[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I just think that people assuming the gang problems and violence will magically dissapear if drugs are legalized is more than a little simplistic and will lead to a big letdown for those proponents of this theory who actually believe their own press.

Never get tired of de ol canard, eh, ami? Love your strawman. Do you call him Mr Black and White or Fallacy of Perfection?

Yep my strawman as posed by a coalition of former Attorney Generals, former mayors and of course Kash Heed all whom advocate the legalization of marijuana and who belong to a group called "Stop the Violence" not a group called "Reduce the Violence".

So, if you don't like how I present my argument or my semantics, allow me to poltiely point out that you your are free to use the ignore option for my posts and I would be eternally grateful if you did since, you add nothing to the discussion with your emotional and continual overuse of the term "strawman" whenever you don't like someones point of view.

None of those people have argued the part I underlined. (When have you ever heard of a movement with a half assed name?) What they do argue is that it will drastically reduce gang income from pot. Less income = less power. The gangs use that pot to trade for harder drugs and guns, so you may see a reduction there as well. So that's the upside. Can't know for sure, but we won't till we try. What's the downside again? Let's say they were arguing that legalizing pot would actually stop the violence and all gang activity. How is that a reason not to legalize and likely make a big reduction in it?

Feel free to present your argument any way you like. As I feel free to comment on it.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

None of those people have argued the part I underlined. (When have you ever heard of a movement with a half assed name?) What they do argue is that it will drastically reduce gang income from pot. Less income = less power. The gangs use that pot to trade for harder drugs and guns, so you may see a reduction there as well. So that's the upside. Can't know for sure, but we won't till we try. What's the downside again? Let's say they were arguing that legalizing pot would actually stop the violence and all gang activity. How is that a reason not to legalize and likely make a big reduction in it?

Feel free to present your argument any way you like. As I feel free to comment on it.

It's a moral and ethical issue. That's where the "no" side of legalization comes from.

While it's hypocritical to have legal alcohol and tobacco and not marijuana, it's equally hypocritical to be doing massive anti-smoking/"Say No To Drugs" campaigns while spending billions on alcohol related health care and turn around and legalize more drugs.

[Lemmy]

Your absolutely right, OTI. The problem is that prohibition is a morality choice, not a practical one. The role of government should be make laws based on our PRACTICAL best interests, not some people's (not even the most people's) morality.

[andyt]

What's so immoral about doing drugs? Doing crimes to buy drugs, that's immoral. Giving drugs to kids, that's immoral. But a reasoning adult using legal drugs, what's the immorality there?

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

What's so immoral about doing drugs? Doing crimes to buy drugs, that's immoral. Giving drugs to kids, that's immoral. But a reasoning adult using legal drugs, what's the immorality there?

Are you asking me? I never said doing drugs was immoral. I said that the prohibition of marijuana is policy arrived at on the basis of morality rather than society's best interests.

[andyt]

OTI. I have my own reasons why I think drugs are immoral, or ignorant is a better term, but it has no bearing on this discussion. I don't see the point of banning them on the basis of morality. I can see banning them on the basis of harm to society, except that the ban itself seems to cause more harm,

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

None of those people have argued the part I underlined. (When have you ever heard of a movement with a half assed name?) What they do argue is that it will drastically reduce gang income from pot. Less income = less power. The gangs use that pot to trade for harder drugs and guns, so you may see a reduction there as well. So that's the upside. Can't know for sure, but we won't till we try. What's the downside again? Let's say they were arguing that legalizing pot would actually stop the violence and all gang activity. How is that a reason not to legalize and likely make a big reduction in it?

Feel free to present your argument any way you like. As I feel free to comment on it.

Then comment on it and quit trying to use obtuse terms without actually saying sweet fuck all. I have no problem debating the issue with you but continually accusing me of using strawmen tactics doesn't really further the conversation.

And if you'd have read my posts you'd have noticed that other than the get rid of gang violence part, which we differ about, I actually agreed with you about the long term effects of legazlization not being known but doubted that it would have a lasting impact much the way prohibition on alcohol didn't stop the violence of organized crime after it's repeal.

So legalize it, don't legalize, like I said before, I'm ambivalent about it. But to bring my post back on topic. My argument was with Curtman about the reason kids join gangs not really whether decrimanalizing it would stop violence.

