And Now For Some Reality
"...we don't do anything about it!"
This is hardly the case. Talk to any law enforcement officer, you will discover that this goes on all the time, and yes, we do plenty about it.
"We don't do anything about that because that's really not a problem, is it?"
It's a big problem. Once again, check with any cop or deputy. They'll tell you that 9 times out of 10, minors getting into trouble with drugs and alcohol is a result of an adult making it available to them.
"With no industry producing marijuana cigarettes, there will simply be no organzed mechanism to produce mass quantities of them (or to grow mass quantities of marijuana in general)."
Now wait a minute. Aren't you the same guy that argued abortion shouldn't be illegal because it would still happen? So now you're saying that simply making mass production of marijuana illegal will suddenly cause the enterprise to vanish? Get ready because here it comes: you can't have it both ways. Making something illegal does not make it cease to occur. Those who are determined to do something will still do it. The legal system exists to discourage those who would find the punishment not worth the effort and to provide the punishment for those who act anyway. The best the legal system can do is keep crime at bay, it will never eliminate it.
The big difference between this and abortion is that, in the case of drugs, there is substantial monetary incentive to ignore the law. It is already illegal for business entities to mass produce marijuana, yet there are very large business entities that do so. So my question stands: Why do you think making an exceptional law for business entities will change anything?
Given the above, the rest of your argument is without predicate and fails.
"Anyone who really wants to go to the trouble of growing it most likely can."
I never said any different. The same is true of tobacco, yet you don't see too many smokers out there growing it at home. What I said was that not everyone will grow it, therefore business entities who do and who provide the finished product will continue to exist.
"Of course, now that you've eliminated the potential profits in growing and selling pot in the US - there will be hardly no demand for illegal pot when people can supply themselves legally - criminals will be forced to move into another line of business."
You're still basing your argument on a faulty predicate. None of that would happen because underground businesses to produce finished product would still exist. They didn't vanish because of the magic wand of the law.
I'm not much of a fan of the war on drugs myself. We're not fighting it, we're making a franchise of it. Kind of like the war in Iraq. If we wanted to really put a dent in our drug problem, the first drug we need to address is alcohol. As long as we turn our backs on that, anything else we do is just play-acting.
This is hardly the case. Talk to any law enforcement officer, you will discover that this goes on all the time, and yes, we do plenty about it.
"We don't do anything about that because that's really not a problem, is it?"
It's a big problem. Once again, check with any cop or deputy. They'll tell you that 9 times out of 10, minors getting into trouble with drugs and alcohol is a result of an adult making it available to them.
"With no industry producing marijuana cigarettes, there will simply be no organzed mechanism to produce mass quantities of them (or to grow mass quantities of marijuana in general)."
Now wait a minute. Aren't you the same guy that argued abortion shouldn't be illegal because it would still happen? So now you're saying that simply making mass production of marijuana illegal will suddenly cause the enterprise to vanish? Get ready because here it comes: you can't have it both ways. Making something illegal does not make it cease to occur. Those who are determined to do something will still do it. The legal system exists to discourage those who would find the punishment not worth the effort and to provide the punishment for those who act anyway. The best the legal system can do is keep crime at bay, it will never eliminate it.
The big difference between this and abortion is that, in the case of drugs, there is substantial monetary incentive to ignore the law. It is already illegal for business entities to mass produce marijuana, yet there are very large business entities that do so. So my question stands: Why do you think making an exceptional law for business entities will change anything?
Given the above, the rest of your argument is without predicate and fails.
"Anyone who really wants to go to the trouble of growing it most likely can."
I never said any different. The same is true of tobacco, yet you don't see too many smokers out there growing it at home. What I said was that not everyone will grow it, therefore business entities who do and who provide the finished product will continue to exist.
"Of course, now that you've eliminated the potential profits in growing and selling pot in the US - there will be hardly no demand for illegal pot when people can supply themselves legally - criminals will be forced to move into another line of business."
You're still basing your argument on a faulty predicate. None of that would happen because underground businesses to produce finished product would still exist. They didn't vanish because of the magic wand of the law.
I'm not much of a fan of the war on drugs myself. We're not fighting it, we're making a franchise of it. Kind of like the war in Iraq. If we wanted to really put a dent in our drug problem, the first drug we need to address is alcohol. As long as we turn our backs on that, anything else we do is just play-acting.
posted by Anonymous | 6:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home