Yes, that is how we change things. It's slow, cumbersome, subject to corruption and lobbying and often the oppressors aren't punished and the victims don't live to see the changes.

But in the long run, it works.

120 years ago, women couldn't even vote.
60 years ago, it was considered perfectly fine to discriminate against ethnic minorities.
When I grew up, legalised gay marriage was unthinkable (hell, being gay was still a crime in many places until I was in my teens).

All these things were changed, through protest and democracy. They are all far from solved problems, and there have been a few steps back along the way (NSA, Guantanamo, etc) but for most people life is better now than it has been in the past.

There's a reason Churchill called democracy "the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” We've seen the other and they're way worse than this.

So no, I don't accept it and yeah, I punch my paper and eventually, shit gets done.

While it's super cynical, there is truth in this. Human trafficking will never entirely disappear, even when you look at countries with legalised prostitution. Some men like children, some like the thrill of genuine rape, some people are just monsters. It will never completely go away.
However, legalised and monitored prostitution can and will lower the likelyhood that the prostitute going down on that high profile politician we care so much about is actually a sex slave. Unless he's one of the aforementioned monsters, of course.
It certainly won't help to keep it a black market.

"But people use it to get loaded! Think of the children! Now there are two drugs to use!"
Seriously, that's Samuels main argument against legalisation?
First of all, hell yes, people want to get high. Weed isn't healthy but it's certainly healthier than alcohol.
Second, legalisation would also mean a higher likelyhood of age verification. Dealers don't check for ids, store might with the right laws in place. Works for alcohol, doesn't it?
Third, they already have weed available for consumption. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean people don't do it everywhere. You don't add it to the available drugs, you just change how you handle it.

The only good argument I know against legalisation is this: What kind of industry would the weed industry become in a country where favourable legislation can be bought by the highest bidder? Worse than the tobacco industry?
That's where it may become scary.

Do you mean the news where every day countries/states are legalising gay marriage? Or the (admittedly old) bit where the U.S. has a black president? Maybe it's where most civilised countries allow women the means to control their reproductive cycle?

Look, I get that there's some Bad Shit (tm) happening, and yes, you could argue that many of those 14 characteristics are being fulfilled.

But come on, you are literally invoking Godwin!

I'm not saying you shouldn't rail against the Bad Shit, but we're not fighting the Nazis. Things aren't that bad...

While I'm generally in favour of legalising drugs (with similar caveats to alcohol, i.e. no driving and restricted access for minors), you have to live in the real world and realise that there are downsides to legalisation, even for something as benign as marijuana.

That said, IMHO, on both a practical and moral level the arguments for legalisation outweigh the negatives.

I think even, against his arguments, legalisation of drugs in any country would lead to a short-term increase in users. But at the same time it would generate taxes and CRIPPLE criminal activities in the long term.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Trancecoach:
bring on the corporate take-over of the industry and watch the quality diminish.

Well that's probably not true. A large corporation isn't going to risk their money with takeover from the federal government. I imagine what you'll have is something like wine. Small operations and small businesses who have been growing weed before but now can do it out in the open. Hopefully that won't force the product to dip drastically, and also it will inspire competition between growers due to more public and allowable advertising. You can try different peoples stuff and maybe it'll be your thing.

They have only legalised possession so far though. Growing/distribution still seems to be illegal for the moment right?

Anyway, its not as if budweiser is the only option when it comes to alcohol. Plenty of smaller businesses making different varieties. Look at Amsterdam coffee shops.

>> ^spoco2:

Does no one else find it a little sad that people find smoking weed so central to their lives that they feel compelled to cheer on people doing it in movies?
Surely once it gets to the point where one of the things you identify yourself as is a smoker of weed, you are letting it take up too much of your life?
Do people who drink really watching someone else on screen drink and go 'Fuck yeah man, he's drinking! I drink too! Fuck yeah, I LOVE him!'


I'd imagine it has something to do with the legal status of weed in most countries. People feel a kinship with other people who are "oppressed by the man".

Weed would probably be less cool if it was legalised.

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scallop.
In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
*promote

I can see that taser companies get rich by selling equipment to the cops, but wouldn't the US government and various drug companies stand to make MORE money if they legalised (and then taxed) recreational drugs?

I copied my response from another discussion, some reasons to own firearms.

Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

2 million legal Canadian gun owners DID NOT kill anyone today, or yesterday or the day before...we have about 7 million guns...

You are a troll who has no idea of what you are talking about.

from ChaosEngine

You're right. Clearly the solution is to legalise rape, kidnapping, theft, assault and murder since people are doing it anyway.

......theres a great and easy way to stop the drug criminals........legalise drugs, regulate, tax and educate.

I posted about this before, so many of the problems that drugs create are actually created by the War On Drugs.

Governments can't beat drug dealers, but Capitalism can. If Tesco's sold Fair Trade Cannabis, drug dealers would be utterly screwed in no time. Plus, farmers in Columbia/Afghanistan/etc would have a legitimate market, which would erode the illegal market, in turn decimating FARC/Taliban/etc's income and ability to operate. I saw one report that said half of the Afghan Taliban's $3B annual income is from heroin and cannabis sales.

The financial implications would be vast, tax revenue for governments would be a big help while the money, and therefore power, of drug cartels shrinks. There would be even more horrific violence here as cartels look to consolidate on their remaining business, I shudder to think of how the Zetas, the Tijuana Gang and the Juarez Cartel among others in Mexico would respond and it would take considerable political strength to get through.

Is legalising drugs the answer to peace on earth? The war on drugs is subsidising organised crime.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If you support gay marriage, you support polygamy by default.

Bullshit. Polygamy is defined by wikipedia as a marriage which includes more than two partners. Or would you prefer websters, which defines it as marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time. The fact that a marriage contains two wives or two husbands does not make it polygamous.

>> ^quantumushroom:

At least you, @ChaosEngine have the stones to actually support both. I'd even go so far as to agree with you, with the exception that I'll freely admit there are/will be many unforeseen problems with both gay marriage and polygamy.


We've had gay marriage (actually civil unions but marriage in all but name) in NZ for years now. Society has failed to collapse. Are there potential issues with polygamy? Undoubtedly. Hell, I'll admit that there are potential issues with gay marriage. Thing is, there are issues with marriage, period. Even in a committed monogamous heterosexual marriage, there's all kinds of problems, because people are flawed. Being gay or polygamous doesn't make them any more or less flawed. I'd prefer we dropped the polygamous angle now, since it's derailing the conversation. I don't mind debating it, but I feel it's orthogonal to this issue.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I don't equate pedophilia with homosexuality. What I dispute is your confidence that within 20 years, whatever authority you believe the State will have to prevent pedophile "unions" will still exist.

Well, the state grants the marriage licence. I see no proposal to change that, so the authority will remain intact. As for allowing pedophile "unions", how does gay marriage affect that? Age of consent is a well defined concept that applies to everyone, heterosexual or homosexual.

I really am getting tired of repeating this, but context, nuance, judgement. Think is not a four letter word. The world is not black and white, and it is an oversimplification to view it as such. War is sometimes justified, lying is sometimes the right thing to do and I am comfortable making the distinction between a union of two consenting adults and an adult and a child. Why? Because I can weigh up the merits of each individual case and make a judgement.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If no one here has a problem with california or any state revoking election results, aka the will of the people, welcome to fascism.

Fascism? Are you actually serious? Leaving aside how much fascists really don't like homosexuality, you have completely failed to understand democracy.

There are already well defined limits on the will of the people. To use your own analogy, how would you feel if california had passed an amedment legalising pedophilia?