Answering the Libertarian argument for drug legalization

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Goooh

People's inability to regulate and take responsibility for their consumption is what ruins lives. Just like people kill people, not guns. Your argument is one thy furthers the nanny state, basically people shouldn't be responsible for their poor decisions. We are talking marijuana here, not heroin. And pot doesn't lead to heroin, being a dumba** with no self control leads to heroin.

You had kids in your class that would have been flunkies anyway, don't blame pot. I smoked pot recreationally and am wound pretty dang tight, and am doing well for myself. Do I still smoke? No. Can I every now and then and still maintain my lifestyle? Absolutely!

Tell me all about how many lives alcohol has ruined. Surely not more than pot?????? Yes, next question.

This^^, alcohol is much worse in my opinion, and its legal. It was once illegal however


"It's organic, don't panic" hahahaha

[Goooh]

This is a classic case of "debates don't ever change a person's viewpoint, they only entrench people further in them".

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Montauk17

X2...MG,can you tell me your opinion on why hemp is illegal? It has no effects like weed and the list of products that can be made from it is almost endless.

The reasons behind the outcome of any political process or seldom simple or easily summarized, especially decades after the event when the more readily available histories have all been revised and doctored to influence contemporary decision making. I haven't looked hard enough into documentation closer to the original event to sort out likely contributing factors and their magnitude from the later revisions more motivated by desire for change.

Does whether or not gun control had racist origins impact the wisdom or rightness of current gun control efforts? The case for RKBA can be made from the 2nd amendment, from fundamental considerations of how liberty and political power should work in a Constitutional Republic, from the Bible, and from consideration of man's natural right to self-defense from tyrants and criminals.

Likewise, regardless of whether or not drug laws put in place many decades ago were influenced by ulterior motives and corporate money, the wisdom and rightness of each current drug law can be assessed and considered without depending on decades old history which may not be accurate. I've already stated my support for repealing most Federal drug laws, because (not involving interstate commerce), regulation via Federal legislation is an overreach of Federal power. Laws regulating possession, use, and intrastate transfers of drugs should be a state level issue, driven by the needs, values, and interests of each individual state. If the passing of the overreaching Federal laws was unduly influenced by competing fiber industries, then this is even more evidence that the matter should have been handled at the state level.

The case for the degree of regulation of any specific drug should be informed by all the available scientific evidence, by the expected impact and effects of the proposed regulation (or de-regulation) on the people of Louisiana, and by the values and moral compass of the people of Louisiana.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Have you seen some of Louisiana's public schools? This is an everyday occurence, where I went to junior high in Monroe was a war zone. Monroe City school teachers up there get paid higher than Oua****a Parish teachers and they jokingly refer to it as 'combat pay' and that is all over the state

I am a proud graduate of Jefferson Parish public schools, and in my life attended pubic schools in Caddo, Plaquemines, Calcasieu, and East Baton Rouge Parishes.

I've also seen inside of schools in a number of other states as a parent and/or a teacher. Louisiana has some problems, to be sure. But one thing I consistently like about Louisiana schools is their tendency to honor parental wishes.

My experience is that if a Louisiana parent has a problem with a curricular issue like sex ed or evolution or whatever, the child will be excused. Likewise if a parent wants to keep a child out of an extracurricular activity due to an issue of conscience or as a behavioral consequence, Louisiana schools do not present a problem. Additionally, I could not imagine a Louisiana school giving a parent grief if they kept their child home for a few days having identified some safety threat at the school (bullying, harassment, drugs, etc.) Finally, Louisiana is very friendly to home schooling.

In contrast, my experience with schools in other states is that they want to be the arbiters of what is best for each child. If the school has decided on a sex ed or evolution curriculum, then the parent becomes the enemy for asking that their child be excused. If extra curriculars have a minimum academic requirement for participation, then a parent is somehow harming her child or the team by parental enforcement of higher academic requirements for participation. If a school decides their classrooms, locker rooms, and hallways are sufficiently safe from bullying, harassment, and drugs, then the parent becomes their enemy by suggesting otherwise. And other states are much more likely to view home schooling as a threat, either to their funding, their pride, or to their access to brainwashing children in liberal ideals.

