I’m not going to try to address all this, but I have a few points.
For one thing, you seem to be making an assumption or two about what my point is. For another, you’re obfuscating with shear numbers, as if the arrests per user necessarily represent the overall impact. For another, your “enforcement doens’t work as a means to control that harm” doesn’t make any more sense than saying the same about the enforcement of laws against rape, robbery, or murder, to say nothing of crimes in general involving alcohol abuse. They still happen, and all-or-nothing is silly. You claim it creates more evils than it prevents, yet you don’t back that up in any meaningful way. As to the Constitution, much as I dislike the way it’s been abused by the left, that “provide for the common welfare” clause does exist, although I would prefer to see this handled by the states.
By the way, I’m still satisfied with the claims that I’ve heard that marijuana’s medical benefits outweighing its detriments is NOT settled science.
It does, because you’re trying to control proliferation of an object. Rape isn’t an object, it’s an act of aggression against another person, which normal people will help the police enforce.
Same to robbery, same to murder.
Because those are all acts of aggression, there’s far more consensus that they should be stopped, thus, far more efficiency behind their enforcement.
Using Marijuana as a medication, using it to make hemp, or using it to light up in your home; none of these things are agressive. Most people would in most cases choose to ignore others they see doing these things. There is no consensus to stop it, thus, no efficacy to base enforcement upon.
Hence why far and away more cases of drug use fly under the radar, then cases of rape, or murder.
> They still happen, and all-or-nothing is silly.
It’s not about all-or-nothing, that’s a straw man.
It’s asking the question what conditions does prohibition need in order to be successful, and are they in play?
Prohibition of Alcohol failed because the culture was against the law, and the police could not track down all of the homemade distilleries. And this was in an age before micro-brewery.
Marijuana growing is far less capital-intensive to do, it can be grown virtually anywhere, and people can find the instructions to do it right on the internet.
Where is the practical model of enforcement, when we couldn’t with alcohol, and Marijuana is even easier to proliferate?
> You claim it creates more evils than it prevents, yet you don’t back that up in any meaningful way.
Prohibition; you turned otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals, incentivized the creation of black market cartels, and destroyed communities. These are all downstream-effects of the law.
Most people who use alcohol are functional, so throwing people in jail for drinking it detracts from the fabric of communities. Marijuana is the same way, you may not like their vice, but throwing otherwise functional people in jail for possession simply creates pressures for collapse in poor neighborhoods.
> As to the Constitution, much as I dislike the way it’s been abused by the left, that “provide for the common welfare” clause does exist
It doesn’t change that a amendment was necessary for alcohol prohibition. To have any validity, you would need the same for drugs.
Especially if you’re attacking people whose actions are productive, and all you’re doing is creating victims needlessly because you can’t be bothered to write a distinction in the law. A mixture of zealotry and laziness.
> By the way, I’m still satisfied with the claims that I’ve heard that marijuana’s medical benefits outweighing its detriments is NOT settled science.
Your logic doesn’t hold.
There are legal medical derivatives of Cocaine and Heroin; they’re schedule 2 drugs, despite being far & away more harmful. Marijuana clearly has medical benefits, so to insist that no one out there has biochemistry where having it would help more than hurt (and there is a long list of harmful drugs to the average person that can be prescribed for niche conditions), is both something you cannot see, and shouldn’t be your call in the first place.
PD, I’ve mentioned this before; while it says “promote” in the Preamble, in the body of the text (Section I Article 8) it actually DOES say “provide:”
All crimes involve action, and invariably involve objects; not a convincing argument.
You’re claiming unenforcability as a justification to abandon it; no, all-or-nothing isn’t strawman. And as it is, it most certainly is NOT “nothing.” By the way, how many rapes fly under the radar, especially when the girl was being pimped from Jr. High age (average is age 13; there’s no legal consent there, even if you (wrongly) insist the majority were willing)?
Disorder isn’t productive. The negative effects are known; if the positive outweigh the negative, then seeking to change the law FIRST and THEN indulge is in order. Saying piss on the law for recreational purposes isn’t productive.
I’m hearing experts saying that the benefits of MJ are NOT settled science; I have a choice of listening to them, or to some guy I barely know on the internet.
By the way, RET made an argument for Prohibition having been successful. If you responded to it, I missed it.
