the other problem we face is that once we decriminalize something, discover once the genie is out of the bottle that it might not have been such a good idea with 20-20 hindsight is that it is virtually impossible to put that genie back into the bottle by re-regulation. (sorry for the sloppy typing above, but was on my cellphone with my butterfingers.)
the other problem we face is that once we decriminalize something, discover once the genie is out of the bottle that it might not have been such a good idea with 20-20 hindsight is that it is virtually impossible to put that genie back into the bottle by re-regulation. (sorry for the sloppy typing above, but was on my cellphone with my butterfingers.)
Thoughtful responses, so could care less about typos :).
IMO, people should be allowed to choose for themselves as long as they do not harm other people. That fits nicely with your comments about driving under the influence and even sex with minors. Minors are not able to consent, so they cannot choose for themselves and therefore nobody should be having sex with them.
Psychotropic drugs should be up to individuals IMO. There is a growing body of evidence that they are useful for treating many disorders but the illegality of these drugs has greatly delayed those treatments. I find it unconscionable that a potential treatment that would help our wounded veterans has been delayed by decades because of somebody's feelings of what is right and moral.
Why is taking a psychotropic drug bad? Yes, nobody should drive while on it, but beyond that? Is it really your responsibility to make sure that I do not overindulge? Where do you draw the line? If what I do in my own home is your business, is it reasonable to have sodomy laws? These are two sides of the same coin.
BTW, the genie has always been out of the bottle. Making something illegal has tremendous unintended consequences such as enriching drug cartels, creating street violence, and causing users to hide their habits. These are not minor consequences, but they are often ignored when looking at other and new bad impacts of legalizing.
I always come down on the side of personal freedom. I do not want anyone to put themselves in a position where they get to decide what I do in my own home - as long as I don't harm anyone else while doing it. Our country has moved more and more towards the government (ie our fellow citizens) regulating our life. I do not like it, and I will argue against it, but I acknowledge the trend. I will always do my best to convince people to stop doing it.
BTW, the only drug I use is alcohol, so my beliefs are based on thoughts and principles, not convenience.
The problem with this position is that there are harms to the community with personal use. Also, the truly medicinal use of marijuana and psychotropic drugs is minuscule and should be handled by prescription. It's irrelevant to any conversation about generalized use.
All sorts of things that we do or consume are regulated to benefit the community and in so doing limit individual freedom. There are some things that should clearly be limited. For instance, methamphetamine is a drug with almost no beneficial use outside of very strict medical supervision and should not under any circumstances be allowed for all to use freely. The harm that the use of meth inflicts on the people that use it adversely impacts the community at large both in terms of quality of life and adverse financial consequences. The most significant in my view is the extraordinary harm to any children who are raised in such a household. While marijuana is not in the same league as meth it does, particularly with the THC concentrations now available, have negative externalities. Should adults be free to openly use marijuana with young children in the home? If not, how do you prevent/regulate it? Alcohol obviously has the same problem but do we have to keep adding to the availability of harmful and poorly regulated substances? As noted by Kevin Sabet in the podcast, these impacts are felt most acutely in the poorest communities.
I agree with you that drugs on the illegal market can result in crime but that doesn't mean that things can't be regulated. Cannabis has already passed the gate, but it needs far more regulation than it currently has especially as it applies to exposure and use in children.
Everything you bring up about "harms to the community" can be used as justification for virtually anything you don't like and want to prevent other citizens from doing for whatever reason you oppose it. Here's a list that I hope makes you pause in your willingness to regulate private citizens' behaviors in the name of public good and for the kids impacted by parents doing it: adultery, sugar intake, smoking, alcohol, working a night shift, single parent households, and etc. All of these have similar if not worse impacts on children in a home than recreational use of pot.
Every drug you mention has "already passed the gate". One could argue the pros and cons of legalization, and which causes greater harm to society (no clear victor IMO on that point) but he whole point of my commentary is that we should ask a serious question about what right you, as a citizen, have over me, as another citizen, to tell me what I can and cannot do in my own home. The further you get from clear harm to others, the stickier that proposition gets.
I agree in most part with your opinion that people should be allowed to choose for themselves, and what you get to do in your own home. but the reality is that most people do not have the smarts to keep it in their home, they bring it into mine or into the public - because they are selfish and self-centered. I applaud the medical use of psychotropics for the treatment of many disorders, but after watching my generation (child of 60s & 70s, born in the 50s) the "what I want to do" and damn the torpedoes has not bode(?) well for our current situation. It is not my responsibility to prevent your overindulgence, but rather to encourage you to keep your overindulgence from spilling over into impacting my safety and the safety of others. You want to self-destruct? OK, but you do not have the right to take me down with you. I am not a fan of governmental regulation of life, but sometimes it is needed. Unfortunately, humans have proven time and time again that to live in a functioning, civil society, guardrails are needed, and that they are in a society of many, not just their one.
I think we're largely in agreement after all. I support laws that prevent private actions from causing harm for anyone else. For example, laws against driving under the influence are very good IMO. Drunk driving has been greatly reduced and I would suggest that we've achieved a good balance of allowing people to exercise individual freedom in consuming alcohol while protecting the public from stupid individual choices.
In a nutshell, my belief is that smoking pot should be legal, but outlaw with strong punishment the driving after you smoke it. I also feel its reasonable to limit where pot is consumed just like we do with alcohol.
the other problem we face is that once we decriminalize something, discover once the genie is out of the bottle that it might not have been such a good idea with 20-20 hindsight is that it is virtually impossible to put that genie back into the bottle by re-regulation. (sorry for the sloppy typing above, but was on my cellphone with my butterfingers.)
Thoughtful responses, so could care less about typos :).
IMO, people should be allowed to choose for themselves as long as they do not harm other people. That fits nicely with your comments about driving under the influence and even sex with minors. Minors are not able to consent, so they cannot choose for themselves and therefore nobody should be having sex with them.
Psychotropic drugs should be up to individuals IMO. There is a growing body of evidence that they are useful for treating many disorders but the illegality of these drugs has greatly delayed those treatments. I find it unconscionable that a potential treatment that would help our wounded veterans has been delayed by decades because of somebody's feelings of what is right and moral.
Why is taking a psychotropic drug bad? Yes, nobody should drive while on it, but beyond that? Is it really your responsibility to make sure that I do not overindulge? Where do you draw the line? If what I do in my own home is your business, is it reasonable to have sodomy laws? These are two sides of the same coin.
BTW, the genie has always been out of the bottle. Making something illegal has tremendous unintended consequences such as enriching drug cartels, creating street violence, and causing users to hide their habits. These are not minor consequences, but they are often ignored when looking at other and new bad impacts of legalizing.
I always come down on the side of personal freedom. I do not want anyone to put themselves in a position where they get to decide what I do in my own home - as long as I don't harm anyone else while doing it. Our country has moved more and more towards the government (ie our fellow citizens) regulating our life. I do not like it, and I will argue against it, but I acknowledge the trend. I will always do my best to convince people to stop doing it.
BTW, the only drug I use is alcohol, so my beliefs are based on thoughts and principles, not convenience.
The problem with this position is that there are harms to the community with personal use. Also, the truly medicinal use of marijuana and psychotropic drugs is minuscule and should be handled by prescription. It's irrelevant to any conversation about generalized use.
All sorts of things that we do or consume are regulated to benefit the community and in so doing limit individual freedom. There are some things that should clearly be limited. For instance, methamphetamine is a drug with almost no beneficial use outside of very strict medical supervision and should not under any circumstances be allowed for all to use freely. The harm that the use of meth inflicts on the people that use it adversely impacts the community at large both in terms of quality of life and adverse financial consequences. The most significant in my view is the extraordinary harm to any children who are raised in such a household. While marijuana is not in the same league as meth it does, particularly with the THC concentrations now available, have negative externalities. Should adults be free to openly use marijuana with young children in the home? If not, how do you prevent/regulate it? Alcohol obviously has the same problem but do we have to keep adding to the availability of harmful and poorly regulated substances? As noted by Kevin Sabet in the podcast, these impacts are felt most acutely in the poorest communities.
I agree with you that drugs on the illegal market can result in crime but that doesn't mean that things can't be regulated. Cannabis has already passed the gate, but it needs far more regulation than it currently has especially as it applies to exposure and use in children.
Everything you bring up about "harms to the community" can be used as justification for virtually anything you don't like and want to prevent other citizens from doing for whatever reason you oppose it. Here's a list that I hope makes you pause in your willingness to regulate private citizens' behaviors in the name of public good and for the kids impacted by parents doing it: adultery, sugar intake, smoking, alcohol, working a night shift, single parent households, and etc. All of these have similar if not worse impacts on children in a home than recreational use of pot.
Every drug you mention has "already passed the gate". One could argue the pros and cons of legalization, and which causes greater harm to society (no clear victor IMO on that point) but he whole point of my commentary is that we should ask a serious question about what right you, as a citizen, have over me, as another citizen, to tell me what I can and cannot do in my own home. The further you get from clear harm to others, the stickier that proposition gets.
I agree in most part with your opinion that people should be allowed to choose for themselves, and what you get to do in your own home. but the reality is that most people do not have the smarts to keep it in their home, they bring it into mine or into the public - because they are selfish and self-centered. I applaud the medical use of psychotropics for the treatment of many disorders, but after watching my generation (child of 60s & 70s, born in the 50s) the "what I want to do" and damn the torpedoes has not bode(?) well for our current situation. It is not my responsibility to prevent your overindulgence, but rather to encourage you to keep your overindulgence from spilling over into impacting my safety and the safety of others. You want to self-destruct? OK, but you do not have the right to take me down with you. I am not a fan of governmental regulation of life, but sometimes it is needed. Unfortunately, humans have proven time and time again that to live in a functioning, civil society, guardrails are needed, and that they are in a society of many, not just their one.
I think we're largely in agreement after all. I support laws that prevent private actions from causing harm for anyone else. For example, laws against driving under the influence are very good IMO. Drunk driving has been greatly reduced and I would suggest that we've achieved a good balance of allowing people to exercise individual freedom in consuming alcohol while protecting the public from stupid individual choices.
In a nutshell, my belief is that smoking pot should be legal, but outlaw with strong punishment the driving after you smoke it. I also feel its reasonable to limit where pot is consumed just like we do with alcohol.
We agree.