TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Opinion: Legalize and regulate drug use
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by DeleteFromUsers Alcohol and tobacco are both very dangerous and heavily regulated. Half of your points are answered by how we deal with the those substances currently. Perhaps it sounds like an oversimplification but I have yet to read any argument that effectively differentiates the addictiveness and physical/societal dangers of alcohol and tobacco versus other harder substances.

How do the current regulations around alcohol tell us how much THC someone can have in their system before they should be prohibited from driving?

Your premise is correct in that we did have to answer those same questions about alcohol and tobacco, but it's a dangerous oversimplification to imply that this actually gives us answers about how it would work with marijuana, ecstasy or cocaine. Alcohol and tobacco by themselves are completely different in terms of legislation/regulation, and it took the better part of 50 years to iron out the wrinkles, and some things are still in dispute, like the effects of second-hand smoke.

When you take the "just git 'r done" attitude that I've heard so many times from starry-eyed VPs and incompetent middle managers, you actually make the issue worse. You're creating resistance and resentment on the other side. When you demand totally unrealistic budgets and timelines for a project, the most likely result is that the project will get scrapped.

If we want the issue to go forward then we need to have a proposal. We need to do some of the research. We need to be able to go to MPs and MPPs and say hey, we know you think that this is a nightmare, but we think it might actually work if you did it this way and it would increase your tax revenues by whatever. We need to suggest an actual plan, not some vaguely-worded mission objective.

Or we can go on pretending shit's easy (as long as we don't have to do it) and bitch about the reactionaries who won't just do it and never make any real headway.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut How do the current regulations around alcohol tell us how much THC someone can have in their system before they should be prohibited from driving? Your premise is correct in that we did have to answer those same questions about alcohol and tobacco, but it's a dangerous oversimplification to imply that this actually gives us answers about how it would work with marijuana, ecstasy or cocaine. Alcohol and tobacco by themselves are completely different in terms of legislation/regulation, and it took the better part of 50 years to iron out the wrinkles, and some things are still in dispute, like the effects of second-hand smoke. When you take the "just git 'r done" attitude that I've heard so many times from starry-eyed VPs and incompetent middle managers, you actually make the issue worse. You're creating resistance and resentment on the other side. When you demand totally unrealistic budgets and timelines for a project, the most likely result is that the project will get scrapped. If we want the issue to go forward then we need to have a proposal. We need to do some of the research. We need to be able to go to MPs and MPPs and say hey, we know you think that this is a nightmare, but we think it might actually work if you did it this way and it would increase your tax revenues by whatever. We need to suggest an actual plan, not some vaguely-worded mission objective. Or we can go on pretending shit's easy (as long as we don't have to do it) and bitch about the reactionaries who won't just do it and never make any real headway.

We have the people, we have the technology. Wrap the solution around the problem.

The current debate is not HOW to regulate - it is WHETHER to legalize. This is not the time for details.

quote:

Originally posted by DeleteFromUsers We have the people, we have the technology. Wrap the solution around the problem. The current debate is not HOW to regulate - it is WHETHER to legalize. This is not the time for details.

I'm on your side. I didn't say that the problem was insurmountable, just that it's something to be aware of which legalization advocates often fail to take into account. As far as I'm concerned, it's not even a debatable point - knowing what we know now, it is simply illogical to advocate continued prohibition.

Of course, in reality, the "should we do it" question is more often than not commingled with the "how do we do it" question, because to do anything big takes time and money and both are in limited supply. For all we know, people are actively working on it today, but just don't have a finished product yet.

I just want to promote a rational debate that's not predicated on emotions and insults. When people say that everybody would be dead in a month if we legalized amphetamines, it's not because they're stupid, it's because they don't understand that it would likely come with a similar legal and regulatory framework to alcohol and tobacco, or what such a framework might look like. If we want an end to prohibition, then it's our job to educate these people on how we think it can be done safely and effectively - explain that we're aware of those concerns and are prepared to address rather than dismiss them. It's not going to be an easy thing to do even if support for the idea achieves critical mass.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.