"Oh, and ignore what your map says -- Lousiana doesn't actually have a legal system."

+1

@oscar

Sorry, Oscar, but are you a complete idiot? I am in favour of legalisation.

@Smeck ''neither precedent nor natural justice nor anything else would suffice to cause the courts to continue convicting people of it. ''

I never said they would, I was responding to Putin's claim that the pro-weed arguement ''resorting to terrible analogies and/or claiming that other things are bad too so why not have legal pot. ''

If these analogies would stand up in court, as i'm proposing the would. Then they are valid.

@orathaic,

I see. I was referring to this statement:

" @Krellin, I disagree, there is clear precedent under the law for pot being illegal. That is how courts have ruled in the past and they are bound by those precedents - ...."

Here it sounds like you're saying that a court could not recognize a legalization of pot because of precedents. I see now that perhaps you were not saying that -- I hadn't read krellin's rather confused post that you were responding to, till now, for hopefully understandable reasons.

However, I still disagree with this:

"If these analogies would stand up in court, as i'm proposing the would. Then they are valid."

If you're saying this as a matter of reason and evidence, then maybe there's a case to be made. But in general, a very different class of arguments is valid in court and in public discourse about what the law should be. For example, in court, one could justify sentencing somebody to prison for a particular term of years for using marijuana, on the grounds that a statute authorized it and the statute was not inconsistent with the Constitution, a fairly narrow reading of natural justice, etc.

But "it's illegal and not egregiously unjust" does not suffice to justify keeping the law in the legislative context, where that is the debate that is occurring. It might still be unwise, or somewhat unjust, or any of a bunch of different things; so the argument that sufficed in a court is simply not relevant in a legislature.

As for whether the analogies in question would hold up in a court -- I'm not aware that any court (in Scotland or elsewhere) has struck down anti-marijuana laws on the basis of them, so apparently they have not.

Correction: "so the argument that sufficed in a court is simply not relevant in a legislature" is too strong. I should have said "is far from sufficient in a legislature."

"Sorry, Oscar, but are you a complete idiot? I am in favour of legalisation."

First you said "In truth I'm MARGINALLY in favour of legalising it" (emphasis added), which is a statement far less strong than the above.

Then you said "although I find the reasons against strong enough to give me some pause" to further explain why your position is only marginally in favor.

After that I went on to ask you about these strong reasons against and after an utterly failed attempt at providing them you dropped the "marginal" part of your discussion and in order to hide the fact that you changed your position you called me an idiot. What a loser are you. Sad really.

@Smeck - fair points all. I'm not saying that an arguement sufficient in court is reason to change legislation - though of course, if a court decides that a law is invalid that is sufficient reason to make a better law.
that I went on
But for the purposes of a webdiplomacy discussion, where we are not legislators, some standard of reason should be met. And I'm proposing that Putin is wrong.

@The issue, I'm hugely in favour of a lot of things, reform which would treat users with a medical problem as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice. I'm in favour of removing all jail time for non-violent offenders. I'm in favour of better education to allow people make decisions about their own health - including fast food and smoking weed. And i'm in favour of regulation of advertising which influences the decision making of individuals in society... But i don't think you can separate all of these issues into a simple campaign to legalise weed.

@oscar

I see... You are a complete idiot. I have not dropped the marginal part, which exists for the reasons I explained. Please do not make the error of deluding yourself into thinking you have somehow changed my position via wit and persuasive arguments. You have neither.

"I'm in favour of removing all jail time for non-violent offenders." Does this include for dealers? If so, I must disagree. Users need to get help, not prison. But the dealers need the prison time.

I know I'm jumping into this conversation at a bad time, but screw it.

Even though I'm not a fan of drugs, I'd be willing to go with (kinda) Ron Paul's idea; legalize all the shit people are doing, then just tax it heavily. Drugs could be sold through the government, making them more safe; at least as safe as those said drugs can be.
And what would be the upshots to this? Some tax revenue, lower incentive for organized crime, and more government approval; and the drug-doers could have their stuff. Everyone's happy.

There would also be a lot more drug users, Styje, at least if free market economics is to be believed. If the cost of something goes way down, use of it will go up.

That's not to say you're *necessarily* wrong, but you should certainly include that among your criticisms.

Well, let's look at some stats, semck. We can both agree that most drug users are on the lower end of the economic scale, yes? Now, how do they get cheap drugs? Smuggling. But if these said smuggled items were legal anyways, what would be the point? The smugglers would be selling a valuable product at a heavily reduced price.

So smuggled drugs are out of the picture now. What keeps these people from using the legal drugs is their heavy taxation; they'd break the bank.

@Octavious
Not only did I make you change your position. I made you change it back again as well. Your're just an easily manipulated flip flopping douche bag. You should go for a career in politics.

@Draugnar
You can't have it both ways. If it is legal to use it it should be legal to produce and sell it as well.

@Styje
Smart man.

@semck
What part of taxing the pot do you not understand? Cost going down. Are you kidding me? The cost would most likely go up. Don't you know the tax man is a bigger thug than any pot dealer could ever dream to be?

@Oscar - If it were legal to use, I would agree. I'm saying if it is to remain illegal (and saying "removing jail time" implies it is illegal) then the users should get treatment but the dealers of this still illegal commodity should still get jail time.

