Posted on 05/05/2007 8:07:29 AM PDT by dukeman
Of course! Not all of them. Perhaps not even most of them. But more than zero of them, surely. Why would you think otherwise?
Oh, I get it. You've bought into the bullspit propaganda, and you think heroin is some sort of evil mystical voodoo, which instantly and magically helplessly ensnares those who are foolish enough to consume it. As it happens, only about 3.8% of people who've tried heroin have used it in the past month, but don't let the facts get in the way of gulping down what the gubmint feeds you, hook, line, and sinker.
Fact is, no matter how much the antidrug hysterics try to pretend otherwise, the vast majority of the users of a drug, any drug, do not become addicted. That 3.8% figure for heroin? The corresponding figure for marijuana is 18%, for crack cocaine is 8.6%, and for allegedly instantly-addictive methamphetamine, 4.9%. The sole exception is tobacco; 42% of those who have ever smoked a cigarette are still smoking today.
It's only 15%. They'll figure it out.
They'll "figure out" how to break the laws of economics? Man, you really do think that drugs and their dealers have some sort of mystical power, don't you? Surely you're smarter than a drug dealer; please tell me how a market can be totally unaffected by the loss of one sixth of revenue. If they'll figure it out, you ought to be able to as well.
Who wants cheap marijuana? Seriously. Other than marijuana users, that is. And they're only 6% of the population.
You never answered my question about whether you consider America a "free country", but obviously, you do not. What does it matter what other people want? Freedom means that what you do ain't nobody's bidness but yours. Freedom means that the activities of consenting adults are not subject to being overruled by the king, the President, the Congress, or the majority. And people like you have contempt for the freedom which is supposed to be the birthright of every American, for which our ancestors fought and died.
By the way, over one third of Americans have used marijuana, and 12% have used in in the past year. Not sure what stinky crack you pulled 6% from, but I have my suspicions. Not that it matters... a majority of 99.9% has no right to interfere with the freedom of the remaining 0.1%.
CAN it be cheap? Of couse it CAN. But why do you think it WILL?
Because I understand economics. Because I know that in a free market, prices are not determined by what people "want". They're not determined by the parents, or the law enforcers, or the employers, or even the teachers. They're determined by the laws of supply and demand, and when that supply curve takes a big jump to the right, price takes a big jump downward.
Then let's do the analogy the same way. If legalizing unlimited and unlicensed full-auto Tec-9s would result in the doubling in the number of deaths to sweet innocent precious adorable little babies, would I support legalizing them? My answer would be no.
Oh, I see. But if criminalizing perfectly legal handguns, rifles, and shotguns would have exactly the same effect in reverse, you'd oppose that, too. I get it now. You're a champion of the status quo. You favor keeping things just as they are, with no progress, because that's just the way we do things. Thanks for clearing that up.
Nah. The Alaska experiment, showing that twice as many teens used marijuana in a state that legalized it over the states that didn't. Historical fact, showing that marijuana use in the late 70's was triple what it was at its lowest point.
"Break the laws of economics"? They don't have to do that. Just figure out ways to market the drugs that remain illegal. Maybe they'll sell candy-flavored methamphetamine to kids to increase sales, who knows?
"Freedom means that what you do ain't nobody's bidness but yours."
No. That's anarchy. That's selfish hedonism. That's amoral individualism. That's a "screw you I got rights" attitude.
In a society, what you do affects others. People have the right to decide how they will live together as a group, and the environment in which to raise the next generation.
"By the way, over one third of Americans have used marijuana, and 12% have used in in the past year. Not sure what stinky crack you pulled 6% from, but I have my suspicions."
Have ever used marijuana? A useless statistic. 12% have used marijuana at least once in the past year? Who cares?
I consider a marijuana "user" to be one who smokes marijuana regularly -- at least once a month. That's 6%.
"They're determined by the laws of supply and demand"
Baloney. Parents and greedy legislators artificially increased the price of cigarettes to "discourage underage use". But you're saying they wouldn't do that with marijuana.
