Balloon guy, on Saturday, February 11th, 2012, 8:28 AM, said:
Arguing that alcohol is bad and legal, therefore pot should be legal since it's less bad, is faulty.Unless you want to allow me to argue that alcohol should be illegal because it's much worse the pot and give me equal credit for the strength of the argument.Also saying that keeping pot illegal is not cost effective/too hard is a bad reason to argue for its legality.Just because there is difficulty in maintaining a law is no reason to argue to just quit making it illegal. The whole 'cost to criminalize it' it false also. If/when pot is legal, we will not be firing half the police force and socking away the savings into Obamacare. There will be no closing of prisons, and there will be no days of closing the courts because of a lack of trials to hear. The budgets spent on law enforcement will not be reduced.
I'm not making the argument that alcohol is bad and legal, therefore pot should be legal since it's less bad.I'm making the argument that pot is not bad all all, period, and that people should be allowed to make the decision for themselves what they put into their own body, in terms of benign, recreational substances. We have effectively two options here. Prohibition or legalization. Once upon a time, we put the ideas of people like you into action and decided that for the benefit of society, we should ban these substances, so we did. Marijuana, alcohol, various narcotics- all banned. We then had a decade or so of prohibition to learn from, and we did. It's an abysmal policy that creates more trouble than whatever 'social ills' its supposed to solve. Ironically enough, it was all in response to an extremely isolated group of moralists, not a bona-fide addiction problem. There was a time when you could buy Heroin over the counter, yet Heroin use was colossally lower then than it is now. Once we came to our senses, we eventually undid these dumb laws. The catch, obviously, was that in the 1930's, there was no significant marijuana use, so there was nobody to lobby for its legalization when booze was made legal.You're promoting the standard prohibition mentality- a demonstrably failed mentality- then shucking and jiving, arguing semantics with some anti moral-relativism position when people point out the absurd hypocrisy and illogic. Like I said. If you're just for banning it all- beer, pot, coffee- OK, you get points for intellectual consistency, but either way, total prohibition or just pot prohibition but legal alcohol, you still look like a total dumbass who doesn't think things through. Your characterization of the cost issue is equally dumb. It's a human resource issue. We are currently wasting an insane amount of human resources on marijuana offenses, from police and support personnel, to judges, juries, attorneys, court reporters, bailiffs, jailers, prisons, all associated services. It's a full fledged 'industrial complex', which itself has some grotesque implications.
Whether decriminalizing marijuana actually shrinks government or simply releases the existing government facilities to pursue meaningful crime, either way, the only possible result is a total positive... and if your objective is to shrink government, that would be a good start. Of course, the 'conservative' delusion isn't really about 'small government' when it comes to prisons, military, police forces, etc. You ****ers really do have a huge hang-up about control. One day, science will isolate the part of the brain responsible for this and hopefully, with gene therapy and/or abortion, we can eliminate it.