The most egregious example was several years ago when a principal intended to fire me (a math teacher in the high school) for reporting to parents that their teenagers were discussing weekend drug use in my classroom and suggesting that the parents might drug test their children using widely available at home drug tests. (OK, she was also mad that I bought a bunch of drug test kits and offered to give them to parents.) What is the problem in a free society with a math teacher better empowering parents to maintain reasonable boundaries regarding drug use of their minor children? The principal thought that the training of school children regarding drug use was the sole province of the government and wanted to restrict rather than empower the role of parents. She was scared that a teenager might be spanked as a result of a positive drug test. Wow!

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Montauk17

Why not go after the pharmaceutical drug company's? I have seen it first hand how the system gets abused and MILLIONS of people are addicted to these drugs. Most of them have horrible side effects.

False dichotomy.

[mcjaredsandwich]

Mathgeek have you ever smoked weed?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

Mathgeek have you ever smoked weed?

No, unless you count second hand smoke at Mardi Gras. I inhaled.

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

False dichotomy.

If you say so buddy....oh well I'm going fishing,peace out!

[MathGeek]

We hear a lot from those advocating the legalization of recreational and performance enhancing drugs that alcohol is legal and that marijuana is much more dangerous. Furthermore, we hear that prohibition (rather than the drugs themselves) is the cause of crime associated with illegal drugs.

There are several fallacies here that need exposing. First of all, the idea that even if alcohol were "more dangerous" that marijuana would then be "safe." First of all, there is not a one dimensional safety scale. A 0.1% blood alcohol level may impair motor control and driving more than a barely measurable THC content, but the technical challenges of determining and regulating what levels of THC content may impair driving is a bigger technical challenge. Colorado has legalized marijuana, but has not passed any limit on blood THC content with respect to driving. Somehow, I doubt allowing people in Colorado to drive with no limit to the amount of THC in their blood is going to make Colorado roads safer. Their 0.08 blood alcohol limit is strictly enforced.

Secondly, even while cannabis may not present the same long term health risks as alcohol, it presents even greater risks for dangerous sexual behavior (especially among teenagers) when compared with control groups who do not use cannabis. And we're not talking about just "fooling around" that is present in the lives of most teenagers. These studies document cannabis leading to much higher occurance of the riskiest behaviors (from a public health viewpoint): multiple partners, sex without condoms, anal sex, production of pornography (including minors), and predatory sexual behaviors, (sex without consent, greater age and experience differences between partners). Sure, alcohol abuse also has potential for risky sexual behaviors, but should this mean we legalize weed or that we better inform our teenagers and better enforce existing laws regarding access to both?

We've got plenty of dry counties and dry parishes in the south, and I don't see the prohibition of alcohol causing a lot of crime in those areas. Drugs (all types) have the potential to motivate both access crimes and consequence crimes. Marijuana and alcohol are both relatively inexpensive and easy to get for an adult with the right connections and a car. Most local crime and destructive behavior related to cannabis and booze are consequence issues: driving under the influence, risky sexual behavior (or no consent), domestic violence, firearms possession under the influence, and all the other stupd stuff men tend to do when drunk, high, or stoned.

One other big factor in my dislike for cannabis is the scientific fact that THC never leaves the brain. Unlike alcohol, which is metabolized from the body in a matter of hours, THC from every joint ever smoked will remain in the fat between your brain cells until you die. Brain function and cognitive abilities (IQ) have been shown to be imparied long after cannabis use has stopped, and these effects are even more pronounced for users under the age of 21, whose brains are still developping. Sure, there are occasionally great scientists who have been users (though there is no support for the assertion that Einstein was an opium abuser), but most students find the math and science of a normal college preparatory curriculum hard enough without the added impariment of cannabis.

