The "This crime will never go away, so why make it illegal" argument is bullshit.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Lots of people try to defend the idea that "insert whatever illegal activity" should be made legal on the bases that since the state can't ever fully prevent it, then there is no point in combating it.

This however, I find to be an extremely stupid argument.

The problem with this argument, is that it could also apply to every other crime that has ever existed. The police will never be able to catch every criminal for ANY CRIME.

That doesn't mean that there aren't any good arguments for whatever it is that you want to be legalized to be legalized, but simply pointing out that people will contine to break the law even when things aren't legal isn't a good argument.

Thoughts?

Still legitimate, however, to ask if the actual resources required to enforce it, especially the costs of prison space and legal resources, are worth keeping something illegal.

What's bullshit is the government trying to control natural human behaviour by throwing people in prison and tarnishing them with a criminal record for "crimes" that either hurt nobody or only hurt the person committing them.

The argument is stupid, yes. But as Kitten points out, sometimes keeping something illegal does more harm than just legalizing it and suffering the minor consequences of it.

I assume we're talking about immoral acts like drugs, prostitution, and gambling?

In some instances that train of thought is correct. Prohibition as an example, people where still drinking to great consequence for the US as a whole and the drinkers themselves. If we where to further try to crack down on drinkers it would only be a costly futile endeavor. Thus we can't stop it so why try prohibit it, however every time I've heard that argument it's usually more nuanced then how you stated it.

ten.to.ten:
What's bullshit is the government trying to control natural human behaviour

Uh. I think you should remove this part. We are ALL expected to be in control of our 'natural human behavior', or suffer the consequences.
Otherwise, you know, murder and rape would be pretty much rampant..

Realitycrash:
Uh. I think you should remove this part. We are ALL expected to be in control of our 'natural human behavior', or suffer the consequences.
Otherwise, you know, murder and rape would be pretty much rampant..

Did you even read the whole sentence? I qualified it with "crimes" that either hurt nobody or only hurt the person committing them.

I've never heard anyone use the "it's not going away so make it legal" argument for any crime that would hurt or take something away from others with the exception of piracy, and I think people take that position with piracy as a push back from unnecessarily punitive anti-piracy laws that a lot of Western countries have.

It depends on the reason for making the activity a crime. There's a difference between saying "banning alcohol won't stop people from drinking, so why bother?" and saying "banning murder doesn't stop people from murdering, so why bother?" In the first case the only reason to have the law is to attempt to stop drinking--the fact that people continue to drink means the law is a failure and keeping it around is pointless. In the second case the law is meant to keep murderers away from potential victims--if someone commits a murder, but is then imprisoned so that they cannot commit future murders, the law has successfully helped protect members of society.

ten.to.ten:
What's bullshit is the government trying to control natural human behaviour by throwing people in prison and tarnishing them with a criminal record for "crimes" that either hurt nobody or only hurt the person committing them.

Two things:

First of all, civilization itself is unnatural, everything around you was accomplished by unnatural behavior on our part, and the continuation of the life you know absolutely requires that people continue to act in a manner that is unnatural.

If you really want natural behavior to rule the day, step one is the death of 99% of the current human population.

Secondly, victimless crimes are (almost) a myth. There is always collateral damage for one's actions. Generally speaking, those that refuse to acknowledge the impact they have on others fully deserve a hefty slap in the face in my opinion. With that stated, there is still something of a case to be made that said collateral may or may not be worth the provoked response.

ten.to.ten:

Realitycrash:
Uh. I think you should remove this part. We are ALL expected to be in control of our 'natural human behavior', or suffer the consequences.
Otherwise, you know, murder and rape would be pretty much rampant..

Did you even read the whole sentence? I qualified it with "crimes" that either hurt nobody or only hurt the person committing them.

I've never heard anyone use the "it's not going away so make it legal" argument for any crime that would hurt or take something away from others with the exception of piracy, and I think people take that position with piracy as a push back from unnecessarily punitive anti-piracy laws that a lot of Western countries have.

Why yes I DID read the entire sentence, but that's why I said "I think you should remove this part". Because, you know, it was a rather unnecessary part. It provided no relevant information to your case.

..Also, said definition is rather vague. Many would argue that crimes that hurt the person is in fact, inevitably, hurting others or society (suicide being an example).

Realitycrash:
Why yes I DID read the entire sentence, but that's why I said "I think you should remove this part". Because, you know, it was a rather unnecessary part. It provided no relevant information to your case.

