The Atlasian Society for Personal Liberty

[Leinad]

X Leinad

Obviously this is something I'm joining. If you need/want me to help with anything in this, Enduro, consider me willing to do so.

[Leinad]

Should we also ban alcohol? What about sharp pencils? What about plastic bags? And cars literally kill people every single day, far more than marijuana could ever do, shouldn't we ban those?

My point, of course, is that just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it should be illegal--it is not the job of the government to make these types of decisions for people. Your version of government makes  my strict parents seem downright laissez-faire.

[Leinad]

Should we also ban alcohol? What about sharp pencils? What about plastic bags? And cars literally kill people every single day, far more than marijuana could ever do, shouldn't we ban those?

My point, of course, is that just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it should be illegal--it is not the job of the government to make these types of decisions for people. Your version of government makes  my strict parents seem downright laissez-faire.

But Leinad, by legalizing this harmful drug, you are only adding to all the dangerous and harmful substances that are already legal.  There is no point in making life even more dangerous and harmful by legalizing marijuana.

I have very well known views on alcohol and tobacco as well, which I will not go into here.

I hate paper cuts. The government should make a law against paper cuts, then there will be no more paper cuts.

My point, of course, is that a law against something does not literally stop that thing from existing. Many people use marijuana illegally in this country--this is a fact.

Besides, if you're saying the government needs to put taxpayer dollars into this, wouldn't it make more sense to fund rehabilitation programs instead of putting non-violent people in jail--often breaking up families--for simple possession?

And I still don't see the rationale that government has any legitimate right to keep people from doing something that doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. I view rights as derived from consent of the governed--although I guess you may disagree. And if you use the rationale that marijuana usage harms others due to "brain dead pot heads" or whatever running around in the streets, I don't see how that rationale doesn't also force us to abolish cars due to the fact that over thirty-thousand people a year die in motor vehicle accidents in Atlasia (about thirty-thousand more than marijuana kills).

[Leinad]

Let me just clear this up, since Winfield seems confused: I was the one who made the paper cut analogy, not PiT.

There are various findings on this issue, and the harmful effects of marijuana use cannot be dismissed simply because of conflicting findings.

Nor should we ban things (or, in this case, continue to ban something) if there are conflicting findings.

What if I conducted a study that found that yogurt caused cancer? Should we outlaw yogurt? Or will you dismiss the harmful effects of yogurt simply because of conflicting findings? Or will you let people make their own decisions whether they want to risk eating yogurt or not?

[Leinad]

Again, Leinad you can't keep using this argument when the case is specifically about Marijuana- a drug that clearly has very high short term effects on the brain, and thus should face at the least the same regulation as alcohol

Have it regulated the same as alcohol--that's okay! But Winfield is not arguing that point! He wants to continue this disastrous plan of complete prohibition! I have no idea why you're making Winfield's argument seem more rational (based on the context of this site, at least) so that mine seems more extreme--it seems, to me at least, to be basically the reverse of a straw-man argument: instead of mischaracterizing my point in an argument against me you're mischaracterizing his.

Also, what argument can I not "keep using?" I only used the paper cut analogy and yogurt analogies once each time (my second mention of the paper cut analogy was not me making it again, but clarifying it's origin), the main argument that I have used throughout this thread is that government is not there to make people's decisions for them. Surely you agree with that basic sentiment, Senator?

Ah, Mr. Leinad, I am not confused.  As you can see from the above quote, Mr. PiT clearly stated the dangers of marijuana are closer to those of a paper cut.  You may have made the original ridiculous statement, but Mr. PiT said it as well.  

I was not trying to compare marijuana to a paper cut, per se, I was trying to make the point that it is absurd to say that making a law against something deemed as bad will keep that thing from happening. Yes, it was a weak analogy, but it does not make my point (which I just clarified) any less valid.

I think my best analogy (which isn't saying much, but still) was the first post I made in response to your question, that if we continue the prohibition of marijuana we must prohibit various other possibly dangerous things--such as knives, bags, alcohol, automobiles, etc.--or we're simply being arbitrary.

Where, Winfield, do we draw the line between what is the role of government to regulate, and what is not? Is it based on the whims of the moment? Or some well-thought-out philosophy? Is this merely a few things to keep people safer? Or will the extent of unrestrained statism make George Orwell appear an optimist?