It is also revealing what we don't hear from legalization advocates:

We do not hear that providing drugs to minors should remain a felony, as it is today. They make no effort to deny our reasonable inference that access to drugs by minors may become as easy and unrestricted as access to cigarettes and pornography are today.

We don't hear that insurers and employers should be at liberty to implement whetever level of drug testing they deem necessary to limit their risk.

We don't hear that (just like alcohol) blood THC limits can be established and strictly enforced to reduce the incidence and risks of people driving under the influence.

We don't hear that folks burdening the healthcare and welfare systems due to drug use and/or subsequent risky sexual behaviors should be denied care because they assumed the risks.

We don't hear that folks who lose their jobs due to drug abuse will be denied unemployment and welfare benefits.

We don't hear that mechanisms should be in place to ensure people do not use food stamps, medicare, or other government benefits to acquire drugs.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

As a parent, the legalization of cannabis would make it more challenging to raise drug-free children.

As a teacher, more widely available cannabis would make teaching college Calculus and Physics much more challenging. Working at an institution with random drug testing of students would be a definite advantage. Maintaining a level of learning while drug use is on the rise can easily become a bricks without straw situation.

As a citizen, I am concerned about the continued dumbing down of American education, which I see as accelerating rapidly if drug use increases among high school and college students. I do not envision drug users being better informed voters, better able to apply Constitutional principles to practical questions, or more likely to be givers rather than takers. I also do not foresee more intelligent or thoughtful jury decisions.

As a driver, I am concerned that drug legalization will increase the risks of chemically challenged drivers on the road.

As a consumer of medical insurance, I am concerned that drug legalization will drive up my costs.

As a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, I am concerned that drug legalization will lead to more careless use of firearms by gun owners who are using drugs, and that these incidents will be manipulated to infringe on the rights of drug-free gun owners.

As a former DoD civilian, I am concerned that drug legalization will hinder the recruitment and retention of a drug free fighting force.

As an angler, I do not think the legalization of drugs for oil field and chemical industry workers will reduce the chances of oil spills and other environmental disasters.

As a law abiding resident, I am concerned that drug legalization will hinder the recruitment and retention of drug free law enforcement officers.

The expanded use of recreational and performance enhancing drugs during my lifetime has not been a blessing to my country. As a father, I do not see how legalizing drugs for recreational and performance enhancing uses will leave a better country for my children or my grandchildren.

God bless Louisiana.

God bless Texas.

May they pry our drug laws out of our cold, dead fingers.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.... where to start...

What will be affected by the legalization of weed. Well for one thing i know that your sense of paranoia is not going to affected by legalization, you already have that covered. As a matter of fact one of the purported side effects of OVERINDULGENCE in weed is a heightened level of paranoia.... Maybe your right MG... we really do need to keep you away from that stuff.

Because you... becoming any more paranoid, and conjecturing any more "chicken little sky is falling" fallacies.... man, now that's a scary thought!

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

No, unless you count second hand smoke at Mardi Gras. I inhaled.

I suppose your a hardcore dope fiend now. tell the truth MG... for 10 years after this accidental ingestation of the "devils" breath.. you went on a spree of stealing purses from little old lady's, it caused you to flunk out of and fail college, and you became a habitual child pornography connoisseur.

Yeah.. that sounds just about as likely as do all the world is going to end scenario's that you have laid out.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I am a proud graduate of Jefferson Parish public schools, and in my life attended pubic schools in Caddo, Plaquemines, Calcasieu, and East Baton Rouge Parishes.

I've also seen inside of schools in a number of other states as a parent and/or a teacher. Louisiana has some problems, to be sure. But one thing I consistently like about Louisiana schools is their tendency to honor parental wishes.

My experience is that if a Louisiana parent has a problem with a curricular issue like sex ed or evolution or whatever, the child will be excused. Likewise if a parent wants to keep a child out of an extracurricular activity due to an issue of conscience or as a behavioral consequence, Louisiana schools do not present a problem. Additionally, I could not imagine a Louisiana school giving a parent grief if they kept their child home for a few days having identified some safety threat at the school (bullying, harassment, drugs, etc.) Finally, Louisiana is very friendly to home schooling.