..Also, said definition is rather vague.

Pardon, I misunderstood what you meant. And it was vague but I wanted a short, quick way to get my general feelings across.

Realitycrash:
Many would argue that crimes that hurt the person is in fact, inevitably, hurting others or society (suicide being an example).

This is silly. Suicide's not a good example because it's impossible to punish a corpse, but also because even ignoring the argument I'd make about each person deserving to have autonomy over whether or not they choose to keep living, by extension, you could say that gay sex should be illegal because it could cause anguish for the friends and family of that person to know that they're gay, or something like that.

Heronblade:
Two things:

First of all, civilization itself is unnatural, everything around you was accomplished by unnatural behavior on our part, and the continuation of the life you know absolutely requires that people continue to act in a manner that is unnatural.

If you really want natural behavior to rule the day, step one is the death of 99% of the current human population.

Perhaps "natural human" is an oxymoron depending on your definition of natural but we are still beings of nature driven by certain impulses. Some of these can be harmful to others, some are completely harmless.

Heronblade:
Secondly, victimless crimes are (almost) a myth. There is always collateral damage for one's actions. Generally speaking, those that refuse to acknowledge the impact they have on others fully deserve a hefty slap in the face in my opinion. With that stated, there is still something of a case to be made that said collateral may or may not be worth the provoked response.

What impact on others would I have if I had gay sex? Or saw a prostitute? Or saw a banned movie? Or gambled? Or used a mind-altering substance? In the case of the last two specifically I realise that, for example, the child of a parent addicted to gambling or alcohol/drugs could suffer because of that, but the crime should be child neglect or child abuse rather than something else.

As an extreme "liberal" (not sure if that's the correct term), I am pro-euthanasia (when it's the patient's own choice), pro-suicide, pro-self-harm, simultaneously pro-eating-disorder-acceptance and pro-fat-acceptance, pro-body-modifications, pro-BDSM, pro-choice, pro-drugs and medically/psychiatrically anti-paternalist. As such, I am definitely in favour of anything that a person does to themselves (or consents to another person doing unto them without coercion from either part) and very much against telling adults what to do with their own bodies. So long, of course, as the adult in question doesn't break any laws while pursuing their own free will.

ten.to.ten:

Realitycrash:
Why yes I DID read the entire sentence, but that's why I said "I think you should remove this part". Because, you know, it was a rather unnecessary part. It provided no relevant information to your case.

..Also, said definition is rather vague.

Pardon, I misunderstood what you meant. And it was vague but I wanted a short, quick way to get my general feelings across.

Realitycrash:
Many would argue that crimes that hurt the person is in fact, inevitably, hurting others or society (suicide being an example).

This is silly. Suicide's not a good example because it's impossible to punish a corpse, but also because even ignoring the argument I'd make about each person deserving to have autonomy over whether or not they choose to keep living, by extension, you could say that gay sex should be illegal because it could cause anguish for the friends and family of that person to know that they're gay, or something like that.

Why yes, gay sex CAN be interpreted as offensive (and thus hurtful), both to people and to (as is an often used excuse) God. It all depends upon what you define as 'hurtful', and what kinds of hurt people are allowed to put on each-other without it being illegal. I find assholes hurtful, for instance, but I wouldn't want to criminalize it
(Yes, really, political pundits hurt me. There are several news-channels and magazines I avoid simply because even reading or watching the slightest of it makes my day worse. It brings me down. It HURTS me).

Take any possible course of action, and I can find you a situation were it will hurt someone else. So, what we should discuss is not whether or not some actions cause harm, but what kinds of harm should be legal.

BrassButtons:
It depends on the reason for making the activity a crime. There's a difference between saying "banning alcohol won't stop people from drinking, so why bother?" and saying "banning murder doesn't stop people from murdering, so why bother?" In the first case the only reason to have the law is to attempt to stop drinking--the fact that people continue to drink means the law is a failure and keeping it around is pointless. In the second case the law is meant to keep murderers away from potential victims--if someone commits a murder, but is then imprisoned so that they cannot commit future murders, the law has successfully helped protect members of society.

Depends on the impact though. Prohibition could've worked if there wasn't a rich and especially well-armed organised crime to profit from it, and the impact of the ban was sufficient.