[andyt]

To say that legalization won't get rid of all gangs is a strawman argument. You're having it with yourself, because nobody else, certainly on the legalization side, is saying that will be the case. We'll take half a loaf.

For one that's ambivalent, you sure argue very strongly for one side. Guess that's why you and Gunnair are such good buddies, since he's actually for legalization but spends all his time arguing against it. I don't get it, but knock yourself out.

Kids join gangs often for safety, so they won't get attacked. And for the money and chicks, if that's what they see as the only or easiest way there. Significantly reduce gang wealth by legalizing pot, you'll significantly reduce gangs' ability to draw in kids. Sure we'll always have gangs and crime, but take away a big piece of the incentive and we'll have less of it.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

To say that legalization won't get rid of all gangs is a strawman argument. You're having it with yourself, because nobody else, certainly on the legalization side, is saying that will be the case. We'll take half a loaf.

For one that's ambivalent, you sure argue very strongly for one side. Guess that's why you and Gunnair are such good buddies, since he's actually for legalization but spends all his time arguing against it. I don't get it, but knock yourself out.

Kids join gangs often for safety, so they won't get attacked. And for the money and chicks, if that's what they see as the only or easiest way there. Significantly reduce gang wealth by legalizing pot, you'll significantly reduce gangs' ability to draw in kids. Sure we'll always have gangs and crime, but take away a big piece of the incentive and we'll have less of it.

You're right, you don't get it.

I support legalization...i don't buy into the panacea you guys constantly purport it to be.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

To say that legalization won't get rid of all gangs is a strawman argument. You're having it with yourself, because nobody else, certainly on the legalization side, is saying that will be the case. We'll take half a loaf.

For one that's ambivalent, you sure argue very strongly for one side. Guess that's why you and Gunnair are such good buddies, since he's actually for legalization but spends all his time arguing against it. I don't get it, but knock yourself out.

Kids join gangs often for safety, so they won't get attacked. And for the money and chicks, if that's what they see as the only or easiest way there. Significantly reduce gang wealth by legalizing pot, you'll significantly reduce gangs' ability to draw in kids. Sure we'll always have gangs and crime, but take away a big piece of the incentive and we'll have less of it.

Bullshit. To say legalizing it will reduce gang violence is just as big a strawman as what you accused me of saying especially since nobody knows what the result will be, not even you or Kash Heed. I guess legalizing it will be the only way to find out.

So you guys knock yourself out getting the Federal Government onboard for that one.

But just in case you can't remember back that far. There were gangs long before marijuana became a major part of our society. So to say that it's the biggest reason kids join gangs may not be quite accurate.

Maybe some kids do join the gangs because of the easy money to be made from marijuana but my guess would be that these are the same kids who'd be joining the gang even if marijuana was legal and their propensity for violence will still be there marijuana or not.

[Thanos]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Your absolutely right, OTI. The problem is that prohibition is a morality choice, not a practical one. The role of government should be make laws based on our PRACTICAL best interests, not some people's (not even the most people's) morality.

I would remind you that a lot of anti-legalization people are for decriminalization in cases of personal possession. It's the pro-legalization folks that reject this compromise and demand a total existential victory, and on top of it refuse to recognize any of the legitimate concerns regarding widespread addiction problems that we believe will occur with full legalization. We're at least trying to meet you halfway while your side refuses to accept anything but all-win for your side and all-loss for ours.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Bullshit. To say legalizing it will reduce gang violence is just as big a strawman as what you accused me of saying especially since nobody knows what the result will be, not even you or Kash Heed. I guess legalizing it will be the only way to find out.

So you guys knock yourself out getting the Federal Government onboard for that one.

But just in case you can't remember back that far. There were gangs long before marijuana became a major part of our society. So to say that it's the biggest reason kids join gangs may not be quite accurate.

Maybe some kids do join the gangs because of the easy money to be made from marijuana but my guess would be that these are the same kids who'd be joining the gang even if marijuana was legal and their propensity for violence will still be there marijuana or not.

There have always been youth gangs. Nothing like the gangs we have today. You want to compare the Jets and the Sharks with the United Nations Gang there's just no comparison.

