What makes sense from a legal or control perspective does not always agree with what makes sense from a moral perspective. The question is where do you draw the line?
What makes sense from a legal or control perspective does not always agree with what makes sense from a moral perspective. The question is where do you draw the line?
bravenrace wrote: What makes sense from a legal or control perspective does not always agree with what makes sense from a moral perspective. The question is where do you draw the line?
For me, between church and state.
Otto Maddox wrote:bravenrace wrote: What makes sense from a legal or control perspective does not always agree with what makes sense from a moral perspective. The question is where do you draw the line?For me, between church and state.
What does morals have to do with church?
bravenrace wrote: What makes sense from a legal or control perspective does not always agree with what makes sense from a moral perspective. The question is where do you draw the line?
I guess I'm just slow, but I don't "get" the morality implications from ingesting a plant. Is caffeine immoral? Is alcohol?....tobacco? Is eating at McDonalds 5 days a week ethically wrong? All of these substances / activites are more harmful to your body than marijuana.
People in various cultures have used marijuana for thousands of years. I guess I don't see how our society decides it is immoral.
MG_Bryan wrote: ...Marijuana is more commonly found in to be a cause in car accidents that land drivers in shock trauma...
I have never heard this. I would like to see what you are referring to. Is it these? I highlighted Cause from your quote, because if you look at the 3rd paragraph below it says a similar thing, but note that it does not say Cause (for a reason).
Medical data indicates a connection between drugged driving and accidents—a study of patients in a shock-trauma unit who had been in collisions revealed that 15% of those who had been driving a car or motorcycle had been smoking marijuana and another 17% had both THC and alcohol in their blood. Recent research conducted by the University of Auckland, New Zealand, proves the link between marijuana use and car accidents. The research found that habitual cannabis users were 9.5 times more likely to be involved in crashes, with 5.6% of people who had crashed having taken the drug, compared to 0.5% of the control group. A new study published by researchers at the University of Maryland Medical Center Shock Trauma Center indicates that during a 90-day study, about half of the drivers admitted to the Maryland Shock Trauma Center tested positive for drugs other than alcohol. Additionally, one in four drivers admitted to the shock trauma unit tested positive for marijuana. (Published in October, 2005). In the study, published in the medical journal BMJ, researchers reviewed information on 10,748 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes and took required tests for drugs and alcohol. Twice as many drivers involved in fatal car accidents tested positive for marijuana compared with a group of other drivers. Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol. The study also showed that drivers who tested positive for marijuana were more than three times as likely to be responsible for the fatal car crash. Researchers say the likelihood of being at fault increased as the blood concentration of marijuana increased.
Only the last one seems to show some sort of link (of course you would have to see how they came to that conclusion) the other ones are very poorly controlled (as in not at all). They show that a percentage of people who are in accident have Marijuana in their system, but that does not mean it CAUSED the accident. Lots of people have Marijuana in their systems these days. If at least they did a comparison between the number of people with Marijuana in their systems who aren't in accidents vs those who are, it would be a bit better. But then of course you have to consider the "typical" person who uses Marijuana, are they generally poorer drivers even when not on Marijuana.
Another says this (reported by Normal of course):
Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents. A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, “Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.” This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication. Today, a large body of research exists exploring the impact of marijuana on psychomotor skills and actual driving performance. This research consists of driving simulator studies, on-road performance studies, crash culpability studies, and summary reviews of the existing evidence. To date, the result of this research is fairly consistent: Marijuana has a measurable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills, yet it does not appear to play a significant role in vehicle crashes, particularly when compared to alcohol. Below is a summary of some of the existing data.
Lots of people claim to be libertarian/tea party types but start loving on big government once it comes to social issues, like continuing the war on drugs, for instance.
I'm all for legalizing it. It should just carry the same penalties as driving under the influence of alcohol. And yes, it is very obvious when someone is "high."
Otto Maddox wrote: Lots of people claim to be libertarian/tea party types but start loving on big government once it comes to social issues, like continuing the war on drugs, for instance.
