[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Not good - marijuana tied to testicular cancer:
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-smoking-tied-testicular-cancer-study-023342821.html[/quote]
To paraphrase 2nd wave feminism, my balls belong to me.
Or are you seriously arguing that my balls are your problem?
Because then I would really like to more…
[quote]orion wrote:
A pot head is far less likely to cause problems to “society” than a “boozehead”, because it is very hard to do that if you sit on your couch and listen to 60s music.
[/quote]
Ultimately, this is why I don’t care if it is legal or not.
Because if it is, it just removes people I would otherwise have to work harder to advance in front of. It makes my path to getting my name on the door, so to speak, easier.
So fuck it, but I still think that welfare should drug test.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Not good - marijuana tied to testicular cancer:
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-smoking-tied-testicular-cancer-study-023342821.html[/quote]
To paraphrase 2nd wave feminism, my balls belong to me.
Or are you seriously arguing that my balls are your problem?
Because then I would really like to know more…
edited[/quote]
Well seeing as the cost of health insurance is now spread among the collective, it does become my problem, if you live in the US.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Pot, not so much - in addition to all of its other problems, it makes you dumber:
So that’s what’s wrong with Pittbull!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
I think the big positive out of this thread is how some of the small government guys have clearly moved over into holding that some things are so beneficial to society that it is more important to legislate against them than to allow freedom.[/quote]
Yep, and it has always been that way - public morality laws have been in place since the borth of the Republic, and many were (necessarily) strengthened as people began to be eligible for public programs that helped clean up the wreckage of their bad choices. That’s not exactly a shocking news story - or it shouldn’t be.
Non-sequitur. There is no reason someone can’t be for outlawing certain harmful drugs and against universal health care. That’s just dumb, and even backwards.
Laws prohibiting certain drugs are designed to prohibit and prevent people from otherwise screwing up their health and lives through drug use. If these laws were effective, we’d have less of a need for overarching government programs to clean up the screwed-up lives of drug users.[/quote]
If its ok to limit freedom for the good of society is the premise we accept. Then its only a matter of doing an economic analysis for any behavior. Since that would be the presumable societal cost correct? Economic? Or if you more broadly want to argue that its a benefit to have a healthy, well fed well educated society I am for that premise as well but that certainly means purely economic considerations are secondary to other things in society.
Purely on an economic model drugs should be legal.
On the grounds that drug use is harmful to the creation of a well fed , healthy, well educated society I would allow you have more grounds. But you are not intellectually consistent to take this position for one issue then to use solely an economic analysis against someone arguing for other legislation you disagree with for whatever reason. Its not a consistent position.
[quote]orion wrote:
Or are you seriously arguing that my balls are your problem?[/quote]
Yep, because either (1) you are in someone’s private insurance pool and your choices make premiums go up, or (2) you get treatment for this health problem from a public program on the taxpayer’s dime.
[quote]orion wrote:
I am not a teen. [/quote]=
Perhaps not by the metric of biological age.
So does jogging. So what? What doesn’t fall into this category if you go to extremes with it?
Rarely happens, and only does so when someone takes it to the extreme.
No, those aren’t health “benefits” - they are pain management.
Absolute hogwash.
[quote]groo wrote:
If its ok to limit freedom for the good of society is the premise we accept. Then its only a matter of doing an economic analysis for any behavior. [/quote]
No, it isn’t, because economic analysis only deals with trade-offs and cost-benefit analysis in allocation of resource scenarios. We measure (and should measure) the good of human society by many other metrics.
No, they wouldn’t.
Well, thanks for that, but even if I agreed with you (and I don’t), such a claim is useless, because we don’t organize our society on purely an “economic model”.
You are as incoherent as Orion.
[quote]groo wrote:
I think the big positive out of this thread is how some of the small government guys have clearly moved over into holding that some things are so beneficial to society that it is more important to legislate against them than to allow freedom.
Its just a short hop now to getting you guys to agree that thinks like a single payer health care program might be beneficial to society.[/quote]
You have it wrong groo (as usual).
