Medical Marijuana

[utunumsint]

You have yet to address any of my argument, and you haven’t repaired the fact your argument is still does not follow. At this point you are rejecting the conclusion of my argument without demonstrating that any of the premises are false; this is a procedural fallacy, or mistake in reasoning. I think you are being rather naive and dogmatic in your opinion, rather than actually reading and engaging with my argument. So I’ll ask again;

What grants the State its mandate to employ its power of prohibition, without falling into formal contradiction?

I am granting your point about the contradiction. I have been granting it all along. But I don’t think that this contradiction is the be all and end all of the discussion. The fact is, there are horrible abuses involved in alcohol consumption. We tolerate them as a society. My argument is this: ought we, following your reasoning, admit all other potentially stupefying substances because the behave in a similar or comparable way to alcohol? Your argument appears to be yes, that we must do this to avoid violating the law of non contradiction.

But let me reduce your argument to its absurd and naive conclusion. We must therefore make it legal for all other drugs where a smaller dose could reduce the stupefying effect. For example, heroine, on this basis, would be acceptible, in small doses. Oxycontin should also be freely accessible.

But why we don’t allow this is that everyone knows perfectly well that these drugs will be abused, with potentially devastating results.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Skeptic92]

I am granting your point about the contradiction. I have been granting it all along. But I don’t think that this contradiction is the be all and end all of the discussion. The fact is, there are horrible abuses involved in alcohol consumption. We tolerate them as a society. My argument is this: ought we, following your reasoning, admit all other potentially stupefying substances because the behave in a similar or comparable way to alcohol? Your argument appears to be yes, that we must do this to avoid violating the law of non contradiction.

But let me reduce your argument to its absurd and naive conclusion. We must therefore make it legal for all other drugs where a smaller dose could reduce the stupefying effect. For example, heroine, on this basis, would be acceptible, in small doses. Oxycontin should also be freely accessible.

But why we don’t allow this is that everyone knows perfectly well that these drugs will be abused, with potentially devastating results.

God bless,
Ut

Well no, your critique is a strawman as it wildly misrepresents my position on this which was clarified in my first post. Heroin even at low recreational doses has an instant stupefying effect which can not be controlled; therefore, it is not of the same category as Cannabis & Alcohol. I have argued that any stupefying substances, without qualification, the State has mandate to prohibit for recreational use. I do not, however, see how the State has the mandate to prohibit stupefying substances, that are only stupefying with qualification.

Please see my original post; as I have already been through this. Which makes me suspicious whether you read my original post on this thread.

 

[utunumsint]

Well no, your critique is a strawman as it wildly misrepresents my position on this which was clarified in my first post. Heroin even at low recreational doses has an instant stupefying effect which can not be controlled; therefore, it is not of the same category as Cannabis & Alcohol. I have argued that any stupefying substances, without qualification, the State has mandate to prohibit for recreational use. I do not, however, see how the State has the mandate to prohibit stupefying substances, that are only stupefying with qualification.

Please see my original post; as I have already been through this. Which makes me suspicious whether you read my original post on this thread.

Perhaps I got carried away. My apologies.

So what you are proposing is the legalization of only certain non-stupefying strains of Cannabis? Sort of like non-alcoholic beer, only for pot?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Skeptic92]

Perhaps I got carried away. My apologies.

So what you are proposing is the legalization of only certain non-stupefying strains of Cannabis?

God bless,
Ut

No, I’m saying that we must treat it the same as other drugs in its category. That is the same as alcohol, otherwise our political doctrine is no different to modernist political Philosophy with its absolutist conception of the State. The current manner in which the State can pass laws demonstrate that the common consensus is best reflected by Hobbes in his conception of the State as a Leviathan or “Mortal God”. Jacques Maritain goes through this in chapter 1 and 2 of Man and the State. The State in its formulation of law must conform to its obligations and mandate under Natural Law; not creating law simply because of what majority opinion is, especially considering how misinformed majority opinion tends to be.

 

[utunumsint]

No, I’m saying that we must treat it the same as other drugs in its category. That is the same as alcohol, otherwise our political doctrine is no different to modernist political Philosophy with its absolutist conception of the State. The current manner in which the State can pass laws demonstrate that the common consensus is best reflected by Hobbes in his conception of the State as a Leviathan or “Mortal God”. Jacques Maritain goes through this in chapter 1 and 2 of Man and the State. The State in its formulation of law must conform to its obligations and mandate under Natural Law; not creating law simply because of what majority opinion is, especially considering how misinformed majority opinion tends to be.

Perhaps you have a point. But I honestly believe that the costs of such a move toward legal consistency would far outweigh any perceived political benefit from doing so. There must be pragmatic grounds for objection here. That, at any rate, would be my initial starting point for objection. I would have to do more research to see if I am right.