"But if criminalizing perfectly legal handguns, rifles, and shotguns would have exactly the same effect in reverse, you'd oppose that, too."
I'd oppose it because I don't consider that to be a reasonable regulation. Plus your promises are as hollow as the promises made for the federal AWB.
I remember reading about rampant drug abuse of all types, including huffing gasoline among the Eskimo tribes. Are you sure you're not cherry picking some statistical data to lead to a pre-determined conclusion? I'm not.
No. When it was made illegal, Alaskan teen use dropped to the national average.
And you submit that expect agreement that end justifies the means?
Well said. -- As usual, your comment was 'refuted' by the communitarian line; - that people in a society have the right to decide how they will live together as a group, not as individuals.
Majority rule socialism is a political disease that has infected our free republic.
And they're not doing that now, because? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Maybe they'll sell candy-flavored methamphetamine to kids to increase sales, who knows?
In which case they're spending more on marketing, they're spending more on R&D, and they're certainly spending more on evading the law enforcement resources which no longer are allocated to fighting illegal marijuana. Your assertion that legalization of part of a black market has no effect on the remaining black market is absurd on its face.
No. That's anarchy.
"Anarchy" means "no law." Anarchy means that people can do things that actually do infringe the rights of others with no legal consequence.
That's selfish hedonism. That's amoral individualism.
Even if this were true... selfish hedonism is a crime? We should lock people up for individualism?
That's a "screw you I got rights" attitude.
That's right. Screw you, I got rights. If you think it's wrong for people to assert their rights to do as they choose, you're welcome to try to convince them of that. You're welcome to lay out your arguments and hope you're persuasive. You are not welcome to use force to stop them from doing what they have a right to do. That's kind of the whole definition of "rights".
In a society, what you do affects others. People have the right to decide how they will live together as a group, and the environment in which to raise the next generation.
So if "people" decide that they want to lay punitive, punishing taxes on red meat, or limit political speech, or require all citizens to have a government-monitored camera in their bedrooms, that's just fine with you, as long as "people" think that's the environment in which they want to raise the next generation? Do you have any concept of individual rights that does not flow from the collective?
I consider a marijuana "user" to be one who smokes marijuana regularly -- at least once a month. That's 6%.
I see. So if a person goes to a party every month or so and smokes marijuana, he's not a marijuana smoker. Tell me, is your last name Clinton, by any chance?
By the way, 17% of those aged 18-25 have used marijuana in the past month. How small must a minority be before it forfeits its rights?
Baloney. Parents and greedy legislators artificially increased the price of cigarettes to "discourage underage use". But you're saying they wouldn't do that with marijuana.
No, I'm not, and never did. "Parents and greedy legislators" may well impose taxes on marijuana... I hope they do; if we must have taxes, consumption taxes do about as little damage as it's possible for a tax to do. What I've said, and continue to say, and will continue to say, and which you will most likely continue to ignore is this: black markets are so inflationary that excise taxes can be made extremely high without making black markets price-competitive. As is the case with alcohol. As is the case with tobacco. Taxes on both are very, very high -- my state's tax on distilled spirits is $21.30 per gallon, the highest in the country, and yet I do not see shady tequila dealers standing on street corners hawking their wares while armed thugs keep lookout from the doorways. This, despite the fact that such dealers would not have to worry about production, merely smuggling and distribution. Even with only that to worry about, even without needing to pay state taxes that in some cases run as high as 108%, they cannot compete on price with the perfectly legal (and state-run) liquor stores.
I'd oppose it because I don't consider that to be a reasonable regulation.
You don't consider it a reasonable regulation? That's your only objection to mass confiscation of guns, that it wouldn't be expedient? Where are your principles? Where are your ethics? How did your parents fail you so, that you have no concept of "right" and "wrong" beyond "whatever works?" And how dare you call yourself a conservative?
I didn't say it would have no effect. I admitted that marijuana represented 15% of all illegal drug revenues. I just said they black market could easily make up the difference. I believe I said it would have no effect on the gangs, and it's disingenuous of you to imply that it would.
