XPost: talk.politics.drugs, alt.philosophy   
   From: nothanks@nowhere.com   
      
   "Dan Day"  wrote:   
   > "cybrwurm"  wrote in message   
   > news:100c4uv69iov93c@corp.supernews.com...   
   >> +   
   >> > On Jan8 Scott Miller replied: The main problem with legalizing   
   >> > pot, or any other recreational illegal drug is: that once its   
   >> > legalized, if it does turn out to be a mistake, society will   
   >> > have a hell of a time making it illegal again.   
   >> .   
   >>  da wurm sayeth: There will be no need to make it illegal again,   
   >> Scott. A society of free citizens is *infinitely* better than   
   >> a society of slaves living in fear. Liberty is not a mistake.   
   >> Sanity is not a mistake. Living under paranoia created by lies   
   >> and illusions is a mistake.   
   >   
   > Major P: Liberty is better than slavery.   
   > Minor P: Slavery comes from the illusion of smoking pot.   
   > Conclusion: Liberty is increased by smoking pot.   
   >   
   > Please. Your deduction of this issue (above) is pathetic. The   
   > syllogism that I can only see from your description is completely   
   > illogical and broken.   
      
   His argument wasn't deductive, it was inductive. He was responding   
   to the claim that legalizing pot might be a mistake because of the   
   difficulty of making pot illegal again.   
      
   p. A society of free citizens is *infinitely* better than a society of   
   slaves living in fear.   
      
   p. Liberty is not a mistake.   
      
   p. Sanity is not a mistake.   
      
   p. Living under paranoia created by lies and illusions is a mistake.   
      
   c. There will be no need to make [pot] illegal again [if it ever became   
   legal].   
      
   While it isn't the most cogent argument ever made, it is not "pathetic"   
   as you put it.   
      
   ...   
      
   >> Wasting billions of dollars fighting   
   >> a "war" that is a lose-lose situation for everyone is a mistake.   
   >   
   > A "lose-lose" situation? What is the alternative side (hence, the   
   > second "lose")?   
      
   The drug war is a winner for the state and certain special interest   
   groups. It is a loser for drug consumers.   
      
   >> .   
   >> > (Look at how badly prohibition worked).   
   >> .   
   >> >> Mike Helm answered: Look how badly it's "working" right now.   
   >> .   
   >>  Pot-prohibition benefits no one, other than the few big-time   
   >> dealers.   
   >   
   > So you wouldn't say it benefits people by alerting them of a substance   
   > that could potentially alter their lives drastically?   
      
   Prohibition doesn't "alert", it prohibits. Banning an innocuous plant   
   that has a mulitude of uses does not benefit the general public.   
      
   >The prohibition   
   > alerts people to an issue, and it doesn't just solely make it   
   > disappear.   
   >   
   >> The truth is that the cost of maintaining the illusion   
   >> that pot is mind-destroying, life-threatening, and will surely   
   >> destroy society if it is ever legalized, is just too damn high   
   >> to justify.   
   >   
   > Sure, however that is the *government's* conclusion on what pot will   
   > do. Attacking that extreme conclusion doesn't make your side right.   
   > However, the real conclusion (that it is mind-altering and   
   > health-hindering with potential future-impact) has the proof to stand.   
   >   
   >> .   
   >>  Now it's true that there may be an increase in pot use (and   
   >> abuse) when legalization kicks in, but once the novelty wears   
   >> off, consumption will decrease and level off, and the number of   
   >> regular users will thereafter remain a fairly stable minority.   
   >   
   > Boy, you have such a narrow idea of the future. Legalization could   
   > lead to not only higher use (not drastically higher, though), but it   
   > could lead to altering the contents of the drug or to other, adverse   
   > problems that could come with legalization.   
      
   I agree legalization would increase consumption, because of much lower   
   prices. But it doesn't follow that the contents of the drug would be   
   altered.   
      
   >> Society will not break down, or fall apart, and people will not   
   >> lose their will to do something constructive with their lives.   
   >> All such fears are groundless in the extreme.   
   >   
   > But things *will* change. Since you are not psychic, you cannot make   
   > such broad gaurantees. Of course, society most likely wouldn't break   
   > down, but society could change for the worse.   
      
   I don't see how. Please elaborate.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)