We have used legal principles before to justify some pretty horrible stuff with profound ramifications on society, such as the legalization of prostitution in some countries, allowing pornography in print and internet, abortion, contraception, and so on. I believe that what is at fault in all of these decisions is a misapprehension of the fallenness of human nature. Perhaps we live in a time where we could revive this doctrine on environmental grounds. It is a though anyway.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Skeptic92]

Perhaps you have a point. But I honestly believe that the costs of such a move toward legal consistency would far outweigh any perceived political benefit from doing so. There must be pragmatic grounds for objection here. That, at any rate, would be my initial starting point for objection. I would have to do more research to see if I am right.

We have used legal principles before to justify some pretty horrible stuff with profound ramifications on society, such as the legalization of prostitution in some countries, allowing pornography in print and internet, abortion, contraception, and so on. I believe that what is at fault in all of these decisions is a misapprehension of the fallenness of human nature. Perhaps we live in a time where we could revive this doctrine on environmental grounds. It is a though anyway.

God bless,
Ut

The evidence from Portugal, Netherlands, Colorado, etc seem to destroy pragmatic objections. Tax income up, crime down, and even more money. The “pragmatic” objection doesn’t seem to hold ground unless it is presupposed to have mass negative consequences; there will be consequences yes, but you are presupposing far more than you have the evidence to presuppose.

 

[utunumsint]

The evidence from Portugal, Netherlands, Colorado, etc seem to destroy pragmatic objections. Tax income up, crime down, and even more money. The “pragmatic” objection doesn’t seem to hold ground unless it is presupposed to have mass negative consequences; there will be consequences yes, but you are presupposing far more than you have the evidence to presuppose.

Should the liberal party of Canada come into power, we will see this come to center stage. It should be an interesting debate. As a parent of 5, I am very concerned that such a law would pass, and the impact it would have on my kids, having seen the impact on my school mates in my younger years.

Can you provide links to studies about the evidence in those places you listed?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Skeptic92]

Should the liberal party of Canada come into power, we will see this come to center stage. It should be an interesting debate. As a parent of 5, I am very concerned that such a law would pass, and the impact it would have on my kids, having seen the impact on my school mates in my younger years.

Can you provide links to studies about the evidence in those places you listed?

God bless,
Ut

Marijuana would be treated like Alcohol- there would be an age restriction. If your children got a hold of it whilst they were underage, they would have gotten a hold of it illegally. Just like they could now, for your children until they are of an age they can legally decide for themselves there would be no difference in the system.

mic.com/articles/92449/six-months-after-legalizing-marijuana-two-big-things-have-happened-in-colorado

This goes through the benefits seen in Colorado. I can hunt out studies into the actual effects of Marijuana for you, and what has happened in both the EU and happening in America at the moment.

Now there has been some issues relating to legalisation in Portugal and the Netherlands; however this is more due to the prohibition still in place in surrounding nations. They become easy transport locations into these countries, which is problematic but isn’t directly related to legalisation. It simply reflects the inconsistent nature of the law in a geographic area.

 

[utunumsint]

Good lord! How can you say that legalizing Marijuana is not the same as having the government endorse it with statistics like this!

John Hickenlooper expects a healthy $1 billion in marijuana sales over the next fiscal year.

The government has created a boom industry for themselves to harvest tax dollars! And just think what sales of $1 billion represents in terms of people who might not have tried it otherwise!

This is not reassuring at all. In fact, it seems to reinforce my fears that if legalization occurs, Marijuana use will become as established as Alcohol use, and I will have two substances to worry about for misuse among my kids. Making it illegal for kids only makes it more attractive to them.

By the way, have you ever heard of the opium wars between England and China, and the impact of opium use on the Chinese government? Can you see no parallels here?

This is nuts.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Oh brother!

nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/after-5-months-of-sales-colorado-sees-the-downside-of-a-legal-high.html?_r=0

Many of Colorado’s starkest problems with legal marijuana stem from pot-infused cookies, chocolates and other surprisingly potent edible treats that are especially popular with tourists and casual marijuana users.

On Colorado’s northern plains, for example, a fourth grader showed up on the playground one day in April and sold some of his grandmother’s marijuana to three classmates. The next day, one of those students returned the favor by bringing in a marijuana edible he had swiped from his own grandmother.

“This was kind of an unintended consequence of Colorado’s new law,” said John Gates, the district’s director of school safety and security. “For crying out loud, secure your weed. If you can legally possess it, that’s fine. But it has no place in an elementary school.”

So far this year, nine children have ended up at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora after consuming marijuana, six of whom got critically sick. In all of 2013, the hospital treated only eight such cases.

God help us!
Ut

 

[Skeptic92]

Good lord! How can you say that legalizing Marijuana is not the same as having the government endorse it with statistics like this!

The government has created a boom industry for themselves to harvest tax dollars! And just think what sales of $1 billion represents in terms of people who might not have tried it otherwise!

This is not reassuring at all. In fact, it seems to reinforce my fears that if legalization occurs, Marijuana use will become as established as Alcohol use, and I will have two substances to worry about for misuse among my kids. Making it illegal for kids only makes it more attractive to them.

By the way, have you ever heard of the opium wars between England and China, and the impact of opium use on the Chinese government? Can you see no parallels here?

This is nuts.

