>You're correct that it's not a healthy habit-- I don't touch
>it for those reasons, just like I don't touch cigarettes, I
>don't eat a lot of fatty foods, and I drink only in
>moderation. That said, it doesn't particularly bother me if
>other people have unhealthy habits, so long as they don't
>impact me.

I generally share Valg's attitude here, that if it doesn't affect me, I don't care what you do with yourself. Lately, though I've been wondering what are the things that affect me. Take legalizing marj, you smoking it in your basement doesn't affect me, you sitting in your basement not able to pay your bills, does. The same can be said for achohol. Now I drink an occasional beer, and I smoked pot many years ago, and probably wouldn't have a problem with them being legal, but some days I don't think either should be legal since most people can't handle them responcible. Gambling is another example, if you want to gamble for fun, hey have at it, gambling away your check to pay the heating bill, and woo wait a minute. Now I, we as a society have to pay for that either through your premature death, or though some kind of assistance program. Seatbelts and helmets are another example, I really could care less if you wore either of those, but if you got into an accident and end up in a vegatative state and can't take care of your family, now it becomes our problem, and not just with fact that I, we as society, have to pay to take care of your family. I, we as a society now have to raise your children, and lately, last I looked, most single parents aren't doing so hot, not to mention all the things a kid looses out on when one of there parents is missing.

So what I'm asking is where do you draw the line?

First, the costs of the continued criminalizing of marijuana use and possession are far greater in the long run then changing it to a restricted taxable product. The costs of marijuana use and those of upholding its current status includes, law enforcement, the cost of incarceration, the cost of treatment and the cost of social programs designed to help those with drug related problems beyond medical assistance. While this is not a complete list of costs, the main problem here is that no income enters into the current system of handling this problem. If your concern is the cost to you, then unpholding its current status should be the last thing you should want. Changing it to a legal, taxable product removes the underground nature of this portion of the drug trade, creates jobs in terms of growers, processors, and suppliers. Creates tax revenue on these businesses as well as the product itself. It also allows for a redistribution of current resources being spent on handling the criminalization of users/sellers to other issues.

Secondly, your assumptions that "most" people cannot handle drinking or gambling responsibly is false. If you use as a definition for responsibilty not having any criminal/legal repercussions for your indulgence in either activity then in fact most people who enjoy these activities are doing so resonsibly. This definition is not perfect but I feel for such a discussion it is sufficient. I see no reason why legal use of marijuana would not result in a similar proportion of responsbile vs irresponbile use in the long run.

Where do you draw the line?

I would argue that more rigorous cost/benefit analysis should be done in regards to issues such as this, with an attempt to remove prejudicial feels based on nonfactual information when making laws that restrict individual choice and freedom. The current system of handling marijuana denies the realities of drug use and abuse and forces us non-users to shoulder the bulk of the costs.

Again I do not smoke marijuana or use drugs, I only feel that the current laws do little to stop drug use and have created a large and costly system that we as a society must pay for.

>If your concern is the cost to you,
>then unpholding its current status should be the last thing
>you should want.

Unless you assume that the cost to society of "unchecked" use is higher than the cost of the status quo.

(I'm not saying that I do.)

Yes, well that is what I was addressing, that the cost to society is less if it is a regulated commodity, then if it is kept in its current status. There are studies done on government spending in regards to the law enforcement portion of my statment, they tend to show large decreases in costs when penalties are reduced. The cost of treatment show less evidence of declining costs. But, the main point of my argument was less that that overall costs would decline, though I believe they would, and more so that changing it to a taxable commodity provides increased revenue. It is this increase in revenue that reduces the social burden of its use.

The problem with drug use/abuse is that it is under most circumstances impossible or at least impractical to enforce prohibition. If we accept this fact, then it is my opinion that looking for alternative less costly methods of control makes more sense. Again, I think drug use is bad and those that part take in it are doing themselves a disservice. I just don't believe that this problem is best handled by criminalizing it.

As for use being "unchecked" I did not say for it to be sold like penny candy, but controled, like alcohol and tobacco, substances that can be of course abused by any who use them, but the prevailing sentiment is that is a personal choice to do so. Personally, I believe most people that want to smoke marijuana and do drugs in general do so, drugs in general are not hard to come by if you wish them, thats the nature of the market for them. And thus, while legalizing would probably come along with an increase in general use, the question would be is this increase causing a greater social cost then any benefits. I doubt this as I mentioned in my previous post, I feel most people that do decided to partake in such potentially harmful activities do so responsibly (That being drink/gamble).