In contrast, my experience with schools in other states is that they want to be the arbiters of what is best for each child. If the school has decided on a sex ed or evolution curriculum, then the parent becomes the enemy for asking that their child be excused. If extra curriculars have a minimum academic requirement for participation, then a parent is somehow harming her child or the team by parental enforcement of higher academic requirements for participation. If a school decides their classrooms, locker rooms, and hallways are sufficiently safe from bullying, harassment, and drugs, then the parent becomes their enemy by suggesting otherwise. And other states are much more likely to view home schooling as a threat, either to their funding, their pride, or to their access to brainwashing children in liberal ideals.

The most egregious example was several years ago when a principal intended to fire me (a math teacher in the high school) for reporting to parents that their teenagers were discussing weekend drug use in my classroom and suggesting that the parents might drug test their children using widely available at home drug tests. (OK, she was also mad that I bought a bunch of drug test kits and offered to give them to parents.) What is the problem in a free society with a math teacher better empowering parents to maintain reasonable boundaries regarding drug use of their minor children? The principal thought that the training of school children regarding drug use was the sole province of the government and wanted to restrict rather than empower the role of parents. She was scared that a teenager might be spanked as a result of a positive drug test. Wow!

GREAT********>> however last time i checked your personal experiences do not trump scientific study.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Goooh

This is a classic case of "debates don't ever change a person's viewpoint, they only entrench people further in them".

Very true, and i can honestly assure you at about 1 page into this I realized there was no changing MG's mind.

However people reading through this who are either undecided, or uninformed, can reference the different statements and supporting evidence given throughout and thereby form their own opinion.

That's the hidden gem making every debate worthwhile.

[eman]

When i was a scout leader ,we had a drug counselor volunteer to come in and talk to our cub scouts about the dangers of drugs. Once he started talking i realised that he was just quoting facts and figures that came from books.
The boys looked like they were bored out of their minds, so interrupted him and asked him, What real life experiences can you tell these boys
about the dangers of using drugs? he stated that he had never taken a drink or used any drugs in his life. I told him thank you and that he was no longer needed to speak at this time.
he lost it. Tried to explain that he knew all about how drugs worked and what they could do by studying books.
He left and 3 weeks later we had an addict who had lost his family and done prison time because of cocain come speak to the boys. He made his points and did it w/ purpose. The boys paid attention when he spoke and it seemed to me were absorbed in it.

[AceArcher]

Well Mathgeek you seem to have abandoned science, and instead are drawing solely on statement likes "in my experience" "i have seen" etc.

Certainly with the occasional link to a study by some deeply polarized group.

Since this is the path that you have chosen, I am going to take a little minute here to tell you about my experience. Let me give you my version of your "I have seen"

As i posted previously on this Forum, I recently had to put my mother in the hospital for an extended period. Happily she is home again now.

She suffer's from Alzheimer's disease. If your like i was 5 years ago you probably think of that in terms of "oh that's where you forget who people are and if they are related to you"

That's not an untrue statement. What a lot of people don't know, is that it get's much, much worse. You forget the meaning of signals that your body sends to your mind, signals like being hungry, need to use the restroom, what food should feel like as you swallow it, what drink should feel like.

From discussions with her doctor my "rough" understanding is that because all these things are "forgotten" they feel very odd each time the person does them, and as a result many patients choose not to do them.

That's why my mother was in the hospital, She stopped eating & drinking "everyone just assumed she was snacking when we were not looking) When we realized there was a major problem after about 2 weeks and took her to the hospital she was basically on deaths door. Dehydrated, lost almost 30lbs... etc.

We have known about her alzheimers for some time now, and she has been taking both namenda & aricept to "combat" the disease. Frankly they have done less than nothing. After many discussions with her doctor, and research on these two drugs the basic conclusion that you can come up with is that the medical community believes that both of these drugs do offer some benefit... but that they have been completely unable to measure that benefit at all. Bad news is that they do have some side effects as well.........