Or the "gays" (they want to convert your children you know)
aircooled wrote:MG_Bryan wrote: ...Marijuana is more commonly found in to be a cause in car accidents that land drivers in shock trauma...I have never heard this. I would like to see what you are referring to. Is it these? I highlighted Cause from your quote, because if you look at the 3rd paragraph below it says a similar thing, but note that it does not say Cause (for a reason).Medical data indicates a connection between drugged driving and accidents—a study of patients in a shock-trauma unit who had been in collisions revealed that 15% of those who had been driving a car or motorcycle had been smoking marijuana and another 17% had both THC and alcohol in their blood. Recent research conducted by the University of Auckland, New Zealand, proves the link between marijuana use and car accidents. The research found that habitual cannabis users were 9.5 times more likely to be involved in crashes, with 5.6% of people who had crashed having taken the drug, compared to 0.5% of the control group. A new study published by researchers at the University of Maryland Medical Center Shock Trauma Center indicates that during a 90-day study, about half of the drivers admitted to the Maryland Shock Trauma Center tested positive for drugs other than alcohol. Additionally, one in four drivers admitted to the shock trauma unit tested positive for marijuana. (Published in October, 2005). In the study, published in the medical journal BMJ, researchers reviewed information on 10,748 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes and took required tests for drugs and alcohol. Twice as many drivers involved in fatal car accidents tested positive for marijuana compared with a group of other drivers. Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol. The study also showed that drivers who tested positive for marijuana were more than three times as likely to be responsible for the fatal car crash. Researchers say the likelihood of being at fault increased as the blood concentration of marijuana increased.Only the last one seems to show some sort of link (of course you would have to see how they came to that conclusion) the other ones are very poorly controlled (as in not at all). They show that a percentage of people who are in accident have Marijuana in their system, but that does not mean it CAUSED the accident. Lots of people have Marijuana in their systems these days. If at least they did a comparison between the number of people with Marijuana in their systems who aren't in accidents vs those who are, it would be a bit better. But then of course you have to consider the "typical" person who uses Marijuana, are they generally poorer drivers even when not on Marijuana. Another says this (reported by Normal of course):Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents. A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, “Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.” This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication. Today, a large body of research exists exploring the impact of marijuana on psychomotor skills and actual driving performance. This research consists of driving simulator studies, on-road performance studies, crash culpability studies, and summary reviews of the existing evidence. To date, the result of this research is fairly consistent: Marijuana has a measurable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills, yet it does not appear to play a significant role in vehicle crashes, particularly when compared to alcohol. Below is a summary of some of the existing data.
Full disclosure: the argument I'm making is based on memory of research I did 3 or 4 years and many a concussion ago. I'm happy to accept that "cause" may have been a poor word choice, that said, there is a correlation, and, at the very least, there isn't enough evidence for the "legalize it" position to justify overturning years of drug policy.
As to the argument that as long as one's actions affect only one's self, they shouldn't be regulated, that does sound appealing at first glance, but there's almost nothing you can do that doesn't in someway affect others. Accepting that no system can ever be perfect, we then have to way the pro and cons of legalizing or outlawing certain things.
I can't find an example of a libertarian society that had any degree of success - that's not to say it doesn't exist; if it does, please share it with me. Complain though we may, we all benefit greatly from "big government."
MG_Bryan wrote: ... that said, there is a correlation, and, at the very least, there isn't enough evidence for the "legalize it" position to justify overturning years of drug policy...
Your argument seems to imply you would favor outlawing alcohol for the same reason.
MG_Bryan wrote: ...As to the argument that as long as one's actions affect only one's self, they shouldn't be regulated, that does sound appealing at first glance, but there's almost nothing you can do that doesn't in someway affect others....
This I tend to agree with. There is a common ridiculousness about current political discussions where it becomes an "all or nothing" discussion, this is highly unrealistic in most situations. A compromise or something in the middle is almost always a better solution. The Libertarian positions is useful not in that a completely Libertarian society would be great, but that a tendency or leaning towards a more Libertarian society would be better.
BTW: I think the common Libertarian thinking of unregulated industry, or only regulated at a state level is ridiculous and would break down very quickly (e.g. one state dumping crap into another).
One of my favorite sayings in such circumstances (perhaps I can say it is an original by me?):
"The best answer, as always, lies somewhere in the middle"
aircooled wrote:MG_Bryan wrote: ... that said, there is a correlation, and, at the very least, there isn't enough evidence for the "legalize it" position to justify overturning years of drug policy...Your argument seems to imply you would favor outlawing alcohol for the same reason.MG_Bryan wrote: ...As to the argument that as long as one's actions affect only one's self, they shouldn't be regulated, that does sound appealing at first glance, but there's almost nothing you can do that doesn't in someway affect others....This I tend to agree with. There is a common ridiculousness about current political discussions where it becomes an "all or nothing" discussion, this is highly unrealistic in most situations. A compromise or something in the middle is almost always a better solution. The Libertarian positions is useful not in that a completely Libertarian society would be great, but that a tendency or leaning towards a more Libertarian society would be better. BTW: I think the common Libertarian thinking of unregulated industry, or only regulated at a state level is ridiculous and would break down very quickly (e.g. one state dumping crap into another). One of my favorite sayings in such circumstances (perhaps I can say it is an original by me?): "The best answer, as always, lies somewhere in the middle"
Honestly, I think the prohibition of alcohol could have been a successful policy in the long term, just as the prohibition of drugs has trended toward success. Obviously in either case neither would ever be eliminated entirely. The difference I see in the alcohol vs cannabis argument is that alcohol is already illegal and cannabis isn't; from a purely practical standpoint I see no reason to change the policies on these two issue which we've already committed ourselves to as a nation.
Cheers to the answer lying somewhere in the middle.
We've drifted kind of far off topic.
What we really need are two more political parties.
One that is socially liberal but fiscally conservative and one that is socially conservative but fiscally liberal. The Democrats can be liberal/liberal and the Republicans can be conservative/conservative.
With that kind of spread, everything would be a compromise.
