Responsible Utilization of Narcotics

[3mmanu3lrc]

lol

10char

@ballin All rigth, I didn't dig as I should to assume that before, admit my mistake.

But now that I think about it, making them legal may decreas crime a little when it comes about big dealers.

Compare the two dates and times of those two post, and tell me what my last stance in this topic is.

Or, wait, maybe you're not reading and replaying for the first post you don't like...

Or is it that you don't like me that much?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't think that pot or any drug that has the potential to severely harm anyone should be legalized. Pot for example, is poison for your brain. This drug affects your motor skills, memory, and the ablity to even think straight. This drug affected my brother so deeply after only a week of trying it, he didn't even remember that he was beaten up by a group of gang members on his way home. Can you imagine what it was like when he walked through the door bloody and he couldn't tell me when or how he got that way?

No, I can't, and I'm going to reject your anecdotal evidence on the following grounds:
-Marijuana is not in the slightest known to have such side effects
-Your brother was most likely not only on marijuana at the time
-Your brother probably had something to hide; if you get beaten up and "can't remember it", blaming pot is a hell of a lot easier than saying that, say, you're in an abusive relationship or something.
-It's an anecdote. One that goes against most scientific studies, by the way.

I know I sound like a mother, I can't help that. But there is nothing responsible about drug use if it begins to intrude into your life.

Bull****, it's entirely responsible. It's your own responsibility and nobody else's.

Hence the fact that these drugs are illegal. Now I know that the alcohol bit will come if I just leave it at that. I do believe that a drug such as Marijuana should be decriminalized but not legal. We do not need someone in jail for a couple grams of pot for 6 months with murderers and rapists. I know that in my state (New York) you can have a maximum of 16 or 17 pot plants and not be arrested for it. If you have more than 17 plants, you will be charged with drug possesion with the intent to sell.

Alcohol is legal because there isn't the stigma of it being taboo as it is with marijuana, that's just society.

Arguments to the status quo are usually bad... And yes, alcohol deserves to be legal, just like pot. And "stigma of it being taboo"? We have politicians openly admitting to having smoked pot. Politicians! The people most likely to get bit in the *** by something like this a few years down the road!

However, alcohol abuse is criminalized. Many laws have been passed in states and in the national government to make sure that alcohol abuse is not tolerated.

Really? Citation? Alcohol abuse is not drunk driving, that's a different phenomenon entirely.

Tobacco is heavily taxed and there is a national campaign against it. However, it is a fact that making drugs that have been legal for decades illegal, result in criminal activity, as history shows us.

As do making any drugs illegal. There are massive black markets for weed, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, LSD, and assorted other drugs. It's a general rule of market-prohibit a very popular item on the free market, and black markets will rise to fill the demand.
And you think I'm not advocating a heavy tax on weed? This is how you repay whatever "debt to society" that might come up when you use a recreational drug (lost work-hours, etc.)-it's taxed from the get-go. And here's a little tip for you. Tobacco needs a massive national campaign against it because it's not in the same weight class as weed. It's highly addictive and one of the leading causes of death in America! It was also directly marketed to children until the ban on tobacco advertising because childhood is where smokers start, and the tobacco industry knows this. Tobacco is honestly closest to heroin, just without the whole "if you do this you will DIE" and "it's illegal" stigmata attached to it.

Compare the two dates and times of those two post, and tell me what my last stance in this topic is.

Or, wait, maybe you're not reading and replaying for the first post you don't like...

Or is it that you don't like me that much?

No, I don't like you. In virtually every debate you've shown to be inept, and in this case you even admit that you're wrong... and then assert that you're right. In the exact same post. Look at it again.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

No, I don't like you. In virtually every debate you've shown to be inept, and in this case you even admit that you're wrong... and then assert that you're right. In the exact same post. Look at it again.

I knew you don't like me since the very first post you made in replay to one of mine.
And if what you're saying is that if someone here clears my mind and makes me see my mistake, I should have a close mind and keep saying what would have already clearly be proven wrong?

If that's the case, I'll alway be in the list of those whom you don't like, because I can not be that way.

Spoiler

And this last paragraph is something I wouldn't like.

 

[Xianglian]

No. Do some research before you say pot is poison for your brain. In fact, cannabis may actually stimulate brain cell growth (source: http://news.healingwell.com/index.php?p=news1&id=528519 ).

Alcohol on the other hand does actually kill brain cells.

Although I will agree that someone under the influence of marijuana has his motor skills, thinking ability and memory affected, it probably has less of an effect on those than alcohol does.

I wasn't making a comparison to any other drug. I was stating the affects of marijuana, which many sources have told me here, here, and one of my favorites, here
Ther article you posted is a study applied to rats, and the scientist clearly states that humans and rats completely different. The doses given to rats were extremely high, and the lower doses didn't seem to have the same effect. I don't call a decrease in anxiety brain stimulation, but i'm no neurologist, so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

That is not a typical case at all and I question the veracity of this story. Now, excessive consumption of alcohol, a perfectly legal drug, would indeed prevent someone from remembering such an event. But marijuana is not known to cause memory loss of this magnitude - usually it's small things like forgetting where you left your keys or something. Even if this story is true, that's just one person's reaction and many people do enjoy it. Not to mention that it's not like illegality of the drug stopped your brother from DOING IT ANYWAY.

