Prop 8? Newsflash: There is a BIG world outside America; I have no idea what "prop 8" is and no intention of finding out.

you're now saying EVERY marijuana plant on the planet has been altered by humans? Somehow, I doubt it.

Ecstasy does not have any base in nature, it is a chemical, plain and simple. Cocaine, the less ludicrous notion of the two, as it actually originates in plants, goes through lengthy refining processes before it hits the street. As I explained in a previous post, whether or not a marijuana plant is specially cultivated or not, you can still pull bits off it and smoke it, as it is.

Perhaps with this fervency you have that "human-bread" (interesting hybrid idea, that!) marijuana is unnatural should extend to pedigree dogs and cats? Exactly the same applies to them. Naturally occurring, but have had their genetics shaped slightly differently by human interference. Shall I make a call and tell them to cancel Crufts this year? Or maybe just not call, and instead call in an airstrike, take out a whole load of the critters in one swoop?

Furthermore, endangered species are outlawed as pets for their own good, in the hope that the species will survive. I'm pretty sure that's not the reason behind marijuana being illegal.

That's a shocking thing to say! I'm not sure if you mean that the way it comes across, or if you're just not particularly good at expressing yourself, but it's bad news.

You think owning a person is natural?

The individual right to non government restriction of self harm is in the only argument for marijuana restriction. All the other stuff is made up fallacies.

gojo1978;59736 wrote:

Can I assume then, that you are opposed to all legislation outlawing suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia?

Follow your own logic. A person is nature. Outlawing possession of nature does not make sense.

Yeah, a plant and a conscious, sentient being... those are the same. :rolleyes:

I've never heard of Plant Rights.

Let's try to keep this discussion on topic, addressing the real issues here.

Does anyone have any solid, reasonable arguments on either side of the fence they'd like to share?

The right to non government restriction of self-harm is in the only argument for marijuana restriction.

Marijuana can be pulled off a plant and smoked as is.

Making nature itself against the law is insane, that's all there is to it. And it should raise serious questions, especially among people on a Philosophy forum!

Then lets legalize the marijuana variations, that have not been bred.

THC is a chemical. When exactly is it nature.

If we pull bits off a plant, thats nature, if we dry, pack (possibly industrially or mechanically) and mix it with other stuff, that's still natural, if we take chemical cuts of it thats still natural, but if we do that in a laboratory, that's not nature any more.

I didn't say that it's always a valid argument. Your side would have to prove that legalization is not harmful to others.

When THC is produced by the plant - when it occurs naturally as in the case of THC in marijuana plants.

How about demonstrating that prohibition is harmful?

"Naturally", the plants would have like 2% of the THC.

The whole natural premise is just a wordplay. And I'm not going to follow this further off topic.

Even if it were natural, it wouldn't make a fricking difference legally.

Yeah, that's my point: if it can be shown that the prohibition of marijuana is more destructive than the regulated legalization of marijuana then those in favor of regulated legalization have met their burden of proof.

I agree. Natural or not, the law can regulate the substance.

Yeah, that's my point: if it can be shown that the prohibition of marijuana is more destructive than the regulated legalization of marijuana then those in favor of regulated legalization have met their burden of proof.

Then we agree. Why does the whole natural premise even matter?

Agree. That's hard to prove, because the other side can sit back and debunk what's coming at them.

When we ask the question: Is it practical to prohibit a naturally occurring, relatively harmless plant?

To put this into context: alcohol, a far more dangerous drug, is not naturally occurring and legal to consume until death. You can drink yourself to death. Marijuana on the other hand, a naturally occurring on which a human being cannot overdose, is illegal and people rot in prison over the stuff. Doesn't make any sense.

to debunk the notion that regulated legalization is preferable to prohibition the opposing ideology would have to have some good reason. To put it simply: they lack any good reason.

Which may be true, but still irrelevant for the legalization of marijuana. One unjustness does not excuse another - legally.

Exactly not. Having the burden of proof means that lack of opposing evidence is not enough to prove ones premise.
Your side has to prove that your change will be for the better. The other side does not have to justify the status quo for your change to be justified.

To put this into context: alcohol, a far more dangerous drug, is not naturally occurring and legal to consume until death.

Whether or not it is practical to prohibit marijuana is the central question. It is the most important question to be asked. If it is impractical to prohibit marijuana, then we must stop prohibiting marijuana.

More importantly: those in favor of prohibition also have a burden of proof to meet. They have to show either A) that the arguments made in favor of prohibition which lead to the current legislative status are valid and true, or B) that, while the old arguments are flawed, new understanding supports the need for prohibition. Proponents of prohibition do not have to do both, but they have to do at least one otherwise they simply are saying 'marijuana should be prohibited because we prohibit marijuana' which is nonsensical.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.

How is alcohol not naturally occurring? It's one of the most basic and universal anaerobic metabolites among plants and yeasts.

I can agree, but only because the term "practical" could mean a lot. You wanted to clarify earlier, please do so on this subject now.

The legality of alcohol is absolutely irrelevant to marijuana legalization, except for swaying opinions, and any method is fine for that.

No, they don't have to justify it, there is no 'because' expected from them.

I was talking about alcohol as consumed by humans. As far as I know, we humans have to do something in order to produce alcohol for consumption. I could be wrong.

Thanks, medicine man.

I was talking about alcohol as consumed by humans. As far as I know, we humans have to do something in order to produce alcohol for consumption. I could be wrong.