Economy Fix or Fail??

[devonin]

Ooh Korny, just as another scaling down of your figures, the same Miron study that you quoted earlier as saying that 30 billion dollars would be generated in government revenue was under the assumption that ALL drugs would be completely decriminalized and legalized for sale and use in the US.

Of the 30 billion, only 6.7 would actually be from marijuana. Again, 6.7 billion dollars is still a lot of money, but it's only 22% of the figures you quoted earlier.

[korny]

Fine. The original argument is will marijuana legalization fix our economy? Fix? No. Help? Yes. Like previously stated and unanswered, California, can generate $1.3 billion dollar a year alone from marijuana. With this information, i think that it is more than safe to assume that taxing marijuana will generate additional billions and billions with all the previous information and statistics provided. I don't see where the argument lies anymore regarding whether it'll really help or not.

And i already stated that I doubt it would really create as much as 30 billion dollars.

Also, I could smoke 8 pounds of weed and not die.

[devonin]

I guess it's time for another round of "Devonin explains what he does in CT"

The thing that Chuckman seemed unable to grasp is that I'm not trying to "win" and I'm not in any danger of "losing" because I'm not actually debating my view against you. What I do in CT is try to foster in depth analysis and real questioning of one's position.

If all you want to do is prove you are right and "win" you'll have to engage other users of the forum on the subject. The only reason you don't also see me attacking the logic of the people who oppose your view is that, basically, nobody else is opposing your view.

Go have a look at any of the religion threads in this forum and in chit-chat, and you'll see that I'm just as likely to be arguing on one side as the other in any given post.

What I'm doing by pointing out flaws in your logic, and reasoning as I perceive them, is trying to help you to be more critically aware of your own reasons for taking the stance that you do. Do you think in a future discussion of why it would make economic sense to legalize marijuana you'll say that Miron says it could generate 30 billion dollars in government revenue now? I hope not. Saying he found it would generate 6.7 billion dollars in government revenue is still a -STRONG- argument that legalization would make economic sense, but in perhaps a more formal or heated debate, you won't get called out later for misrepresenting his findings.

I like to think, in my less modest moments, that I provide a useful service to this forum by poking holes in the arguments of -anybody- whose argument seems to warrant it, and by so doing, encourage everyone to be more critical and analytical about their arguments in the future.

It took me 2 pages before I actually spelled out my own poisition on marijuana (Which is far more simliar to yours than it is dissimilar) only because several posters were reacting as if, by suggesting flaws in their reasoning, I must be vehemently opposed to their view.

I'm perfectly willing to argue any side of any issue I know much of anything about, and believe me, if there had been a strong back and forth between say, Korny and Guidohunter (Since he expressed some opposition to the view as well) I'd have been just as keen to nitpick at Guido's side as well.

I want to be a facilitator in this forum, keeping the threads active and keeping the brains working. Not the "winner" of "fights"

[devonin]

And I wonder how quickly your stance will change when you get into a major auto-wreck and learn that the guy on the other side crashed into you because he was smoking marijuana.

Except if there actually is evidence to support that, for example, driving while under the influence of marijuana is unsafe or even just less safe than not, who says legalization of marijuana won't include the implementation of a law against driving while using it?

Alcohol is legal for consumption, you can even legally consume it excessively, there are just strict limits on what you can do while you're drinking, and that includes no driving, or operating heavy machinery, heck it includes -walking outside- while drunk.

I can't imagine a decriminalization of marijuana without at least some legislation of things you aren't allowed to also do at the same time.

[TC_llama499]

Originally Posted by Saik0Shinigami

This number is given for the current usage of marijuana. ".25%" of the CURRENT USERS who have heart attacks are due to marijuana use.

Sorry, but to me this screams "we should NEVER legalize this." That "fact" you given proves that the drug can affect you enough to KILL YOU AND OTHERS AROUND YOU(example: driving). A drop in blood pressure can easily make you light headed.

so whats your view on alcohol and cigarettes then? because im sure those don't kill anyone right? And just because it would be legalized it would still have laws and boundaries. A DUI is a DUI no matter what you are intoxicated bye, ie alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs.

Originally Posted by Saik0Shinigami

Someone also stated somewhere in this thread "an ounce will put you sleep". So if the drug is legalized, manufactured at cheaper rates, and used more; how many people will use more than an ounce and drive, or do anything that requires you to actually be awake?

actually the government would not be selling it at cheaper rates. the point of legalizing it is so they can TAX it and make a profit to help us out with our debt. You also make it sound like just because it will become a legal substance that it is going to be abused by everyone. Yes there will probably be a few people who will do this, but i assure you that there is no mind altering substance that is legal that isn't being abused.

[korny]

Were I on another computer and not my Wii where I have to click on letters I'd add a lot more. What I am going to point out is that I find it ironic that you say you don't want to be around cigarettes just because of the smell and not the second hand smoke when it causes cancer and weed does not.

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by devonin

Words

Yes whatever, I get your masterful art of weaving logic and legalese.

It comes down to simple pragmatism why the drug should be made legal, and there is a pretty simple to draw economic trade-off.

Your choice, and this is a dichotomy, is between:

1. Drug lords and smugglers making egregiously high profits on the basis of illegality whilst police are sinking costs into combating their own, otherwise for the most part law abiding, populace. These profits going to groups that stranglehold the security structure of developing nations, the most vivid examples being Mexico, Columbia.

