Drug Prohibition is Illogical

Did you ask them if they could take it outside? Do you think they might have smoked outside if it was legal? Not that your anecdote makes a good case for prohibition, I'm just curious.

 

haha. me too. but the tax revenue is not a reason to legalize, but something to be endured.

 

Agreed. There is simply no way to have one without the other.

 

Most drug users are productive members of society.

 

The State economy would improve overall by virtue of the fact that thousands of new jobs would be available to support this new industry, after legalization. Sales tax would be a small bonus to the State, but the real value would be the economic stimulation it would create. First you calculate the reduction of cost in trial and incarceration of drug offenses, then you factor in the State revenue from income tax (which most of the Middle-class will get back anyway).

Eliminating sales tax is an entirely different conversation. Legalization is fiscally logical.

 

possibly from smoking... although it hasn't ever happened... but YOU drinking couldn't give me a headache

maybe, maybe not.... see that's the thing... I don't care. Potheads have done nothing for me in my years on earth to warrant me to even give one iota's worth of care. And this is most likely everyone else's issue too. Why go out on a political limb for something I don't like, and who's particapants are nothing more than dredges on society (for the most part).

I understand economics, you fail to grasp how there are jobs out there that aren't affected by the everyday ups and downs of the market like most are.

I'm not looking out for you, I'm looking out for me. So economic boosts, giving jobs.... isn't a strong argument for me.

 

I also put "non-smoker preferred"..... that didn't work either. In a perfect world, I would agree with you. But we don't live in a perfect world

my right to occupy my residence supercedes your right to smoke weed in your residence.... even if that residence is the same place. plus... you are simply shooting down your own argument that smoking pot doesn't affect anyone else. It does.

keep trying though...

 

I didn't say somebody had the right to go in your house and smoke weed. I wasn't replying solely to your very speficic example with your roomates. The conversation originated by you claiming your rights are violated by others smoking weed - because of the second hand smoke. In general, this is not the case because you choose to sit in rooms with second hand smoke.

 

you're twisting me up here.... so, if someone is smoking in the room (my dorm), I should be the one to leave since nobody is forcing me to smoke the second hand weed smoke?

granted, it's his room too... so who's right is more important... his right to smoke in his room, or my right to have a smoke free room....?

He doesn't have the right to bring an illegal substance into my room. The law is on my side.

Even if it were tobacco, a legal substance, I still win that battle since the dorms were smoke free.

I ignored the underaged alcohol, (I was 21 but refused to buy it for them, another "strike" against me in their eyes) because that one truly didn't affect me.

but, my rights to live in my dorm WERE being violated by his desire to smoke pot in his dorm (just happened to be the same dorm)

oh, I think I catch it... you don't want to talk specific examples.... you want general.

Generally speaking, pot smokers are dredges on society who'd rather soak up welfare, sit in mama's basement and smoke weed they bought with my tax money.... how's that for general assumptions on how it affects me?

I brought up specifics because everyone hates generalizations. I harbor the same animosity towards cigerrettes too, so this has nothing to do with legal/illegal. In fact, I would rather see cigs be outlawed than pot legalized.

I am a poker player.... pretty hardcore at it...I'm no PokerStar on the WPA, but there is a poker room I go to pretty regularly. It's smoke free. But, like most Casinos, etc, with gambling, MANY participants are heavy smokers.

So, whenever they need a smoke break, they go right outside the door and light up.... sometimes 10-20 deep. Now, I win sometimes and stay really late, but every once in a while, I get beat out in Texas Holdem and go to leave and go home.... and I have to walk through the smog that is their second hand smoke.

So, legallizing pot would just add potsmokers into that cloud I have to walk through as I leave. but any resturant you go to would pose the same GENERAL problem to non-smokers.... they are affected by the second hand smoke just by simply walking in or out the entrance of any resturant.

 

smokers and pot-smokers (often one in the same) have proven to me, time and time again, that they are inconsiderate to others around them. They tell themselves "it doesn't affect anyone else but me" and then turn a blind eye whenever someone points out situations (both specific and general) that disprove that theory. I give a general situation (generic resturant).... people say "you shouldn't generalize".... I give a specific situation (poker room).... you say "I'm talking about in general"

so what do you want, general, or specifics.... I've given both now.

