Trueblue23
Posts: 7,463
Aug 8, 2013 6:40pm
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I'm glad higher minds (no pun intended) are realizing the ridiculousness behind the weed ban.
I'm glad higher minds (no pun intended) are realizing the ridiculousness behind the weed ban.
M
MontyBrunswick
Aug 8, 2013 7:14pm
oh cool this argument again.
It's never going to be legalized. That would be the government admitting they were wrong, and they obviously won't do that.
Whether legalization is the right thing to do is irrelevant due to the above point.
It's never going to be legalized. That would be the government admitting they were wrong, and they obviously won't do that.
Whether legalization is the right thing to do is irrelevant due to the above point.
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Aug 8, 2013 7:26pm
Gov't has admitted a few times when they've been wrong. 21st amendment, slavery, seperate but equal, civil rights, women's suffrage come to mind right off the top of my head. Nice fail.dlazz;1484246 wrote:oh cool this argument again.
It's never going to be legalized. That would be the government admitting they were wrong, and they obviously won't do that.
Whether legalization is the right thing to do is irrelevant due to the above point.
M
MontyBrunswick
Aug 8, 2013 7:28pm
In recent memory? Please.Commander of Awesome;1484250 wrote:Gov't has admitted a few times when they've been wrong. 21st amendment, slavery, seperate but equal, civil rights, women's suffrage come to mind right off the top of my head. Nice fail.
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Aug 8, 2013 7:31pm
WMD in Iraq.dlazz;1484251 wrote:In recent memory? Please.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Aug 8, 2013 7:33pm
It's not currently illegal because of old, bad science. I believe it was easily made illegal because at the time the cultural lack of acceptnace of those types of narcotics as opposed to the cultural acceptance and social usage of alcohol. Scientific reference may have been used to help such decisions "sit well' with all involved....even if they weren't thorough or accurate.
It still being illegal will require a massive majority of the populace to demand such laws be changed. I don't believe we are there yet but are certainly closer and getting there with increasing momentum.
It still being illegal will require a massive majority of the populace to demand such laws be changed. I don't believe we are there yet but are certainly closer and getting there with increasing momentum.
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Aug 8, 2013 7:34pm
Also overturning the defense of marriage act.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-26/catching-up-on-gay-rights-the-supreme-court-overturns-the-defense-of-marriage-act
LOL
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-26/catching-up-on-gay-rights-the-supreme-court-overturns-the-defense-of-marriage-act
LOL
Fly4Fun
Posts: 7,730
Aug 8, 2013 7:40pm
What CoA said re: DoMAdlazz;1484251 wrote:In recent memory? Please.
M
MontyBrunswick
Aug 8, 2013 8:14pm
That's a really poor example, but I can't be bothered to fight with you.Fly4Fun;1484258 wrote:What CoA said re: DoMA
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Aug 8, 2013 8:16pm
Does anyone really think if prohibition could work today that it wouldn't be a substantial movement?
Anyway, I'm not convinced that an already illegal drug has really received the scientific scrutiny to research potentially bad/harmful effects. I tend to be rather skeptical that mj is like caffeine or one of the very few other "benign" drugs/stimulants and not like the many harmful ones.
Anyway, I'm not convinced that an already illegal drug has really received the scientific scrutiny to research potentially bad/harmful effects. I tend to be rather skeptical that mj is like caffeine or one of the very few other "benign" drugs/stimulants and not like the many harmful ones.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Aug 8, 2013 8:21pm
Illegality isn't always about limiting the activity. Illegality can be about reflecting the desires of the culture of society. Prohibition can work if it relfects the desire of the society...even if it doesn't reduce usage.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Aug 8, 2013 8:23pm
Symbolic gestures (or laws) are a load of crap.Con_Alma;1484278 wrote:Illegality isn't always about limiting the activity. Illegality can be about reflecting the desires of the culture of society. Prohibition can work if it relfects the desire of the society...even if it doesn't reduce usage.
