That's all you would need to do. However, if I state that the capital of France is London and then produce an argument I honestly find to be convincing, you respond by should pull out a world map or something to correct my mistake.

They do not even need to explain why they do not need to make an argument to support their position? And this practice of unsubstantiated assertions working with the sole justification that an assertion is right because the assertion is current policy is somehow not an appeal to tradition?

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that if a change is supported by thoughtful argument that detractors of the change have a responsibility to answer those thoughtful arguments.

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. I'd be happy to explain this in detail; I understand that I've only made assertions thus far. If you disagree I would be happy to clarify these issues.

And what, other than your agreement or disagreement with the argument, is different about legalizing medical use as opposed to recreational use from the standpoint of burden of proof?

With the legalization of recreational use, you maintain that conservatives need not make any argument in response to the liberal case. Should the conservatives follow the same principle you defend and refuse to hear arguments in favor of medical marijuana?

Exactly. They only have to disprove what's coming at them. If they can't, the other side wins. But if no legitimate arguments are made, they win.
They have to answer to the other sides arguments. That is different than any arguments being expected from them, well only counter-arguments.

So this is not the case:

You can clarify now, but keep in mind what we discussed so far.

If legal medical marijuana is the law, sure. But that's different from medical use being an excuse for recreational use.
That marijuana can be used as a medicine does not mean that those not following the law are legitimate.

So we should expect the conservatives to make an argument. Glad we finally got that one together.

Actually, that is the case: when presented with an argument for change, the conservative must present a counter-argument, the conservative must debunk the liberal argument with good reason.

Under current marijuana laws, over 700,000 people are arrested every year. This is a terrible drain on our economy, on law enforcement resources,

Prohibition does not curtail use of marijuana nor decrease the demand for the drug.

Because so many Americans desire to smoke marijuana the manufacture, distribution, and sale of marijuana, the largest cash crop in California and one of the largest in the US, goes untaxed and is run by criminals.

The result of this unnecessary criminal syndicate is the use of violence to resolve disputes, which is currently rising to alarming rates on the US-Mexico border; this unnecessary blood-letting is a further drain on law enforcement resources and is a clear and present danger to civilians in high activity areas.

Regulated legalization would end the criminal stranglehold on the marijuana market, and for this reason would put an end to the bloodshed.

Regulated legalization would allow for this valuable cash crop to be taxed, bringing in billions of dollars in revenue each year to state governments and the Federal government.

With the legitimization of the marijuana industry real jobs can be added to the economy, turning illicit marijuana farmers into skilled workers and allowing entrepreneurs to establish businesses

Under prohibition, anyone who smokes a joint is a criminal, and without prohibition you make millions of Americans law abiding citizens again.

Before I do that, I like to point out, that the only valid argument is the right to non government restriction of self harm, so if you make an argument for that, I have no problem with marijuana legalization.

=> Nothing.
Criminalization of homicide is a drain on the legal system as well. One unjustness does not excuse another.
Your solution to a problem is to declare it not a problem any more.

=> We should make prohibition work.

=> We should enforce prohibition.
In case you respond, that doesn't work: One unjustness does not excuse another.

=> Nothing.
One unjustness does not excuse another.

=> Nothing.
That doesn't mean it's a good solution.
So would putting up a big ass border fence, or enforcing the rule of law.

=> Nothing.
The prohibition and legal effort are a drain on the economy, yet having a bunch of car crashes and lost productivity is stimulus.

You only count the negative side of what would be abolished and only the positive side of what would be created instead.

Sure. That's what the word means. If we legalize homicide and tax fraud, murderers and tax cheats would be law abiding citizens.

would you actually like to address my point that by legalizing marijuana law enforcement would have greater resources to combat far more serious dangers to society, like homicide?

showing the United States has clearly prohibited the wrong substance.

If marijuana has risk of harm and addiction, but also can be medically beneficial, then its therapeutic use can be legalized but its recreational use kept illegal.

Well, I'm not so sure about that one. The entities that fund and regulate police work against marijuana (federal, incl the DEA) are not the entirely same as those that fund homicide divisions (state and local), though of course there is some overlap.