Some towns still enforce prohibition laws. I know of examples of that in Australia and the US for certain. It's patronising and stupid as responsible use of alcohol is easily possible, it's a matter of wanting, not a matter of being able to, but if you see the consequences of drinking in those places there's a certain logic behind trying it. Went through British Columbia and saw some Indian-populated areas near Kamloops, but the alcoholism there struck me. It was a small town, but you saw more drunkards on a regular working day there than you do in a large city here in the Netherlands in the evenings. That's just a quick impression, but if it's even remotely true there's a problem there. For instance some Indian tribes that have pushed through such a local ordnance have a genetric defect that makes them unable to handle alcohol. Once drunk they're pretty much incapacitated for days on end, and it wiped out entire communities that hadn't learned how to deal with alcoholism yet. Still continue to do so today really.

Then again, it may well be that the community doesn't wish to change, so they use prohibition as a way of not having to adress the social processes which have lead to drinking problems among most Indian tribes. In any case, if availability is the same and a problem is strongly correlated to ethnic lines, there's ussually some kind of cultural problem going on. If people aren't willing to change their culture to fix the problem, fighting the symptoms becomes second best. You see the same in a stereotypical native western culture in regards to drugs: We're unwilling to adopt values of abandoning people to their fate completely, denying them all aid, healthcare etc and letting them die in the gutter if they do drugs, that's our cultural value. So instead of letting everyone have drugs and letting many people pay with their life for their mistakes, we ban drugs and fight their use and distribution, and offer aid to drug victims.

The argument as stated is stupid yes. A partial solution is more of a solution than nothing.

But there can be any number of reasons to lend that argument more weight.

We all have our thresholds on what would be acceptable to legalize and what would not be. Me for instance, I'd support the complete legalization of marijuana. Laws against driving or operating heavy machinery under the influence of such a drug already exist, the drug itself in terms of personal danger is roughly equal to tobacco or alcohol (as always there are exceptions) and frankly, most people I know and met that have had pot, that's all they're interested in trying. The best part, is a formally criminal enterprise is literally cut from under the drug lords and introduces (in the US) a potential taxable product of almost $40 billion per year. Imagine how much more you can spend giving pay rises to teacher, cops, fire fighters, improvement in public resources. At street level, this also frees up a lot of police time writing up specific infractions or arresting people for carrying small to medium amounts of the drug who are otherwise not (visibly) committing another crime.

Downsides are that the 'gateway drug theory', while not proven in stone, does have enough examples to make it an issue. Its effect on behavior is unpredictable and can exacerbate conditions like schizophrenia. Health can suffer from overuse leading to extreme lethargy. Change would take time, and there would be lobbying from many groups against it, especially the cotton industry since you can cultivate cannabis for its fiber and as a plant is hardier than cotton. That's a threat to a potential industry; Customs laws would be an issue between countries with legalization and without (pro-tip; no spliff, no matter how groovy, is worth a stint at the Bangkok Hilton or Waldorf Malaya) and as with all things; there will be fuck ups who ruin it for the rest of us.

I welcome any legal, scientific or police experts to weigh in and correct any misconceptions presented :)

There's a point in looking at the impacts of the legality and illegality of certain actions and whether or not it's actually more damaging by making it illegal. For instance, making possession of small amounts of illegal drugs an offense punishable by years in prison does little to keep a person from doing drugs and just makes keeping a job difficult(many an addict works a legal job and supports their habit through it).

The base argument you're using is only half finished: If the state can't stop people from doing it, and it doesn't really cause harm, except perhaps to the one performing the action, why is it illegal?

Hardcore_gamer:
-snip-

I think Gunsmith hit it on the head:

GunsmithKitten:
Still legitimate, however, to ask if the actual resources required to enforce it, especially the costs of prison space and legal resources, are worth keeping something illegal.

And I think that, more than anything, the argument being posed when people say the crime's never going to go away so why bother is "Would it be more beneficial if the police weren't having to bother with this certain crime?" I mean everybody knows murder isn't going to go away, but that one is worth it. We know murderers getting caught makes the public safer and more at ease. But pot smokers? Are those really who we want police resources being spent on? IIRC it's something like 30% of nonviolent criminals in prison are there for marijuana possession. There's never been conclusive evidence that suggests marijuana is some terrible "gateway drug," at least any more than cigarettes or alcohol, and if there is any connection it's possible it's because people have to go to dealers to get marijuana and cocaine, so of course those dealers are going to try to push them into cocaine.

But if it were legalized and regulated, standards of purity can be upheld, prices can be made reasonable, and dealers and drug rings can be taken out of the equation for marijuana.