You keep comparing marijuana to alcohol, like I said that alcohol is somehow better than marijuana. I know I didn't say that. I don't believe that the drug should be legalized for the reasons I stated above. Just like I said about the abuse of alcohol, abuse of marijuana should be criminalized, because cigarette abuse causes cancer and lung disease, they don't affect your ablity to operate machinery.

However, what is to be gained by making it illegal at all? People will still do it, and that's THEIR CHOICE. Some people enjoy it, just like some people enjoy alcohol, or fast food, or driving, or any other unhealthy activity. All that drug laws do is make a bunch of money for criminals and drive up prices for the users.

I think we agree there.

Alcohol abuse itself isn't criminalized as far as I know.

I don't see what your point is on the rest of this either.

• Driving under the influence of alcohol
• Disorderly conduct (you can get arrested for being drunk in a public area)

I'm sure that these laws are the result of alcohol abuse. People can abuse Marijuana just like alcohol, but they shouldn't be able to do it outside their home endangering other people. Heroin Abuse itself isn't illegal either, no abuse of any drug is, the following actions that abusing the drug causes, is.

My point for bringing up the cigarettes was to see the reverse side of making things that were once legal illegal, to bring up the reverse side of things to gauge a different perspective.

No, I can't, and I'm going to reject your anecdotal evidence on the following grounds:
-Marijuana is not in the slightest known to have such side effects
-Your brother was most likely not only on marijuana at the time
-Your brother probably had something to hide; if you get beaten up and "can't remember it", blaming pot is a hell of a lot easier than saying that, say, you're in an abusive relationship or something.
-It's an anecdote. One that goes against most scientific studies, by the way.

Is this how you debate, attacking me? I've done my research, and you should look at the preceding links above before you try and attack me this way. Your other points are personal assumptions not based on any facts therefore i'm disregarding them.

Bull****, it's entirely responsible. It's your own responsibility and nobody else's.

A drug that can affect your short term memory and motor skills is not responsible. Cursing isn't either.

Arguments to the status quo are usually bad... And yes, alcohol deserves to be legal, just like pot.

I'd like a debate, not a state-off. Please tell me why

Tobacco needs a massive national campaign against it because it's not in the same weight class as weed.

I'm sure that the "Drug War" that America is fighting is a national campaign against weed.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

Scientists confirm that marijuana increases the risk of psychosis

Marijuana use among adolescents and young adults increases the risk of psychosis, a new research confirms.

The study, published in (British Medical Journal) followed a record of 1,900 people over a period of 10 years.

Although the link between marijuana and psychosis is well established, so far it was unclear whether the drug caused the disorder or whether other factors.

The investigation found that marijuana use appears to be responsible for psychotic events.

The study was led by Professor Jim van Os, from the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands and included researchers from that country, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

The researchers excluded from the study, conducted in Germany, individuals who reported having used drugs or had pre-existing symptoms of psychosis at the beginning of the investigation.

The participants, aged between 14 and 24, were subjected to analysis to monitor their marihunana's use and psychotic symptoms three times during the 10 years of the study.

It found that marijuana use increased "significantly" the risk of psychotic symptoms, even when taking into account other factors such as socioeconomic status, other drug use and other psychiatric disorders.

The "Skunk"

Professor Robin Murray, a psychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, says that "the study supports the evidence that there is already showing that the use of traditional varieties of cannabis is a contributory cause of psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia."

According to the expert, this is one of 10 prospective studies that have pointed in the same direction.

However, he adds, does not answer the question of whether the skunk (a more potent variety of marijuana) and other drugs carry an increased risk of psychosis than traditional marijuana.

A study published in 2009 (British Journal of Psychiatry) found that people using skunk was more likely to develop psychosis than those who used less potent varieties of marijuana.

In a commentary in the same journal, experts from the universities of Queensland and Melbourne, Australia, reported that the prevalence of psychosis could be reduced by discouraging young people from using marijuana.

The experts also question the decision of the authorities of some countries, like Britain, criminalizing the use of this drug "despite the evidence shows that removal of these penalties has little or no effect on rates of use."

Source: BBC

 

[1048576]

You do not know what's better for me than I do. You should not prevent me from "harming" myself. End of discussion. If I want to jump off a cliff, I should be allowed to do so. That's what living in a free society means.

Whether or not marijuana causes psychosis/gout/AIDS is completely irrelevant.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't trust that sort of study at all.

Plus there's the whole dihydrogen monoxide argument - just because something can cause bad things doesn't mean that it is bad overall.

Plus what 1048576 said.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

A while back in some places attempted to implement something to open the posibilities for a better generation, by banning people from having children, (people with low (IQ) and with some sort of deseases), but that failed because it was attempting against the free will, and i'd make a slavery system somehow.

But I didn't want to write that, because I don't have that information to back it up.

Anyway, I agree with you with the "let me do what I want" somehow, but that may not be right in some cases, is not that I'm saying "Hey, allow everybody to use any drug they want" because at this point, I'm not sure anymore if it should be banned or not.

As I said before:

making them legal (drugs) may decrease crime a little, when it comes about big dealers.

But that's just assuming anyway.

 

[Xianglian]

Plus there's the whole dihydrogen monoxide argument - just because something can cause bad things doesn't mean that it is bad overall.

What?

 

[ballin4life]

What?

Look a bit earlier in the thread for an article about all the terrible things that dihydrogen monoxide can cause.

