Okay... We're moving now. :a-ok:

If you don't care, can we then take it that you concede that, setting aside the "I don't want a change" line, there are no good reasons for marijuana to have ever been illegal?

I don't know. I think the reason was and is that it is harmful to individual humans and the nation as a whole.

I don't think the reason for originally making it illegal matters now. If that reason was bad, it will be easy to argue now that decriminalizing will be a change for the better.

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.

Yes, that's what I'm driving at. Now, obviously, you are voicing your own opinion rather than making a legal case, but working within that, you stated previously that people should have the right to self-harm, which I agree with, providing it doesn't physically damage someone else's life.

In my own opinion, the legalisation and regulation of drugs is the way forward, for reasons stated here many times already, primarily the drain on resources, etc.

Now, it is widely reported that cannabis causes many less (if any) fatalities than drinking, so the ongoing legality of alcohol tramples on any point the anti-legalisation lobby can make.

Now, I'm going to guess here, and forgive me if I'm wrong, that you are against gun control. If that is so, then this contradicts the above point, as the whole rationale behind the insane US gun laws is to overthrow a, shall we say, over-exuberant government. But what is the government, if not the maker, implementer and upholder of laws?

But all of that aside, I salute your move toward reasoned debate. :a-ok:

Sorry for the standard of my post in this thread falling.
I'm tired of this debate. The arguments just don't follw, thay just dont.

Sure. But the argument does not just have to support a conclusion, it has to support the conclusion that you make it for, and all the other arguments don't meet that requirement. Or they are wrong.

Fine, it would. Now what? Abolishing any law would save the resources of enforcing it.

I accept it for the sake of the argument - for now.

Still that does not support your premise. It just doesn't.

No it's not.

I don't have to. I disputed your argument. I can sit back and enjoy not having the burden of proof.

Relativism. I'm tired of this. Lets just agree to disagree.
You believe whatever you want to believe.

Maybe it's undeniable. But it does not support the conclusion.

Which is what I'm telling you all the time. You would make the argument that your change is for the better.

See, now you are arguing that your change will be for the better. And I agree. If that is true, I don't know.

The point is that you can't only count the negatives on one side and only the positives of the other.
The government apparatus keeping the useless prohibition intact is stimulus as well.

No, it's not. There isn't a homicide rate at which point we should abolish criminalization of it.

Not, really. It's 1) There is a problem 2) How to best reduce that problem

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.

Why do we not see the same with alcohol?

Prohibition is not enforced? Then how do you explain the millions of pounds of marijuana seized every year and the over 700,000 Americans arrested on marijuana charges?

Oh, we're back to that again - too good to defend your assertions. How many pages did it take for you to finally admit that some burden of proof rests on the conservative side when liberal arguments are made?

Of course I'm arguing that regulated legalization will be an improvement over prohibition! I've been doing that for pages.

You are right - government spending on law enforcement to combat marijuana is some stimulus. However, when you compare the potential to tax marijuana (again, it's California's largest cash crop and one of the largest cash crops nation wide) the stimulus to our economy from taxation dwarfs the minor drop of law enforcement spending.

I never said there was. Here's the deal - the business of growing marijuana, and the practice of consuming marijuana cannot be analogized with the crime of homicide. Even under the current laws these are entirely different sorts of crimes.

And what is the problem? The failure of prohibition.

Not trying to scoop Aedes' questions, but I think the answer is two fold: 1) alcohol is and has always been the more pervasive drug in the US and 2) the normality of growing marijuana was destroyed by propaganda from money grubbers like Hearst and from the US government.

An example to prove a negative.
In California cops don't enforce the law any more. And a lot of people have medical marijuana licenses as an excuse.

I never needed to admit anything. It took you so so long to understand. The conservative side does not have to justify existing laws. They can debunk arguments against it.

You have to put arguments fourth that support that premise, not just words.

A consumption tax would have the same effect. So your argument is for another premise.

What's fundamentally different? Malum in se?

Name another crime where the failure of enforcement is the problem, not the crime. Tax fraud, conspiracy, forgery? Anything? That's not how it works.

You say: A trying to stop B from doing a bad thing causes problems. So A's action should instead be declared legal, because it's B's fault.

Did it ever occur to you that people could just stop smoking marijuana. No more enforcement cost, no more drug gangs, nobody in prison for it.

So, essentially, it's just popularity.

Isn't it a bit silly to base illegalities on popularity? I don't feel popularity is good reason, and I'd hope illegalities are based on good reason.

First, you will still have to explain how the claim 'prohibition is not enforced' can be true even though 700,000 Americans are arrested each year as a result of prohibition.

Second, citing a single state as evidence is insufficient for demonstrating that the national prohibition is not enforced. Even if it was true that California no longer enforces marijuana laws, it does not follow that marijuana laws are not enforced in the US.