And that, my dear Hardcore_gamer, is why people apply that argument to marijuana and the like. Because the benefits outweigh the risk, and it only makes sense. It's no secret the "war on drugs" is a fantastic failure, and the reason it's failed is the same reason prohibition failed. Banning something doesn't make it go away, it just makes those who sell it more desperate to make a profit. Cocaine and heroin existed in the early 1900s, in fact heroine was sometimes sent to WWI soldiers in care packages along with food and cigarettes. Though it was a very different drug back then--recently drug cartels have become desperate to get people hooked and to make their product as cheap as possible, so they began to mix all sorts of terrible shit in with it to make those things happen. Before it was illegal, there was no such need. The profit already outweighed the risk since it wasn't illegal.

It probably wasn't the greatest thing for you, but again it wasn't the drug it is now. It wouldn't ruin your life in one go. You didn't see drug overdoses until you saw drug cartels and illicit dealers.

Lilani:
And that, my dear Hardcore_gamer, is why people apply that argument to marijuana and the like. Because the benefits outweigh the risk, and it only makes sense.

Actually the whole pot legalisation thingie seems to be a lot more about "But I want to get high easier and cheaper and without getting caught and fined every now and then".

If it was about the costs it would be a very short debate, because the indirect costs of marijuana (like caring for those driven insane by it, or fighting the massive amounts of crime caused by addicts) are huge.

Hardcore_gamer:
Lots of people try to defend the idea that "insert whatever illegal activity" should be made legal on the bases that since the state can't ever fully prevent it, then there is no point in combating it.

This however, I find to be an extremely stupid argument.

The problem with this argument, is that it could also apply to every other crime that has ever existed. The police will never be able to catch every criminal for ANY CRIME.

That doesn't mean that there aren't any good arguments for whatever it is that you want to be legalized to be legalized, but simply pointing out that people will contine to break the law even when things aren't legal isn't a good argument.

Thoughts?

You are misrepresenting the position and so have set up a strawman argument.

The 'argument' you mention, 'making the crime legal because we cannot prevent it', is usually only advocated for crimes with no victim or where the perpetrator is the only victim (ie drug use, not drug dealing or manufacture).

No one proposes making homicide, robbery, assault or terrorism legal, yet we know we cannot prevent these crimes.

In the case of gun control, this argument is bullshit. The fact is, the U.S. has never really tried to seriously regulate guns. Gun control works very well in most of the other developed nations, so we can't say it doesn't work. In the case of drugs, we have to look at whether prohibition actually prevents more harm than it causes. For drugs, I don't think it does.

Blablahb:

Lilani:
And that, my dear Hardcore_gamer, is why people apply that argument to marijuana and the like. Because the benefits outweigh the risk, and it only makes sense.

Actually the whole pot legalisation thingie seems to be a lot more about "But I want to get high easier and cheaper and without getting caught and fined every now and then".

If it was about the costs it would be a very short debate, because the indirect costs of marijuana (like caring for those driven insane by it, or fighting the massive amounts of crime caused by addicts) are huge.

I don't know how it is in other parts of the world, but in America most of the older voters and most politicians are absolutely convinced marijuana is just as bad any of the hard drugs. They do not separate them in their minds or arguments at all. To them, legalizing marijuana may as well be legalizing meth or bath salts. So while yes I'm sure a lot of people are just looking to get high cheaper, the people who are keeping them from doing so are convinced they're fighting the "war on drugs." They hardly ever talk about the mental side effects--hell it's hard to get a politician to get within five miles of anything involving mental health or mental healthcare. Their main selling point is, "But it's keeping kids from getting addicted to crack!"

Blablahb:

If it was about the costs it would be a very short debate, because the indirect costs of marijuana (like caring for those driven insane by it, or fighting the massive amounts of crime caused by addicts) are huge.

Driven insane by marijuana? Huge amounts of crime? Marijuana addicts? To be honest, this sounds like bullshit. You wouldn't happen to have some reliable citations supporting your claims, would you?

Leadfinger:
Driven insane by marijuana? Huge amounts of crime? Marijuana addicts? To be honest, this sounds like bullshit. You wouldn't happen to have some reliable citations supporting your claims, would you?

Please consult this recent topic. All of those things were mentioned there, repeatedly, sources included for as far as my posts were concerned.

I generally find that if banning something causes large amounts of organised crime to spring up and supply it, then banning it was probably a bad idea. I know that's true of lots of things and it isn't always true, but it's always something to keep in mind.