Then think about what dihydrogen monoxide is (hint: di = 2 mon = 1 )


The point is that just because something can cause harm in some cases doesn't mean that it is overall a bad thing.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Anyway, I agree with you with the "let me do what I want" somehow, but that may not be right in some cases, is not that I'm saying "Hey, allow everybody to use any drug they want" because at this point, I'm not sure anymore if it should be banned or not.

I'm not sure I understood the meaning behind this. "Let me do what I want--which is, smoke marijuana." in a culture which has essentially gotten more druggier? Or "People in this country are already drugged out, so why not just let marijuana be legal." I'm confused by your wording.

 

[Xianglian]

Look a bit earlier in the thread for an article about all the terrible things that dihydrogen monoxide can cause.

Then think about what dihydrogen monoxide is (hint: di = 2 mon = 1 )


The point is that just because something can cause harm in some cases doesn't mean that it is overall a bad thing.

Okay I think I understand a little, but eh....I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt since I can't really articulate why I don't necessarily agree with that last statement.

 

[ballin4life]

What do you mean?

For another example: I can focus only on the negatives of things like sports (injury) or fast food (being unhealthy to eat), but this does NOT mean we should ban these things.

 

[Sucumbio]

please disable sigs in the pg

 

[Xianglian]

What do you mean?

For another example: I can focus only on the negatives of things like sports (injury) or fast food (being unhealthy to eat), but this does NOT mean we should ban these things.

I agree with the statement when you put things into terms that way. Eating cheese burgers don't cause short term memory loss though. I'm just concern with the fact that legalizing any drug that has the potential to cause severe harm to the user and endanger those around them is not a smart idea.

Like when some stupid parents had their baby smoking weed with them while they were high. I'm not making a generalization about pot users. I know this is not what pot users do, this is just was stupid people do. But don't you think that because this drug is illegal we at least keep some people away? Laws do discourage people. We really don't need a bunch of idiots smoking weed to make them dumber.

please disable sigs in the pg

Either I'm dyslexic or I can't read, but I didn't see the forum rules thread in the Debate Hall. (Is there one?) I wont post my sig again, sorry.

 

[1048576]

Look at me. I'm legislating morality. Burn all the witches plz kthnx.

Parents should take care of their kids. This is uncontested. What is contested is where the **** you get off telling me what is good or bad for me, and then forcing me to follow your advise. You aren't my mother.

 

[~Tac~]

Look at me. I'm legislating morality. Burn all the witches plz kthnx.

Parents should take care of their kids. This is uncontested. What is contested is where the **** you get off telling me what is good or bad for me, and then forcing me to follow your advise. You aren't my mother.

I'm not sure whether you're talking about a specific person or speaking in generality towards a government perspective. o:

But anywho, that's always been controversial. Laws have always been in regard to "What's good for a population's majority".

 

[Dre89]

You do not know what's better for me than I do. You should not prevent me from "harming" myself. End of discussion. If I want to jump off a cliff, I should be allowed to do so. That's what living in a free society means.

Whether or not marijuana causes psychosis/gout/AIDS is completely irrelevant.

Should you be able to commit suicide if you have children depending on you?

 

[1048576]

Don't know. There's a conflict there. Please note that this hypothetical is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Before anyone says anything stupid, also note that you're allowed to drink alcohol. You aren't allowed to drop your kid on its head. If alcohol makes you drop your kid on its head, then you shouldn't drink alcohol. No need to legislate this and ruin it for everyone else. Just make the actual offending behavior illegal. What my lil strawman is implying is that we should make it illegal to be born because living people often commit crimes.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

I'm not sure I understood the meaning behind this. "Let me do what I want--which is, smoke marijuana." in a culture which has essentially gotten more druggier? Or "People in this country are already drugged out, so why not just let marijuana be legal." I'm confused by your wording.

By now I'm staying in a neutral point, until I find a good argument about this topic.

Spoiler

And again, sorry for my english, I'm still working on that.

 

[Xianglian]

Look at me. I'm legislating morality. Burn all the witches plz kthnx.

Parents should take care of their kids. This is uncontested. What is contested is where the **** you get off telling me what is good or bad for me, and then forcing me to follow your advise. You aren't my mother.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but no one is forcing you to do anything this is the debate hall, not the force-you-to-do-as-I-say hall.

 

[1048576]

Seriously? You can't be this stupid. Nobody's this stupid.

Just in case, I'm talking about people who think mood-altering substances like marijuana should be illegal; specifically those who use 'think of the children' as an argument. I'm explaining why I think their argument is invalid.

 

[Sucumbio]

Either I'm dyslexic or I can't read, but I didn't see the forum rules thread in the Debate Hall. (Is there one?) I wont post my sig again, sorry.

Yeah, it's stickied...

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=283951

-Please DISABLE all signatures. You can do this in the User CP or per-post by ensuring "Show your signature" is UNCHECKED under "Miscellaneous Options."

Just FYI in case you're not sure how to do it.

You did it again btw

 

[Xianglian]

Seriously? You can't be this stupid. Nobody's this stupid.

Just in case, I'm talking about people who think mood-altering substances like marijuana should be illegal; specifically those who use 'think of the children' as an argument. I'm explaining why I think their argument is invalid.

I don't think the fact that I was confused about who you were directing your comments to makes me stupid. Your post was incoherent and I wasn't the only person who did not know who you were directing the "you" in your previous posts to.