Third, the State of California does enforce state marijuana laws. The Federal government enforces Federal marijuana laws. The only Federal marijuana law not currently enforced in California is the prohibition on medical marijuana dispensaries. All of the others, such as possession, distribution, sale, transportation across state/international border, contributing to a minor, ect are still enforced by Federal law enforcement.

Fourth, to have a medical marijuana license in California the patient needs a prescription from a doctor. Unless you honestly want to sweepingly accuse California doctors of disobeying state statue, there is no reason to suggest that medical marijuana is used to circumvent state statue.

You've already admitted that the conservative side does have to justify the status quo when the liberal side presents honest arguments against the current laws.

By debunking, or attempting to debunk, the liberal claims the conservative is justifying existing laws.

A consumption tax would have the same effect. So your argument is for another premise.

You cannot have a consumption tax when the product being consumed is illicit.

The difference is that the use of marijuana is something the victim consents to, whereas the victim of murder is not a consenting party.

Not quite. A trying to stop B from doing a bad thing causes problems. A's action should be made legal so that B will no longer be forced to create the unnecessary problems resulting from A's action.

Sure, it's largely enforced. It should be fully enforced.
They slowly abrogate the rule of law.

The standard is that it's enforced, not that its not.

They cant pick the laws they like to follow. If they want to succeed from the Union, they can try.

We both know that a lot of those licenses are for phony illnesses.

If you want to call it that. But the point is that the other side has to come up with arguments, and "the conservative" side's only job is to point out that the arguments are wrong or that they don't support the premise.

If the argument comes at them that marijuana restriction is the reason that puppies are sad, they can say: No it's not.
If the argument comes at them that legalization doesn't work, they can say: Sure, so what.

The money that drug dealers spend would be taxed by a consumption tax.

It would have to be shown that there is no one else harmed by drug use. That cannot be assumed. That's the whole argument. So they are not "totally different".

That's called relativism. Justifying one bad thing with another. I'm fat, so I might as well drink too much as well.

So your earlier claim that prohibition is not enforced is incorrect?

To the point: prohibition is enforced. That's fact. Ask your local law enforcement agent.

What law enforcement cannot do is arrest everyone who violates marijuana laws because, overnight, at least ten percent of the US population would be behind bars.

Way to ignore my argument.

Second, citing a single state as evidence is insufficient for demonstrating that the national prohibition is not enforced. Even if it was true that California no longer enforces marijuana laws, it does not follow that marijuana laws are not enforced in the US.

Sure, it's largely enforced. It should be fully enforced.

You are right - and California does not pick and chose which laws to follow. It was a decision by the Obama administration to end DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. The Federal government made the call, not the state of California. This information is readily available, you might try to check up on it.

No, we don't. You might make that assumption. I trust the fact that medical doctors have years of training and schooling under their belt and that they know far more about medicine than either you or I.

The conservative must do more than "point out", they must make the case that the arguments are somehow flawed.

Right, they are capable of this sort of response. However, this sort of response has no real content, it's simply appeal to tradition.

But the consumption of marijuana could not be taxed unless marijuana were made legal - and that is where the real revenue is.

And just like alcohol, people who harm others under the influence of marijuana would be subject to criminal prosecution for said harm. Homicide and smoking marijuana remain totally different, expect that both are currently criminal acts in the US.

And what sort of relativism is that? It is not moral relativism. It is not Einstein's theory of relativity.

My statement does not justify one bad thing with another. My statement laments that one bad thing is addressed by a far worse thing. There is, you know, a difference. By making A's action legal, A is released from the fear of legal prosecution while B is released from enforcing nonsensical legislation. It's win win for both A and B.

Why do we not see the same with alcohol?

I am against gun control, because it doesn't work. And because it restricts freedom.

What!?

Exactly the same can be said of marijuana laws.

1. Gun control does not have the desired effects in theory, even if enforcement were working perfectly. I didn't mean that enforcement is ineffective. Criminals will still get a gun as long as there are enough around and the borders are open. So gun control only disarms the victims.
The purpose of marijuana restriction is marijuana restriction itself, if enforcement were working perfectly marijuana would be restricted.
2. Sadly we're socialist now and the individual freedoms card doesn't play any more. So we can restrict the right to "self-harm", as we are collectivist now ant it's no longer self-harm. We can't have it both ways. But what about post 135? Lets lobby for libertarianism together.

90% of deaths by fire arms are family affairs so the victim is usually the owner of the gun or close family member,

So keeping drugs illegal is working in your opinion

So? A gun does not need to kill someone to protect you.



I said marijuana restriction restricts marijuana in theory as opposed to gun control that does not save lives in theory.