Skeptic Project

@Muertos don't fall for it!

@Muertos,

I have come to change my opinion on the issue.

You were right. I was wrong.

I don't know if my heart can stand the strain!

GAAK! *clutches chest* *collapses*

I think alcohol is legal because there was such a huge backlash during prohibition. Whereas apparently there wasn't one for marijuana? I'm guessing it's because alcohol is more addictive and encourages violent behavior, but that is probably an oversimplification.

Doesn't individual responsibility play any role in this debate? Shouldn't people be allowed to make their own decisions when it comes to what they put into their own bodies? Especially if it doesn't kill them? Or is that also an oversimplification?

I have yet to hear a good reason why more harmful substances that are detrimental to society should be allowed

I think most of the reason why they are detrimental is because they are on the black market in the first place. There's plenty of medical drugs that will fuck you up far more than cannabis or MDMA, so why are people using these drugs and not so much other drugs? Also, morphine IS heroin, so why is heroin illegal? Why is heroine more dangerous than morphine? Because of how people cook up morphine and share needles, they do this because its illegal and so EVERYTHING they are doing is thought of as wrong.

Another thought, people say cannabis is a "gateway drug" but its no more a gateway drug than alcohol is. The difference is because its on the black market people often find themselves surrounded by people taking/dealing other illegal substances.

Like I asked before, why should alcohol be legal while cannabis should not? Can you give me any good reason?

Drugs like crystal meth I don't know about, since its so dirty, but as far as cannabis my mind is pretty made up.

Just because one harmful substance is legal does not mean another harmful substance should be.

That's not a reason, that's just saying you're arbitrarily fine with some drugs being legal while others not.

The difference is until alcohol is illegal I will continue to point out how stupid it is that people saying cannabis should stay illegal don't also have a problem with alcohol.

What harm do you think would cannabis being legal have to society?

No one mentioned gateway drugs. Nice straw man.

I was talking generally in this wider debate, calm down.

Just because you don't like the reason, doesn't mean it isn't one.

As I said "that's just saying you're arbitrarily fine with some drugs being legal while others not"

Key word: "arbitrary". The argument you make doesn't make sense.

Making more harmful substances freely available is harmful to society.

I never said it should be freely available. OMG MATT STRAW MAN!!!!!!!!!1111 ;-)

Morphine isn't freely available and neither, in fact, is alcohol as technically you have age restrictions along with tobacco. There's even restrictions on buying normal pain killers.

Cannabis IS a harmful drug, but so is tobacco, so is alcohol. Its not like we're comparing crystal meth with a pint of Budweiser. People will smoke it on the black market anyway, what's the difference? Why will making it legal make society worse? I would love to hear a reason, but still haven't heard one that didn't immediately apply to alcohol even more so. Science doesn't appear to be on your side and so I'm waiting for a sociological argument. I can believe there is one, I just haven't heard it.

Yeah look at how well those age restrictions for tobacco work.

So should tobacco be illegal right? If not, why not? Is it not harmful to people and to society? Is alcohol not harmful to people and society? Where is your objective reason why cannabis should stay illegal while these others get a free ride?

I never said cannabis was less harmful or more harmful than anything you've listed. I've said its harmful. If you want to be a manchild and smoke your pot, have at it. But society is not obligated to allow you to do it legally.

I don't really smoke pot, I don't really drink. I wouldn't really care if I never did again, but to make them illegal makes no sense.

You still haven't answered the question, you arbitrarily decide alcohol is fine but say cannabis is not. If all you have is a "feeling" I don't really have any sympathy for your argument.

I think alcohol is legal because there was such a huge backlash during prohibition. Whereas apparently there wasn't one for marijuana? I'm guessing it's because alcohol is more addictive and encourages violent behavior, but that is probably an oversimplification.

It is an oversimplification. Firstly, if you trace the cultural role alcohol had throughout Europe and back into antiquity, you will find it occupied a significantly different role than other substances. We certainly find instances where hallucinogens were utilized by members of various societies and communities (the oracle at Delphi or Viking berserkers, for example) but they were nowhere as commonplace or accessible as alcohol. The place of alcohol in the United States stretches back, culturally, much further back than issues of prohibition, and indeed it was a significant part of the food-cultures of Europe. Prohibition was a flawed experiment that was attempting to overturn, legislatively, something that was much more engrained in custom than simple alcoholism. There were not massive illegal organizations that dealt in the trade of alcohol, and it was prohibition that engendered these organizations. On the other hand, the trade of marijuana has already rooted itself in illicit trafficking and has been married to power-politics.

