[Curtman]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

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".

What is Stop the Violence BC’s objective?

$1:

Stop the Violence is an educational campaign seeking to improve community safety by broadening the public’s understanding of the link between cannabis prohibition and gang violence. Guided by the best available scientific evidence, Stop the Violence BC is calling for cannabis to be governed by a strict regulatory framework aimed at limiting use while also starving organized crime of the profits they currently reap as a result of prohibition.

Why are you calling for the regulation of cannabis?

Using regulatory tools proven effective at reducing tobacco use will undercut the huge profits cannabis driving violent organized crime in BC. Not only that, cannabis regulation may also improve community health by making cannabis harder for young people to access, lessening cannabis grow-op associated property damage, and freeing up law enforcement resources to focus on criminal activity where law enforcement can reduce harm.

They aren't saying anything different than what we've been talking about in this thread. It's the exact same message, targeting the exact same problem. There is no promise to end all violence, only the violence associated with the marijuana black market.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

They aren't saying anything different than what we've been talking about in this thread. It's the exact same message, targeting the exact same problem. There is no promise to end all violence, only the violence associated with the marijuana black market.

That would seem to be a lot according to you.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Curtman Curtman:

They aren't saying anything different than what we've been talking about in this thread. It's the exact same message, targeting the exact same problem. There is no promise to end all violence, only the violence associated with the marijuana black market.

That would seem to be a lot according to you.

Yep. A Lot of unnecessary violence stems from the black market.

Example.

Sals shooting victims tied to drug trade: sources

$1:

A deadly shooting inside a Pembina Highway restaurant Thursday morning is connected to the city’s illicit drug trade, the Free Press has learned.
One man died and another was seriously injured after they were hit with gunfire while inside Salisbury House around 3 a.m.
Multiple sources have identified the deceased as Jeffrey Lau. He was rushed to hospital with upper-body wounds but could not be saved.
Sources say the injured victim is an associate of Lau’s.
"Both have ties to Winnipeg’s drug trafficking underworld. There is a lot of turmoil in Winnipeg’s very competitive illicit drug market right now," a source told the Free Press.
Six bullet holes can be seen in the front window of the restaurant. A handgun was found on the street at Hector Avenue and Stafford Street, several blocks from the restaurant.

Stop The Violence.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

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.

Those "best interests" are relative.

The best interests of you aren't necessarily those of your neighbour.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Curtman Curtman:

They aren't saying anything different than what we've been talking about in this thread. It's the exact same message, targeting the exact same problem. There is no promise to end all violence, only the violence associated with the marijuana black market.

That would seem to be a lot according to you.

Yep. A Lot of unnecessary violence stems from the black market.

Example.

Sals shooting victims tied to drug trade: sources

$1:

A deadly shooting inside a Pembina Highway restaurant Thursday morning is connected to the city’s illicit drug trade, the Free Press has learned.
One man died and another was seriously injured after they were hit with gunfire while inside Salisbury House around 3 a.m.
Multiple sources have identified the deceased as Jeffrey Lau. He was rushed to hospital with upper-body wounds but could not be saved.
Sources say the injured victim is an associate of Lau’s.
"Both have ties to Winnipeg’s drug trafficking underworld. There is a lot of turmoil in Winnipeg’s very competitive illicit drug market right now," a source told the Free Press.
Six bullet holes can be seen in the front window of the restaurant. A handgun was found on the street at Hector Avenue and Stafford Street, several blocks from the restaurant.

Stop The Violence.

Do we assume that all shootings and murders due to "illicit drugs" are all about the sale of marijuana?

Your slogan should be "Stop a little bit of violence".

[Gunnair]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

That would seem to be a lot according to you.

Yep. A Lot of unnecessary violence stems from the black market.

Example.