So just in the last two days (since mom's been home from hospital) (and since we have started this nice little community discussion) I have been doing a heck of a lot of internet searches on both alzheimer's and cannabis research.

Guess what the ONLY drugs worldwide are that have been SHOWN (MEDICALLY STUDIED) to not only combat further degeneration of the brain in alzheimers patients, but to actually reverse some of the brain degeneration in alzheimers patients. Yup they are Cannabinoids, which are the portions of the cannabis plant that are not THC... you know the other stuff that doesn't get you high.

From what i am seeing there has been extensive research done by the British http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190031/

And Israel http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ne...4#.Ug-0apLVWOs

Even gupta's recent documentary on weed discusses some of the above.

"WEED": A Dr. Sanjay Gupta Special - CNN Documentary *HD* - YouTube

"WEED": A Dr. Sanjay Gupta Special - CNN Documentary *HD* - YouTube

I provided a short link on each location to give you a short overview on what they are working on.

I called her doctor and inquired with him on this yesterday afternoon. I wanted to find out whether he knew of these studies and to get his opinion on them, and if it was a positive one would we be able to find a way to participate in them. I also asked him about a study on something called Sativex, which is a drug that another member here told me about being in trials in the US. He advised me that he was aware of the all the studies, and that Sativex was showing great promise for Alzheimer's, and other diseases of the brain. Sadly he informed me that there was no chance for my mother to be included in these studies as the State considers it a felony to make use of any portion of the cannabis plant. Whether the portions used are the pshyco-reactive ones or not. Whether its used for medical purposes or not. No use is allowed and punishments exceed what violent person on person crime receives.

So i'm curious, Is this medicine which is completely totally and utterly not psycho-reactive. Which can potentially give my mom a chance to meet and actually remember her grandchildren, as well as have some possible better level quality of life than she does currently. Is it possible that anyone could want........no even demand... that my mother should have no chance to benefit from this?

A drug which if it works as stated by scientific study, could keep my mother from an unknowing self inflicted death by starvation. I guess the alternative to that is we just stick a feeding tube in her and let her veg out on some opiates which are perfectly legal?

Would anyone here actually think .... That's a good way to handle it.

I'm done with this discussion, MG although none of the facts presented in it may have changed your mind one bit, I have never the less still enjoyed the discussion.

I kindly ask that you not offer a rebuttal to what i have written above. If you believe that all forms of Cannabis should remain completely illegal, Then i ask that you hold on to that belief and not respond to me about the above with something along the lines of "sorry to hear.....but...."

If you wish to continue this discussion with others then by all means... (I just asking that you not reference my situation, please)

I hope that people who read through this, make solid decisions based on everything discussed.

I also share in the hope that Louisiana voters are smart, and pray that they are also compassionate.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.... where to start...

What will be affected by the legalization of weed. Well for one thing i know that your sense of paranoia is not going to affected by legalization, you already have that covered. As a matter of fact one of the purported side effects of OVERINDULGENCE in weed is a heightened level of paranoia.... Maybe your right MG... we really do need to keep you away from that stuff.

Because you... becoming any more paranoid, and conjecturing any more "chicken little sky is falling" fallacies.... man, now that's a scary thought!

x2

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I am a proud graduate of Jefferson Parish public schools, and in my life attended pubic schools in Caddo, Plaquemines, Calcasieu, and East Baton Rouge Parishes.

I would bet that most of those schools you went to have changed and not for the better since you went there

[Duck Butter]

There are just some things that can't be taught, but 'the world will teach you what your mama can't'

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

x2

What are neutral observers to make of a debate when one side resorts to personal attacks?

When I am asking for reasoned evidence and folks to back up their claims, and instead I receive insults, I tend to start thinking that the cupboard might be bare.

[Clampy]

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1376769048.434646.jpg

Please just let this dude talk to himself. No one cares. Any person with common sense and google can see that he is wrong.