Being a “small government guy” does not mean that we are not strong law and order guys as well. Society either benefits or is harmed by every law that is passed. The anti drug laws are good laws and have proven to actually work. The current financial expenditure is great but the lack of anti pot laws would heap a much larger financial burden on the society. In health care costs, in traffic accidents and deaths and in many other ways.
The reason that most on this site are against pot laws has nothing to do with the greater good, but more to do with them wanting to get high without any legal consequences. I look down on that selfish behavior. I understand the 18-23 year old’s talking this way as they are still young immature and obviously have not raised teenagers. They are not thinking of the number of 12 year old kids who would light up if given free reign and in fact influenced through marketing, a greater supply and the legitimacy of legality. They’re only thinking of themselves and the “freedom” that they would have to do what they want. The rest who are old enough to know better but don’t, are even more pathetic in my view.
But legislation to prevent societal ill’s is what government does. Don’t get conservatives confused with the nutty libertarians. We (as conservatives) know that government is necessary and we look to it to perform certain functions that when enacted protects it’s citizens. We want it limited but functioning efficiently.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
I think the big positive out of this thread is how some of the small government guys have clearly moved over into holding that some things are so beneficial to society that it is more important to legislate against them than to allow freedom.
Its just a short hop now to getting you guys to agree that thinks like a single payer health care program might be beneficial to society.[/quote]
You have it wrong groo (as usual).
Being a “small government guy” does not mean that we are not strong law and order guys as well. Society either benefits or is harmed by every law that is passed. The anti drug laws are good laws and have proven to actually work. The current financial expenditure is great but the lack of anti pot laws would heap a much larger financial burden on the society. In health care costs, in traffic accidents and deaths and in many other ways.
The reason that most on this site are against pot laws has nothing to do with the greater good, but more to do with them wanting to get high without any legal consequences. I look down on that selfish behavior. I understand the 18-23 year old’s talking this way as they are still young immature and obviously have not raised teenagers. They are not thinking of the number of 12 year old kids who would light up if given free reign and in fact influenced through marketing, a greater supply and the legitimacy of legality. They’re only thinking of themselves and the “freedom” that they would have to do what they want. The rest who are old enough to know better but don’t, are even more pathetic in my view.
But legislation to prevent societal ill’s is what government does. Don’t get conservatives confused with the nutty libertarians. We (as conservatives) know that government is necessary and we look to it to perform certain functions that when enacted protects it’s citizens. We want it limited but functioning efficiently. [/quote]
Bit of conundrum drawing the line. I’ll feel free to not think too much of your judgement that I got things wrong. I won’t rain on your parade though. I’ll try to rein in my enthusiasm to argue with you as I am fairly certain that the people who agree with you aren’t going to reign any more.
.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
If its ok to limit freedom for the good of society is the premise we accept. Then its only a matter of doing an economic analysis for any behavior. [/quote]
No, it isn’t, because economic analysis only deals with trade-offs and cost-benefit analysis in allocation of resource scenarios. We measure (and should measure) the good of human society by many other metrics.
No, they wouldn’t.
Well, thanks for that, but even if I agreed with you (and I don’t), such a claim is useless, because we don’t organize our society on purely an “economic model”.
You are as incoherent as Orion.[/quote]
Not at all
What is your premise for keeping drugs illegal.
Is it the economic cost?
Is it the societal cost?
If its the second please define what you feel to be the societal cost. And if this cost is considered to be greater than an economic cost why should it only be so in cases that agree with your personal morality.
[quote]groo wrote:
Is it the economic cost?
Is it the societal cost?
If its the second please define what you feel to be the societal cost. And if this cost is considered to be greater than an economic cost why should it only be so in cases that agree with your personal morality.[/quote]
It’s both. The economic cost is the cost of health care (broadly) to deal with drug users - costs escalate and more demand is placed on an already overwhelmed set of health care resources. Drug user’s poor choices make the collective cost of health care go up with any offset.
Drug users also impose higher costs on employers, who are required to underwrite the risk of drug abuse by their employees. The economic costs pile up, and go on and on.