Sals shooting victims tied to drug trade: sources

$1:

A deadly shooting inside a Pembina Highway restaurant Thursday morning is connected to the city’s illicit drug trade, the Free Press has learned.
One man died and another was seriously injured after they were hit with gunfire while inside Salisbury House around 3 a.m.
Multiple sources have identified the deceased as Jeffrey Lau. He was rushed to hospital with upper-body wounds but could not be saved.
Sources say the injured victim is an associate of Lau’s.
"Both have ties to Winnipeg’s drug trafficking underworld. There is a lot of turmoil in Winnipeg’s very competitive illicit drug market right now," a source told the Free Press.
Six bullet holes can be seen in the front window of the restaurant. A handgun was found on the street at Hector Avenue and Stafford Street, several blocks from the restaurant.

Stop The Violence.

Do we assume that all shootings and murders due to "illicit drugs" are all about the sale of marijuana?

Your slogan should be "Stop a little bit of violence".

You know, it reminds me sometimes of the arguments made against religion because of the violence it inspires. Convenient, like the drug violence argument, that it seems to forget that man's nature will simply find another outlet for violence if you remove religion or in this case, drugs.

Man is a violent creature.

Sure, violence will come down, until something new comes along, then it goes right back up.

Ultimately, I don't for a moment buy into the diminishing of violence, at least in the long term. That's a hollow argument to cover a narcissistic desire to service one's wants under the false guise of improving society.

I get it and understand it. I just wish they were actually honest about it because the falsehoods are so blatant as to be a bit embarrassing.

[Gunnair]

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.

Who get's to be judge and jury for that?

Alcohol is legal, and one can make some pretty good arguments about the practical best interests of it being illegal.

Just like junk food. Banning junk food isn't a moral choice, it's a practical choice as junk food contributes to a very expensive social ill that has a direct effect on the nation's economy and the individual tax payer's wallet.

Who decides then on these practical best interests? Mcdonalds? Government?

Potheads? Government?

[Lemmy]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Who get's to be judge and jury for that?

Alcohol is legal, and one can make some pretty good arguments about the practical best interests of it being illegal.

Just like junk food. Banning junk food isn't a moral choice, it's a practical choice as junk food contributes to a very expensive social ill that has a direct effect on the nation's economy and the individual tax payer's wallet.

Who decides then on these practical best interests? Mcdonalds? Government?

Potheads? Government?

A committee of experts (criminologists, gang experts, academics, economists, jurists, etc) should be struck to research and make recommendations. As for alcohol prohibition, we've already been down that road and it was a colossal disaster.

As for the tax-payer healthcare and "social ill" costs of legal alcohol/drugs/junk food, we'd have to do cost benefit analysis as part of the committee investigation. We already KNOW that the costs of prohibition exceed the benefits for alcohol. That's fact. We have the case-study evidence from the 1920s. It seems pretty obvious that marijuana is very similar, so likely also a foolish policy. Fast food? Gangs controlling an illegal cheeseburger trade seems far fetched, but who knows? Bringing junk food into the debate seems like a red herring to me. It's a completely separate issue from legalizing pot.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Those "best interests" are relative.

The best interests of you aren't necessarily those of your neighbour.

The best interests of of me are the best interests of my neighbour if we're talking about the freedom of adults to make individual choices about their lifestyles. That's what it means to be a "free country". If you'd rather not live in a free country, move to North Korea.

[Gunnair]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Who get's to be judge and jury for that?

Alcohol is legal, and one can make some pretty good arguments about the practical best interests of it being illegal.

Just like junk food. Banning junk food isn't a moral choice, it's a practical choice as junk food contributes to a very expensive social ill that has a direct effect on the nation's economy and the individual tax payer's wallet.

Who decides then on these practical best interests? Mcdonalds? Government?

Potheads? Government?

A committee of experts (criminologists, gang experts, academics, economists, jurists, etc) should be struck to research and make recommendations. As for alcohol prohibition, we've already been down that road and it was a colossal disaster.

As for the tax-payer healthcare and "social ill" costs of legal alcohol/drugs/junk food, we'd have to do cost benefit analysis as part of the committee investigation. We already KNOW that the costs of prohibition exceed the benefits for alcohol. That's fact. We have the case-study evidence from the 1920s. It seems pretty obvious that marijuana is very similar, so likely also a foolish policy. Fast food? Gangs controlling an illegal cheeseburger trade seems far fetched, but who knows? Bringing junk food into the debate seems like a red herring to me. It's a completely separate issue from legalizing pot.