If it were legalized nationwide, then there would be no need for *any* jail time, but our healthcare costs would go up so some of the tax dollars raised better be pumped into the healthcare system for treatment programs. Personally, I think we need to see liver transplants and alcohol addiction programs financed with tax dollars from alcohol sales and lung and mouth cancer and emphysema as well as stop smoking programs from tax dollars off tobacco.

As a good example of what I'm saying about the users. First time domestic violence offenders can get their slate wiped clean (especially if both people were fighting) by completing a domestic violence and anger management course. The penalty for the crime can include jail time, but doesn't have to and usually doesn't when these courses are available. Do the same to first time offense users. Make them go to a treatment program in lieu of jail. But the dealers still get to rot in a cell.

Actually, healthcare costs tend to go down after drug legalisation. If you can guarantee that the drugs are of a reasonable standard then they do far less damage than all the shit they're padded out with atm.

Alright then Draugnar, I misunderstood your position. What you said above makes sense.

@Styje,

That's easily one of the worst arguments I've ever heard.

@Oscar,

"What part of taxing the pot do you not understand? Cost going down. Are you kidding me? The cost would most likely go up. Don't you know the tax man is a bigger thug than any pot dealer could ever dream to be?"

Great -- if you think that price is the only cost. But the costs of pot being illegal (with the attendant legal risks and social costs) are quite a bit higher than whatever the taxes will come to.

(And if they're not, then smugglers will be able to keep selling pot at the current prices for the same profit, and the cost will still be lower to the end user, due to not having to hide use, social costs, etc.)

@semck that's a little harsh. :3 It's not actually my opinion but the idea needed out

@Styje,

lol, maybe it was. The point is, smuggling never reduces costs -- it increases it. And if the product were actually taxed so high that the cost of the product were now higher than before (which is possible in theory, since taxes also increase costs), then smugglers would simply resume selling it, since nothing about this whole scenario would raise smugglers' costs over what they already are. (It would actually reduce them somewhat).

I guess that's why most smokers buy their cigarettes on the black market where they are less than half the price. Oh wait. They don't.

" I guess that's why most smokers buy their cigarettes on the black market where they are less than half the price. Oh wait. They don't. "

That's right, they don't -- because the non-financial costs are higher, as I said.

And plenty of people who currently buy illegal weed will happily pay more in order to be rid of those costs.

But you're deluding yourself if you think that after legalization, people who currently use pot illegally will stop because the legal price is higher, when they could still procure it illegally at the same price as now.

I mean, gosh. I actually support legalization, and y'all are like to change my mind with these terrible arguments.

"But you're deluding yourself if you think that after legalization, people who currently use pot illegally will stop because the legal price is higher, when they could still procure it illegally at the same price as now."

That's not what I think though. I think legalizing it will have no significant effect on usage. This is backed up by data from places where it has already been legalized. You're the one deluding yourself by thinking people decide to use pot or not based on the cost or the risk of jail time. They smoke pot because they like smoking pot (or are addicted to it) and, barring extremely high prices or extremely high chances of getting arrested, a bit of a price rise or the thing being legal or not has close to no effect on their decision to smoke it.

"
@Styje,

lol, maybe it was. The point is, smuggling never reduces costs -- it increases it. And if the product were actually taxed so high that the cost of the product were now higher than before (which is possible in theory, since taxes also increase costs), then smugglers would simply resume selling it, since nothing about this whole scenario would raise smugglers' costs over what they already are. (It would actually reduce them somewhat). "

Well, it wouldn't be smugglers as much as homegrown (think moonshine) sold under the table (also think moonshine) but without the quality control (think smoking oregano cut pot) and the supposed safety that engenders.

You're changing your argument now, oscar -- before you were saying the cost would go up. Now you're saying it would have no effect.

I've shown that the cost would either stay the same or go down -- it couldn't go up.

As for whether that would have any effect, that's a whole other story -- my initial claim that it would, you'll note, was prefaced by, "at least if free market economics is to be believed." I imagine you don't believe FME. I also imagine Styje, whom I was addressing, probably does.

As for me, I do find it exceedingly unlikely that use wouldn't go up. It's *certainly* the case that that's what economic theory says would happen. If it's not in fact true, then there are complicating factors that have yet to be explained.

(Again, I doubt that you would seriously contend that every single person who would be interested in using marijuana is already doing so despite the prohibition).

Here is a much more able analysis of the subject than we will achieve here.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2010/12/drug-legalizationposner.html

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2005/03/response-on-legalizing-drugs-becker.html

@Draug,

True. I was using "smugglers" to refer to all the people currently selling. The point is, if they're happy with their profit now, they won't suddenly become unhappy with exactly the same profit.

Actually, they'll probably make *more* profit because they won't have to hide the growth. They could grow for legit sale and also have some that was culled for "private sale/use". They wouldn't have to try hiding the production nor would they have to deal with as much risk in the new grey market as there was in the old black market.

"You're changing your argument now, oscar -- before you were saying the cost would go up. Now you're saying it would have no effect."

No I'm not. You said the cost would go down to which I responded that it probably wouldn't cause of taxes. I never said it would affect usage. That's your delusion entirely.