Legalization: The Least Bad Solution

[Caine]

are you familiar with Noam Chomsky?

I don't take lessons from anarchists. They have an agenda.

i never said they don't have personal responsibility or anything that you're talking about. the punishment you think they should be "responsible" for is an unjust and improper one.

would you like me to provide an analogy to illustrate this?

No analogy needed.

When talking about anti-prohibition, speaking about those who are in jail because of it is stupid. They did something they knew was wrong. period.

 

[Sedrox]

I don't take lessons from anarchists. They have an agenda.

1. ad hominum/genetic fallacy
2. do you know of anyone involved in politics who doesn't have an agenda?

care to debate the claim?

No analogy needed.

When talking about anti-prohibition, speaking about those who are in jail because of it is stupid. They did something they knew was wrong. period.

i think an analogy is necessary.

if it became illegal tomorrow to drive red cars, would you respond to the people thrown in jail with "personal responsibility!"? no, you would recognize that it's a silly law that has put people in jail for no reason.

 

[Wessexman]

The primary influences of American conservatism are the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The US Constitution provides a legal framework whereas the Declaration of Independence provides an ideological one. Edmund Burke does not define American conservatism, he simply informs upon it.

Of course he does not define it. Burkean Conservatism is a convenient term but Conservatism is not Marxism, it draws on similar arguments but is not completely beholden to one figure. That said those documents do not form a coherent philosophy and the very fact they are so important to American Conservatism comes from their prior viewpoints. American Conservatism is certainly Burkean in the broad sense.

Obviously. What you don't seem to understand is that Burke is not the primary influence on American conservatism. Hell, he's not even the secondary, tertiary, or quaternary influence.

You are getting confused by what I mean by Burkean Conservatism. I mean philosophical conservatism. A general body of ideas, principles and viewpoints that are present in all genuine conservatism and that were first systematically exhibited in the works of Burke in the modern, western world. I do not mean something like Marxism where one figure is taken as the messiah.

All conservative branches are different, including the several American ones from each other, but all philosophical conservatism has a lot in common from the throne and altar conservatism of De Maistre and Bonald to the decentralised, relatively liberal conservatism of Robert Nisbet.

If you interpret it correctly then it does not allow for either of those things.

It certainly does.

 

[marduc]

Of course he does not define it. Burkean Conservatism is a convenient term but Conservatism is not Marxism, it draws on similar arguments but is not completely beholden to one figure. That said those documents do not form a coherent philosophy and the very fact they are so important to American Conservatism comes from their prior viewpoints. American Conservatism is certainly Burkean in the broad sense.



You are getting confused by what I mean by Burkean Conservatism. I mean philosophical conservatism. A general body of ideas, principles and viewpoints that are present in all genuine conservatism and that were first systematically exhibited in the works of Burke in the modern, western world. I do not mean something like Marxism where one figure is taken as the messiah.

All conservative branches are different, including the several American ones from each other, but all philosophical conservatism has a lot in common from the throne and altar conservatism of De Maistre and Bonald to the decentralised, relatively liberal conservatism of Robert Nisbet.


It certainly does.

Do you actually debate the topic at hand in any threads, or is your mission to try to pervert as many threads as you can into a discussion of what you consider conservatism, and then use it as a venue to try to shove it down our throats?

 

[Wessexman]

Do you actually debate the topic at hand in any threads, or is your mission to try to pervert as many threads as you can into a discussion of what you consider conservatism, and then use it as a venue to try to shove it down our throats?

:rofl

What a whinging ponce.

The hilarious thing, aside from the fact you are a liberal, is this is perhaps the most relevant time I've been involved in a debate like this. Ethereal posted this.

The hypocrites are the "conservatives" who rail against government at every possible opportunity. "Keep the government out of my life" they screech, but this aversion to government mysteriously disappears when it comes to drugs and prostitution. The fact that they are hypocrites means they are impervious to logical arguments and will employ a vast array of emotionally-based arguments in order to rationalize their self-contradiction.

Which certainly allows me to object to his view of Conservatives.

But then again you don't actually give a crap, you're just some troll who wants to score cheap points against conservatives by having them labeled "hypocrites".

 

[Ethereal]

Of course he does not define it. Burkean Conservatism is a convenient term but Conservatism is not Marxism, it draws on similar arguments but is not completely beholden to one figure.

Then why are you holding this discussion hostage by repeatedly referencing him?

That said those documents do not form a coherent philosophy and the very fact they are so important to American Conservatism comes from their prior viewpoints. American Conservatism is certainly Burkean in the broad sense.