"that's just fine with you"
If it's constitutional, then yes. Who am I to tell the majority they can't tax red meat? If these were state or local taxes, I could simply move to another state. But central government supporters like you make that impossible.
"So if a person goes to a party every month or so and smokes marijuana, he's not a marijuana smoker."
If a person smokes marijuana at least once a month, I consider that person to be a marijuana user. How much clearer can I be?
"By the way, 17% of those aged 18-25 have used marijuana in the past month."
So? 3% of those 35 and older have used marijuana in the last month. My 6% was those 12 and older.
"black markets are so inflationary that excise taxes can be made extremely high without making black markets price-competitive."
Tax-free legal medical marijuana in California sells for $480. per ounce. You can get black market for half that. Legal Amsterdam marijuana goes for $10/gram (=$280. per ounce). Tax-free legal medical marijuana in Canada is $150. per ounce (and it's garbage).
Marijuana can be expensive without taxes. Add enough regulatory and liability burden on manufacturers and it will be. Then, "taxing the hell out of it" will make it more expensive than street pot.
"That's your only objection to mass confiscation of guns, that it wouldn't be expedient?"
You're the one who proposed it. I'm saying it would be unconstitutional.
What, did you expect me to get emotional and hysterical like you? You expected me to start screaming and yelling and crying just because you proposed some impossible hypothetical?
You're lucky I even answered that piece of garbage.
So, they ban tobacco and legalize marijuana?
I don’t think so.
Darn, I missed it. I didn't even know there was such a thing.
Yes, you said that, implying that the size of a market is no big deal -- easily changed by producers -- and the disappearance of a large chunk of it has no effect.
I believe I said it would have no effect on the gangs, and it's disingenuous of you to imply that it would.
Wheat represents about 7% of the total value of U.S. agricultural production; would the sudden disappearance of the wheat market have zero effect on farmers? Would the farmers simply shrug and make it up elsewhere, suffering no difficulties whatsoever? Who's being disengenuous here?
If it's constitutional, then yes.
And here is the problem... well, one of the many problems. You've alluded to this before; it's the idea that what is right is exactly in accord with what's legal. That anything which is wrong must be illegal, that anything which is legal must be right.
Who am I to tell the majority they can't tax red meat?
Who are you to tell the majority that they can't tax red meat? I'll tell you: you are a free man. The majority does not have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do. If the majority wants to own slaves, it can't do it. Once upon a time, it could do it, constitutionally... that didn't make it right. That didn't make the perfectly legal slaveholders innocent of violating human rights. The majority has the raw physical power to take away your guns. It has the raw physical power to muzzle your speech, to institute forced abortions, to require that children be taught that George Washington was a pedophile, to prevent consenting adults from consuming their intoxicant of choice. All of these things are possible, some of them are constitutional, and none of them are right.
If these were state or local taxes, I could simply move to another state. But central government supporters like you make that impossible.
I do not claim that state and local laws prohibiting drugs are unconstitutional -- although the federal laws criminalizing possession of drugs are on much shakier constitutional ground. But unlike you, I don't expect the law to perfectly reflect ethics. I don't believe that anything which legally can be done should be done... nor do I believe that if something is constitutional, it necessarily infringes no rights.
If a person smokes marijuana at least once a month, I consider that person to be a marijuana user. How much clearer can I be?
You're perfectly clear; you're just silly. According to you, a person who uses marijuana every month or so is not a marijuana user. As I said earlier, this is a very Clintonian twist of the English language.
So? 3% of those 35 and older have used marijuana in the last month. My 6% was those 12 and older.
I asked you before: how small must a minority get before it loses its rights? 0.15% of American men have prostate cancer; are their interests beneath notice?
Tax-free legal medical marijuana in California sells for $480. per ounce. You can get black market for half that. Legal Amsterdam marijuana goes for $10/gram (=$280. per ounce). Tax-free legal medical marijuana in Canada is $150. per ounce (and it's garbage).
