To tell you the truth, where I'm from at least, people do marijuana so frequently, it's practically legal. I've literally seen cops just walk by and laugh after seeing people light up a blunt, as they don't feel like being fussed writing up a group of teenagers.

And strangely, the consumption of alcohol, while not being illegal, is more readily enforced. I'm not sure if I'm in the minority here in experiencing this (Philadelphia).

Nonetheless, DT, yes, I don't think anyone can contest alcohol is worse (or has more potential to be worse) for the body.

The current prohibition just does not make any sense.

Alcohol also has dramatic health benefits in certain conditions, in addition to being a part of cuisine since antiquity.

Both marijuana and alcohol typically serve the same purposes - a way to become intoxicated and something around which to socialize. One is easily substituted for the other.

Interesting assertion, but you have neglected to provide a reason or even a response to my argument that those who support prohibition do have some burden of proof to meet.

To tell you the truth, where I'm from at least, people do marijuana so frequently, it's practically legal.

Because they don't.
If a side wants a change that is potentially for the harm of others,
it has the burden of proof to show that this change would be for the better.

Again, you make the assertion and ignore my arguments.

I agree that those promoting a change in marijuana laws do have a burden of proof to meet.

What I am arguing is that those who find the current laws to be appropriate and pragmatic must also meet a certain burden of proof. The state of the United States has changed dramatically since the first marijuana prohibition laws in the 1930's, and conditions in the United States have changed a great deal in the time since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was passed into law.

Anyone who suggests that the current laws are appropriate (as Federal laws regarding marijuana have gone without any fundamental change since the 1970 legislation) has the following burden of proof to meet: 1) they must show that the status quo, when introduced, was based on solid evidence, and 2) that the past justifications, if true in the past, remain true today.

To say that people supporting the current prohibition have absolutely no burden of proof to meet amounts to an appeal to tradition, which is, to say the least, not a convincing reason.

If someone wants to legalize a potentially harmful substance, the burden of proof, that this would not be harmful, is on him.

Saying: "You have to prove that there is no reason for keeping it legal" is not enough.

It is their burden of proof to establish why [in the conditional future] legalization would benefit the nation. They're the ones who appear to want the law changed from the way it is now. We don't.

Which is not at all what I have said. Instead, I have argued that both parties, those in favor of change and those in favor of tradition, have to meet some burden of proof.

They don't. Unless you can show that they have "some" burden of proof.
Which has to be accepted, before you can base arguments on it.

Didymos Thomas;60142 wrote:

Right - and, in reference to my previous arguments, those who do not want to change the laws have to meet two burdens of proof or else they commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

I don't want to be rude, but both the fallacies you mentioned are something different.
An appeal to tradition would be if a side argues that it should be that way, because it is that way As opposed to it not having to make any arguments.
An appeal to authority would be if a side argues that we are right, because x says so.

Again, you make the assertion and ignore my arguments.

That seems to be what he does.

Forget about this and move on is my advice. :a-ok:

First you hijack the thread with non-arguments, and then you bail. And then you accuse others of not having good arguments.

Politically, I believe there is good reason to keep drugs - as marijuana - illegal. The individual right to self harm is in my opinion the only argument against that, but I calculate the negative effects on society, such as danger and lost productivity, as too extensive.

As for me, I have little experience with drugs, and actually no experience with illegal drugs. But I drink alcohol and I realize that is somewhat hypocritical, but I think being all-or-nothing is not discipline.

A person has little to gain from taking drugs, except for feeling good, so there is no good reason to do so. And it will only shift your happiness to another time, you never gain an overall increase in happiness. All the other positive effects, such as increased creativity, are in my estimation excuses.

They don't. Unless you can show that they have "some" burden of proof.
Which has to be accepted, before you can base arguments on it.

I don't want to be rude, but both the fallacies you mentioned are something different.
An appeal to tradition would be if a side argues that it should be that way, because it is that way As opposed to it not having to make any arguments.
An appeal to authority would be if a side argues that we are right, because x says so.

I've been demonstrating that they have some burden of proof to meet for several posts now

I never brought up an appeal to authority.

The two burdens of proof upon those who would have the laws remain as are stem from the need of said party to avoid an appeal to tradition. By saying that said party need not make an argument, you force that party to rest on tradition as justification, which is insufficient justification.

Don't neglect the benefits of medicinal marijuana, for they far outweigh any benefits found in alcohol.

Not even close. In some studies moderate alcohol intake has been shown to reduce the mortality rate from coronary artery disease by 40%. Given that that is the leading cause of death in the developed world, if if were feasible to apply this as a public health measure it would save hundreds of thousands of lives annually.

I'd be interested to see a single study that shows marijuana confers a mortality benefit for any condition.

Well, you're wrong, they don't. You can make an argument that they do, but so far you did not.

You did here (just at the end). If that was a typo, that's ok.

The thing is that the party that doesn't want to achieve a change doesn't have to make an argument. So there is no appeal to anything made, as those are arguments.

You are right. But what does it matter to marijuana legalization?
Marijuana does not have to be legal for recreational use to be used as medicine.
Does penicillin have to be legal for recreational use to be used as medicine?
It's another non-argument. It's just words.

Okay - I'm just wrong? No sense even replying to my arguments because it is better to just ignore them?

I've made arguments that people who do not support any change in marijuana laws have some burden of proof, and you have stated over and over again that I am wrong without ever touching a single argument I've made on the matter.

The statement "the party that doesn't want to achieve a change doesn't have to make an argument" is not an argument.

Simply by disagreeing with those who want a change in public policy, when those who want a change come with arguments, those who want to keep the policy as is have a burden of proof. In response to an argument for public policy change those hearing the change must have some reply with more substance than "oh, no, we don't want the change, so no change!" That's completely arbitrary. Instead, such conservatives should either manage a dispute of the liberal arguments or meet the two burdens of proof I mentioned. If not, their stance rests solely on an appeal to authority: it is what it is and cannot change because it happens to be that way right now.

Allowing for medical marijuana would be a dramatic change in Federal drug policy.

Sorry, if you state that the capital of France is London, what do you want me to say except that you are wrong?

Exactly. : )
That's the point, they dont need to make arguments.

If you are saying that any change can be justified by there not being enough arguments to legitimize the current situation, you're opening a whole can of worms.

Sure. Which is another argument. I think heroin and opium are basically the same as many pain medicines. I don't think legalizing recreational use of any substance has much to do with it's potential for medical use.