No, American conservatism is defined by American history. It derives its legal and philosophical basis from the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Founding Fathers. Your problem, it seems, is that you're incapable of recognizing the existence of a singularly American brand of conservatism.

If a dichotomy arises between Burke and the Constitution, or Burke and the Declaration, or Burke and the Founding Fathers, Burke will be superseded.

You are getting confused by what I mean by Burkean Conservatism. I mean philosophical conservatism. A general body of ideas, principles and viewpoints that are present in all genuine conservatism and that were first systematically exhibited in the works of Burke in the modern, western world. I do not mean something like Marxism where one figure is taken as the messiah.

How is your definition of "philosophical conservatism" (emboldened text) any different than Burkean Conservatism? You insist on limiting the context of this discussion to Burke and his conception of conservatism yet you maintain he does not define it. Make up your mind.

All conservative branches are different

Exactly my point.

including the several American ones from each other, but all philosophical conservatism has a lot in common from the throne and altar conservatism of De Maistre and Bonald to the decentralised, relatively liberal conservatism of Robert Nisbet.

I'm not contesting the commonalities between conservative branches. I'm highlighting the differences.

It certainly does.

Then make your case.

 

[marduc]

whatever.. create any stereotypes you want about me based on one label.
There was nothing partisan about it, I do not care that you are a consider conservatives hypocritical, nor do I foster a loathing and prejudging attitude just because they are conservatives.

Everywhere I seem to see a post from you, regardless of topic, it is going on about "Burkean" this, and this is what "conservatism is".

Call me a troll, whatever.. not the case.. I don't give a rats ass whether you responded or not, in fact I would have rather you didn't so that this thread could actually stay on topic.

 

[Wessexman]

whatever.. create any stereotypes you want about me based on one label.

:lol:

I'm sorry for calling you a liberal when you choose that label.

Everywhere I seem to see a post from you, regardless of topic, it is going on about "Burkean" this, and this is what "conservatism is".

No doubt I do talk about it a lot but I'm forced to. Too many conservatives get their info from Hannity and Limbaugh and have little notion of anything a little more theoretical but the funny thing is of all the instances of that behaviour you cite, this is one of the most relevant ones to what is actually going on in the thread.

Call me a troll, whatever.. not the case.. I don't give a rats ass whether you responded or not, in fact I would have rather you didn't so that this thread could actually stay on topic.

Well don't derail it then.

 

[Wessexman]

Then why are you holding this discussion hostage by repeatedly referencing him?

I didn't think I did. I used the word Burkean, it is just another term for philosophical Conservatism.

No, American conservatism is defined by American history. It derives its legal and philosophical basis from the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Founding Fathers. Your problem, it seems, is that you're incapable of recognizing the existence of a singularly American brand of conservatism.

I do deny this to the degree you are suggesting. There are many differences between different branches of conservatism, and you are wrong if you think this doesn;'t include the different American ones, but there is far more commonality than you allow. Those documents are revered because of a common philosophical base which comes before this reverence.

If a dichotomy arises between Burke and the Constitution, or Burke and the Declaration, or Burke and the Founding Fathers, Burke will be superseded.

I have no doubt.

How is your definition of "philosophical conservatism" (emboldened text) any different than Burkean Conservatism? You insist on limiting the context of this discussion to Burke and his conception of conservatism yet you maintain he does not define it. Make up your mind.

The term Burkean does not actually mean he defines it, that is the thing. He represents a lot of the common threads but it is a broad groups if ideas and principles that are held by many, seperate from Burke to a great degree. It is just a simple label.

Exactly my point.

You take it too far. You take it to absurdity of calling Russian Stalinists conservatism. There are many ideologies from many places that share enough common threads to be called philosophical conservatism and to be recognised as cousins.

I'm not contesting the commonalities between conservative branches. I'm highlighting the differences.

But you go too far and are inaccurate when you talk of the US constitution as if it is an ideological manifesto.

 

[Caine]

1. ad hominum/genetic fallacy
2. do you know of anyone involved in politics who doesn't have an agenda?

care to debate the claim?

What dangerous class does your anarchist friend think they were trying to punish during the alcohol prohibition?

i think an analogy is necessary.

if it became illegal tomorrow to drive red cars, would you respond to the people thrown in jail with "personal responsibility!"? no, you would recognize that it's a silly law that has put people in jail for no reason.

That analogy makes no sense.
There has to be some public safety purpose for the law for it to have a purpose. Besides red cars already produced would be grandfathered in, and the production of new red cars would have to be stopped and all this would have to be coordinated prior to the law becoming effective. Also if previously made red cars couldn't be grandfathered in, the government would have to work on a Maaco voucher program so everyone could get a cheap repaint. I think you get what Im saying.

