Legality of cannabis

Ryan_m_b

True but monetary assessments are not the only way to measure cost/benefit. Look at funding and purchases for medicines and medical devices, people in that field are constantly having to judge how to spend finite resources for the most gain e.g. "we can either fund/buy Product A which will save the lives of 100 patients per year or Product B which will increase the quality of life of 1000 patients per year by X." The discussions over how to measure QOL are constant and there are many proposed methods but it can be far more empirical than arbitrary.

Pythagorean

The point is only that risk can be quantified and that arbitrary is too discrediting of a word.

But, monetary risk is strongly coupled to all other forms of risk. It's currency; it's a way to compare values of all kinds of things: time, energy, sentiment; don't forget that economics is a social science. Individual freedoms are taken into account; that's the whole argument behind a free market. In the era of Hobbes and Lock, they figured out that allowing people to own their own property makes them more productive and the general question of freedoms as an influence on economy was brought up.

From there, the extreme ends of the two political camps essentially divide the issue between total and complete freedom, or total and complete control; at least, they divide the issue this way in retort, but the successful emergent outcome is generally a moderate response: Allow a socially defined core of freedoms, but regulate social interactions to reduce impact. If people are too free, they cost the rest of society a lot of time, energy, and sentiment. From the dishonest political economies of Wall Street to the people that would endanger brain development in children.

nitsuj

Your reasoning is awesome!

I agree on your currency comment, absolutely right imo.

I tried to think of indisputable counters and can't think of any. Even fast food risk is in the cross hairs for "insurance premiums" (special tax). Salt is also on the block, regulating amounts of sodium...somehow. (could fast food fries salt content be any more inconsistent?)

Hobin

I would like to add that total freedom is a bit of a misnomer, because this would include the freedom to take away other people's freedoms (aka monopolies 'n stuff), which then results in there actually being less total freedom.

nitsuj

freedoms come after morals

sas3

I think one reason it is not legal has a lot to do with the big textile and paper industries, they do not want to loose market share. Industrial hemp has a THC content of between 0.05 and 1%. Marijuana has a THC content of 3% to 20%. I got that info from this site.
http://naihc.org/hemp_information/hemp_facts.html

Some Slacker

Absolutely true, without the THC in the plant, there would be no reason to smoke it. My point was more to the point that it wasn't messed with by humans. (except by picking and choosing which plant or plants to continue in the next generation, so I guess I just argued with myself, I blame the pot)

My only real problem is with 'many'... I am really only here to present arguments for the legalization of cannabis, the rest of the wreckreational drugs I could care less about, to me it isn't about freedom or personal freedom or privacy or our children, its just about fairness, and I know life isn't fair, but our laws should be, otherwise whats the point of laws at all.

Yeah, I did go a bit far with the innocuousness of pot, if it weren't mind altering we wouldn't be havin this discussion, and I also agree long term abuse is bad (m'kay?) but I have never heard a term for falling down stoned.

Yep, it was late (roll out the excuses) but I obviously knew that there are tests, but unfortunately the tests can only tell if you have ingested any in the last month or so not if you are under the influence RIGHT NOW, therein lies the problem, with a test that isn't specific to when the drug was ingested, it would make it very hard to legalize for many activities humans endeavor, so I think there is a bit of a catch-22 situation.

So, this time, let me get it right:

Someone PLEASE make a test that tests for the current level of impairment,

I don't see how, I can't even think of how it would work or could, but that is what dreaming is for... right?

With this (proposed) test I think cannabis could be legalized tomorrow.

(and Ryan I apologize for taking some liberties with your quotes, but I only fixed some misspellings and bolded a word, less innocuous than even pot I hope)

nitsuj

To your point regarding the tests...IF the government said "we will sell pot if there is a test for how high some one is..." you can bet there would be enough of a venture capital opportunity there to get something developed, patented and sold to the various law enforcement agencies.

It's guaranteed business. This whole thing is so win win....long term.

Some Slacker

I agree, but the gov't (of the US) will NEVER say that, there is WAY too much to be made fighting the war on drugs, I can imagine it contributes significantly to our GDP, something like $208b (USD).

SHISHKABOB

this is new to me, how does the war on terror contribute to the GDP?

Some Slacker

I would think that runs closer to the trillions, far more than the piddly amount from fighting drugs.

SHISHKABOB

oh whoops I meant drugs, not terror. My question is how exactly. My understanding is that fighting wars, of any kind, are not going to make money in general.

TylerH

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Shafer Commission yet. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../nc/ncmenu.htm

A congressional committee commissioned in 1972 by Nixon recommended legalization (with forfeiture as contraband if used in public) of small amounts, on the grounds that, while it is necessary to discourage use, the method of total prohibition is ineffective.

Some Slacker

Spending increases GDP, I thought we were all keynesians now?

Ryan_m_b

The argument is it is a Keynesian stimulus to the various departments, police forces and prison industrial complex.

On a different note it occurs to me that drug legalisation in the US and the UK is a good example of a failure mode in modern democracy. Being "tough on drugs" has entered the public consciousness as a positive thing and consequently no politician can afford to be seen as soft on the issue, if someone does table a more liberal policy it can be jumped on by rival politicians. There was a good example of this a few years ago in the UK when the head of the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs, Professor David Nutt, was dismissed for giving a talk and writing a paper regarding drug legalization that contradicted government policy. There was a brief media outcry followed by his dismissal followed by another scandel (not big enough IMO) that the government just got rid of an expert advisor because his advise didn't agree with them.

nitsuj

I'd be surprised if the GDP calculation includes government services...plus illegal drug business isn't included in GDP.

ThomasT

I voted that it should be legalized and controlled like alcohol and tobacco. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of people against this have never experienced it and know little or nothing about it. And that, imo, is why it remains illegal.