No, under the law, possession is a crime. You don’t have to be high, or doing anything at all with it, just have it. Which means, you are trying to control proliferation of the item, and we can judge the policy by that goal.
Any sort of prohibition, as a policy, has certain conditions it needs to work. It needs to have overwhelming consensus, and the means and knowledge of production needs to be controllable.
Have we achieved this? It doesn’t appear so.
Once again: We Failed to control alcohol, and it was far harder to produce in the 1930s than Marijuana today. So where is the expectation you can enforce this?
> 2. You’re claiming unenforcability as a justification to abandon it; no, all-or-nothing isn’t strawman.
Yes it is. The question isn’t whether you can stop all of it, it’s whether you really control it all.
Once again, Marijuana use grew by over a factor of 10 since the War on Drugs,: It does not respond to enforcement.
Rape and Robbery fell after peaks in the 1970s: it does respond to enforcement.
Most drug charges are framed as preventive measures to keep someone from harming others. Rape & robbery is when someone has already done so. But if drug use was growing all this time, then the enforcement wasn’t preventing much of anything.
It was however, hurting people who otherwise could have been functional members of society, putting them in jail, and turning them into career criminals, many at an early age.
That’s a societal cost, and another condition we can judge the law by.
> By the way, how many rapes fly under the radar, especially when the girl was being pimped from Jr. High age
You’re talking about a limit case, and you haven’t defeated my premise.
Would most people, if they see that, report it? Yes. Would most people if they see a teenager smoke a joint, report that? No. Not unless the kid was smoking in their face.
> 3. Disorder isn’t productive.
Using marijuana as a material to make things is productive.
Using cannabinoid oil to treat epilepsy is productive.
Neither of these actions harm other people, and the strains of marijuana used in it tend to have little or no THC content, so you can’t get high.
So what is your rationale for punishing these people, if they can’t even theoretically harm people, but are being productive?
> The negative effects are known; if the positive outweigh the negative, then seeking to change the law FIRST and THEN indulge is in order. Saying piss on the law for recreational purposes isn’t productive.
> 4. I’m hearing experts saying that the benefits of MJ are NOT settled science;
I just gave a study by the head of an epilepsy research center, who commissioned a study, and proved that it helps people
We would know more, but somebody has been banning research on it for years. Because they like making assumptions they don’t have to justify.
> 5. By the way, RET made an argument for Prohibition having been successful.
As I gave the stats for then, Crime got worse, corruption in among police and politicians got worse, people started drinking at an even younger age, and you had black market empires springing up overnight.
Not to mention deaths from alcohol spiked, as did murders.
These are all societal costs, the flipside effects of the law you have to weigh so as to judge whether the law is preventing evil, or just creating other kinds.
Just like with economic policy, all effects must be considered.
First we had the Russia recusal. Can’t have a republican with any control over investigation of republicans; turn it over to Obama holdovers; it’s only fair. Now he has recused himself from investigating Uranium One and Fusion GPS. Can’t have a republican with any control over investigations of democrats; turn it over to Obama holdovers; it’s only fair.
“Attorney General Sessions does not believe he has the power to appoint a special counsel on this matter.” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)
IF HE DOESN’T, WHO THE F DOES?
I have two suggestions for Jeff Sessions:
Recuse yourself from investigating any democrat suspected of anything.
Recuse yourself from the office of Attorney General.
Jeff Sessions is a disgrace to the concept of “equal justice under law”.
Jeff Sessions is a disgrace to his title of “Trustee of the Public Trust”.
I do not have words, fit to print, that describe my disgust for this man.
FC. How is stealing from one American to give his property to another–American or not–providing for the GENERAL welfare? I don’t believe that the Founders would agree with that concept at all. In other words, how is taking MY money in Oklahoma and giving it to some illegal living in NYC “providing for…general welfare?” I refer you to Davy Crockett’s re-election campaign (look it up.)
Nobody’s “throwing non-violent drug users in jail for nothing.” They’re being thrown in jail for violating the law, KNOWING that they are doing so. Otherwise, why the paranoia that accompanies virtually every illegal drug user.
I wasn’t arguing for such a practice; just that it does in fact say “provide for” and not just “promote” in the Constitution. I agree that such socialistic nonsense is a rotten idea, and I’m confident that the Founding Fathers would agree.