It might be a red herring save for you initiating the tangent on practical best interests for a society as opposed to moral ones.

Then it becomes a relevant example undermining your point.

[Gunnair]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Those "best interests" are relative.

The best interests of you aren't necessarily those of your neighbour.

The best interests of of me are the best interests of my neighbour if we're talking about the freedom of adults to make individual choices about their lifestyles. That's what it means to be a "free country". If you'd rather not live in a free country, move to North Korea.

Or, if you want anarchy of the individual, move to Somalia.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Do we assume that all shootings and murders due to "illicit drugs" are all about the sale of marijuana?

Fallacy of perfection/strawman again. Nobody assumes all shootings and murders are due to marijuana. Marijuana is the biggest component of illegal drug sales by far - stands to reason that shootings/murders associated with drugs are in the same proportion. You don't hear about meth lab rips, or heroin cutting/packaging op rips, tho no doubt they occur. But grow rips are where the volume is. Marijuana underlies the harder drug business - it's what funds the gangs to buy/trade for the harder drugs and for guns.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Your slogan should be "Stop a little bit of violence".

See above. The slogan would have to be "stop a large percentage of the the violence"to be accurate. Ineffective, but accurate.

I just don't see how things can be made any worse by legalizing drugs, but I sure see the potential for making it better. If it is shown to have made it truly worse, we can re-criminalize.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

The best interests of of me are the best interests of my neighbour if we're talking about the freedom of adults to make individual choices about their lifestyles. That's what it means to be a "free country". If you'd rather not live in a free country, move to North Korea.

Come on Lemmy, are you really going to go down the "free Country" route?

There's more people than just responsible adults. We have irresponsible adults, teenagers and children. We are free to live within the laws.

andyt andyt:

The slogan would have to be "stop a large percentage of the the violence"to be accurate. Ineffective, but accurate.

I just don't see how things can be made any worse by legalizing drugs, but I sure see the potential for making it better. If it is shown to have made it truly worse, we can re-criminalize.

Stop a "large percentage"? That's a nice guess.

Of course you don't see how things could be made worse. You don't think marijuana has any negative effects, you feel it's a silver-bullet to crime fighting and frankly, you could care less about the example it sets for our next generation.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Stop a "large percentage"? That's a nice guess.

Of course you don't see how things could be made worse. You don't think marijuana has any negative effects, you feel it's a silver-bullet to crime fighting and frankly, you could care less about the example it sets for our next generation.

An intelligent guess based on marijuana's proportion of drug sales.

Actually, Zipper got all excited when I pointed out to him that marijuana has negative effects and dangers. And, those negative effects and dangers are in play now - pot is everywhere. If prohibition worked, you'd have a point and I would be for it. Better nobody takes any drugs, including alcohol. But they do, always have, always will. Gotta try something different, because prohibition isn't working. This is where your argument falls down. It's based on the premise that prohibition works. Would be nice if it did, but what if that's just not true?

Silver bullet - more strawman stuff. Can you really not put your point forward without it?

Setting an example - it is to laugh.

[Lemmy]

Gunnair Gunnair:

It might be a red herring save for you initiating the tangent on practical best interests for a society as opposed to moral ones.

Then it becomes a relevant example undermining your point.

Not at all because, if you can convince me that it's a net benefit to society to ban junk food, I'll support the ban. Regardless, it seems a much grander undertaking than anything we're talking about in the pot-legalization debate.

Gunnair Gunnair:

Or, if you want anarchy of the individual, move to Somalia.

Legalized pot is a long way from a Somalian-free-for-all, but you make a fair point. However, when you consider the pervasiveness of criminal gangs in Canada, we're likely a lot more like Somalia now than we would be with legalization.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Come on Lemmy, are you really going to go down the "free Country" route?

Why not? Isn't that what we're supposed to be?

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

There's more people than just responsible adults. We have irresponsible adults, teenagers and children.

So what?

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

We are free to live within the laws.

We aren't free when the laws we pass cause more harm than good.