Uh huh. So why have any laws at all, then? Why not just make everything legal? After all, if "people are going to do it anyway"...
Legalizing marijuana. I don't get it.
- Thread starter infinix
- Start date
Uh huh. So why have any laws at all, then? Why not just make everything legal? After all, if "people are going to do it anyway"...
This is one of those times where your black and white view of the world is not going to do you any favors.
It's a question of scale. Laws exist to protect people. And if that's all we have to go on, then alcohol should be illegal, too. Tobacco should be illegal. Driving should be illegal.
But you know what? They're not illegal. They are, however, regulated. The government has made a judgment call that once you hit a certain age, you are theoretically responsible enough to make responsible decisions.
16-year olds are mature enough to drive safely. Do they always? Not necessarily, but that's why there are laws that limit the ways that you can drive.
18-year olds can smoke and gamble. Does that mean they do it in moderation? Not a chance.
21-year olds can legally drink in the United States. Do they do it responsibly? Rarely. Do they drive while intoxicated? You bet they do! Does that make it okay? No, but that's why there are laws regulating it.
I guess my point is that if a large enough number of people are going to do something anyway, I would rather the government step in and regulate the way they do it. Banning it completely doesn't help anyone. It's one thing to make a law saying "Don't do _________ while under the influence." It's quite another to say "Never be under the influence."
^ And yet there are certain things that are, and should be, banned outright. Rape, murder, robbery, arson, etc. I hope you're not suggesting that things like those should be permitted and "regulated"...
I think you missed the part where I said laws exist to protect people.There are responsible ways to do things that don't result in damage. Responsible driving, in theory, should not harm anyone. Same with drinking. That is why we punish those who do it irresponsibly.
There is no way to responsibly murder or rape someone without causing harm. So yes, obviously those things should be banned outright.
You mean, did it ever do him any favour?
^ More than you think.
Talk about an apples and oranges comparison -- and taking an argument to the point of utter absurdity.
Rape, murder, robbery, arson, etc., cause direct harm to people. Smoking a joint, to my knowledge, doesn't.
Or, to quote the late, great Bill Hicks: "What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body -- as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?"
So, more than zero? I find it somehow difficult to believe.
I've never been one to believe that laws are around to "protect" people. I don't feel "protected" by laws, why should I? There's nothing enforcing that law to be carried out by people.
For example, I go to the bank a few days ago and right there, bu the door, there's a "No Guns" sign and it makes me wonder if that sign is really stopping anyone from bringing in a gun? Is a would-be bank-robber really going to be stymied by that sign?
I see most laws as the same thing is the only thing stopping you from killing your rival are laws? Is the only thing stopping you from stealing a car are laws? No.
Laws, IMHO, in my opinion aren't in place to protect people or to stop crime to simply make it possible have a means to prosecute people for stepping out of the bounds of society. So if someone does kill or steal we can say, "Well, you knew it is illegal so now we have a set of consequences to lay upon you."
So now we have to look at which things are the biggest problems in society and what laws we need to lay out punishment for them. Obviously stealing and murder are big problems so we lay out a means to get them off the streets but how much is society harmed by having a marijuana-dealer out there? Selling some dried-up, crumbled up weed he grew in a hydroponic garden in his tool shed? A drug that makes people a little silly for fifteen minutes. Is society harmed that much by this being out there?
Is it harmed that much more than how society is harmed by alcohol or by tobacco? Products that rack up thousands of primary and secondary deaths every year while marijuana's use has never been directly linked to any death. I imagine it's possible "someone got high and dove off a building or into a tree or something" deaths have occurred but no one has died directly from smoking weed. Plenty of people have died or had serious health effects from smoking cigarettes and from abuse of alcohol.
Would society be harmed by marijuana's legalization? It was legal in this country for a while in the early part of last century, it's "decriminalized" in other countries and legal in still others and somehow those various places have not seen a collapse of their infrastructure by being filled with stoners laughing at Wugsy cartoons. The marijuana debate in this country is dominated by a strong-anti extreme as the best way to be against something is to try and sell the worst possible scenario and scary situations will always scare people more than good ones.