I'm still not exactly sure where you stand on this argument because your posts are erratic and hard to follow.

 

[1048576]

You do not know what's better for me than I do. You should not prevent me from "harming" myself. End of discussion. If I want to jump off a cliff, I should be allowed to do so. That's what living in a free society means.

Whether or not marijuana causes psychosis/gout/AIDS is completely irrelevant.

Then you were all 'Well marijuana causes bad parenting, which is bad.'
So I'm like 'I agree completely, bad parenting should be banned.'

We need a proving grounds for the proving grounds

 

[ballin4life]

Yo dawg I heard you like provin

so i put a proving grounds in yo proving grounds so you can prove yoself while you prove yoself

 

[_Keno_]

We dont need a proving grounds for proving grounds, its a good thing for people to show that they can easily and thoroughly dismantle poor arguments too.

Also, personal comments like "you cant be this stupid" dont really give you any points any anyone's book. In fact, probably the opposite.

 

[1048576]

I was being tongue-in-cheek with the pg for the pg (for the pg, repeat forever). This isn't even subtle.

I wasn't joking/flaming when I said "You can't be this stupid." I really thought he/she was trolling me.

Anyway I've voiced my opinion on the thread and right now it's the last one, sooo anyone disagree?

Edit: Just thought of an illustrative example. Suppose that everyone who uses marijuana is incapable of raising a child. I highly doubt that's the case but benefit of the doubt lets roll with it. Also suppose that everyone who drinks is incapable of operating a motor vehicle. This is also not strictly correct, but it's prolly a lot closer to reality. The solution to the latter is not to ban drinking. It's to ban driving while drunk. Similarly, we shouldn't ban marijuana. We should ban parenting while high.

(If parenting is a full time job then parents shouldn't smoke at all. This is is not a valid counterpoint.)

 

[ballin4life]

I sort of agree, but I would go further and say that you should just ban driving poorly/recklessly (and whatever the equivalent is for parenting)

 

[1048576]

edit, nvm...

 

[Xianglian]

I wasn't joking/flaming when I said "You can't be this stupid." I really thought he/she was trolling me.

For the record: She

Edit: Just thought of an illustrative example. Suppose that everyone who uses marijuana is incapable of raising a child. I highly doubt that's the case but benefit of the doubt lets roll with it. Also suppose that everyone who drinks is incapable of operating a motor vehicle. This is also not strictly correct, but it's prolly a lot closer to reality. The solution to the latter is not to ban drinking. It's to ban driving while drunk. Similarly, we shouldn't ban marijuana. We should ban parenting while high.

(If parenting is a full time job then parents shouldn't smoke at all. This is is not a valid counterpoint.)

First, marijuana is already illegal in the US. So i'm guessing your argument is for the legalization. The points you are making are similar to the points I was making, before you called me stupid. The specific argument that you pointed out was that of me pointing out that the law does discourage some people to stay away from the drug. A stupid person smoking weed is not the same as a smart person smoking weed. A stupid person is prone to doing more stupid things when high, and the law may discourage some of those idiots. That was my point.

Also, the very first post says:

Keep in mind, this is not a debate over whether or a certain drug should be legalized (although it certainly will turn it into such a debate), but a discussion of whether the government should allow people to have personal responsibility.

So this really shouldn't be a debate about legalization of any drug, specifically marijuana, but it turned into that, so...

 

[1048576]

Actually no those arguments I can respect, even the ones I disagree with. I questioned your sincerity when you said

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but no one is forcing you to do anything this is the debate hall, not the force-you-to-do-as-I-say hall.

as if anyone would ever claim otherwise.

As to that part of the OP, the question "should the govt. allow people to have personal responsibility?" is easily traced back into 'is freedom good?' at which point we can freely agree to disagree while philosophers and wanna-be philosophers masturbate all over the thread. I'm guessing that's why the thread has been ignoring it. My premise this whole time has been, 'Yes.'

 

[Xianglian]

we can freely agree to disagree while philosophers and wanna-be philosophers masturbate all over the thread.

It's turned into a Bukkake thread, then.

/lolbadjoke

 

[eschemat]

Time to play some Devil's Advocate now I guess....

What we can see is that everything the government does is in the interest of the large majority of society. This concept is know as utilitarianism, which means the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. I personally am comfortable with people smoking weed, but what we can see is that it not only bothers people but it also adds as a disease for the rest of society.

The thing about what has been said in the past five pages of this debate about marijuana is that it's a non-addicting drug, thus it should be legalized. What we can see is that our society as a whole doesn't condone the use of narcotics to make you happy because it makes you less useful to our society. So while you're talking about marijuana being a non-addicting, you're also saying that we need to lower the price to accommodate those who are addicted to marijuana, which as we can see is a logical fallacy.

Now, onto the matter of the majority vs minority on the whole. I think we can say that the majority of our society is very uncomfortable with smoking weed. It doesn't matter if you want to use harm principle to try and defend personal responsibility, the right of the majority of our society should be listened to. For example, in Quebec, Canada, women are not allowed to wear the niqab, a headdress certain religions use, within a school setting. Why? Because the majority of society didn't approve. While you can argue the fact that it's inherently morally wrong, the government has to adhere to the people's decisions because the government is built for the people and thus has to listen to the people.