In the first place, as you implicitly concede, marijuana comes in many different quality grades at different prices, and comparing different grades in different locations is meaningless. In the second place, American medical marijuana is hardly in a free market; production must still be clandestine, as the federal cops (in a horrifying violation of federalism) continue to raid.
Marijuana can be expensive without taxes.
Yep, it sure can be... all you need to do is criminalize its production, drive it underground, deprive it of economies of scale. Absent that, though, can you think of any reason why it should be more expensive than, say, corn?
Then, "taxing the hell out of it" will make it more expensive than street pot.
Technically true... there certainly is some level of taxation that would make legal pot more expensive than street pot. But it wouldn't happen... because as soon as the black market becomes cheaper than the free market, the free market evaporates and tax revenues drop to zero.
You're the one who proposed it. I'm saying it would be unconstitutional.
Not if it were done by a state, it wouldn't be... but even so, just because something isn't explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it isn't a right. You know, the Antifederalists opposed the Bill of Rights. Not because they were opposed to freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right to keep and bear arms, or of the right to trial by jury, but because they knew that the Bill of Rights was not and couldn't be a completely exhaustive list of rights, and they feared that people might, seeing a Bill of Rights, conclude that anything which was omitted was no right at all. The Federalists, trying to appease them, came up with the Ninth Amendment... you should read it sometime. The Antifederalists continued to protest that a Bill of Rights would be construed to deny rights not listed. The Federalists said, "C'mon... what sort of lamebrain would read it that way when we explicitly say that it's not an exhaustive list?" And the Antifederalists took up a chant: "His name is robertpaulsen. His name is robertpaulsen. His name is robertpaulsen."
What, did you expect me to get emotional and hysterical like you?
Brother, you haven't seen me emotional, and that's a promise.
To whatever extent my emotions are involved, they're feelings of sorrow and mourning that yours is the majority attitude, that so many Americans have forgotten the dire warnings our fathers left us of the dangers of government power, that so many have no problem with rights being trampled as long as they're rights they don't personally choose to exercise. And in this case it's a very fundamental right, the right to own and control your own body... more than that, to control your own mind. Since we're talking about psychoactive chemicals here, we're talking about the government asserting authority to control the contents of your mind, what you're thinking and feeling. And good little sheeple like you just baa and repeat your "drugs are bad, m'kay" mantra, blind to the injustice. I weep.
You expected me to start screaming and yelling and crying just because you proposed some impossible hypothetical?
If you think government confiscation of firearms is an "impossible hypothetical", I suggest you learn some history. If you want a truly impossible hypothetical, try "marijuana is legalized and it has no effect on the drug dealers, and the price of free market pot is higher than that of black market pot."
You're lucky I even answered that piece of garbage.
Oh yes, I consider myself very fortunate indeed. Thank you for the blessing.
Have you ever even attempted to justify your War on Drugs in terms of the benefits it provides for the costs?
I'm saying that it will have no overall effect on the gangs, not the market. They'll simply focus on the remaining illegal drugs and would soon make up the difference.
"You've alluded to this before; it's the idea that what is right is exactly in accord with what's legal."
Geez Louise. You're all over the place. Make up your mind already. Now it's about what is "right" versus what is "legal"?
You asked, "So if "people" decide that they want to lay punitive, punishing taxes on red meat ... that's just fine with you". I responded by saying that if the action is constitutional, yes.
I don't like taxes on red meat. I'd rather red meat weren't taxed. If it came to a vote, I'd vote against it. So, in that sense, it's not "fine" with me.
But if the majority, expressing their will through their elected representatives, decided to pass a law taxing meat, I don't have a problem with that constitutionally, no.
"The majority does not have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do"
Sure they do. The bulk of my property tax goes towards education. I don't have children. You're saying that because I'm a free man I shouldn't have to pay these taxes? Not because I'm greedy or selfish or self-centered or an individualist -- it's because I'm a FREE MAN. Well, it sounds better anyways.
Now, if we didn't have this big centralized government you're so fond of (you DO support the notion that the BOR does, or should, apply to the states, correct?), then the education decision would be made by each state and maybe I could find a state that exempts people like me.
