Help in a debate?

Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ]

Katanoki
Hummingbird

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 19
Location: Earth

15 Mar 2008, 12:24 pm

I'm currently debating a friend on the legalization of marijuana, and while I'm pro-marijuana legalization, what I need help with is less about marijuana and more about human nature.

I can't exactly articulate how you can't blame the deaths due to fights over marijuana on marijuana itself. I mean, there's been deaths over pokemon cards, for Pete's sake. Anyone have any suggestions?

=/ If this is the wrong forum to ask, I apologize.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

15 Mar 2008, 12:46 pm

Katanoki wrote:

=/ If this is the wrong forum to ask, I apologize.

There would be no closer forum.

While people may fight and die over anything, I would say that non medicinal uses of Tetrahydrocannabinol should be restricted because of its effects on perception and thought processes.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

15 Mar 2008, 1:26 pm

You could also argue that fights over marijuana are going to be higher under a situation where marijuana is illegal both because of the self-selecting effect where users are going to be those who care less about the law anyway, and because of a lack of law to promote order and higher prices on the product due to the fact that it can only be found on the black market(higher prices mean more willingness to kill over it). You could also explicitly say that people are killed over legal products such as pokemon cards, items of clothing and other things, and that legal drugs such as alcohol cause many many deaths as well and are probably more dangerous than marijuana.

I am pro-legalization myself for all uses of the drug.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

15 Mar 2008, 1:46 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Is your stance on firearms similar? (This is not a bait or flame post, I am being serious) The logic of:

"You could also argue that fights over marijuana [or incidents involving firearms] are going to be higher under a situation where marijuana [or firearms] is illegal both because of the self-selecting effect where users are going to be those who care less about the law anyway..."

should also apply to guns regardless of their qualitative differences, should it not?

Sort of like supply/demand with human tendencies for misbehavior factored in?

Katanoki
Hummingbird

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 19
Location: Earth

15 Mar 2008, 3:16 pm

The role of the firearms is different than the role of marijuana/pokemon cards/iPods/money/etc. The firearms themselves aide in the act of harming another, the marijuana/cards/etc are simply the motive.

Now, if someone were fighting over a firearm, that's when things would get complicated. o_o;;

EDIT: And, btw, thanks for the help, peeps! =)

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

15 Mar 2008, 6:35 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Yes, my stance on firearms is similar as you are right, the logic does work the same. In addition to that, I would also throw in the idea that the more people with firearms there are the less dangerous each firearm becomes as other holders could keep that individual in check.

Katanoki wrote:

My logic still works the same though as it does not distinguish between motives and helping factors.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

16 Mar 2008, 7:06 pm

My church denomination used to support Prohibition, but have since come to their senses. The arguments about alcohol are easily transferrable to marijuana- actually, the debate is identical. Here is a brief excerpt from PC(USA)'s alcohol position.

Presbyterian Church (USA) wrote:

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) does not advocate the prohibition of alcohol, a policy which would appear to attribute the entire problem to alcohol itself.

Basically, it's the person and not the drug which is generally to blame for irresponsible behavior- this is why DUI fines are levied on drunks and not on breweries. I see no particular distinction between booze and pot, and it is inconsistent to support having only one of them legally available.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 Mar 2008, 7:14 pm

Orwell wrote:

Presbyterian Church (USA) wrote:

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) does not advocate the prohibition of alcohol, a policy which would appear to attribute the entire problem to alcohol itself.

Right, Presbyterians have switched from such strictness to Christian liberty as a stance. Southern Baptists I think still hate drinking and gambling and all of that stuff. The debate is pretty similar between marijuana and alcohol, the major difference I might see is that marijuana is a smaller and less influential drug than alcohol in the US.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

16 Mar 2008, 7:18 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Presbyterians are still encouraged not to drink (or at least to do so in moderation), but the church has realized that Prohibition is simply not legally practical and that there are personal issues involved that go beyond the availability of alcohol. We're also still against gambling, pretty strongly so, actually.

Yes, the main (only?) difference between alcohol and marijuana is that alcohol is more prevalent, but that's not really a strong reason for keeping marijuana illegal.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ]

Jump to:

Help in a debate? Post Reply New Topic

Help in a debate?