4 ms·

Why is it acceptable that the state gets to penalize me for something I'm doing that doesn't negatively affect others?

by castis 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Why is it acceptable that the state gets to penalize me for something I'm doing that doesn't negatively affect others? The article points out that we don’t know marijuana “doesn’t negatively affect others.”
Jhndb 8y ago
So that others don't negatively affect themselves (devils advocate)
michjedi 8y ago
How does it not affect others? 1. Vapours/Smoke affects those around you 2. Your behaviour change due to the drug affects those around you 3. Your behaviour change due to the need for the drug affects those around you
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- castis 8y ago
  All of those straw men are negated by the fact that you don't know me.
IMTDb 8y ago
It's interesting to see that this argument always comes up when we talk about weed but everyone seems to agree that fines for not putting on a helmet on your bike are OK. Yet in both case the only harm you would be inflicting is on yourself (or so you think). Truth is: if you get worse because of your weed abuse, you won't be the only one impacted by this. At a micro level, your family/friends/doctors will spend time/money/energy helping you out if you end up needing it. That's not fun. At a macro level this becomes a public health problem when we have to account for all the consequences it generates int terms of life expectancy, QOL for elders, treatments, care centers, hospitals, .... All those institution/studies/process we have to put in place is time not spent doing something else. Just like peeing on the street is not really going to harm anyone, but it makes everyone life around you a tiny little bit less enjoyable. We kindly ask you not to do it. If you get caught doing it you get a slap on the wrist (and nothing more). You are benefiting every day from the hundreds of little things we don't do so the community can work as a whole. And you respect 99.9% of those rules without even thinking about it because you agree with those. This is just another one you happen to not agree with. I can understand why, but there I believe it's OK for society to find the best possible way to limit MJ usage without destroying lives.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  I seem the logic in your statement, but you forget so many others - by 'decriminalizing' you still have users buying unknown products at shady corners, from organized crime that is pure net loss for society on so many levels. We still talk about a simple plant that used to grow everywhere. Decriminalization is a (self)lie - when the question is 'what about weed' and the answer is 'we don't know', 'its illegal, just less'. US model of the recent past is one of the worst in human history, as seen on long-term results, but decriminalization is some temporary state, nothing that makes sense long-term. In Netherland, coffee shops can sell but they can't legally obtain weed (something along those lines) - what sense does this make? If I can buy a beer at local pub to wind off after long day, I sure as hell should be able to buy a reefer to do the same (or ideally something not requiring smoking for the same effect). Any deviation from this basic logic I've heard so far was flawed.
  - IMTDb 8y ago
    > I seem the logic in your statement, but you forget so many others - by 'decriminalizing' you still have users buying unknown products at shady corners, from organized crime that is pure net loss for society on so many levels. We still talk about a simple plant that used to grow everywhere. The fact that the plant used to grow everywhere helps my point: there is very little risk of people getting bad stuff if they buy it from a shady source since it's so easy to obtain the good stuff (or growing it yourself). Again the goal here is to reduce usage as much as possible without ruining lives for those who don't follow the rule. Getting the stuff everywhere, with referral, marketing, promotion, ... . will increase the consumption. Just like cigarette makers have developed a battery of technique to get teens/young adults hooked up on their product, so will MJ stores. Just not allowing the stuff to be so openly sold in the first place is _so much easier_. I can get the whole tax dollars argument, but I am willing to bet the cigarettes and alcohol cost way more in public health than they bring in in taxes, no reason to add more to the list. > Decriminalization is a (self)lie - when the question is 'what about weed' and the answer is 'we don't know', 'its illegal, just less'. US model of the recent past is one of the worst in human history, as seen on long-term results, but decriminalization is some temporary state, nothing that makes sense long-term. In Netherland, coffee shops can sell but they can't legally obtain weed (something along those lines) - what sense does this make? It is pretty simple actually: it is never OK to have/sell/consume MJ, just like now. The only difference is if you get caught : - Before: appearing in front of a judge. Getting potential prison time. Maybe losing your job. Having a criminal file, and basically paying your blunt for the rest of your life. - After: Here is a $250 ticket. The idea is just to stop clogging the justice system, and destroying lives for something as insignificant as weed, while preventing widespread distribution of the product, which has known and proven long and short term harmful side effects. > If I can buy a beer at local pub to wind off after long day, I sure as hell should be able to buy a reefer to do the same (or ideally something not requiring smoking for the same effect). Any deviation from this basic logic I've heard so far was flawed. The issue is simply: where does it stop ? Psylo mushrooms are fully naturals too. Is MDMDA OK (it really, really winds you off) ? I have heard good echoes of microdoses of LSD ? Cocaine as a booster is popular as well. We already have two well known psychoactive substances in wide circulation (alcohol and cigarettes). Both can be (and are) used responsibly by a lot of people. But we also know from experience that they pose significant additional health problem , and are abused by a lot of people. We also know that the producer will do everything they can to increase consumption without regard for the consequences. I don't see how adding more to the list is better for the common good.
stef25 8y ago
It's very hard to draw a line between things that do and don't harm others. We should run an experiment among your friends and family, co-workers, measure any effects on your health and associated costs covered by the tax payer etc. Don't get me wrong, I smoked pot daily more than half of my life. I know I'm a better person without it and after quitting my long term girlfriend said the changes were incredible. That's not an argument for criminalising this plant, but the argument really isn't as simple as a one-liner.