Sorry for the long ass posts, I'm bored at work, and have read to much on this subject.

are the moral and ethical implications associated with making decisions based on that analysis.

I read an article a few years ago about studies run by cigarette companies suggesting that governments in the recently dissolved Soviet Union could see substantial savings in pension payouts if they had lax smoking laws. This link doesn't have the exact article I read, but it shows a similar publication.

Although from a fiscal perspective it might make sense to kill off the unproductive members of society, I doubt our retiring Baby Boomers or our bleeding heart democrats and republicans would vote for it.

Yes, we could also have dramatic savings in health care costs if we euthanized everyone at age 70. Does that mean I was arguing such a point? No, I was trying to show that current drug policy is more costly then at least one alternative and touched on the fact that it is not effective as it stands. Cost/benefit analysis is just one of many tools used in policy analysis in general but often such analytical ways of looking at issues is overshadowed by misconception, special interests, and prejuiced thinking that has little basis being involved in policy matters.

I in no way stated that killing anyone would be a good idea, or that using such a method to justify such an action or policy is good.

The point was that reducing it into black & white fiscal terms could lead to undesirable outcomes. Any cost/benefit analysis must be tempered by qualitative factors which do not readily lend themselves to analysis.

The problem with looking beyond hard facts (Dollars not being the only hard facts) to non measurable qualitative factors into policy analysis is that you lose the ability to judge the value/outcome of policies based on these factors because there is generaly no way to measure them to begin with.

I did take you initial post in the wrong light, and for that I apologize for not reading it a second time. I think there is real value in trying to ignore non-measurable factors when making decisions so that the results can be weighed against the factors that were used, this way policies can be refined over time in a more precise manner. I understand what you are saying and I do agree that boiling things down to dollars is not always adequate or good. But in general cost/benefit analysis does not only take into account real dollars, economist generally quantify many values when using such tools to guage policies.

>The problem with looking beyond hard facts (Dollars not being
>the only hard facts) to non measurable qualitative factors
>into policy analysis is that you lose the ability to judge the
>value/outcome of policies based on these factors because there
>is generaly no way to measure them to begin with.
>
I agree.

I found this conversation humorous, because not too long ago I argued a position similar to yours when I talked about statistics based on PBFs, and I was (as I anticipated) hounded for uttering my heresies. As a nation, if we examined our state and national policies with an equally critical eye, our corner of the world might be an even better place.


*humerous -> humorous, in case Valg had his blue pen handy ;0)

>Secondly, your assumptions that "most" people cannot handle
>drinking or gambling responsibly is false. If you use as a
>definition for responsibilty not having any criminal/legal
>repercussions for your indulgence in either activity then in
>fact most people who enjoy these activities are doing so
>resonsibly. This definition is not perfect but I feel for
>such a discussion it is sufficient. I see no reason why legal
>use of marijuana would not result in a similar proportion of
>responsbile vs irresponbile use in the long run.

This definition misses out on most of the more serious costs associated with drinking in gambling. There is a huge "unseen" cost on society with both these activities, from lost production due to a 'hangover' from the night before, to the worry that is associated with not being able to cover your expenses because you spent your paycheck gambling or drinking. Think how grouchy you were the last time money was tight around your house. Maybe, I've viewing these things a little differently since I'm a parent, but neither drinking or gambling are family friendly activities, so any time you spend doing these is time you don't spend with your family. Heck how many kids are out there because one both of the parents were drinking before the kid was concieved, and then how many of those end up in one parent households? None of these things are illegal, but they are all a burden on society.

On top of this the number of people that are actually caught doing something illegal vs the number that are actually doing it is rather small. Think of the number times that someone you know has driven drunk, vs the number of times they have been caught. Hell I had kids in my high school class that went from Junior high to graduation that partied darn near everyweekend, and never got caught. How many people playing CF smoked or are smoking pot, how many have been cited for something drug related?

I too believe our current system of handling drug use is flawed, I also know that I don't have the answer to how to fix the problem, or heck how even to best handle the situation. I generally consider myself a libertarian, so if you want to do something in the privacy of your own home, hey go ahead. Generally, I think government should keep it's nose out of peoples private lives. Too many have let the government become there parent, either by telling us what the legal limit is to drive after we've been drinking to social security because we aren't responcible enough to save money for our retirements. So what I'm asking is at what point do we as a society say hey there's too many of you idiots out there that can't figure out how to save some money for your retirement so we'll do it for you.

