Posted on 08/18/2014 6:28:55 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
So ALL people, including childless ones, should be subject to imprisonment for possessing pot because SOME pot smokers neglect their children?
Not at all. There is this thing called "Pragmatism" which makes it realistic to accept something that is several thousands of years old and ingrained in the culture while at the same time not wanting to acquire another one of equal destructive capacity.
It's called being realistic. Booze is here. It kills about 70,000 people per year. We don't need another booze.
Good to hear! Give it the victory on pot too.
So is pot - at least 43% of Americans have used it.
That "Some" is a pretty D@mn big portion of the population. Again I ask you, what percentage of the population can we afford to throw away?
It's like speed limits. Just because some can drive a road at 80 doesn't mean that all can. We make laws that cover MOST people, not the exceptions.
As a percentage of Humanity throughout time, it is barely above zero. That you are comparing it to alcohol just shows how unserious you are about a comprehensive understanding of the issue.
How did I miss the point of your bringing ALCOHOL into the discussion? Your argument is that we should put up with weed because we put up with alcohol
Wrong - as I've explained, the point is to see if what you posted was a principle or merely a rationalization - if the former, you'll appply it consistently, including to the drug alcohol.
"Legalization for adults IS the most effective way to reduce access to marijuana by young people, through harnessing the power of the market: young people report that they can currently get illegal-for-all pot more easily than legal-for-adults beer or cigarettes."
So you are saying that making it legal will reduceusage? And you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously?
It's a fact that young people report that they can currently get illegal-for-all pot more easily than legal-for-adults beer or cigarettes. Whether you take facts seriously is up to you.
"The less the cost, the less the stealing. How many boozers steal, rather than panhandle or collect cans, to feed their addiction?"
I don't care what the bottom price is. The worthless dopers won't have a job anyway. They won't be able to afford it no matter the price.
Which part of "less" did you not understand?
So is pot - at least 43% of Americans have used it.
As a percentage of Humanity throughout time
Be realistic - we're not making laws for Humanity throughout time.
That "Some" is a pretty D@mn big portion of the population.
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
No dude. Nobody is buying it. The real reason you mention alcohol is because "THEY DID IT TOO!"
There is no other reason to bring it up. It is a tu quoque argument because you have nothing better. You simply want parity with the other death dealing drug.
Which part of "less" did you not understand?
What part of "They won't have a job." Do you not understand?
Fewer than the brain addling booze you drink a day I can assure you!
No, but we are comparing it to something which has been used by Humanity throughout time, so YOU be realistic. In comparison to alcohol, your drug is a big nothingburger.
You only compare it to alcohol because you want to push the "Well they get away with it!" argument.
Plenty. Come here and i'll show you.
No dude. Nobody is buying it. The real reason you mention alcohol is
Nobody is buying your evasions and straw men.
Which part of "less" did you not understand?
What part of "They won't have a job." Do you not understand?
The less the cost, the less the stealing. By now even the cows know this.
That "Some" is a pretty D@mn big portion of the population.
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
Plenty. Come here and i'll show you.
No sale ... and don't bother offering me candy.
So is pot - at least 43% of Americans have used it.
As a percentage of Humanity throughout time
Be realistic - we're not making laws for Humanity throughout time.
No, but we are comparing it to something which has been used by Humanity throughout time
Which has no relevance to what is or isn't "here". Sorry to see that yet another of your attempts at logic has blown up in your face.
(Since you enjoy argument by graphic.)
Sounds like you know Lil Mikey personally to make that claim.
Pothead!
In reality Lil Mikey was suffering from cannabis prohibition! They do more than wrap cannabis in ceegars buddy! They dope em with PCP! That would explain his irrational criminal behavior.
If Lil Mikey and his family were allowed to grow a garden without Drug NAZIS like YOU trying to murder them, he might still be alive today.
We aren't debating Me. We are debating Marijuana. I've already explained why I have no problem with Alcohol being legal while still wanting Pot to remain illegal.
I don't give a rat's @ss if you think this is inconsistent. It is consistent with the best we can do, and most of the time the PERFECT is the enemy of the good.
If you are going to insist on perfection of philosophy, you might as well come on out and say you support the legalization of crack, heroin, meth, and all other drugs.
So let's put this "consistency" boot on your foot and see how "consistent" you are.
So let's hear it. Do you support the legalization of all drugs for the sake of consistency? Will Freedom be denied if we ban heroin?
Inquiring minds want to know!
He thinks he is winning too.
I've explained why your argument fails.
Do you support the legalization of all drugs for the sake of consistency?
Yes, but my argument is practical as well as philosophical - and if we take marijuana out of the equation we MIGHT leave ourselves with a War on Drugs we can actually win, which is clearly not the case now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.