 

We're having an ideological debate about whether pot should be illegal or not, so bringing up the fact the substance is illegal is kind of like.........come up with your own analogy.

Agreed. Again, I admit this. You have the right to breathe clean air in your own house. Nobody should be able to smoke weed in your living area.

The specific example of someobody smoking in your living space does not hold water when it comes to preventing somebody smoking outside or in their own house or in a restaruant. So, with regards to smoking weed in general, your example is a stawman.

First of all, you're wrong. You've watched the Big Lebowski too many times. You have no imperical evidence to back up your claim.

But, I would say at least you're logic is correct this time. If the majority of pot-heads were on welfare, this would affect you being that you pay the taxes to afford their welfare checks. Unfortunately, your logic is based on a faulty premise.

Your specific was an isolated example from the norm regarding secondhand smoke.

This, nevertheless, would not violate your rights. You chose to walk through the cloud of smoke. If walking through pot smoke is an inconvinience for you, don't gamble.

I didn't say they weren't affected. Being affected by something does not necessarily entail having rights violated.

 

Yeah, second-hand smoke is annoying. People should smoke outside.

You don't care about fiscal responsibility and the free market? Got it.

A better question is why continue to subvert the free market on a money-wasting effort to prohibit behavior that people are doing anyway?

But the quality of life for everyone is better when the market does well. Even if you have a magical recession-proof job you still rely on other businesses for your every day needs, food, clothes, entertainment, transportation, your necessities. If you don't understand how the market effects your life, you need to reconsider it. If your State goes bankrupt in part because of a futile War on Drugs, you wont be happy. No one will.

What is good for society, such as a healthy job market, is good for you also.

If you don't understand that, you really don't have ground to stand on in this debate.

 

By what right is the law perverted to make a substance illegal?

But you would have put your roommates at risk only of a reprimand and other private remedies employed by the university. Instead you put you roommates at risk of being killed by agents of the state.

Considering the size of the cannabis industry, I find it hard to believe that most marijuana smokers lack money, resources or even jobs. But even if that were so, by what right is the law perverted to enforce your preferences for harming those who do not produce enough to your satisfaction but instead choose to use their bodies in ways of which you disapprove?

So, if the state has objective reasons to prohibits substances because some people are harmed by it or might lead unproductive lives, then you will agree that the state has objective reasons to prohibit all forms of gambling and treat poker players as criminals.

 

agreed. espescially if that money is coming from what is already the top cash crop in the country and could be used to fix our deteriorating infrastructure. who needs that?

 

Lets throw money at the problem

 

people who have been drinking are usually pretty effective at giving me a headache. drunk people are absurdly annoying, espescially young drunk people.

ironically, i dont drink (other than the very rare occassion), but smoke pot on a semi-regular basis, once every hour or two. not that much (thats alot i know, my attempt at humor). people are usually suprised when i tell them i smoke alot but dont drink, but i just cant stand anything about alcohol. what it does to me, what it does to other people, it sucks (in my opinion)

i understand not wanting to have to be around smoke in situations like living in dorms, and totally respect that. i woudlnt have smoked in my dorm if my roomates objected, but fortunately, for more than one reason, me and my roomates were all pretty similair in what we liked to do. hell, my RA used to smoke in my room with me.

i dont think its right to demand that your roomate just never have anything in the room though, i dont really think that's your decision to make.

 

well lets be honest here, if the amount of money going through the marijuana industry were taxed, it could do alot of good. number one cash crop in the country.

and as for the deteriorating infastructure problem.... how do you fix it without money?

 

Well, usually you have to spend money to fix something.

 

Let's make pot smokers pay for our roads.

 

Who's money?

 

if it meant i could smoke pot without being considered a criminal.... yeah, good plan.

 

Oh, I don't know, Martian money. Taxpayer's money.

 

so your not for tax money being used to build infastructure?

ive always felt like thats one of the better things it does go towards, and wish more went to it so i didnt have to constantly spend money on new tires after popping the old ones in pot holes.

 

pot heads for pot holes. i forget where i heard that.

 

South park hippy episode. No I'm not for govt building infrastructure.