It's part of my you must be this smart to breed program. Provide everything neccessary for the stupid to kill themselves.. suddenly there are an aweful lot less stupid people. Drugs are the solution to the problem, not a problem themselves. If you can't save for retirement, then I guess you starve to death or work until you die. That is no one's business but your own.

I am aware that my opinions are horrible and inhumane. I don't care.


If I die from a drug overdose, or starve to death after I retire, that's my own damn fault. I smoke, and if I get lung cancer and can't afford treatment... tough luck for me. No one else should have to foot the bill for someone else being stupid. Stupid people don't deserve protection. Every tag that tells you not to use your electrical device while bathing should be removed. If you don't understand electricity... really should you be proliferating, or even living? Not by my reckoning.

I did state that, that definition was not all inclusive but I also do not think you are showing that most people who do these activities do them irresponsibily. I agree that the many problems with these types of activities go unreported and under reported but as such they are almost impossible to make factual statments about, that was why I chose that definition, as I think it works functionaly for this purpose, I still believe this.

As for your question, I do not think the continued criminalization of marijuana does anything to help the "idiots" as they use now, will use tomorrow, and most likely, short of a global genocide of hemp plants, will continue to do so into the future. Legalizing allows control and regulation, and a source of revenue to be used to handle the negative side effects or make up for the costs that are transfered to nonusers, that is the point I was making.

>>You're correct that it's not a healthy habit-- I don't
>touch
>>it for those reasons, just like I don't touch cigarettes, I
>>don't eat a lot of fatty foods, and I drink only in
>>moderation. That said, it doesn't particularly bother me if
>>other people have unhealthy habits, so long as they don't
>>impact me.
>
>I generally share Valg's attitude here, that if it doesn't
>affect me, I don't care what you do with yourself. Lately,
>though I've been wondering what are the things that affect me.
>Take legalizing marj, you smoking it in your basement doesn't
>affect me, you sitting in your basement not able to pay your
>bills, does. The same can be said for achohol. Now I drink an
>occasional beer, and I smoked pot many years ago, and probably
>wouldn't have a problem with them being legal, but some days I
>don't think either should be legal since most people can't
>handle them responcible. Gambling is another example, if you
>want to gamble for fun, hey have at it, gambling away your
>check to pay the heating bill, and woo wait a minute. Now I,
>we as a society have to pay for that either through your
>premature death, or though some kind of assistance program.
>Seatbelts and helmets are another example, I really could care
>less if you wore either of those, but if you got into an
>accident and end up in a vegatative state and can't take care
>of your family, now it becomes our problem, and not just with
>fact that I, we as society, have to pay to take care of your
>family. I, we as a society now have to raise your children,
>and lately, last I looked, most single parents aren't doing so
>hot, not to mention all the things a kid looses out on when
>one of there parents is missing.
>
>So what I'm asking is where do you draw the line?

This is why you don't set up systems where the 'society' creates a net to handle all possible negative outcomes of someone else's irresponsibility. Plausibly though, most people don't want others to 'fall through the crack's. That being said, when you commit to cleaning up after their messes, then of course there's that bottom line, 'Geez, should we force people to act responsibly or should we pay out the nose for their stupidity?'.

I think the answer would be not to get into that situation to begin with by not entirely shouldering all situations of stupidity with a safety net. However, I'm not with the majority in that sentiment. Obviously its unethical according to the mission statement of the United States to do things like force people to work and force them to do things 'the right way'. Because in practice, you'd have to treat people like 'drones' and it goes against the grain of what America is about.

I'm not sure there's a fine line that is embodied by any sort of justice or wisdom or intellectually but rather a line inspired by what people will and will not accept. From a conceptual standpoint, there isn't much difference between being fined for not wearing a seatbelt and being fined for drinking. However, we see how people have reacted to 'being fined for drinking', its a line in the sand that the public will not tolerate.

is that although a government could remove the safety net for irresponsible populations you mention, society would have to pick up at least a portion of the tab indirectly through the rise in crime.

Even the ancient empires understood the importance of bread and circuses, which is why we today have welfare and professional wrestling.

There's a fine line. I think that fine line is askew. I agree you can't go all the way one way and let children die of chicken pox to avoid paying for vaccines or something.