat drug abuse is ineffective, and better outcomes can be achieved with an overhaul of current drug policy.

Do you think the War on Drugs has been a success (that is, what is the purpose/goal(s) of the War on Drugs, and how effective has the current approach been in accomplishing that purpose/those goals?)? Is it possible that different policy approaches might produce better results?
 
SaltyDawg said:
Seriously, the effect of alcohol on the body is completely different than the effect of pot. And the effect each has on a person's driving is going to be completely different.
Click to expand...

It's different, it's not COMPLETELY different. Stop chugging the hyperbole concentrate.

For example, both slow your response times and make you feel good.
 
GVC said:
Ignorant reductionism. There are plenty of liberals/progressives who want to change drug policy for reasons that couldn't possibly be (intelligently) classified as "libertarian". Some, for example, with plenty of academic literature supporting their point of view, think using the criminal law to treat drug abuse is ineffective, and better outcomes can be achieved with an overhaul of current drug policy.

Do you think the War on Drugs has been a success (that is, what is the purpose/goal(s) of the War on Drugs, and how effective has the current approach been in accomplishing that purpose/those goals?)? Is it possible that different policy approaches might produce better results?
Click to expand...

I say libertarian because they are consistently against restrictions on personal behavior, while liberals ain't.
 
PearlWatson said:
I say libertarian because they are consistently against restrictions on personal behavior, while liberals ain't.
Click to expand...
Did you even read my post?

The point is that even if I use criteria other than personal freedom in evaluating drug policy, prohibition may not be best. Obviously, the War on Drugs is not being waged to maximize personal freedom. What are the goals? Minimizing drug abuse/addiction? Minimizing drug related crime? Maximizing social welfare (by what measure?)? If the current policy (PROHIBITION) is not particularly cost effective in minimizing drug abuse/addiction, minimizing drug related crime, or, by whatever chosen metric, maximizing social welfare, a "liberal" will likely want to change the policy. This is not a libertarian argument at all.

Understand?
 
Last edited:
Stoked said:
Did you honestly assume that she would?
Click to expand...
I think the legalization crowd needs to get away from libertarian arguments; they are completely unnecessary. The reality is, the current policy is extremely expensive and completely ineffective by the best guess as to what outcomes are being sought (since the goals of the policy are rarely, if ever, stated). Drug War profiteers have done a great job, unfortunately, convincing everyone that those against prohibition are ignorant, hedonistic libertarians (worthless pot heads, mostly) who couldn't care less about societal consequences. It's extremely rare to hear them talking about the real world effects of the current policy and what might be expected from different policy approaches. It's no mystery why this is the case.
 
GVC said:
I think the legalization crowd needs to get away from libertarian arguments; they are completely unnecessary. The reality is, the current policy is extremely expensive and completely ineffective by the best guess as to what outcomes are being sought (since the goals of the policy are rarely, if ever, stated). Drug War profiteers have done a great job, unfortunately, convincing everyone that those against prohibition are ignorant, hedonistic libertarians (worthless pot heads, mostly) who couldn't care less about societal consequences. It's extremely rare to hear them talking about the real world effects of the current policy and what might be expected from different policy approaches. It's no mystery why this is the case.
Click to expand...

Then one could take this arguement and try to come up with new ways of "combating" pot. It hink the view you expressed above needs to be mixed, to a point, with the libertarian view of the issue.
 
Stoked said:
Then one could take this arguement and try to come up with new ways of "combating" pot. It hink the view you expressed above needs to be mixed, to a point, with the libertarian view of the issue.
Click to expand...
Few people voluntarily become slaves; we all value personal freedom. How much of that freedom we're willing to give up for better societal outcomes differs.

A change in the current policy that increases personal freedom, however, doesn't imply worse societal outcomes. Alcohol prohibition in the 20s illustrates this phenomenon well.
 
GVC said:
Did you even read my post?

The point is that even if I use criteria other than personal freedom in evaluating drug policy, prohibition may not be best. Obviously, the War on Drugs is not being waged to maximize personal freedom. What are the goals? Minimizing drug abuse/addiction? Minimizing drug related crime? Maximizing social welfare (by what measure?)? If the current policy (PROHIBITION) is not particularly cost effective in minimizing drug abuse/addiction, minimizing drug related crime, or, by whatever chosen metric, maximizing social welfare, a "liberal" will likely want to change the policy. This is not a libertarian argument at all.

Understand?
Click to expand...

I think you'll have an extremely hard time convincing people that liberals care about the effectiveness, cost or otherwise, of the war on drugs since they don't care about the effectiveness of any other government policy.
The personal freedom argument is the better way to go. Learn from the homosexual or abortion PR campaigns. Americans are suckers for the "choice, freedom, rights" argument no matter how ridiculous the thing is they are trying to apply it to.
 
PearlWatson said:
I think you'll have an extremely hard time convincing people that liberals care about the effectiveness, cost or otherwise, of the war on drugs since they don't care about the effectiveness of any other government policy.
The personal freedom argument is the better way to go. Learn from the homosexual or abortion PR campaigns. Americans are suckers for the "choice, freedom, rights" argument no matter how ridiculous the thing is they are trying to apply it to.
Click to expand...
You're confusing your Fox News talking points with the actual views of real people.

To say that no liberals value those things is ridiculous. To say that Fox News paints all liberals this way is more accurate.
 
SaltyDawg said:
You're confusing your Fox News talking points with the actual views of real people.

To say that no liberals value those things is ridiculous. To say that Fox News paints all liberals this way is more accurate.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that.
 
squareinthecircle said:
Whether or not it makes sense to you it is an existing phenomenon.

Yes pot reduces the swelling of RA. Pain meds help with pain, but not with swelling. Cannabis helps with both.
Click to expand...

So, if they isolated the anti-inflammatory compound from the THC would you stop taking the combo that makes you high?
 
PearlWatson said:
Right. They couldn't use medical reasons as a red herring any more.
Click to expand...

Who says it's a red herring? Just because it may not be the only reason someone uses it, doesn't make it invalid.

If someone invents a pill that has all the nutritional properties of a thick steak, with none of the taste, would you still want to eat a steak at some point?

Would you rather someone tell you how game 7 ends, or instead watch the game?

The end result may be the ultimate goal, but the path to get there isn't meaningless.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top