2. A greater number of people who drive high, greater availability to minors, increased danger on the roadways, increased alcohol poisoning deaths.

There is no cohesive empirical evidence to suggest marijuana is a gateway drug that I have ever seen.

Your call, sarge.

[A2P]

This is going to be off topic, but it's worthwhile to note:

Originally Posted by devonin

I want to be a facilitator in this forum, keeping the threads active and keeping the brains working. Not the "winner" of "fights"

I would also like to add that you can have an opinion all you want, but what makes one valuable is reason. Any opinion can and will be attacked by criticism. It is up to your reason to give your opinion value.

And without criticism, there would be no reason for logic and knowledge. People would be allowed to say whatever they want, and without an opposing view, it would be accepted no matter how silly or ignorant the notation might be.

[devonin]

Yes whatever, I get your masterful art of weaving logic and legalese.

Your call, sarge.

Clearly you didn't get it.

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by devonin

Clearly you didn't get it.

I got it, but it's better to think of legalization as trade-offs than it is to think of it in a system of legality and morality. At least I'm far too pragmatic to look at it any other way. Maybe it's because I'm a practical nihilist who can only gauge things on their results, it doesn't really matter.

Clearly we aren't doing very much in stopping either marijuana supply or demand, clearly we are turning a large contingent of the American people into criminals without really them putting anyone else in danger through the act of smoking weed, and clearly there is a negative ramification of its illegality: it creates enough of a profit margin for it to support organized criminal enterprise. There is nothing inherent in the marijuana that creates this profit margin. The illegality is the dominant factor. And the illegality of it is also what feeds into its own illegality: the fact that buying it supports criminal enterprise.

I'm sorry if I'm blind to your arguments, but it's because the whole issue seems very simple and I can't seem to get past the idea of what is the trade-offs for legalization. Call it myopic. Call it unlearned. Call it illogical.

[devonin]

Instead I call it "directed at which words exactly?"

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by devonin

Instead I call it "directed at which words exactly?"

The ones I skimmed.

[Vendetta21]

Up until my first reply I thought this was TGB. I wouldn't have come into this if I thought it was CT because then I would have actually felt compelled to care, and the effort is beyond me. Sorry Big D. You made formidable points, I guess I mostly caught your stuff about law breaking in the skim, and that still doesn't settle with me because I don't know if I agree with your view of the legal system in its entirety.

Changing laws has many forms, and one of them being that when a law is not something the populace follows and that law is not protecting other individuals, it is often changed on that basis in a supreme or national appellate court or through legislation. Sometimes law breaking is the way a law can be changed, given special criterion.

I'm not arguing the current state of legality of the drug, I'm saying very few people respect the law in this case, and the law isn't effectively stopping anyone who wants to smoke pot. I'm 20 and it is easier for me to get marijuana than it is alcohol. Now this isn't the rule, but it is a microcosm of the greater culture among people in my age range (16-20.) In legal systems they have something called practice versus policy, which often can dictate outcomes in cases about policy: when the practice does not follow or conform to the policy it can grant gravity for someone arguing against the policy. This has more to do with contract law than criminal law, but I think it's a good analogy for how I feel about legality in this case. Not all cases though, just this one.

I understand the legal distinctions here: the police aren't necessarily ignoring the policy, therefore the practice does not supersede the policy. But police are increasingly turning an eye to the lower levels of marijuana crime. And this is worth noting.

Lastly worth noting is that one philosophy of the legal system is about the intention of laws rather than the laws themselves, and that when a law does not produce its intended effect it needs to be changed to do so. Legislators often change traffic laws in their jurisdiction because either the traffic system has changed or the law was not working as intended. What is the intended effect of the marijuana law?

[devonin]

Well my issue is that by skimming only, you basically completely missed the whole thing about how I'm personally actually FOR the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use. I just happen to -also- feel that if legalized, there should also be some standards and limits put on its use in the same way that alcohol has standards and limits on its use.

[kommisar[os]]

legalizing would obviously relieve a lot of financial stress what with the incredible amounts they spend to try and prevent the use; however, this alone is far from sufficient to fix the entire economy.

i also agree that it would need the same amount of restrictions as alcohol, but this would also bring out the people against it and those who would prefer not to get baked off second hand smoke.

[korny]

You can't get high off of second hand smoke. I mean technically you could, but the amount needed would be very expensive and it would have to be in a small contained area. I understand what you're saying though about everything else.

[chuckman]

hahah everyone devonin is a built debater...he'll never be right, at the some token, he also will never be wrong...he'll just stand behind his idea until everyone gives up....thats how he is...in my opinion lmao!

[x After Dawn x]

Originally Posted by korny

You can't get high off of second hand smoke. I mean technically you could, but the amount needed would be very expensive and it would have to be in a small contained area. I understand what you're saying though about everything else.

Actually, you can get slightly high off second-hand smoke fairly easily. Try walking downtown at night in Vancouver.

[korny]

Interesting. I smoked an eighth ounce of blunts in my old minivan and a girl who was with us wasn't smoking and didn't get high from the session and blunts allow way more THC to escape than do pipes.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by chuckman

hahah everyone devonin is a built debater...he'll never be right, at the some token, he also will never be wrong...he'll just stand behind his idea until everyone gives up....thats how he is...in my opinion lmao!

That's called stubbornness; that's not really what devonin is doing. He's pointing out the logical holes he sees in other people's arguments, regardless of whether or not he agrees with the general proposition being put forward.