While some say it's your prerogative to consume drugs, what we can really see is that it doesn't fit into our society. The smoking of marijuana is inherently something that is useless, and society does not condone of the use of it, so logically that gives warrant for the ban of marijuana and other drugs.

 

[ballin4life]

Time to play some Devil's Advocate now I guess....

What we can see is that everything the government does is in the interest of the large majority of society.

LOL NO.

Everything the government does is in the interest of the government, not the people in general. Otherwise we wouldn't have wars, PATRIOT act, etc.

This concept is know as utilitarianism, which means the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. I personally am comfortable with people smoking weed, but what we can see is that it not only bothers people but it also adds as a disease for the rest of society.

That definition of utilitarianism isn't even coherent. How do you choose between 10 utils for 100 people and 10000 utils for 1 person? Greatest good and greatest number are contradictory.

Homosexuality bothers people. Not being religious bothers people. The fact that my neighbor has a nicer car than me bothers me. Should we ban these things too? And I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "disease".

The thing about what has been said in the past five pages of this debate about marijuana is that it's a non-addicting drug, thus it should be legalized.

No. It should be legalized because people should be free to do what they want with their own bodies.

It just happens that marijuana in particular is MUCH less harmful than drugs that are already legal.

What we can see is that our society as a whole doesn't condone the use of narcotics to make you happy because it makes you less useful to our society.

Define useful, and prove this statement. The purpose of society is to make people happy, so if doing drugs makes people happy then I would say drugs are useful.

So while you're talking about marijuana being a non-addicting, you're also saying that we need to lower the price to accommodate those who are addicted to marijuana, which as we can see is a logical fallacy.

No. For one, this wouldn't be a logical fallacy, it would be an outright contradiction. But more importantly, NO ONE EVER SAID THIS. We should lower the price to accommodate USERS of marijuana, sure. But NO ONE said that we need to accommodate marijuana addicts, because people have been arguing instead that marijuana is barely addictive. There has been NO DISCUSSION of "marijuana addicts" at all.

Lower prices would help people that are addicted to other drugs though.

Now, onto the matter of the majority vs minority on the whole. I think we can say that the majority of our society is very uncomfortable with smoking weed. It doesn't matter if you want to use harm principle to try and defend personal responsibility, the right of the majority of our society should be listened to. For example, in Quebec, Canada, women are not allowed to wear the niqab, a headdress certain religions use, within a school setting. Why? Because the majority of society didn't approve. While you can argue the fact that it's inherently morally wrong, the government has to adhere to the people's decisions because the government is built for the people and thus has to listen to the people.

So majority rules is always the correct way to go, huh?

Guess that means you support slavery and the Nazis too, both of which were supported by the majority.

One of the founding principles of the US at least was the elimination of "tyranny of the majority" and the protection of individual rights.

While some say it's your prerogative to consume drugs, what we can really see is that it doesn't fit into our society. The smoking of marijuana is inherently something that is useless, and society does not condone of the use of it, so logically that gives warrant for the ban of marijuana and other drugs.

What if drug users don't want to fit into society? Why are you allowed to force them to "fit in" (according to your extremely arbitrary definition of "fit in")? And what about other things that didn't fit into society, like homosexuality, or being of a different skin color?

Saying that marijuana is useless is silly. It makes people happy. By your argument I can say that TVs and video games are useless, but they make people happy as well. That's why people use them.

 

[eschemat]

LOL NO.

Everything the government does is in the interest of the government, not the people in general. Otherwise we wouldn't have wars, PATRIOT act, etc.

That's not how the democratic system works at it's base. What a society really values in it's democratic society is how it gets to make it's own choices. If a democratic government didn't adhere by that, it is then known as dictatorship and a entity entirely different from true democratic values. The base of that argument is thus proven to be invalid.

That definition of utilitarianism isn't even coherent. How do you choose between 10 utils for 100 people and 10000 utils for 1 person? Greatest good and greatest number are contradictory.

Of course it's difficult to judge, but the fact is there isn't a numerical system based behind utilitarianism. It's a decision that is made by the government to judge it according to society's beliefs.

Homosexuality bothers people. Not being religious bothers people. The fact that my neighbor has a nicer car than me bothers me. Should we ban these things too? And I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "disease".

What is messing in your logic is the fact that sexuality and religion are both put into the Magna Carta as rights that need to be protected. You can't ban your neighbour having a nice car because it's you as an individual trying to input a ban on a large portion of society rather than the other way around. What I mean by disease is the fact that it lowers productivity of a society, which I'll explain later.

No. It should be legalized because people should be free to do what they want with their own bodies.

It just happens that marijuana in particular is MUCH less harmful than drugs that are already legal.

That argument is arguing for agency, so I guess I'll mainly address that. In philosophy, agency and structure are always in a battle. Agency means the acts of an individual versus the acts of a society. What we can see is that while free choice is fine and dandy to an extent, structure is something our society is made around. Structure is determined by society's values, so adhering to society's values like a democratic government should do is important.

Define useful, and prove this statement. The purpose of society is to make people happy, so if doing drugs makes people happy then I would say drugs are useful.

The purpose of any species is ultimately to evolve. That's how naturally we're programmed. Efficiency and doing things that are useful to our society, like being a working member which affects the economy positively is good. Consumption of drugs can get in the way of that by getting them addicted or spending their money on something that only contributes to an economy which is directly connected to illegal activity in other countries. USA can't just legalize it because the drugs are now legally able to be produced, allowing for smuggling in countries within the Americas that doesn't condone it.