Blablahb:

Leadfinger:
Driven insane by marijuana? Huge amounts of crime? Marijuana addicts? To be honest, this sounds like bullshit. You wouldn't happen to have some reliable citations supporting your claims, would you?

Please consult this recent topic. All of those things were mentioned there, repeatedly, sources included for as far as my posts were concerned.

Marijuana on its own is not likely to cause heightened levels of criminality; it makes you want to sit down and eat a packet of Tim Tams with a Coopers Ale. The drug is a depressant, and its addictive affect when not mixed with other drugs such as the aforementioned cocaine or even nicotine is basically par with booze or ciggies. Shit you can even skip the lung cancer part by using an evaporator or hash butter in a space cake.

The people most likely to suffer mental health issues with the use of pot are schizophrenics and all but the most irresponsible stoner (or career drug pusher) tend to push people with a known family or personal history with it away from the drug. It is not, and never will be, a substitute for something like Prozac or other mood stabilizers; anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit.

Blablahb:

Leadfinger:
Driven insane by marijuana? Huge amounts of crime? Marijuana addicts? To be honest, this sounds like bullshit. You wouldn't happen to have some reliable citations supporting your claims, would you?

Please consult this recent topic. All of those things were mentioned there, repeatedly, sources included for as far as my posts were concerned.

I participated in that thread. You didn't substantiate any of these claims.

The argument, the way I see it, isn't that the state won't be able to fuly prevent it, but rather that the state will never be able to prevent it in a reasonable and meaningful manner.

Take the prohibition of cannabis, for example (and other drugs imo): There's always going to be a great demand for these drugs, and prohibition, particularly of such an easily aquired substance, is always going to leave room for people to profit off of the increased market value of the substance during prohibition, leading to an environment of crime surrounding the trade. Drug cartels will blossom.
In cases like this, I consider it preferrable to leave the substance legal. The result will be roughly the same in regards to people using the substance, but the related violent crime and unsafe environment surrounding it will disappear.

A crime is only a crime because there is a piece of paper somewhere that says so. Perhaps in thousands of years time, when the world is overpopulated to an even higher level than it is now, murder will be made legal by necessity.

In our current situation, if that crime does less damage to the user and society than the attempts to enforce it then it certainly should be decriminalised.
Drug prohibition is the perfect example here. The demand and recreational use of drugs (and therefore the market for them) is inevitable, the attempts to enforce the draconian prohibition laws are more costly, more damaging to society, lower quality of life more etc. than the actual drug use itself.

It's not a question of making something legal because you can never fully prevent it. It's a question of making something legal because your attempts to prevent it do more harm than good.

The only problem is that sensationalist, conservative news media will put across any kind of decriminalisation as a "hippy communist plot to destroy democracy."

Hardcore_gamer:
Thoughts?

I think you're slightly missing the purpose of that argument. It's usually not that these illegal activities "won't go away anyway", but rather that they would be less harmful if they were legal.

Take the practice of cutting powder-based drugs with broken glass or other finely grained crap. A great many people are going to try elicit substances regardless, but if its illegal, then they're going to turn to some pretty shady individuals. They're much more likely to get their hands on something like the above, cut with glass or otherwise compromised and dangerous in even more ways. And, for fear of legal repercussion, many won't feel able to turn to the hospitals for help when they're overdosing or experiencing other problems.

If the substances were legal, and regulated, it would be another story. The substances themselves can be extremely dangerous, yes; but keeping them underground produces even greater dangers.

Leadfinger:
I participated in that thread. You didn't substantiate any of these claims.

If you manage to ignore more than four pages of discussion, you're not interested in discussion.

Silvanus:
If the substances were legal, and regulated, it would be another story. The substances themselves can be extremely dangerous, yes; but keeping them underground produces even greater dangers.

It's questionable if quality would increase at all, and the amount of drugs that would flood the market and the increase in the number of addicts would likely easily outweigh any benefits from that one except of a drug dealer that starts to behave decently after a legalisation.

Blablahb:

Leadfinger:
I participated in that thread. You didn't substantiate any of these claims.

If you manage to ignore more than four pages of discussion, you're not interested in discussion.

Silvanus:
If the substances were legal, and regulated, it would be another story. The substances themselves can be extremely dangerous, yes; but keeping them underground produces even greater dangers.

It's questionable if quality would increase at all, and the amount of drugs that would flood the market and the increase in the number of addicts would likely easily outweigh any benefits from that one except of a drug dealer that starts to behave decently after a legalisation.

