Answering the Libertarian argument for drug legalization

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Goooh

So why did you put a vote in place?

I wanted there to be a clear visual indicator at the top of every page that a significant number of those advocating legalization of cannabis in this discussion weren't too concerned with increased access by adolescents and that many were also not going to be content with marijuana, but also advocated legalization of all drugs.

A survey in an internet discussion forum does not reveal the positions of the general population, but it is a useful tool for revealing the positions of participants in the discussion.

It is also notable that in their letter for the actual exercise of legislative power, the forum participant(s) advocating that exercise say nothing about drafting a law for legalization with a lower age limit of 21 to restrict access to adults, nothing about keeping felony penalties for providing access to those under 21, nothing about a blood alcohol limit for drivers (say 5 ng/ml like legislation Washington and Colorado), and nothing about maintaining current restrictions on manufacture, importation, and distribution of other drugs. The actual legislation they are advocating opens the gate without any reasonable boundaries.

Current scientific information about marijuana has been summarized in the AAP policy statement “Marijuana: A Continuing Concern for Pediatricians.” Some of the significant neuropharmacologic, cognitive, behavioral, and somatic consequences of acute and long-term marijuana use are well known and include negative effects on short-term memory, concentration, attention span, motivation, and problem solving, which clearly interfere with learning; adverse effects on coordination, judgment, reaction time, and tracking ability, which contribute substantially to unintentional deaths and injuries among adolescents (especially those associated with motor vehicles); and negative health effects with repeated use similar to effects seen with smoking tobacco. - Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Current scientific information about marijuana has been summarized in the AAP policy statement “Marijuana: A Continuing Concern for Pediatricians.” Some of the significant neuropharmacologic, cognitive, behavioral, and somatic consequences of acute and long-term marijuana use are well known and include negative effects on short-term memory, concentration, attention span, motivation, and problem solving, which clearly interfere with learning; adverse effects on coordination, judgment, reaction time, and tracking ability, which contribute substantially to unintentional deaths and injuries among adolescents (especially those associated with motor vehicles); and negative health effects with repeated use similar to effects seen with smoking tobacco. - Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth

Drug use in America tends to follow cycles, often with one generation having to relearn the experiences of previous ones. Ninety years after the first cocaine epidemic, cocaine use began to increase in the 1970s and escalated substantially from 1980 to 1995. Because it had been so long since the previous epidemic, cocaine was perceived to be a safe drug. In a chapter on cocaine in the 1980 edition of a prominent textbook of psychiatry, the authors wrote: “If it is used no more than two or three times a week, cocaine creates no serious problems.”18 In 1977, 10% of 18- to 25-year-olds had used cocaine; that proportion doubled to 20% in 1979. By 1985, one third of 18- to 25-year-olds had used cocaine, as had 17.3% of 12th graders.15 Only with subsequent widespread publicity about the health risks and addictive properties of cocaine and the epidemic of crack cocaine did cocaine use among young people begin to wane.- Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I wanted there to be a clear visual indicator at the top of every page that a significant number of those advocating legalization of cannabis in this discussion weren't too concerned with increased access by adolescents and that many were also not going to be content with marijuana, but also advocated legalization of all drugs.

A survey in an internet discussion forum does not reveal the positions of the general population, but it is a useful tool for revealing the positions of participants in the discussion.

Again.... with the crying. You did not put this survey in place to give a clear visual indicator of where people stand, If you had wanted to do that you would have left the survey results open where you and everyone else could see how each individual voted.

The survey represents the viewpoint, of the "SaltyCajun" microcosm. Nothing more, nothing less. It may fall in line with surveys of greater scope or it may not.

Originally Posted by MathGeek

It is also notable that in their letter for the actual exercise of legislative power, the forum participant(s) advocating that exercise say nothing about drafting a law for legalization with a lower age limit of 21 to restrict access to adults, nothing about keeping felony penalties for providing access to those under 21, nothing about a blood alcohol limit for drivers (say 5 ng/ml like legislation Washington and Colorado), and nothing about maintaining current restrictions on manufacture, importation, and distribution of other drugs. The actual legislation they are advocating opens the gate without any reasonable boundaries.

Do we really need to have a remedial learning session with you? Do you really need a reminder of just exactly how many times I and others have clearly stated that we do NOT advocate underage use of ANY drug. We do advocate legalization and regulation, which has been shown by the overwhelming amount of scientific studies that are non biased, current, and of sufficient scope, to be the ONLY REAL PATH to a significant reduction in drug use.

Your stating that I and others advocate underage use of drugs, is the equivalent to me stating your preferred and personally used method of getting high is to mainline opiates. (since you have not raised any real objections to today's rampant prescription drug abuse, and the lack of controls upon it)

In other words it is an attempt on your part to create association via misinformation, and quite frankly lies.

I unlike you am not on a mission here to identify "who" believes and to then sew onto their shirt a star so that everyone can know "who" they identify with. Instead my purpose here is to offer reasoning based on the 17,000+ scientific studies showing every possible benefit of cannabis. And to also make a case for methods of regulation and control that will reduce abuse among all, and to explore the viable medicinal qualities of the plant.

All that you have advocated MG is a continuation of the same policies that are creating more and more users / abusers / dealers / cartels / and wars.

The four main lobbying groups that advocate continued criminilization of cannabis are Alcohol, Tobacco, Pharma, and Prison lobbys.

The money committed from those 4 lobbies to ensure cannibis stays illegal is ABSURD. The only thing that we need to do is allow them to find ways to patent cannabis products and those products will become legal INSTANTLY.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

It is also notable that in their letter for the actual exercise of legislative power, the forum participant(s) advocating that exercise say nothing about drafting a law for legalization with a lower age limit of 21 to restrict access to adults, nothing about keeping felony penalties for providing access to those under 21, nothing about a blood alcohol limit for drivers (say 5 ng/ml like legislation Washington and Colorado), and nothing about maintaining current restrictions on manufacture, importation, and distribution of other drugs. The actual legislation they are advocating opens the gate without any reasonable boundaries.

Using the above quote from Mathgeek as an example i am now going to demonstrate how association is truly a fine scientific method.

It is notable that mathgeek originally discussed child prostitution, another forum commenter stated that comparing child prostitution to cannabis use was "hurting his argument". Since Mathgeek did not dispute this with the other commenter or offer any further explanation we can infer the following.

1) Mathgeek supports ongoing child prostitution, and the organizations that fund them.

2) Because of his support for child prostitution, there is a very high probability of likelihood that Mathgeek is also a pedophile.


Does anyone else see that it's not surprising that Real Science does not use this method?

I hope you got something better than this in your bag of tricks MG.