[LIConFem]

"By the way, that philosophy demands that all drugs be legal. Do you support that, or do you have yet another qualifier waiting in the wings?"

Honestly? Yes, I might actually consider that. What stops me is that I know so little about the effects of other drugs, as opposed to pot and alcohol (which I've witnessed first-hand). If there are drugs that make the user violent, for example, that would pose an unacceptable risk. If other drugs simply put the user to sleep, that'd be a different story altogether. So the answer is, I don't know.

"Fine. That's how the majority of people view drugs. Deal with it. If we're wrong, convince us otherwise and the laws will change. Until then, they remain."

I'm dealing with it just fine. And as far as trying to convince you, that's what I'm doing here right now. But if you think about it, I should be asking you to convince me of why the government has the right outlaw pot. After all, you're the one who posits that pot-smokers are a danger to society. Shouldn't you at least make an attempt to prove it?

"Under the same circumstances as what I just posted? There's your answer -- the circumstances are totally different."

Huh? I was inquiring as to your what you thought the difference was between drinking in private and smoking pot in private.

"Are you, therefore, saying that pot smokers will replace alcohol drinkers, such that there is no increase in the reasonable risk of harm to society? Or will pot smokers add to the reasonable risks we already face with legal alcohol?"

You're assuming that the number of pot smokers would increase significantly. That's not at all a foregone conclusion. And aside from the risk to society posed by pot-smoking drivers (which already exsits), you still haven't told me why pot smokers are inherently dangerous.

"I think I hear God Bless America playing in the background. Spare me.

I'm sorry if that offends you. But not at all surprised.

[Mojave]

I should be asking you to convince me of why the government has the right outlaw pot.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson

[robertpaulsen]

"If there are drugs that make the user violent, for example, that would pose an unacceptable risk."

OK. So when you say, "I consider the preservation of personal freedoms as a moral imperative", what you really mean is that you consider the preservation of personal freedoms as a moral imperative unless those personal freedoms pose a reasonable and unacceptable risk to others.

Well, hell. Look at that. We agree.

"And as far as trying to convince you, that's what I'm doing here right now."

No, you're not trying to convince me. You're trying to philosphically argue your general point that the government has no business regulating behavior that doesn't harm others. Or pose a reasonable risk of harm. Or an unacceptable reasonable risk of harm. Or ... are you done, or is there more? I'd hate to close out this train of thought unless you're finished.

"But if you think about it, I should be asking you to convince me of why the government has the right outlaw pot."

I don't have to argue why. Pot IS illegal. You need to tell me, the voter, why pot, of all the existing illegal drugs, should be legal. Truthfully, I see no benefit whatsoever. I see a huge downside, especially with teens.

The War on Drugs would continue, along with no-knocks and asset forfeiture. The DEA and the ONDCP will remain, as will the drug border patrols and overseas interdiction forces. No prisons will close. No courtrooms will shut down. No judges, or prosecutors, or public defenders, or cops will be fired. No money will be saved.

I mean, c'mon. Convince me! Tell me I'm wrong and why I'm wrong! Where are the benefits?

Taxes? Tell me about the billions that will be collected! (I dare you.) No more arrests? Really? With nearly half the users underage, there'll be no more marijuana arrests? Trials? Convictions? Jail?

No, you haven't even begun to convince me or anyone else. You tried the "liberty and freedom for all" argument and then backed down from that. You call for personal freedom, but then have second thoughts about drugs other than the one you personally approve of. As much as I disagree with them, at least the Libertarians who call for the legalization of ALL drugs are consistent.

"Huh? I was inquiring as to your what you thought the difference was between drinking in private and smoking pot in private."

Smoking pot in private? 800,000 pot smokers arrested last year. How many of those were smoking pot in private, do you think? Four?

How many public pot smokers are we arresting? Maybe 10%? That makes 8 million pot smokers not smoking in private. Don't give me that tired old "who's being harmed when we smoke pot in the privacy of our own home?" argument.

"You're assuming that the number of pot smokers would increase significantly."

Yes, of course. You disagree? You think it will stay the same?

Would you be concerned if pot use doubled or even tripled? I'd really hate to see you argue that use would not increase, then turn right around and say "so what if it does" -- which is where I think this is headed based on your comments.

"you still haven't told me why pot smokers are inherently dangerous."

Dangerous? I never said that. I might have said selfish, immoral, hedonistic, immature, self-centered, and individualistic ... but dangerous? No.