On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:15:04 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm
>> terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in
>> the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution
>> is a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS
>> PART OF SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)
>> 
>> In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even
>> chemistry training.  It's people who think Evolution is a myth
>> perpetrated by the liberal media (in extreme cases) and who don't think
>> there's such a thing as mutation even though it's *all around them* -
>> and they religiously go and get flu vaccinations because the flu strain
>> has evolved to be able to counter the last vaccination.
> 
> So... the people who think pot should be illegal are the people who are
> apparently already smoking it? :-.

No, it's people who have no background in medicine or even chemistry at 
all (for the most part), who want to assert authority they feel is 
derived from their self-serving sense of moral superiority.

>> Look at the case for medical marijuana, for example - here in the US,
>> it is a federal crime to grow or smoke pot, even though some states
>> have legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors* are in favor of it,
>> and it's the anti-science people who think it should be left illegal.
> 
> Presumably "legal under prescription" though?

To which part of the quoted section would this question apply?

>> Now, turn it into a well-regulated industry with standards of
>> production, and you see several positive side effects:
>> 
>>  * "Product" quality increases and you end up with fewer accidental
>> overdoses (which can happen when one batch is really weak and the next
>> is overly strong - IOW, no consistent quality control).
>>  * You have fewer people being locked up for non-violent offenses (such
>> as possession or possession with intent to use/intent to distribute).
>>  * Those who are distributing have to be licensed to do so - so you
>>  know
>> most of who is distributing them and you know they have met some
>> standard of knowledge in order to legally distribute.
>>  * You will have created a market that you can collect taxes from where
>> money is currently changing hands and nothing goes to pay for services
>> that those users consume as a result of their use (just like smoking/
>> drinking)
>>  * Prices can be standardized and normalized, potentially reducing
>> violent crime from people who can't afford to get their 'fix' today
> 
> Well, that does make logical sense.
> 
> On the other hand, make it legal and 5,000x more people will be doing
> it.

Maybe.  Probably not.  But if they do, the taxes pay for services that 
they might need.  In the UK, I'm fairly certain that part of the 
cigarette taxes that the users pay go to the NHS, for example.

> In my opinion, tobacco should be illegal. We'd see far fewer people
> dying a slow, lingering death from cancer. But it's far more profitable
> for the government to allow its sale and tax it to hell. So it will
> forever more be legal. Stupid but true...

Well, yes, but again, it comes down to personal choice, too.  I had a 
great-uncle (ie, my mother's uncle) who had emphysema.  It was serious 
enough that he was on oxygen pretty much 24x7.  He used to sneak into the 
garage - WITH HIS OXYGEN TANK - to sneak cigarettes.

That was his choice.  It was painful to watch (I was very young when he 
died and I don't remember him very well, but I know my mother was 
heartbroken over it - even though she and my dad were both smokers at the 
time), but uncle Mac made his choice, and he lived (and died) with the 
consequences.

The thing is - if tobacco had been illegal, he probably would have bought 
his cigarettes on the black market.  People will find a way.

>> There are also plenty of people who think suicide should be allowed as
>> an option in certain circumstances.
> 
> Sure. And *that* is a whole *other* debate...

It certainly is.

Jim

Post a reply to this message