"I don't believe that anything which legally can be done should be done... nor do I believe that if something is constitutional, it necessarily infringes no rights."
I agree.
"According to you, a person who uses marijuana every month or so is not a marijuana user."
Huh?
Look. I'm tired of repeating myself. That statement makes no sense whatsoever, and I never said it. Stop saying "according to you ...". It's not according to me.
"I asked you before: how small must a minority get before it loses its rights?"
Nobody "loses" rights. That implies that someone "gave" them the rights to begin with or that you'll "get them back" from someone.
Your natural rights are protected by society. Or not. In our society, a federated republic, legislators (reflecting the will of the people) decide which rights will be protected and to what extent.
Plus, it has nothing to do with the size of the minority -- the disabled are a small minority, yet they were extended numerous rights that even I don't have.
"Absent that, though, can you think of any reason why it should be more expensive than, say, corn?"
Gosh. Why is lettuce more expensive than corn? Why is asparagus more expensive than corn? What kind of qiuestion is that?
Marijuana will be expensive mainly because 94% of the people don't want it to be cheap. Regulatory requirements will drive up the production cost. Liabilty issues will drive up the cost (gee, marijuana causes cancer -- let's sue). Licensing.
Then there's taxes. Federal, state, county, city ... everyone will want a piece of this new revenue source.
"But it wouldn't happen... because as soon as the black market becomes cheaper than the free market, the free market evaporates and tax revenues drop to zero."
It's happening with cigarettes today. And the the government's response is very telling -- they're not lowering taxes (actually they're increasing them to make up the revenue shortfall). They're going after the tax avoiders. The smugglers, internet sales, Indian store sales, etc. Starting to look like the WOD.
"Not if it were done by a state, it wouldn't be."
A mass confiscation of guns would be unconstitutional, no matter who does it. The courts have already addressed that. It a ridiculous hypothetical.
"but even so, just because something isn't explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it isn't a right."
I agree. Likewise, just because something is a right doesn't mean the rest of us must protect it.
"And in this case it's a very fundamental right, the right to own and control your own body..."
It happens to have an effect on the rest of society. And our right to live how we want to live, our right to raise children in an environment we desire, trumps your right to engage in selfish, immoral hedonistic behavior.
How is it that your right should trump ours? Why must we protect your right to engage in this self centered activity?
(I don't mean you, personally.)
"Have you ever even attempted to justify your War on Drugs in terms of the benefits it provides for the costs?"
No, I haven't. I haven't done it for prostitution or porn or gambling, either.
Actually, I ask myself what's to be gained by legalizing marijuana (or all drugs). I haven't yet come up with (or heard) a good answer. Most of the benefits gained by legalizing marijuana can be gained by simply decriminalizing it.
Now, on to substance (and I hope you don't mind if I skip around a little bit):
Geez Louise. You're all over the place.
This is true, so let me try to organize my arguments a bit.
There are many good arguments against the War on Drugs, but they all tend to fall into one of two broader classes: the ethical arguments and the practical arguments. I've been guilty of conflating them, so let me lay them out individually.
The ethical argument is based on rights: people have the freedom to do as they wish (other than harming nonconsenting others), and any law that abridges this freedom is a violation of a fundamental human right. As far as I'm concerned, there is one and only one true human right. We talk about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of religion, right to life, right to liberty, right to pursue happiness, but all of these are merely specializations of the single true right: the right to be left alone. The right not to have other people (singly or in groups) exert force or commit fraud against you without your consent, so long as you do not initiate force or fraud against them. The fundamental axiom of a free society is Mind your own business!.
Rights are not subject to majority vote. Government, in the form of a dictator, a monarch, or a republican legislature, may choose to abridge certain rights, but that doesn't make it ethical. It is not right for a group to do that which it wouldn't be right for members of that group to do as individuals. Just as it would be wrong for you to march into a tavern and force the proprietor to shut down at the point of a shotgun, it's just as wrong for a whole group of people (perhaps constituting a majority) to use force to shut down that same tavern. Or that opium den. Might does not make right, and majorities are not freed from their ethical obligations.