We have a drug use scourge. We've declared war on it and all it did was make the gangs rich selling the stuff. It's a whole different ballgame than what you're talking about, more like during prohibition times. Post prohibition things quieted down a lot until high drug demand fuelled the gangs again. That's what I mean about black and white thinking, drawing false equivilancies. Legalizing pot won't eliminate gangs or crime, but it will cause a major reduction. Aside from that, it will allow people who want to get baked to do so in peace, and the people who want to supply that product to make an honest buck the way alcohol providers do. It won't create Shangri La (where they had no drugs) but it will make things better, IMO.

[andyt]

Thanos Thanos:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Your absolutely right, OTI. The problem is that prohibition is a morality choice, not a practical one. The role of government should be make laws based on our PRACTICAL best interests, not some people's (not even the most people's) morality.

I would remind you that a lot of anti-legalization people are for decriminalization in cases of personal possession. It's the pro-legalization folks that reject this compromise and demand a total existential victory, and on top of it refuse to recognize any of the legitimate concerns regarding widespread addiction problems that we believe will occur with full legalization. We're at least trying to meet you halfway while your side refuses to accept anything but all-win for your side and all-loss for ours.

Decrim is idiotic. Will do nothing to reduce gang profits, still makes production illegal but reduces punishment for users. Sort of like don't ask, don't tell. I'll take it as a step to legalization, but it's not much of one.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Bullshit. To say legalizing it will reduce gang violence is just as big a strawman as what you accused me of saying especially since nobody knows what the result will be, not even you or Kash Heed. I guess legalizing it will be the only way to find out.

So you guys knock yourself out getting the Federal Government onboard for that one.

But just in case you can't remember back that far. There were gangs long before marijuana became a major part of our society. So to say that it's the biggest reason kids join gangs may not be quite accurate.

Maybe some kids do join the gangs because of the easy money to be made from marijuana but my guess would be that these are the same kids who'd be joining the gang even if marijuana was legal and their propensity for violence will still be there marijuana or not.

There have always been youth gangs. Nothing like the gangs we have today. You want to compare the Jets and the Sharks with the United Nations Gang there's just no comparison.

We have a drug use scourge. We've declared war on it and all it did was make the gangs rich selling the stuff. It's a whole different ballgame than what you're talking about, more like during prohibition times. Post prohibition things quieted down a lot until high drug demand fuelled the gangs again. That's what I mean about black and white thinking, drawing false equivilancies. Legalizing pot won't eliminate gangs or crime, but it will cause a major reduction. Aside from that, it will allow people who want to get baked to do so in peace, and the people who want to supply that product to make an honest buck the way alcohol providers do. It won't create Shangri La (where they had no drugs) but it will make things better, IMO.

Like I said the only way we're gonna find out is if we legalize it and see what happens and I really don't see that happening till our largest customer south of the border wakes up and does the same.

One state doing it is more a symbolic gesture than a validation that the country is ready to repeal the prohibition on Marijuana. Washington State is a hell of alot more liberal than Mississippi when it comes to things like that, so until they get all the states onbord it'll be life as usual and Canadians will continue to debate the issue to death.

[Lemmy]

Thanos Thanos:

I would remind you that a lot of anti-legalization people are for decriminalization in cases of personal possession. It's the pro-legalization folks that reject this compromise and demand a total existential victory, and on top of it refuse to recognize any of the legitimate concerns regarding widespread addiction problems that we believe will occur with full legalization. We're at least trying to meet you halfway while your side refuses to accept anything but all-win for your side and all-loss for ours.

I think that decriminalization may be a first step. Decriminalization will stop the injustice of criminalizing people for their personal, adult life-style choices and it would free up some police effort as well as reduce pressure on our courts and prisons. But decriminalization would do little on the supply side. I don't see decriminalization as a policy that will do anything to hamstring gangs and violence. To cut into the gangs' coffers, full legalization is needed. If we want to curb gang activity, we need to allow people to grow their own pot. Decriminalization also implies that police would still be confiscating people's stashes. As long as that happens, the gangs will still be open for business. And if the government sticks its nose in, like they do with alcohol and tobacco, likewise there will be little reduction in gang activity.

The compromise, to use your terminology, should be substance-based: full legalization, without any government intervention or regulation, for marijuana combined with harsher penalties and focused enforcement against trafficking in the harder drugs.