No. For one, this wouldn't be a logical fallacy, it would be an outright contradiction. But more importantly, NO ONE EVER SAID THIS. We should lower the price to accommodate USERS of marijuana, sure. But NO ONE said that we need to accommodate marijuana addicts, because people have been arguing instead that marijuana is barely addictive. There has been NO DISCUSSION of "marijuana addicts" at all.

Lower prices would help people that are addicted to other drugs though.

Sorry, I made a mistake. All I'll say now is that lowering the costs of it are indeed going to make it available for more people because of lowered cost. Doesn't mean that it's right to give people access if it's not addictive because they don't need it. For example, within territories in Canada such as Nova Scotia, they ban online gambling because it makes gambling so much more accessible for the general public.

So majority rules is always the correct way to go, huh?

Guess that means you support slavery and the Nazis too, both of which were supported by the majority.

One of the founding principles of the US at least was the elimination of "tyranny of the majority" and the protection of individual rights.

Slavery and the Nazis yet again break the rules put out in the Magna Carta, so that's invalid.

Tyranny of the majority affects race groups, gender groups etc. primarily and isn't commonly used for groups who do things because those are choices made by those groups.

Consumption of drugs isn't classified as a right, it would be classified as a luxury.

What if drug users don't want to fit into society? Why are you allowed to force them to "fit in" (according to your extremely arbitrary definition of "fit in")? And what about other things that didn't fit into society, like homosexuality, or being of a different skin color?

Saying that marijuana is useless is silly. It makes people happy. By your argument I can say that TVs and video games are useless, but they make people happy as well. That's why people use them.

Fit in is to be a part of a society. To be able to fit within the structure of societal values is to fit in, and if you're not because of homosexuality or ethnicity, that is a serious issue because it violates the Magna Carta.

TVs and video games are also useless. My argument isn't that because it's useless it has a warrant to be banned; it's that drugs are harmful to society, goes against societal values and is useless. The useless part is necessary to show the fact that it's a choice you make thus isn't a right that has to be protected.

 

[ballin4life]

That's not how the democratic system works at it's base. What a society really values in it's democratic society is how it gets to make it's own choices. If a democratic government didn't adhere by that, it is then known as dictatorship and a entity entirely different from true democratic values. The base of that argument is thus proven to be invalid.

That's actually exactly how the democratic system works. It's maybe not how it is supposed to work.

Also you are clearly trying to make my choices for me by banning drugs.

Again, democracy doesn't automatically make things right. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, genocide, etc. have all been supported by democracy.

Of course it's difficult to judge, but the fact is there isn't a numerical system based behind utilitarianism. It's a decision that is made by the government to judge it according to society's beliefs.

And who gives the government this right to make choices for ME?

Anyway, just pointing out that the definition of utilitarianism that you used doesn't make sense.

What is messing in your logic is the fact that sexuality and religion are both put into the Magna Carta as rights that need to be protected. You can't ban your neighbour having a nice car because it's you as an individual trying to input a ban on a large portion of society rather than the other way around. What I mean by disease is the fact that it lowers productivity of a society, which I'll explain later.

Who put the Magna Carta in the Bible? Why is that particular document the standard for "rights that need to be protected"?

Also seriously, where is the part of the Magna Carta that protects homosexuality? I don't even think there is a part about freedom of religion either.

By the way, it's a very small minority of people that actually have nice cars.

That argument is arguing for agency, so I guess I'll mainly address that. In philosophy, agency and structure are always in a battle. Agency means the acts of an individual versus the acts of a society. What we can see is that while free choice is fine and dandy to an extent, structure is something our society is made around. Structure is determined by society's values, so adhering to society's values like a democratic government should do is important.

What if society's values include genocide/racism/insert other bad thing here?

The purpose of any species is ultimately to evolve. That's how naturally we're programmed. Efficiency and doing things that are useful to our society, like being a working member which affects the economy positively is good. Consumption of drugs can get in the way of that by getting them addicted or spending their money on something that only contributes to an economy which is directly connected to illegal activity in other countries. USA can't just legalize it because the drugs are now legally able to be produced, allowing for smuggling in countries within the Americas that doesn't condone it.

Whoa now you're going all Dre on me. I don't accept that the purpose of humans is to evolve, and it's not clear what "evolve" means in this context either. The biological process of evolution will happen no matter what humans do, so I don't think you can be talking about that.

Working in the economy is good, I agree. But the entire purpose of the economy is to satisfy demand. People want things like TVs, video games, medicine, food, etc. because these things make their lives happier. The economy produces these things to make people happy. The same is true of drugs. There's no clear distinction between video games and drugs. Both can certainly be negative for one's health and affect one's productivity, but both make people happy as well.

The part about exports doesn't really make sense. The US is free to have its own drug policy. There is already drug smuggling anyway. In fact, if drugs were produced legally within the US, many drug cartels in other countries would go bankrupt, leaving those countries much better off (since they won't be ruled by oppressive drug gangs).

Sorry, I made a mistake. All I'll say now is that lowering the costs of it are indeed going to make it available for more people because of lowered cost. Doesn't mean that it's right to give people access if it's not addictive because they don't need it. For example, within territories in Canada such as Nova Scotia, they ban online gambling because it makes gambling so much more accessible for the general public.