The pro-legalization side has it's extreme too but there's nothing "scary" about it to the point to motivate people to be for it. "People will be high all of the time and society will collapse!" motivates people more than "Harmless and kills no-one."
I see it sort-of like the DADT debate that raged last year where those in favor of the repeal, allowing homosexuals to serve openly in America's military, were saying "Yeah, they're people. We're a free country, why aren't we doing this?" but the anti-repeal people were saying "Troop morale will be destroyed! Butt-sex rape in boot camp! "How much will you trust that guy to save you if he's checking you out while in a battle situation?!" Stuff like that that argument was mostly dominated by the extreme anti-crowd. Even when we point out other countries doing it, like Canada, that far anti-extreme still dominated the argument. Thankfully a Liberal-controlled Congress and a Liberal president weren't scared by that extreme.
So, again, I'm just left to wonder why it's illegal when the stuff is Mostly Harmless?
For example, I go to the bank a few days ago and right there, bu the door, there's a "No Guns" sign and it makes me wonder if that sign is really stopping anyone from bringing in a gun? Is a would-be bank-robber really going to be stymied by that sign?
I see most laws as the same thing is the only thing stopping you from killing your rival are laws? Is the only thing stopping you from stealing a car are laws? No.
Laws, IMHO, in my opinion aren't in place to protect people or to stop crime to simply make it possible have a means to prosecute people for stepping out of the bounds of society. So if someone does kill or steal we can say, "Well, you knew it is illegal so now we have a set of consequences to lay upon you."
So now we have to look at which things are the biggest problems in society and what laws we need to lay out punishment for them. Obviously stealing and murder are big problems so we lay out a means to get them off the streets but how much is society harmed by having a marijuana-dealer out there? Selling some dried-up, crumbled up weed he grew in a hydroponic garden in his tool shed? A drug that makes people a little silly for fifteen minutes. Is society harmed that much by this being out there?
Is it harmed that much more than how society is harmed by alcohol or by tobacco? Products that rack up thousands of primary and secondary deaths every year while marijuana's use has never been directly linked to any death. I imagine it's possible "someone got high and dove off a building or into a tree or something" deaths have occurred but no one has died directly from smoking weed. Plenty of people have died or had serious health effects from smoking cigarettes and from abuse of alcohol.
Would society be harmed by marijuana's legalization? It was legal in this country for a while in the early part of last century, it's "decriminalized" in other countries and legal in still others and somehow those various places have not seen a collapse of their infrastructure by being filled with stoners laughing at Wugsy cartoons. The marijuana debate in this country is dominated by a strong-anti extreme as the best way to be against something is to try and sell the worst possible scenario and scary situations will always scare people more than good ones.
The pro-legalization side has it's extreme too but there's nothing "scary" about it to the point to motivate people to be for it. "People will be high all of the time and society will collapse!" motivates people more than "Harmless and kills no-one."
I see it sort-of like the DADT debate that raged last year where those in favor of the repeal, allowing homosexuals to serve openly in America's military, were saying "Yeah, they're people. We're a free country, why aren't we doing this?" but the anti-repeal people were saying "Troop morale will be destroyed! Butt-sex rape in boot camp! "How much will you trust that guy to save you if he's checking you out while in a battle situation?!" Stuff like that that argument was mostly dominated by the extreme anti-crowd. Even when we point out other countries doing it, like Canada, that far anti-extreme still dominated the argument. Thankfully a Liberal-controlled Congress and a Liberal president weren't scared by that extreme.
So, again, I'm just left to wonder why it's illegal when the stuff is Mostly Harmless?
Laws protect people because they deter those fearing punishment from acting. Self-help cannot defend in the same way for a few reasons.
One, they escalate things to create more serious crimes (if you fear someone has a gun, you might respond by bringing a gun yourself)
Two, they require effort, skill, and willpower of the person exercising self-help
Three, they can only prevent the immediate act. Once that individual gets away, he is safe and might be able to commit the same act again.
One, they escalate things to create more serious crimes (if you fear someone has a gun, you might respond by bringing a gun yourself)
Two, they require effort, skill, and willpower of the person exercising self-help
Three, they can only prevent the immediate act. Once that individual gets away, he is safe and might be able to commit the same act again.
Similar threads