 

[Binary_Digit]

There has to be some public safety purpose for the law for it to have a purpose.

Which is why marijuana laws have no real purpose.

The analogy does make sense and your answer is splitting hairs and avoiding the premise. Stupid laws are what need to change, not people's behavior. People should disobey fascist laws until they are repealed, just out of principle.

 

[Caine]

Which is why marijuana laws have no real purpose.

The analogy does make sense and your answer is splitting hairs and avoiding the premise. Stupid laws are what need to change, not people's behavior. People should disobey fascist laws until they are repealed, just out of principle.

There is nothing fascist about the law.

The analogy makes absolutely no sense, government doesn't make those sorts of changes on a dime.

I mean, if that were the case I could say, "Say tomorrow marijuana instantly killed anyone who smoked it rather than slowly deteriorating their health and brain cells, Then should it still be illegal?"

 

[Binary_Digit]

There is nothing fascist about the law.

When the government dictates what you can and cannot put into your own body, it's a form of radical authoritarianism i.e. fascism.

The analogy makes absolutely no sense, government doesn't make those sorts of changes on a dime.

I mean, if that were the case I could say, "Say tomorrow marijuana instantly killed anyone who smoked it rather than slowly deteriorating their health and brain cells, Then should it still be illegal?"

Just because it's based on an unrealistic hypothetical scenario doesn't automatically mean it's a false analogy. The argument is not about the feasibility of implementing and enforcing that policy, it's about the stupidity of implementing and enforcing it.

Very often people try to refute a correct analogy as a false analogy, often saying "Well, but that's different because", and refer to an existing property that the two things in the analogy indeed do not share. In cases like this, such a refutation is merely a "false charge of fallacy". But as analogies are comparing two different things there are always some properties that A and B do not share, so it is tempting to pull up one such difference to try to disqualify the analogy. For the purposes of the analogy, however, it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy"]False analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

For the purposes of the point being made, the analogy correctly reflects reality in that they both have "stupid" laws that should be disobeyed until repealed. And anyone who'se been punished for responsibly smoking MJ or responsibly driving a red car (or having doggie-style sex in the great state of North Carolina, just for you) should be praised for standing up against authoritarian/fascist laws, not blamed.

 

[Sedrox]

What dangerous class does your anarchist friend think they were trying to punish during the alcohol prohibition?

alcohol prohibition is a different story. there had been a large portion of the population calling for prohibition for quite a while before its implementation on a national scale, and several states had already implemented it before then.

That analogy makes no sense.
There has to be some public safety purpose for the law for it to have a purpose. Besides red cars already produced would be grandfathered in, and the production of new red cars would have to be stopped and all this would have to be coordinated prior to the law becoming effective. Also if previously made red cars couldn't be grandfathered in, the government would have to work on a Maaco voucher program so everyone could get a cheap repaint. I think you get what Im saying.

the analogy makes perfect sense. judging by your critique of an analogy presented by another poster i'm not sure you understand the concept or purpose of an analogy.

whether or not someone should bear the responsibility of punishment is irrelevant in this case; it's a silly law.

 

[Caine]

alcohol prohibition is a different story. there had been a large portion of the population calling for prohibition for quite a while before its implementation on a national scale, and several states had already implemented it before then.

What other substance is your anarchist referring to in the quoted statement that you mentioned then?

the analogy makes perfect sense. judging by your critique of an analogy presented by another poster i'm not sure you understand the concept or purpose of an analogy.

I understand, its just a stupid analogy.

In the analogy, there is absolutely no purpose to keeping people from driving red cars.

There was a purpose/motivation and reason behind outlawing these psychedelic drugs at the time that they were made "controlled substances".

 

[rathi]

Who is to say that this empire of violent criminals is just going to *viola* Disappear due to legalization?

Pretty much. Drug money is pretty much the sole source of income for gangs in the U.S. Its not like the crime and violence would disappear, but organized gangs definitely would. You can't run an organization without paying your employees. Mexico for example, wouldn't be destabilized except from the incredible amount of money drug smugglers get and the power they can wield from it.

There is still an illegal tobacco and alcohol trade market in the U.S., even though these substances are legal to purchase at your local Circle K.

Except the amount of trade is so small that its pretty much irrelevant compared to the illegal drug today. Tobacco smuggling only exists because of extremely high taxes on it, alcohol because minors can't buy it.