It happens to have an effect on the rest of society.
Everything has an effect on the rest of society. That doesn't give society the moral authority to interfere.
And our right to live how we want to live, our right to raise children in an environment we desire, trumps your right to engage in selfish, immoral hedonistic behavior.
You have the right to live how you want to live, but not to tell other people how to live. As for raising your children in an environment you desire... you certainly don't have that right. Would you say that if a majority wanted to raise their children in an environment in which Christianity (or Islam, or Discordianism) were the state religion, it would be proper for them to make it so? If people wanted to raise their children in an environment in which slaves cared for their needs, would they have that right?
Why must we protect your right to engage in this self centered activity?
I'm not asking you to protect my right, I'm asking you not to infringe it. Actually, "asking" is too mild a word; I'm telling you that your infringement of the rights of others is an abhorrent violation.
(I don't mean you, personally.)
I know you don't, and thanks for saying so. Too often, in these kinds of debates, the pro-prohibition side demands to know whether I myself am a drug user, as if that sort of ad hominem proves anything. (If it did prove something, I'd wonder why the trusting the opinions of abstainers from drugs on drug use makes any more sense than, say, trusting the opinions of virgins on sex... but it doesn't.)
I've got more to say but I have to get to work for now... will write more tonight.
If our laws were based on this principle, then what you're saying makes total sense. They're not today and they never were.
If fact, no nation or society in the history of the world has ever restricted their laws to activities that initiate force or fraud. To take, for example, our drug laws and hold them to this standard (asking, where's the harm?) is neither fair nor warranted.
Under your philosophy, what about behavior which may harm others or has the potential of harming others (eg., speeding or DUI)? Can we write laws against that or must we wait until actual harm has been done?
Can't I say a drug user may harm others (via violence when using, or stealing to buy drugs, or health concerns, or reckless behavior) and write laws against drug use because of that?
"Rights are not subject to majority vote."
When rights conflict, it's either that or a court ruling.
“If pot is legalized and regulated there will still be street sales of all other drugs. If THC content is regulated, dealers will sell high potency pot. They’ll sell pot laced with other drugs. They’ll sell to the under-aged. They’ll sell it untaxed.”
Lace up those jack-boots a little tight this morning, did we?
It's hard to believe, but we're being told that in our constitutional republic, legislators are delegated the power, (reflecting the will of the people) to decide precisely which of our rights to life, liberty or property will be protected and to what extent.
-- Nothing in our Constitution can even remotely justify this belief, of course.
Incredibly, it is said our right to live how we want to live can be trumped by the 'majority wiil'; that our right to raise children in an environment we desire can be trumped by such legislative 'decisions'. - That you have no right to engage in whatever your peers decree to be selfish, immoral or hedonistic behaviors.
Are we at DU?
This century will someday be classified as the Era when Men Declared War on Inanimate Objects (pot, guns, suvs, etc). Too bad Don Quixote is no longer around to lead the way.
Well put.
One question, though. Why does your right to live how you want to live trump someone else's right to live how they want to live?
Good luck in getting a rational answer from a mind contaminated with the socialistic dogma we see above.
In general? It doesn't. Now if you want to get into specifics, then maybe I could answer your question.
"Since these people are not being imprisoned for harming others, but for choosing a lifestyle many find disagreeable."
Disagreeable. I like that. Kinda like "harmless weed".
There are many who say drug use harms the user and those around them. So I think it goes beyond disagreeable.
"And if you look like people like Karen Tandy and John Walters, they are actively trying to suppress any speech that would be pro-legalization like they did in Montana."
Suppressing speech? How about "telling the other side"?
"The same complaint was filed in Nevada two years ago against John Walters .... Nevada officials decided a few months later not to take action against Walters because he was carrying out the duties of his office, which include combatting marijuana legalization efforts. They cited an 1890 U.S. Supreme Court decision that federal officials are immune from state action when exercising the functions of their offices."
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.