God bless,
Ut

With the money going into education, treatment of addictions, etc…how do you think this is not a good thing? The law is consistent, and they have extra tax revenue to put into a system that direly needs it.

Also; it will be no easier for your kids to get it after legalisation, then it would be to get it now. Have you not realised that in most western nations there is effective decriminalisation?

Also; appeal to hyperbole is a fallacy. There isn’t a parallel here with the Opium Wars; I am simply asking what is the mandate of the State to employ its power of prohibition? You haven’t given one that stands up to rational scrutiny.

 

[utunumsint]

With the money going into education, treatment of addictions, etc…how do you think this is not a good thing? The law is consistent, and they have extra tax revenue to put into a system that direly needs it.

Also; it will be no easier for your kids to get it after legalisation, then it would be to get it now. Have you not realised that in most western nations there is effective decriminalisation?

Also; appeal to hyperbole is a fallacy. There isn’t a parallel here with the Opium Wars; I am simply asking what is the mandate of the State to employ its power of prohibition? You haven’t given one that stands up to rational scrutiny.

I feel sorry for the people of Colerado and I pray that my country does not go down that same road.

God help us and protect us,
Ut

 

[edwest2]

sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140423170900.htm

colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/M_RM_Marijuana-Health-Effects-FAQs.pdf

seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/study-fatal-car-crashes-involving-marijuana-have-tripled/

csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2014/0628/Marijuana-Pot-use-declines-worldwide-but-not-in-the-US-video

Peace,
Ed

 

[Skeptic92]

sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140423170900.htm

colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/M_RM_Marijuana-Health-Effects-FAQs.pdf

seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/study-fatal-car-crashes-involving-marijuana-have-tripled/

csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2014/0628/Marijuana-Pot-use-declines-worldwide-but-not-in-the-US-video

Peace,
Ed

From the first; “Nearly 2 percent of the health complications from marijuana use reported were cardiovascular related. A quarter of these complications resulted in death, according to a study.” really? 2% of health complications, and a quarter of these resulting in death. Do I have to comment on this; really? Shall we go through alcohol poisoning?

Also Natural Law Theory (which is what the Church holds to in her Theology and Social Teaching) is not Utilitarian.

To the Second: it doesn’t support the assertion the other poster is making, not at all. It actually supports my point that it is categorised the same as alcohol.

To the third: at the risk of a tu quoque, what is the fatal car accident rate of alcohol? And again; Natural Law Theory is non-consequentialist. To attempt to part onto me utilitarian concerns would be to beg the question, which is a fallacy of reasoning.

To the Fourth: Well that article is simply false. The Drug Survey in the UK this past year noted that Marijuana use in the UK had increased, whilst use of other narcotics (apart from MDMA and amphetamines) had decreased presumably another effect of the recession.

 

[utunumsint]

sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140423170900.htm

colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/M_RM_Marijuana-Health-Effects-FAQs.pdf

seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/study-fatal-car-crashes-involving-marijuana-have-tripled/

csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2014/0628/Marijuana-Pot-use-declines-worldwide-but-not-in-the-US-video

Peace,
Ed

Thanks for the quotes Ed. This really concerns me. Honestly, within six months of legalization in Colorado, and it is already a billion dollar industry. How many other cash strapped and debt ridden states will go down the same road to generate new revenue on the backs of people who likely cannot afford these drugs?

Honestly, the comparison with alcohol should deter us from legalizing this industry. We already have enough on our hands with a legalized alcohol industry. This is the most short sighted move I can conceive of. It is simply stupid beyond belief.

God bless,
Ut

 

[edwest2]

Thanks for the quotes Ed. This really concerns me. Honestly, within six months of legalization in Colorado, and it is already a billion dollar industry. How many other cash strapped and debt ridden states will go down the same road to generate new revenue on the backs of people who likely cannot afford these drugs?

Honestly, the comparison with alcohol should deter us from legalizing this industry. We already have enough on our hands with a legalized alcohol industry. This is the most short sighted move I can conceive of. It is simply stupid beyond belief.

God bless,
Ut

It is stupid beyond belief. However, in Colorado, growers and “dispensaries” are having a hard time moving their money around.

“Even armoured cars have been told not to do business with us,” says Mr Klug.

"I think the end result was most people have concluded that banks can't be in this business”

"Don Childears Colorado Bankers Association

"That’s because while Colorado has legalised cannabis, most banking institutions are governed by federal laws which make it a crime to take money from firms engaged in the cultivation and sale of what is technically still an illegal drug.

"While the Obama administration has recently attempted to convince banks that it will not prosecute them for doing business with Colorado’s firms, issuing new guidance just last week, the banking industry remains unmoved.

“An act of Congress is the only way to solve this problem,” says Colorado Bankers Association president Don Childears, who says he has continued to advise banks to refuse cannabis cash out of fear of money-laundering charges."

I look at it this way. If you want to pacify a population, especially one that is already hooked on booze, you add marijuana to the mix. Then, your friendly local drug dealer can provide you with the rest (crack, heroin, etc.). I’m certain organized crime is getting their cut.

May God have mercy,
Ed