Online gambling should be legal too.

Slavery and the Nazis yet again break the rules put out in the Magna Carta, so that's invalid.

Tyranny of the majority affects race groups, gender groups etc. primarily and isn't commonly used for groups who do things because those are choices made by those groups.

Consumption of drugs isn't classified as a right, it would be classified as a luxury.

Again, what makes the Magna Carta the word of God here? And please show me the part of the Magna Carta that goes against slavery (considering that 99% of people back then were serfs, essentially slaves)?

Throwing people in prison because of what they do to their own bodies sounds pretty evil to me.

The problem of tyranny of the majority applies to a situation like religion, which is technically a choice. It applies to freedom of speech, which is a choice.

I didn't say specifically that everyone has a right to drugs. Sure, it is a luxury. I just don't think that anyone has the right to STOP ME from doing drugs, in the same way that they don't have a right to stop me from playing video games, or drinking caffeine, or posting on forums.

Fit in is to be a part of a society. To be able to fit within the structure of societal values is to fit in, and if you're not because of homosexuality or ethnicity, that is a serious issue because it violates the Magna Carta.

Seriously, what's with the Magna Carta? And I'm pretty sure they didn't allow homosexuality back then.

TVs and video games are also useless. My argument isn't that because it's useless it has a warrant to be banned; it's that drugs are harmful to society, goes against societal values and is useless. The useless part is necessary to show the fact that it's a choice you make thus isn't a right that has to be protected.

According to your definitions of "useless" and "harmful to society" and "societal values".

I can argue that video games are harmful to society and against societal values too. They prevent people from getting exercise and make them fat. They can give you carpal tunnel syndrome. They can be addictive.

The thing is though, that people like to play video games, so video games increase the amount of happiness in society.

 

[eschemat]

That's actually exactly how the democratic system works. It's maybe not how it is supposed to work.

Also you are clearly trying to make my choices for me by banning drugs.

Again, democracy doesn't automatically make things right. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, genocide, etc. have all been supported by democracy.

Exactly. My point is that the way I stated is how a democracy should work and is what we expect from the democratic system.

And who gives the government this right to make choices for ME?

Anyway, just pointing out that the definition of utilitarianism that you used doesn't make sense.

First of all, you, as a member of the voters, gave that right to the government.

Secondly, utilitarianism does make sense. If a formula was to be put on it, it would be amount of good multiplied by amount of people affected.

Who put the Magna Carta in the Bible? Why is that particular document the standard for "rights that need to be protected"?

Also seriously, where is the part of the Magna Carta that protects homosexuality? I don't even think there is a part about freedom of religion either.

By the way, it's a very small minority of people that actually have nice cars.

The Magna Carta isn't a passage put in the Bible. It's actually a treaty signed by the King of France I believe in 1215 which led to the creation of rights. The more modernized version would be something like the the universal declaration of rights by the United Nations. Conveniently, article 2 is:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

What if society's values include genocide/racism/insert other bad thing here?

I'll name the UN declaration rights instead of the Magna Carta now.

Whoa now you're going all Dre on me. I don't accept that the purpose of humans is to evolve, and it's not clear what "evolve" means in this context either. The biological process of evolution will happen no matter what humans do, so I don't think you can be talking about that.

Working in the economy is good, I agree. But the entire purpose of the economy is to satisfy demand. People want things like TVs, video games, medicine, food, etc. because these things make their lives happier. The economy produces these things to make people happy. The same is true of drugs. There's no clear distinction between video games and drugs. Both can certainly be negative for one's health and affect one's productivity, but both make people happy as well.

The part about exports doesn't really make sense. The US is free to have its own drug policy. There is already drug smuggling anyway. In fact, if drugs were produced legally within the US, many drug cartels in other countries would go bankrupt, leaving those countries much better off (since they won't be ruled by oppressive drug gangs).

When I talk about evolve, I'm talking about the process in which we're productive and create new inventions, new policies and other things of that such which inherently benefits others and future generations.

Now, about the role of the economy. Yes, the role of the economy is to satisfy demand based on what we buy. Drugs are entirely different to the economy; point one is the fact that it only benefits drug growers, which then propagates the problem of drugs. It's not a problem if drugs weren't considered a problem, but hopefully I've kinda convinced you about majority vs minority.

The thing about foreign policy is to show that it makes smuggling infinitely more easy. If one half of the border to Canada didn't care, logically it would be easier to smuggle into Canada.

Online gambling should be legal too.

To each his own.

Again, what makes the Magna Carta the word of God here? And please show me the part of the Magna Carta that goes against slavery (considering that 99% of people back then were serfs, essentially slaves)?

Throwing people in prison because of what they do to their own bodies sounds pretty evil to me.

The problem of tyranny of the majority applies to a situation like religion, which is technically a choice. It applies to freedom of speech, which is a choice.

I didn't say specifically that everyone has a right to drugs. Sure, it is a luxury. I just don't think that anyone has the right to STOP ME from doing drugs, in the same way that they don't have a right to stop me from playing video games, or drinking caffeine, or posting on forums.

Article 1 of the UN Declaration of Rights: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The problem with the use of drugs is not just specifically the taking of it, but also the fact that the government has to be consistent in it's image. When someone consumes drugs, it means that they got the drugs from somewhere and supported the person who produced the drugs.