 

[Caine]

Pretty much. Drug money is pretty much the sole source of income for gangs in the U.S. Its not like the crime and violence would disappear, but organized gangs definitely would. You can't run an organization without paying your employees. Mexico for example, wouldn't be destabilized except from the incredible amount of money drug smugglers get and the power they can wield from it.

Do you honestly think gangs are going to quit just because there are no more illegal drugs to traffick?

There is more to being a part of a gang than drugs.
Once drugs are gone, they still have auto theft, robbery, burglary, extortion, kidnapping, etc at their disposal, things they already do today.

 

[marduc]

Do you honestly think gangs are going to quit just because there are no more illegal drugs to traffick?

There is more to being a part of a gang than drugs.
Once drugs are gone, they still have auto theft, robbery, burglary, extortion, kidnapping, etc at their disposal, things they already do today.

Do you honestly think they will make enough money to lure people by the thousands to join, and they will still be as large?

It assuredly will have a dramatic influence of the scope and the size of these gangs.

when 90%+ of the gangs and their profits are centered around drugs, and the quick easy money to be had, this will most assuredly remove the scope of their dominance, influence, violence, allure, and recruiting.

 

[New World Order]

I predict in a hundred years the incarceration of people for personal drug use will be looked at with the same view we do today when we watch movies like the Gladiator and wonder how such a supposedly advanced society allowed such barbarity to exist in parrallel.
Very simple, look at the main causes of death in America. Right up on top is the elective smoking and the other is the over 100,000 people who die at the hands of their doctor. I say this as a former Doctor that gave it up after seeing the absolute gross negligence of this profession within the ranks of my colleagues.
Secondly, remove from any decision making body on the subject any person that has not taken drugs themselves. I love it when the very person who condemns drugs during a dinner conversation, will do so with a scotch in his hand. I smoked pot and hashish, did cocaine for years, had my mushrooms, etc and NEVER had a problem or an addiction nor knew anyone who died but I have already had a couple of friends over the years die from drunk drivers. Oh, thats OK though, because the scotch and water fellow would never want to make his "Drug" illegal.

 

[rathi]

Do you honestly think gangs are going to quit just because there are no more illegal drugs to traffick?

Yes. Its not like they will turn into saints overnight, but the organization will be gone, and more importantly they won't get new recruits.

There is more to being a part of a gang than drugs.
Once drugs are gone, they still have auto theft, robbery, burglary, extortion, kidnapping, etc at their disposal, things they already do today.

Except that doesn't make 1% of the money that drugs do.

 

[Sedrox]

What other substance is your anarchist referring to in the quoted statement that you mentioned then?

marijuana, crack cocaine, tobacco, and possibly LSD.

your anarchist

lol wut. do you think i personally own Noam Chomsky?

There was a purpose/motivation and reason behind outlawing these psychedelic drugs at the time that they were made "controlled substances".

there isn't a reason to keep marijuana illegal.

and as far as harder drugs go, criminalization and harsh penalties don't work, so your only real options are decriminalization (slap on the wrist) or legalization.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I understand, its just a stupid analogy.

I still disagree but it's a red herring at this point.

In the analogy, there is absolutely no purpose to keeping people from driving red cars.

And in reality, there is absolutely no purpose to punishing people for smoking marijuana responsibly!

There was a purpose/motivation and reason behind outlawing these psychedelic drugs at the time that they were made "controlled substances".

That purpose/motivation had more to do with prejudice, racism, propaganda, and lies, than anything based in reality.

"The anti-marihuana law of 1937 was largely the federal government's response to political pressure from enforcement agencies and other alarmed groups who feared the use and spread of marihuana by "Mexicans.""

History of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 by David F. Musto

"At the beginning of the 20th century, cocaine began to be linked to crime. In 1900, the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_the_American_Medical_Association"]Journal of the American Medical Association[/ame] published an editorial stating, "Negroes in the South are reported as being addicted to a new form of vice – that of 'cocaine sniffing' or the 'coke habit.'" Some newspapers later claimed cocaine use caused blacks to rape white women and was improving their pistol marksmanship. Chinese immigrants were blamed for importing the opium-smoking habit to the U.S. The 1903 blue-ribbon citizens' panel, the Committee on the Acquirement of the Drug Habit concluded, "If the Chinaman cannot get along without his dope we can get along without him""

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act"]Harrison Narcotics Tax Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Yes. Its not like they will turn into saints overnight, but the organization will be gone, and more importantly they won't get new recruits.

Drugs are the primary means for gangs to get a lot of quick money, but I think it's reasonable to expect them to continue their alternative funding efforts if drugs disappeared from the black market. I think they would be impacted, yes, but I'm sure they would still be around, getting their funding via other crimes but probably not nearly as much.