I'm interested in discussions which have a factual basis.

ten.to.ten:

Heronblade:
Two things:

First of all, civilization itself is unnatural, everything around you was accomplished by unnatural behavior on our part, and the continuation of the life you know absolutely requires that people continue to act in a manner that is unnatural.

If you really want natural behavior to rule the day, step one is the death of 99% of the current human population.

Perhaps "natural human" is an oxymoron depending on your definition of natural but we are still beings of nature driven by certain impulses. Some of these can be harmful to others, some are completely harmless.

The point was that we already expect people to rise above and beyond those same impulses you mention. Instinct is not, and has not for a very long time, been sufficient excuse for the behavior of a rational being.

Feel free to continue the argument, just don't expect the term natural to hold weight.

Heronblade:
Secondly, victimless crimes are (almost) a myth. There is always collateral damage for one's actions. Generally speaking, those that refuse to acknowledge the impact they have on others fully deserve a hefty slap in the face in my opinion. With that stated, there is still something of a case to be made that said collateral may or may not be worth the provoked response.

What impact on others would I have if I had gay sex? Or saw a prostitute? Or saw a banned movie? Or gambled? Or used a mind-altering substance? In the case of the last two specifically I realise that, for example, the child of a parent addicted to gambling or alcohol/drugs could suffer because of that, but the crime should be child neglect or child abuse rather than something else.[/quote]Lets see:
-Banning gay sex I won't defend, that falls firmly into the (almost) qualifier I made before. Negative consequences can indeed arise, but they are of the same type and nature as are associated with straight sex.
-Prostitution falls into the category of harming society on the whole. Too many individuals doing it too often has been shown to have an adverse impact on standard family relationships, and by association, on the next generation.(by standard I mean a loving group of individuals capable of responsibly raising children, not strictly 1male 1female nuclear families as some would define it)
-Banned movies may or may not fall into a similar category as the last. Media is a powerful tool, it can, and often does, change the thinking of entire nations. Unfortunately, the difference between the government banning truly subversive material, and banning stuff they just don't like/happen to go against personal interests can be subtle.
-All addictions, whether in terms of gambling, alcohol, narcotics, or any other obsessive activity, can and will cause harm to those around the addicted, at minimum because they all detract from that person's ability to live and work as normal.

Do bear in mind with all of these pointers that I did mention the collateral damage of an action may not be worth the legal response. Not all laws are justified, I'm just trying to get across the point that even many of the weakest among those laws have some basis.

Leadfinger:

Blablahb:

Leadfinger:
I participated in that thread. You didn't substantiate any of these claims.

If you manage to ignore more than four pages of discussion, you're not interested in discussion.

Silvanus:
If the substances were legal, and regulated, it would be another story. The substances themselves can be extremely dangerous, yes; but keeping them underground produces even greater dangers.

It's questionable if quality would increase at all, and the amount of drugs that would flood the market and the increase in the number of addicts would likely easily outweigh any benefits from that one except of a drug dealer that starts to behave decently after a legalisation.

I'm interested in discussions which have a factual basis.

And he said that his comments in said topic had factual basis, and you say they haven't, and this is turning into "He said, She Said". Either quote said comments you think do not have factual basis, and provide sufficient claims for why, or let it drop, please.

Realitycrash:

Leadfinger:

Blablahb:
If you manage to ignore more than four pages of discussion, you're not interested in discussion.
It's questionable if quality would increase at all, and the amount of drugs that would flood the market and the increase in the number of addicts would likely easily outweigh any benefits from that one except of a drug dealer that starts to behave decently after a legalisation.

I'm interested in discussions which have a factual basis.

And he said that his comments in said topic had factual basis, and you say they haven't, and this is turning into "He said, She Said". Either quote said comments you think do not have factual basis, and provide sufficient claims for why, or let it drop, please.

Look, here's what Blablahb said in this very thread, "If it was about the costs it would be a very short debate, because the indirect costs of marijuana (like caring for those driven insane by it, or fighting the massive amounts of crime caused by addicts) are huge." In this one sentence are four dubious claims-1. have people been driven insane by marijuana in significant numbers 2. there is a massive amount of crime related to marijuana use 3. there are marijuana addicts 4. the indirect costs of marijuana use are huge
Since Blahb made these statements, it's up to him to document them. (see the "Burden of proof" logical fallacy for further guidance on this point.)

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked