You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
Legal for all the wrong reasons
When the topic of Marijuana Decriminalization comes about, we always hear the same arguments.
“It’s not as bad as alcohol”
“It has medical benefits”
“we can tax it” (ugh)
Why is it that, we as a nation, are convinced that we need to prove that something can help society in order for it to be legal. Why can’t the stance be, “we should be able to choose what we ingest”
thoughts?
First off, I agree that it should be legal just because people ought to be free to do anything peaceful. But when it comes to debating statists I think we have to be pragmatic and recognize that consequences matter more to them than any deontological argument. The way they make decisions about their political views is by examining utility. I think when talking specifically about pot it’s better at first to use arguments that appeal to them.
The real issue, I think, is that we keep debating them on issues rather than on logic. Better to show them why utility and consequence should always be secondary to natural rights. Once they understand that in the abstract they’ll be more sensitive to deontological arguments like “we should be able to choose what we ingest.”
I always refuse to enter into arguments of practicality unless that is the explicit point of the discussion/debate. I point out that morality must come first because if it does not, anything can be justified for the sake of practicality.
For instance, it may be practical to eradicate disease ‘X’ by killing off all the people who carry it. But it is totally immoral, and therefore cannot be allowed.
This really gets to the fundamental dichotomy between libertarians and statists. The presumption should be (both morally and from the standpoint of those who wrote the U.S. Constitution) in favor of liberty. You have natural rights that preexist the state, and the state only exists to help provide security for those rights. Unfortunately, many Americans today have bought into the oxymoronic idea of “collective rights,” whereby you have no rights other than those decided upon by a majority of your fellow citizens. Therefore, to collectivists, the question is why they should allow you to do something, or in other words, how what you want to do will benefit “the greater good.”
I have a substantial amount of experience dealing with this issue, and I have found that the best way to approach it (assuming you are trying to change their minds) is to find out what is important to the person you are debating. Almost everybody is libertarian about something. Focus on that and then extend that logic into other things, at which point their hypocrisy will become more apparent to them, even if they will not admit it at first. Of course, you need to recognize that their views will not change overnight, and the process can be quite frustrating.
If you are only going to be speaking to one person a single time and don’t have time to gradually lead them to the light, then you really need to tailor your argument to that particular discussion. I know saying that things need to be taken on a case-by-case basis is unsatisfying, but it is the truth.
I used to debate the subject on the grounds of practicality, but that was before i knew anything about morality.
Since then, i’ve debated on the grounds of morality, it’s my life, therefore my rules.
– But with myself as an example, i could see why people goes for the practicality arguments. – If they like i didn’t, know any better, then it’s understandable. – But if they like to be consistent, then practicality, has no meaning in the debate what so ever.
– Well, my oppinion anyways. I’ll not claim to be right, i just like to be consistent.
“Why is it that, we as a nation, are convinced that we need to prove that something can help society in order for it to be legal”
Because that’s how we’ve been programmed. Most people I know are incapable of thinking for themselves, merely repeating some asinine garbage from the talking heads on the idiot box. If it’s on T.v or in the papers it’s gotta be true. The lemmings don’t understand the difference between legality and morality.
Cannabis should be decriminalized not legalized, surely we don’t need Government in control of something else they’re more than likely to fuck up.
“Why can’t the stance be, “we should be able to choose what we ingest””
The owners don’t want that !
Cannabis needs to be legal because:
1) Human Beings have a genetic pre-disposition to this plant that goes back tens of thousands of years.
2) Only recently has Cannabis been proven to kill cancer cells and be a great therapy for PTSD, and probably many other ailments a subsidized big pharma industry wants to sell us drugs for..
3) Cannabis has traditionally been legal for most of the last 10,000 years and only in the last 100 has been made illegal, demonized and made a scandal for “polite society” because pharma companies understood it to be a natural alternative to their products and they could not patent it.
4) Hemp as a fiber was demonized at the same time and that has been a huge detriment to the American farmer.
5) Freedom entails being able to grow any natural plant we wish for our own personal use and consume it as we see fit, PERIOD.