It is further fallacious to counter arguments for marijuana legalization with the claim that alcohol is legal and thus marijuana should be too. Aside from the cultural position that alcohol occupies, there is a discrete difference in the ways in which alcohol and marijuana is consumed. Alcohol has a perfectly legitimate role in food-customs and can (and often is) consumed in a manner such as to maximize flavor and not to imbibe in the mood-altering affects of the substance. The same is not easily, or honestly, said about marijuana which is deliberately consumed to procure these affects. Caffeine, for example, naturally occurs and can be consumed in low levels, but one could also overdose in order to experience a completely different experience. This line of logic, that all harmful substances should be either legal or illegal, is inherently flawed. The lines between different substances and their classification as harmful or not harmful are simply impossible to accurately describe. It appears to me that advocates for legalization of marijuana rest their case on a rather incomplete utilitarian model and thus fail to recognize the inherent differences in the way substances are used and how substances are designed (or discovered) to operate.

Sincerely,
Enjoying a Guinness and watching TV

That's not what I'm saying at all. Just because your dumbass interprets something that way doesn't mean that's what I'm saying.

Finally an actual argument:

Alcohol has a perfectly legitimate role in food-customs and can (and often is) consumed in a manner such as to maximize flavor and not to imbibe in the mood-altering affects of the substance.

Except plenty of products are specifically created for people that will be drinking alcohol specifically to get drunk. I worked in several off licences for about 5 years (not for a few years) and KNOW the people buying to get drunk vs to enjoy the drinks flavour as a connoisseur or because they want to put it in their food.

As far as I know there is also no restrictions on the amount of alcohol (at least in the UK) one can buy per person. If the argument you're using was such a good one why do they not try and regulate the amount one can buy in shops and in pubs, bars and night clubs? Why do they not more strictly regulate the kinds of products produced by the alcohol industry? You say that alcohol has a perfectly legitimate role in society and say that alcohol is different because unlike cannabis people aren't taking it just to feel "high". Yet every night the police in towns and cities around the country would disagree with you when they have to deal with numerous drunken louts wandering around and getting in fights precisely because they specifically went out to get drunk. Those are the ones that happen to cause trouble, there's plenty more that just get drunk. You hear people all the time saying that they are going out to "get drunk", not to enjoy the drink, AS A DRINK.

When you start drinking alcohol when you're young, the usual reaction is "this is disgusting" but because the rest of society does it you keep doing it and you may develop a taste for it be it wine or beer. But the main reason you're probably going to keep doing it when you're young is because it makes you DRUNK. Without that its just a horrible tasting drink.

Caffeine, for example, naturally occurs and can be consumed in low levels, but one could also overdose in order to experience a completely different experience.

I'm not sure I understand this sentence, but I'm glad you noted that caffeine can be abused as well. You can buy products that have absurd amounts of caffeine in them, for the precise reason to give you a strong caffeine boost that is harmful. There should be restrictions on those products, should there not?

It seems to me that you're saying you shouldn't be allowed to intentional take things that you know are bad for you, worse, you're saying they should be illegal. But for some reason you are only saying things like cannabis should be under this rule, not for other drugs.

This line of logic, that all harmful substances should be either legal or illegal, is inherently flawed.

I'm down with that, personally I don't know what you do with really harmful stuff like crystal meth but what I do know is that it is objectively incorrect to say cannabis is in the same group as these kinds of drugs while alcohol is in another. Show me a scientific reason why cannabis should stay illegal because its so much worse than alcohol.

The lines between different substances and their classification as harmful or not harmful are simply impossible to accurately describe.

It seems to me the classification system (for example in the UK) is based on completely arbitrary distinctions not based on the actual harm the drug can actually cause.

Imagine you were going to start with a clean slate and study a variety of drugs: tobacco, alcohol, heroin, crack, cocaine, cannabis etc and objectively create a report on just how dangerous these drugs really are to the human body. Then you need another report, where you look at how those effects on the human body affect society. It seems to me from there you can get an objective overview of just how bad drugs really are. Do you really think thats how they really do things? Of course not.

No, because we live in reality. Not imaginary fantasy worlds you create.

Uh oh! I said a buzz word "clean slate" and you knee jerk'd.

What I am saying is that if you actually study the harm of the drug to the human body and then study the harm that drug would cause, if legal, to society, then that is a proper way to classify how harmful drugs are.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Just because your dumbass interprets something that way doesn't mean that's what I'm saying.

You said... "I never said alcohol was fine. Can you not read?" ... But now you're complaining because I pointed out that you didn't really say alcohol was fine.

We don't live in this magical fantasy world you are trying to frame the argument in.

So what you're saying is the actual harm the drug causes to the human body is irrelevant and the actual harm the drug can cause to society is irrelevant.

Because apparently all we have is your feeling that cannabis should be illegal for no other reason at all.

No, I'm complaining that your logic is shit.

I'm looking for an objective reason why you say cannabis should be illegal.

If you just want to state your opinion in this thread and don't care about counter arguments, you might as well just say so.

You keep trying to frame the argument in this magical fantasy world where the only thing to judge harmful substances on is the degrees of harm they have on the human body.

Its an oversimplification and its stupid and its tiresome.

God damn you're dumb.

I have said repeatedly that I don't think cannabis should be legalized because pointing out the existence of legal harmful substances is not a valid reason for legalizing other harmful substances.