Why is it acceptable that the state gets to penalize me for something I'm doing that doesn't negatively affect others?

by castis 8y ago

Why is it acceptable that the state gets to penalize me for something I'm doing that doesn't negatively affect others?

> Why is it acceptable that the state gets to penalize me for something I'm doing that doesn't negatively affect others? The article points out that we don’t know marijuana “doesn’t negatively affect others.”

Jhndb 8y ago

So that others don't negatively affect themselves (devils advocate)

michjedi 8y ago

How does it not affect others? 1. Vapours/Smoke affects those around you 2. Your behaviour change due to the drug affects those around you 3. Your behaviour change due to the need for the drug affects those around you

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
castis 8y ago
All of those straw men are negated by the fact that you don't know me.

IMTDb 8y ago

It's interesting to see that this argument always comes up when we talk about weed but everyone seems to agree that fines for not putting on a helmet on your bike are OK. Yet in both case the only harm you would be inflicting is on yourself (or so you think). Truth is: if you get worse because of your weed abuse, you won't be the only one impacted by this. At a micro level, your family/friends/doctors will spend time/money/energy helping you out if you end up needing it. That's not fun. At a macro level this becomes a public health problem when we have to account for all the consequences it generates int terms of life expectancy, QOL for elders, treatments, care centers, hospitals, .... All those institution/studies/process we have to put in place is time not spent doing something else. Just like peeing on the street is not really going to harm anyone, but it makes everyone life around you a tiny little bit less enjoyable. We kindly ask you not to do it. If you get caught doing it you get a slap on the wrist (and nothing more). You are benefiting every day from the hundreds of little things we don't do so the community can work as a whole. And you respect 99.9% of those rules without even thinking about it because you agree with those. This is just another one you happen to not agree with. I can understand why, but there I believe it's OK for society to find the best possible way to limit MJ usage without destroying lives.

saiya-jin 8y ago
I seem the logic in your statement, but you forget so many others - by 'decriminalizing' you still have users buying unknown products at shady corners, from organized crime that is pure net loss for society on so many levels. We still talk about a simple plant that used to grow everywhere. Decriminalization is a (self)lie - when the question is 'what about weed' and the answer is 'we don't know', 'its illegal, just less'. US model of the recent past is one of the worst in human history, as seen on long-term results, but decriminalization is some temporary state, nothing that makes sense long-term. In Netherland, coffee shops can sell but they can't legally obtain weed (something along those lines) - what sense does this make? If I can buy a beer at local pub to wind off after long day, I sure as hell should be able to buy a reefer to do the same (or ideally something not requiring smoking for the same effect). Any deviation from this basic logic I've heard so far was flawed.
- IMTDb 8y ago
  > I seem the logic in your statement, but you forget so many others - by 'decriminalizing' you still have users buying unknown products at shady corners, from organized crime that is pure net loss for society on so many levels. We still talk about a simple plant that used to grow everywhere. The fact that the plant used to grow everywhere helps my point: there is very little risk of people getting bad stuff if they buy it from a shady source since it's so easy to obtain the good stuff (or growing it yourself). Again the goal here is to reduce usage as much as possible without ruining lives for those who don't follow the rule. Getting the stuff everywhere, with referral, marketing, promotion, ... . will increase the consumption. Just like cigarette makers have developed a battery of technique to get teens/young adults hooked up on their product, so will MJ stores. Just not allowing the stuff to be so openly sold in the first place is _so much easier_. I can get the whole tax dollars argument, but I am willing to bet the cigarettes and alcohol cost way more in public health than they bring in in taxes, no reason to add more to the list. > Decriminalization is a (self)lie - when the question is 'what about weed' and the answer is 'we don't know', 'its illegal, just less'. US model of the recent past is one of the worst in human history, as seen on long-term results, but decriminalization is some temporary state, nothing that makes sense long-term. In Netherland, coffee shops can sell but they can't legally obtain weed (something along those lines) - what sense does this make? It is pretty simple actually: it is never OK to have/sell/consume MJ, just like now. The only difference is if you get caught : - Before: appearing in front of a judge. Getting potential prison time. Maybe losing your job. Having a criminal file, and basically paying your blunt for the rest of your life. - After: Here is a $250 ticket. The idea is just to stop clogging the justice system, and destroying lives for something as insignificant as weed, while preventing widespread distribution of the product, which has known and proven long and short term harmful side effects. > If I can buy a beer at local pub to wind off after long day, I sure as hell should be able to buy a reefer to do the same (or ideally something not requiring smoking for the same effect). Any deviation from this basic logic I've heard so far was flawed. The issue is simply: where does it stop ? Psylo mushrooms are fully naturals too. Is MDMDA OK (it really, really winds you off) ? I have heard good echoes of microdoses of LSD ? Cocaine as a booster is popular as well. We already have two well known psychoactive substances in wide circulation (alcohol and cigarettes). Both can be (and are) used responsibly by a lot of people. But we also know from experience that they pose significant additional health problem , and are abused by a lot of people. We also know that the producer will do everything they can to increase consumption without regard for the consequences. I don't see how adding more to the list is better for the common good.

stef25 8y ago

It's very hard to draw a line between things that do and don't harm others. We should run an experiment among your friends and family, co-workers, measure any effects on your health and associated costs covered by the tax payer etc. Don't get me wrong, I smoked pot daily more than half of my life. I know I'm a better person without it and after quitting my long term girlfriend said the changes were incredible. That's not an argument for criminalising this plant, but the argument really isn't as simple as a one-liner.