Joe Gearin wrote:bravenrace wrote: What makes sense from a legal or control perspective does not always agree with what makes sense from a moral perspective. The question is where do you draw the line?I guess I'm just slow, but I don't "get" the morality implications from ingesting a plant. Is caffeine immoral? Is alcohol?....tobacco? Is eating at McDonalds 5 days a week ethically wrong? All of these substances / activites are more harmful to your body than marijuana. People in various cultures have used marijuana for thousands of years. I guess I don't see how our society decides it is immoral.
Like I said, everyone decides that for themselves. I'm not suggesting that you should agree with me. I would answer in more detail, but then I'd open a whole nother can of worms. I don't think that would accomplish anything.
HiTempguy wrote: What does morals have to do with church?
Lol
aircooled wrote:MG_Bryan wrote: ... that said, there is a correlation, and, at the very least, there isn't enough evidence for the "legalize it" position to justify overturning years of drug policy...Your argument seems to imply you would favor outlawing alcohol for the same reason.MG_Bryan wrote: ...As to the argument that as long as one's actions affect only one's self, they shouldn't be regulated, that does sound appealing at first glance, but there's almost nothing you can do that doesn't in someway affect others....This I tend to agree with. There is a common ridiculousness about current political discussions where it becomes an "all or nothing" discussion, this is highly unrealistic in most situations. A compromise or something in the middle is almost always a better solution. The Libertarian positions is useful not in that a completely Libertarian society would be great, but that a tendency or leaning towards a more Libertarian society would be better. BTW: I think the common Libertarian thinking of unregulated industry, or only regulated at a state level is ridiculous and would break down very quickly (e.g. one state dumping crap into another). One of my favorite sayings in such circumstances (perhaps I can say it is an original by me?): "The best answer, as always, lies somewhere in the middle"
Unfortunately, the ones who scream the loudest are always on one extreme or the other, and they are the ones who are always heard.
pstrbrc wrote:MitchellC wrote: Are you talking about the Irish who fled their terrible living conditions due to food shortages, corrupt government, etc..? Did they fill out all required paperwork before coming into the country, have it notarized, or did they jump on the boat thinking, "Dear God, anything is better than this E36 M3hole Ireland without even dirt to eat"?Sorry. All of the Irish migration to the US was done within the law. Laws were different? yes, but not that different.
Wow, how nice it must be to be so blissfully ignorant and yet still so opinionated. During the Irish famine in the mid 19th century there were no federal limits, requirements or restrictions on immigration. Not until the end of the 19th century did Congress limit immigration, prohibiting the entry of:
Seems to be a real source of pride for those who's ancestors immigrated 'legally'. Very impressive to have been able to meet that stringent criteria.
Did I just read someone say the "War on Drugs" has tended toward success?
Thanks for the laugh!
MG_Bryan wrote: Honestly, I think the prohibition of alcohol could have been a successful policy in the long term, just as the prohibition of drugs has trended toward success. Obviously in either case neither would ever be eliminated entirely. The difference I see in the alcohol vs cannabis argument is that alcohol is already illegal and cannabis isn't; from a purely practical standpoint I see no reason to change the policies on these two issue which we've already committed ourselves to as a nation. Cheers to the answer lying somewhere in the middle.
Has the prohibition of drugs tended towards success? Over the years, I have been offered marijuana on so many occasions that I could not begin to count them. The only difference between alcohol and marijuana is the government gets a share of one, and nothing from the other. If prohibition began again tomorrow morning, underground markets would be established by mid-afternoon. Like marijuana, production of alcohol is so easy for the hobbyist profiteer to produce, that banning just increases the allure and opens up the markets.
Taken to the extreme end of the argument either way, the fact that alcohol and tobacco are still legal opens the door to legalizing the other drugs.
You can't argue about the "damage to society" that will result from legalizing pot or any of the hard drugs without also being in the camp to prohibit both alcohol and tobacco.
Crap, I'm tired and really want to type more but I can tell I'm probably going to stop making sense very shortly. This should also probably be it's own thread at this point in time.
MitchellC wrote: ...The only difference between alcohol and marijuana is the government gets a share of one, and nothing from the other...
Don't forget the HUGE government expense for law enforcement, prosecution and incarceration.
But hey, it's kind of jobs program, right?
Are the incarcerated counted into unemployment numbers? If not, the more people that we have in prison, the lower the unemployment numbers! And the greater the number of people needed to guard them! AND the more prisons we need to construct to cage them! Someone elect me, I have a great idea!
In reply to aircooled:
You nailed it. The war on drugs is a business.
If legalized, there would still be a lot of overhead in regulating the new industry, but I just can't see how it could wind up costing more than it does now.
Brett_Murphy wrote: In reply to aircooled: You nailed it. The war on drugs is a business. If legalized, there would still be a lot of overhead in regulating the new industry, but I just can't see how it could wind up costing more than it does now.
Have you met the government?
In reply to bravenrace:
The government also manages the drug war. I think there's no avoiding government involvement on this one.
MitchellC wrote: Has the prohibition of drugs tended towards success?
Yes. Drug use, particularly in youth, has been on a continual decline as result of increased public awareness of potential negative effects and actions against growers and traffickers.
You'll need to log in to post.
