|
Are Canada's Drug Policies Offending the World???? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by slingshot
Just a question out of curiosity...do you ever question authority? |
An interesting variant on this question may be: do people ever consider the reasons why the "authority" sets rules the way they do?
Rather than questioning why authority may be incorrect (or wrong) - perhaps it would be useful for people to consider for a moment the reasons why authority may be correct (or right). |
|
|
| slingshot |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
An interesting variant on this question may be: do people ever consider the reasons why the "authority" sets rules the way they do?
Rather than questioning why authority may be incorrect (or wrong) - perhaps it would be useful for people to consider for a moment the reasons why authority may be correct (or right). |
To do this would one not always have to assume that authority is right? |
|
|
| _EuG_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
An interesting variant on this question may be: do people ever consider the reasons why the "authority" sets rules the way they do?
Rather than questioning why authority may be incorrect (or wrong) - perhaps it would be useful for people to consider for a moment the reasons why authority may be correct (or right). |
I would say that the majority of rules are based of Utilitarianism, greats good for the greatest amount of people. But on the subject of drug laws they are simply ineffective. They dont do good for ANYONE, well maybe the Alcohol and Tobacco companies who have a monopoly on mind altering substances.
Drug laws, ruin more lives then drugs them selves. How would if feel to be considered a criminal because you were in possession of a plant, or a mushroom. You couldn’t get a normal job, and in turn you may actually choose a life of crime due to this fact.
I understand the need to keep society sober and working but the current methods are only hurting people. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by slingshot
To do this would one not always have to assume that authority is right? |
Why would one assume that the authority is always wrong? |
|
|
| kotsy |
| I'm too high to read this. haha. j/k |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Why would one assume that the authority is always wrong? |
Lets elaborate:
1. The authority says that the sun rises in the morning.
One can believe or question such a conclusion - but until compelling facts point to another outcome we assume that the authority is correct (the sun does in fact rise in the morning).
2. The authority once said that the world is flat.
Many believed and questioned such a conclusion - but until compelling facts proved otherwise we assumed the statement was correct. When compelling facts showed that the world was indeed round - the authority (majority?) adjusted it's position (based on the facts).
3. The authority says that illegal substances are harmful to society and harmful to oneself.
Many believe and (a few very vocal groups) question such a conclusion. Until compelling facts prove otherwise the authority (majority?) will not adjust their position. The fact that people are punished because they break (the majority's) laws does not factually prove that having substances be illegal is a greater harm than making them legal and free for (regulated?) use. Factual proof would be data to show that illegal substances are not at all harmful to society or oneself (and that fact has yet to be proved - more importantly it has been proved again and again). |
|
|
| slingshot |
The authority says that cannabis is wrong and alcohol is ok (going on that legal = ok, illegal = wrong). Yet, compelling facts actually tell quite a different story. Alcohol related deaths vastly outnumber cannabis related deaths. Any argument that can be made about the long term effects of habitual marijauna useage can be made about alcohol consumption. Alcoholism ruins many, many, many more lives than marijauna does. The same can be said about cigarettes.
Why should we question authority? Becaues in cases such as this it is quite clear that authority only has one objective in determing what is ok and what isn't ok. And that is....
$$$$$$$$$$$$ |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by slingshot
The authority says that cannabis is wrong and alcohol is OK (going on that legal = ok, illegal = wrong). |
You're diverting the argument. I'm not arguing specific substances, nor am I arguing the facts around specific situations.
I am simply saying that the authority (majority?) makes decisions based on facts. When facts change and there is compelling and practical reasons to change decisions the authority (majority) generally does.
Compelling: specific to your example above one must consider usage scale. If as many people smoked cannabis as consumed alcohol (with a similar availability/acceptance scenario) would long term studies prove one over the other to be more or less dangerous? The authority (majority) has yet to be shown such compelling information to prove such an outcome. Authority bases it's decisions on compelling facts.
Practical: alcohol is an intoxicant (dangerous with habitual or high-amount usage). The authority knows it is dangerous in many respects and such does it's best to restrict it's usage (age of majority + intoxication laws) and attempts to educate the consumer about it's socially and personally responsible use. Authority does what is most practical.
I think the question you're posing boils down to: is it practical (and reasonable) to repeal usage of something we know is harmful but has been legal for hundreds of years. The short and long answer is - no. It is not practical to ban alcohol consumption (factors are too many to list).
Paramount to the above to statements: just because one harmful substance is legal does not mean we should give carte-blanche privilege to other (less?) harmful substances. A harmful substance is harmful - no matter what. The authority (majority?) does it's best mitigating harmful substances - making those with practical (legal) limiting factors illegal and those with unpractical limiting factors regulated.
In a perfect world nobody would be exposed to harmful substances - we'd have a society free of addition and abuse potential.
Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world so the authority attempts to do it's best (which is not perfect) by making certain substances illegal and others regulated. |
|
|
| Allied Nations |
WHo would want to go shoot up in some weird government controlled location. why not just shoot up at home in your box on the street?
wait...
are they giving away free ? |
|
|
| slingshot |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
I am simply saying that the authority (majority?) makes decisions based on facts. When facts change and there is compelling and practical reasons to change decisions the authority (majority) generally does. |
I would have to stronly disagree with you on this point. For starters, the authority is not always the majority. In our current political situation the authority is the minority. Although their desicions are based on facts (like any political desicion should be) I strongly believe that facts alone are not the main motivation behind the desicion making process. Desicions and changes are made based on financial feasibility and/or profitability.
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Compelling: specific to your example above one must consider usage scale. If as many people smoked cannabis as consumed alcohol (with a similar availability/acceptance scenario) would long term studies prove one over the other to be more or less dangerous? The authority (majority) has yet to be shown such compelling information to prove such an outcome. Authority bases it's decisions on compelling facts.
|
This is simply because authority is reluctant to seek out such information. So you're telling me that there have been no studies conducted to date by reliable sources on the long term effects of cannabis usage? The UK or the Netherlands have never conducted such studies or had access to studies that can be accessed by our government? Is it that our government has yet to be shown such compelling information or is that they are simply not interested in coming across such compelling information because the financial feasibility/profitability is something that would be too difficult for them regulate? I'm going with the latter.
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Practical: alcohol is an intoxicant (dangerous with habitual or high-amount usage). The authority knows it is dangerous in many respects and such does it's best to restrict it's usage (age of majority + intoxication laws) and attempts to educate the consumer about it's socially and personally responsible use. Authority does what is most practical. |
What does this have to do with practicality? This is more so an issue of responsibiltiy as opposed to practicality. Since the government is permitting a dangerous and potentially harmful activity to take place in their country it is their social responsibility to not only educate the general population on such activity but also regulate it with such laws and restrictions. The same underlying regulatory and awareness principles exist in many things in this country such as driving, welding, and various trades. The government is not trying to restrict usage by placing an age of majority rule and intoxication laws in place. That would be like saying the government is trying to reduce the amount of welding taking place by implementing health and safety laws and setting a minimum age requirement for gaining your welding certificate or minimum age to be able to work in the workplace. They are implementing these things as their social responsibility to reduce the dangers and risks of such activities in their country. They are also doing this because it is financially feasible and/or profitable to do so.
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
I think the question you're posing boils down to: is it practical (and reasonable) to repeal usage of something we know is harmful but has been legal for hundreds of years. The short and long answer is - no. It is not practical to ban alcohol consumption (factors are too many to list). |
No, this is clearly not the question I am posing. However, this is the question that you seem to be dying to answer and the question that you have attempted to structure your argument around. The question I am posing is authority (our government) the supreme high power in judging right from wrong? Because authority says it's wrong, does that automatically mean it's wrong? Is the autorities desicion always the right desicion? Are there alterior motivates or hidden agendas behind decisions being made by the authority? These are all......questions of authority.
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Paramount to the above to statements: just because one harmful substance is legal does not mean we should give carte-blanche privilege to other (less?) harmful substances. A harmful substance is harmful - no matter what. The authority (majority?) does it's best mitigating harmful substances - making those with practical (legal) limiting factors illegal and those with unpractical limiting factors regulated. |
When dealing with things that pose roughly the same amount of danger and risk authority will permit what it can most easily regulate. They will allow things to become legal if they are within financial feasibility and/or profitability. |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| Legalizing substances less harmful doesn't mean they should be sold at a mass market level such as alcohol. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
Ryan, the Canadian govt for most part, responds to what the desire of the public (or the perceived desire) is. To be specific, issues get attention by the politicians (at least domestic issues) because there is a public demand for it, fueled by media, word of mouth, interest groups, etc.
The govt, despite its huge bureaucracy, can't respond to every need of the society at the same time. So most of the time, it'll only respond to which ever issue gets the biggest voice while trying to maintain the status quo in other issues.
So, if people want to decriminalize weed or other drugs, I think best approach is not to pester the govt, but pester the public and educate them. If one keeps making a lone noise to the govt, it's not going to get much attention. If one breaks the law of the land in protest, it's not going to their cause much good and turn the public against them. (Rare special circumstances and events do go against this sometimes)
As the older, more conservative minded generation die off, I think there will be gradual changes to the drug laws and make certain drugs decriminalized. For example, same sex marriage. It would have been unheard of to bring such issue up what, 25 yrs ago. But now the world perception (at least in Western nations) changed.
So, as time goes by and smoking weed becomes more or less acceptable, and the public thinks law saying smoking weed is bad, changes will happen.
Humanity is rarely logical, but a lot of times driven by perception. Changing the perception that weed is bad to weed is pretty much harmless is going to take effort and time.
Did I even answer to your comments? LOL |
|
|
|
|