Fly4Fun
Posts: 7,730
Aug 8, 2013 8:24pm
Why is DoMA a poor example of the government changing their mind? A law was passed taking a strict stance on something to the extent of defining what marriage is. Then later the government decided it disagreed with the previous legislative act and definition and refused to defend the law which then went up to SCOTUS and was ruled unconstitutional.dlazz;1484274 wrote:That's a really poor example, but I can't be bothered to fight with you.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Aug 8, 2013 8:25pm
I didn't suggest anything be symbolic. A law reflecting the desires of society is hardly symbolic....and they exist.gut;1484283 wrote:Symbolic gestures (or laws) are a load of crap.
Fly4Fun
Posts: 7,730
Aug 8, 2013 8:26pm
You just described the difference between an effective (or good) and ineffective (or bad) law.Con_Alma;1484278 wrote:Illegality isn't always about limiting the activity. Illegality can be about reflecting the desires of the culture of society. Prohibition can work if it relfects the desire of the society...even if it doesn't reduce usage.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Aug 8, 2013 8:28pm
I disagree. I don't think it's ineffective if it doesn't eliminate the desired activity.Fly4Fun;1484289 wrote:You just described the difference between an effective (or good) and ineffective (or bad) law.
Fly4Fun
Posts: 7,730
Aug 8, 2013 8:32pm
I agree that a law isn't necessarily ineffective just because it doesn't elminate the desired activity. But if a law does not reflect the desires of a society or social system of a society then it will be ineffective. That's why copying and/or translating laws to "transplant" laws to different countries is often ineffective. A law that doesn't reflect the society will inevitably ineffective.Con_Alma;1484293 wrote:I disagree. I don't think it's ineffective if it doesn't eliminate the desired activity.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Aug 8, 2013 8:32pm
It remains a load of crap nonetheless.Con_Alma;1484288 wrote:A law reflecting the desires of society is hardly symbolic....and they exist.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Aug 8, 2013 8:36pm
Laws are something to be enforced, and come with consequences. Laws are not daily affirmations. If a law is ineffective or not to be enforced, then codifying it is a waste of resources on multiple levels.Con_Alma;1484293 wrote:I disagree. I don't think it's ineffective if it doesn't eliminate the desired activity.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Aug 8, 2013 8:36pm
I'm not really sure by what you mean by "load of crap". Do you think it's disingenuous? Do you think it's worthless?
There is value in laws reflecting the desire of society.
There is value in laws reflecting the desire of society.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Aug 8, 2013 8:38pm
Are4 you suggesting the illegality of marijuana doesn't have consequences if the law is violated.gut;1484301 wrote:Laws are something to be enforced, and come with consequences. Laws are not daily affirmations. If a law is ineffective or not to be enforced, then codifying it is a waste of resources on multiple levels.
I think the government does indeed try and enforce the law.I don't see it as a waste of resources at all.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Aug 8, 2013 8:40pm
No, there is value only in laws that preserve the desires of society. If a law does nothing to preserve your values - and words on a paper don't meet that standard alone - then it's useless.Con_Alma;1484302 wrote: There is value in laws reflecting the desire of society.
There are simply too many laws for an ineffective or inconsequential one to have some sort of osmotic effect you are hoping for.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Aug 8, 2013 8:45pm
Con_Alma;1484305 wrote:Are4 you suggesting the illegality of marijuana doesn't have consequences if the law is violated.
I think the government does indeed try and enforce the law.I don't see it as a waste of resources at all.
My comment was in reference to your implication that what society desires is sufficient justification for going on the books. There needs to be a higher standard than that. Society might like the sky to be purple - doesn't mean it should be a law, or that there's value in that.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Aug 8, 2013 8:45pm
This thread is about Mary Jane not Mary and Jane.Commander of Awesome;1484256 wrote:Also overturning the defense of marriage act.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-26/catching-up-on-gay-rights-the-supreme-court-overturns-the-defense-of-marriage-act
LOL
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Aug 8, 2013 8:46pm
I don't hope for an osmotic effect. Lol
In general I view laws as reactive as opposed to proactive.
I would agree, however, that we have laws on the books we no longer desire as a mirror of our society.
The reality is that to eliminate them it takes an opposition of desire that's massive to get legislative activity.
That's just reality....even if you might think it's a "load of crap".
In general I view laws as reactive as opposed to proactive.
I would agree, however, that we have laws on the books we no longer desire as a mirror of our society.
The reality is that to eliminate them it takes an opposition of desire that's massive to get legislative activity.
That's just reality....even if you might think it's a "load of crap".