Refer to article 2 posted above.

For the sake of the majority, yes, they have the right to make that decision. Drugs can't be condoned in our society. It's different from playing video games, drinking caffeine and posting on forums in the way that the majority is fine with these activities.

Seriously, what's with the Magna Carta? And I'm pretty sure they didn't allow homosexuality back then.

I'll refer to UN Declaration of Rights, article 2. Sorry for using these documents so much. In the Magna Carta, it also technically allows homosexuality but the church did not allow it.

According to your definitions of "useless" and "harmful to society" and "societal values".

I can argue that video games are harmful to society and against societal values too. They prevent people from getting exercise and make them fat. They can give you carpal tunnel syndrome. They can be addictive.

The thing is though, that people like to play video games, so video games increase the amount of happiness in society.

I think we've really reached the crux of the debate. I think that problem with drug consumption is not with the actual effects of it, but with two key points:

The decisions of the majority of society and whether or not we should adhere to them and the role of government in that case.

This is getting to be a pretty good debate.

 

[ballin4life]

Exactly. My point is that the way I stated is how a democracy should work and is what we expect from the democratic system.

Ok, but in reality that isn't how it works...

First of all, you, as a member of the voters, gave that right to the government.

Secondly, utilitarianism does make sense. If a formula was to be put on it, it would be amount of good multiplied by amount of people affected.

Nope. I've never voted, and I never signed any contract giving rights to the government.

Utilitarianism can be a consistent viewpoint, I'm just saying the particular definition you gave doesn't make sense.

Note also that you haven't proven that democracy or banning of drugs is best from a utilitarian standpoint.

The Magna Carta isn't a passage put in the Bible. It's actually a treaty signed by the King of France I believe in 1215 which led to the creation of rights. The more modernized version would be something like the the universal declaration of rights by the United Nations. Conveniently, article 2 is:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

I know what the Magna Carta is (it's actually England, not France), and I've actually seen an ancient copy of it in person. I was making a joke that you were treating it as the word of God. Why do the words of the Magna Carta or the UN matter to me? I have my own declaration of rights written up here, and it includes the right to manage your own body.

When I talk about evolve, I'm talking about the process in which we're productive and create new inventions, new policies and other things of that such which inherently benefits others and future generations.

Now, about the role of the economy. Yes, the role of the economy is to satisfy demand based on what we buy. Drugs are entirely different to the economy; point one is the fact that it only benefits drug growers, which then propagates the problem of drugs. It's not a problem if drugs weren't considered a problem, but hopefully I've kinda convinced you about majority vs minority.

Video game sales only benefit the makers of video games, which propagates the problem of video games.

I don't care about what the majority thinks. The majority might ban homosexuality, or not going to church, or whatever else, if you give it that power.

The thing about foreign policy is to show that it makes smuggling infinitely more easy. If one half of the border to Canada didn't care, logically it would be easier to smuggle into Canada.

I'm still confused by this "one half of the border" thing. What is that referring to? I even pointed out how neighboring countries would be better off if the US legalized drugs because it would put drug gangs out of business.

Article 1 of the UN Declaration of Rights: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

And yet you say that I am NOT FREE to do drugs.

Throwing me in prison for what I do with my own body sure sounds like its in the "spirit of brotherhood".

The problem with the use of drugs is not just specifically the taking of it, but also the fact that the government has to be consistent in it's image. When someone consumes drugs, it means that they got the drugs from somewhere and supported the person who produced the drugs.

Yes. At current, drug use supports violent gangs and criminals. If it were legal, it would support legitimate companies and put all those gangs out of business.

Refer to article 2 posted above.

Article 2 doesn't mention homosexuality, btw.

For the sake of the majority, yes, they have the right to make that decision. Drugs can't be condoned in our society. It's different from playing video games, drinking caffeine and posting on forums in the way that the majority is fine with these activities.

But if the majority weren't ok with video games, then it would be ok to ban them? Note that there are people who want to ban violent video games. Should they be allowed to?

What about the majority supporting book burning under the Nazis? Was that ok too?

I'll refer to UN Declaration of Rights, article 2. Sorry for using these documents so much. In the Magna Carta, it also technically allows homosexuality but the church did not allow it.

As I said before, the UN article 2 does not mention homosexuality. And I still highly doubt that the Magna Carta does either.

I think we've really reached the crux of the debate. I think that problem with drug consumption is not with the actual effects of it, but with two key points:

The decisions of the majority of society and whether or not we should adhere to them and the role of government in that case.

I'm saying that this gives the majority ridiculous amounts of power. You give an arbitrary line based on the UN Declaration of Rights, but you don't explain why that particular document is justified. Is it because the majority supports it? Obviously not, because then the majority could stop supporting it and go back to holding slaves. So what is the justification for drawing the line exactly at what is in the UN Declaration of Rights?

I also don't think the government represents the majority anyway.

 

[1048576]

I think that starting from utilitarianism and the general principle that people should make each other happy is fine. The argument now just becomes people shouldn't care that I'm smoking weed because x,y, and z instead of the govt. shouldn't care because x,y, and z. None of our posts really become irrelevant.

As far as someone producing less, you have to weigh in the fact that they would also consume less to achieve the same level of happiness. At that point you should be chastising not producing what you consume, not chastising something that might make you produce less, but also does other things.

Anyway I hate making long posts, so good luck guys.