XPost: talk.politics.drugs, alt.philosophy   
   From: hb_raz@NOSPAMhotmail.com   
      
   "Manny Davis"  wrote in message   
   news:Xns9471A4E567861nothanksnowherecom@68.1.17.6...   
   > "Dan Day"  wrote:   
   > > "cybrwurm"  wrote in message   
   > > news:100c4uv69iov93c@corp.supernews.com...   
   > >> +   
   [snip]   
      
   > While it isn't the most cogent argument ever made, it is not "pathetic"   
   > as you put it.   
      
   Well, looking back at the argument, I would say that I have to grant that.   
   It was a pretty odd inductive argument, which threw me off a bit.   
      
   >   
   > ...   
   >   
   > >> 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.   
      
   So? What is the alternative side then? cybrwurn said it was "a lose-lose   
   situation for everyone". Discounting those "few" (which is relative since   
   all you talk about is those who monetarily benefit from it for the most   
   part), a "lose-lose" situation (like a "win-win" situation) presupposes that   
   there is some other situation to turn to that would also be a loss, which I   
   am wondering what that is since he didn't make it obvious in his post. The   
   only alternative that I could guess (since he talking about "wasting   
   billions of dollars fighting a 'war'") would be legalizing pot, but I   
   wouldn't that is so (since it would be hypocracy on his main point).   
      
   >   
   > >> .   
   > >> > (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.   
      
   Sure it is a form of an alter, albeit much more than simply that. If it   
   wasn't an alert of some kind, what would be the point of prohibiting it in   
   the first place if there was clearly no danger?   
      
   >   
   > >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.   
      
   Sure they easily would. Even the nowadays THC level in pot is constantly on   
   the rise. Legalizing pot could led to a drastic increase (even a decrease,   
   if you want to look at the opposite side) and a multitude of applications of   
   the drug which could make the drug potentially more harmful than before.   
      
   >   
   > >> 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.   
      
   The crimilization of pot is a huge thing. It is simply not a veil that could   
   easily be lifted. Certain funds would have to be reallocated, enforcement   
   structures would have to be changed, people's attitudes would come into   
   conflict with one another, etc. With any governmental action as big as this,   
   the effects of lifting it completely are potentially huge (on a domestic   
   scale, at least). Furthermore, there would have to be at least some   
   instances where pot smoking is illegal (comparatively to situations which   
   alcohol would be illegal), which would take even more time and conflict   
   before any issue would get resolved.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)