As for social costs, without a public opprobrium on drug use, we send a message that drug use tolerable, and that is incredibly stupid, given the effects we see on families and other crucial interpersonal relationships that provide stability in society. We have no interest (and should have no interest) in excusing, endorsing or otherwise promoting any phenomenon that has such a devastating effect on the non-economic institutions that underpin society.
We don’t always need a law to help with promoting the strength of these non-economic institutions, but they are sometimes warranted, and in this case, I have no problem with it.
As for social costs, without a public opprobrium on drug use, we send a message that drug use tolerable, and that is incredibly stupid, given the effects we see on families and other crucial interpersonal relationships that provide stability in society. We have no interest (and should have no interest) in excusing, endorsing or otherwise promoting any phenomenon that has such a devastating effect on the non-economic institutions that underpin society
This is much too broad to be any type of premise. You are assuming the argument on way too many points.
You really think the health care costs of all drug use not just marijuana would somehow rise to the current real costs and costs in productivity of the war on drugs? How much do you think drug use would possibly go up to make this even conceivable?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yay, ten health benefits of beer:
Yay, the health benefits of wine:
http://www.foodandwine.com/articles/8-health-benefits-of-drinking-wine[/quote]
What about hard alcohol? Yes I know it might have the same benefits but how many people actually drink it for that reason? I wouldn’t be surprised if that group was as small as the legitimate medical marijuana users and the abusers are just as bad if not worse than illegal marijuana users.
[quote]groo wrote:
This is much too broad to be any type of premise. You are assuming the argument on way too many points. [/quote]
Well, no, it isn’t, and no, I’m not.
Quite likely. Look around you - observe Americans’ relationship with food. Look at the health care costs of obesity today as compared to, say, 50 years ago. Why would there be any reason not to assume that people would be just as irresponsible in their consumption habits with drugs than with food?
I have no interest in opening that Pandora’s Box, and other sane people see it the same way.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I am not a teen. [/quote]=
Perhaps not by the metric of biological age.
So does jogging. So what? What doesn’t fall into this category if you go to extremes with it?
Rarely happens, and only does so when someone takes it to the extreme.
No, those aren’t health “benefits” - they are pain management.
Absolute hogwash.[/quote]
Ah, so you have gangs of stoners roaming the streets looking for a fight and breaking stuff?
Gotcha.
And dont get me started on stoned Hooligans, chilled out of their minds and rioting…
Look, there is a thing called reality and I prefer to base my arguments on it as far as I can, I suggest you do the same.
Also, pain management is a health issue, so is rapid weight loss due to chemotherapy.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
Is it the economic cost?
Is it the societal cost?
If its the second please define what you feel to be the societal cost. And if this cost is considered to be greater than an economic cost why should it only be so in cases that agree with your personal morality.[/quote]
It’s both. The economic cost is the cost of health care (broadly) to deal with drug users - costs escalate and more demand is placed on an already overwhelmed set of health care resources. Drug user’s poor choices make the collective cost of health care go up with any offset.
Drug users also impose higher costs on employers, who are required to underwrite the risk of drug abuse by their employees. The economic costs pile up, and go on and on.
As for social costs, without a public opprobrium on drug use, we send a message that drug use tolerable, and that is incredibly stupid, given the effects we see on families and other crucial interpersonal relationships that provide stability in society. We have no interest (and should have no interest) in excusing, endorsing or otherwise promoting any phenomenon that has such a devastating effect on the non-economic institutions that underpin society.
We don’t always need a law to help with promoting the strength of these non-economic institutions, but they are sometimes warranted, and in this case, I have no problem with it.[/quote]
Furthermore, according to all the data we have drug use goes DOWN when it is decriminalized, which means that any costs borne by society go down too.
There is that pesky “reality” thing…
Again.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ah, so you have gangs of stoners roaming the streets looking for a fight and breaking stuff?[/quote]
Nope, and we don’t have gangs of drunkards doing that either.
That’d be a first. In any event, alcohol isn’t driving mobs to violence in the streets. Be serious.
[quote]orion wrote:
Furthermore, according to all the data we have drug use goes DOWN when it is decriminalized, which means that any costs borne by society go down too. [/quote]
Ok, I am happy to read whatever data you have. Let’s see it.