Any abundance of funds produced by legalizing marijuana would almost certainly not go directly to some other needed entity. It's just not the way that money flows. It might be returned to a general tax pool. It might stay within drug enforcement for 'harder' drugs. It might increase salary and benefits of law enforcement officers without increasing capacity.

While I think there is certainly an argument along the lines of what the government should and should not regulate, to claim that the only valid argument is the right to self harm is nonsense. A valid argument is any argument with a conclusion that follows logically from the premises.

Now, would you actually like to address my point that by legalizing marijuana law enforcement would have greater resources to combat far more serious dangers to society, like homicide?

And we should make burning fossil fuels good for the environment, and end world hunger. After nearly one hundred years of failed and costly prohibition we have to recognize the fact that prohibition does not work.

But I am glad to see that you already know that prohibition has failed us thus far.

Reasserting that prohibition should be enforced (which is odd in the first place because prohibition is enforced, which costs taxpayers billions of dollars each year without doing anything to stem the tide of marijuana production and consumption)

in no way addresses the unnecessary and violent criminal syndicate created by prohibition nor the immense amount of potential tax revenue and jobs to be gained by legalization.

And let us say that we did, by some magical means, perfectly enforce prohibition - over night tens of millions of Americans would be locked up. It simply isn't possible. We do not have the jail space, enough officers, and the damage to productivity would wreck the economy.

I bring up the undeniable fact that marijuana prohibition creates a climate of violence that threatens American citizens and you say the issue is "nothing"? I think people lives have, you know, value.

In of itself, this is not enough for legalization to be a good solution, instead this particular anecdote, along with the others, adds credibility to the overall argument that marijuana prohibition is not a pragmatic solution to the problem of marijuana use.

A giant border fence will not stop the violence. And we are trying to enforce the rule of law and failing miserably. That's the point: prohibition cannot handle the resulting criminal market. Prohibition causes a problem that cannot be solved by law enforcement, but can be solved by the end of prohibition.

Except that you incorrectly assume that an end to prohibition will cause an increase in the incidents of marijuana related accidents and marijuana use. Over 40% of Americans have tried marijuana at least once, whereas less than 20% of the Dutch have tried marijuana - and the Dutch have a regulated marijuana market. The secret? The Netherlands made pot boring.

And what is the "positive side" of a marijuana policy that has completely failed in every regard for nearly a century, that costs an exorbitant amount of money and creates more serious problems than it addresses?

Except that around a third of the nation is not a murderer at least once a month. The whole point of public policy is to implement the most pragmatic policy. Replacing a failed marijuana prohibition with a regulated marijuana market eliminates the violence and public cost of prohibition and replaces those ills with new, well paying jobs and great heaps of tax revenue which can be invested in vital public works like education is pragmatic.

There are two central issues: 1) recognizing that prohibition is failed and why, and 2) what is the best way to handle marijuana post-prohibition. Unless some magical new method of handling prohibition is discovered, that's reality.

The medical argument is not an argument for legalization of recreational use.

Just out of curiosity, what, as far as YOU personally are concerned, are the valid arguments for the continuing criminalisation of marijuana (for recreational use)?

Just out of curiosity, what, as far as YOU personally are concerned, are the valid arguments for the continuing criminalisation of marijuana (for recreational use)? Why do you think there is a problem with that?

There are no sufficient arguments for the alternative.

Why did I even bother?


That's not an answer.

And furthermore, it indicates that, if you have no further reasoning to add to that, there is also no sufficient argument for its illegal status.

So, working on that basis, which is that you have no sufficient argument for its illegality, I ask you, WHY should it be illegal in the first place?

Your refusal to answer the cases of myself and several others is really casting you in the light of a political dogmatist.

I don't have to. I don't have the burden of proof. I don't want a change.

You have no case.

Are you looking to become a politician by any chance? Your refusal to answer questions with any kind of forthrightness points towards it. You have no case, so you just keep hiding behind this "burden of proof" crap. No, you don't HAVE to... we're asking you to. Give us laymen the benefit of your obviously unimpeachable wisdom. It's a philosophy forum. What you are doing is not philosophising. Why are you here?

If you want to hear my opinion, I don't really care if marijuana gets legalized.
As long as the rule of law isn't circumvented to do so.

There are no sufficient arguments for the alternative.