In response to Kyle's statements:
>
> However, after that, Dave loses me. Unfortunately it took him until the
> very end of his second message to reveal the true "reason" behind his
> argument, in saying that "it is the morality of the goal that is
> important."
This was a general comment, and sort of a personal aside to
Nathan, with whom I had an argument earlier in the year, he seeming to
value Efficiency above all else, and myself arguing that there is much
more to it. But yes, I do believe that is the most important thing to
consider.
> I will agree with him that "expediency" should not be the
> highest determiner in lawmaking. What I cannot agree with is the
> illogical moralistic drivel that is paraded as reason in such statements
> as "if we let our kids use it, we will produce a bunch of morons," and
>"if
> we couldn't care less about our children and social decency, let's
> legalize."
>
> The jump from pot smoking to idiocy and moral decay is a huge one.
I know many people here at college, and I knew many in high
school, who loved to party with alcohol, but do or did well in school
nonetheless. None of the people who I knew smoked pot did very well in
school, most of them either dropped out or went to the nearby vocational
school. I don't think that one could argue against the fact that
widespread drug use has caused lower academic performances, and since I
believe that legalization would increase usage, it would lower
performances even more. Thus producing even more idiots than we now have.
>Dave
> also assumes that, unlike alcohol and tobacco, marijuana will be available
> to anyone of any age. It could be regulated, with surgeon general's
> warnings and all, by the FDA and whatever other government agencies are
> normally employed.
Yeah, that's really worked. Kids get cigarettes, they get
alcohol, and even when it's completely illegal, (tah-dah!) they get pot.
Government regulation doesn't mean a thing. If kids still want it, there
will still be an illegal market for it. If people want it stronger, there
will be a market for this as well. Note that things like Everclear aren't
sold in some states, but people get it. As I stated earlier,
legalization will not eliminate a criminal market for the drug.
> Dave seems to fear the legalization of marijuana based on the
> confusion that, he speculates, will result in the transition period.
> Certainly, the years immediately following such a move would see a
> dramatic increase in the number of users; however, as with other legalized
> drugs, individuals would soon be reconciled to its legality, and then
> determine for themselves the extent to which (if at all) they want to use
> it.
This may be true, but why in the world would you want those
transition years to occur at all? Don't the lives ruined in those years
matter? THose people are going to grow up and have kids, and their kids
are going to watch them smoke pot. This will result in a chain reaction.
>The message of legalization might be perceived as "pro-active" at
> first, but just like with alcohol and tobacco, the government would
> refrain from officially endorsing its usage.
Making the active effort to legalize a long illegal drug
inherently contains a message of endorsement. The government hasn't
actively legalized tobacco, it just hasn't banned it, though it seems
closer every day. Alcohol was actively legalized, after Prohibition
failed, but it wasn't as if it had always been illegal, and suddenly
became legal. It would blatant hypocrisy, and it would be meaningless,
for them to say, "ok, it's legal now, but we still don't really want you
to use it." In terms of the public perception regarding the legality of
marijuana, it would be much different than tobacco and alcohol.
> In addition, the comparisons between alcohol and marijuana are indeed
> valid, and essential to putting the latter into perspective. Dave portrays
> pot smoking as a social drug, done primarily at parties, in a collective
> effort to "get stoned." This imagery could be equally applied to alcohol
> consumption, substituting "drunk" for "stoned."
> Like the person who drinks one or two beers to relax, many people, from
> all levels of society (not just those long-haired dope smoking freaks we
> like to imagine) smoke pot, "just to relax." As with alcohol, it is
> possible to moderate the intake of marijuana into the body. Different
> grades (analogous to alcohol "proof") of marijuana are available, and one
> can choose to smoke as much or as little as one likes.
I agree, there are valid comparisons in the usage of each drug,
and different perceptions that I have of the settings in which they are
used are based on my experiences, and probably stem from the drug culture
which is, in part, a result of the appeal of doing something illegal and
rebellious.
> Marijuana, like alcohol, does impair motor skills and thought patterns;
> for this reason it one should not use it before driving a car, while at
> work, etc.
And yet, many people I've known have told me that they drive much
better when stoned, they think their senses are heightened, and therefore
their reflexes. Drunk-driving is bad enough, why add a new threat to the
road?
> Yet unlike alcohol, the "amotivational syndrome" that Dave is
> quick to denounce does not lead to the violence that is often attributed
> to alcohol (over 80% of domestic violence cases involve drinking).
True, I admitted this myself. Each has different effects. But the
amotivational syndrome doesn't just exist when on the drug, but in
heavier users, becomes a *syndrome*, and is the reason that many drug
users do so poorly in school. Is it wrong to quickly condemn
amotivational syndrome, or is this a good thing?
> In drawing these comparisons I don't mean to imply that Dave is content
> with the legality and consumption of alcohol; I am not sure of his
> opinion. I am simply saying that the analogies can and should be made,
> as it is easy to disregard something if we do not understand it and
>cannot
> place it in the context of the familiar.
My point is that we cannot make comparisons on what the public's
behavior will be if pot is legalized with how they treat alcohol and
tobacco, for reasons I stated earlier.
> Yes, marijuana can (again, like other drugs) be psychologically addictive.
And, like other drugs, should remain illegal.
> It is possible for a person to retreat from his or her life through
> continual use. And I assert that marijuana, like alcohol, is not for
> everyone. A person who uses it must not fool themselves into thinking
>that
> it is good for them. Like cigarettes, pot is bad for the lungs; like
> alcohol, pot kills lots of brain cells. If this is what Dave implicates as
> moronism, so be it.
I'm curious, does anyone know of studies that compare the
addictiveness of pot with alcohol?
> Yet in America the right to be a moron is guaranteed, so long as your
> own brand moronism (often seen in: the freedom of speech and choice of
> religion; the freedom to over-indulge in food and liquor; the
> freedom to live in/associate with Texas) does not infringe on the rights
> of others.
Here I must appeal to Rhia's wonderful comment: laws are made to
protect people from their own stupidity. Sure, people are not legally
prohibited from being stupid, but do we actually want to do something
which encourages an act that will make people stupider? We have a social
obligation to try to prevent people from being stupid (or ignorant; thus,
public education, though this doesn't help much anymore) and legalizing
marijuana violates this obligation.
> If this debate is to be one of good vs. evil and arbitrary morality, let
> it be that. But in debate, morality without reason falls flat, as does
> Dave's argument.
Arbitrary? I guess I assumed that some values are pretty much
common, such as, let's not encourage people to fry their brains because
it is bad for them and for society. If you really want me to explain more
thoroughly, I will, but I think you can figure it out.
Dave
P.S. Any interest in Mystery Science THeatre? Anyone?
--
God grant me the courage to change
what I cannot accept and the wisdom to
know what is unacceptable.
|
