Stubborn Congressman Tries to block Federal MJ Legalization bill

[PokerGuy]

Very few of those people are actually risking those consequences. My point was to show you that maybe your idea of the what marijuana smoking entails are a bit off.

I'm completely logical about it. The potential negative consequences are vastly larger than the upside, unless you are stupid or addicted (or both).

 

[xj0hnx]

I'm completely logical about it. The potential negative consequences are vastly larger than the upside, unless you are stupid or addicted (or both).

The problem is that the "potential" is pretty small in relation to how many people do it, and getting smaller as more and more law enforcement care less, and less about people smoking a joint.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm completely logical about it. The potential negative consequences are vastly larger than the upside, unless you are stupid or addicted (or both).

You're being anything but logical. The expected value of an action is a result of multiplying the probability of something occurring with the payoff (or cost) of that action. The probability of being sent to jail/fired/fined/etc for someone smoking marijuana inside a private residence is almost zero. That makes the actual expected downside for a smoker to be almost zero.

You could make the argument that buying it is a dumb idea, as it is a substantially riskier proposition (although still pretty damn un-risky), but the act of smoking it makes perfect sense.

 

[Triumph]

I haven't seen the stats, but if 40% of people are using the stuff then yes, 40% of people are stupid dopeheads. The number of people doing it is irrelevant. The stupidity of doing something for small benefit (a short high) in the face of huge potential negative consequences is unequivocal.

Stupid or not, you have to balance the costs of banning drugs versus the benefits, and vice versa, the costs of legalizing MJ versus the benefits of legalizing it. You are simply pointing out the costs as the sole arbiter of the argument, but you need to recognize the benefits. It is quite clear that the cost of the war on drugs is not worth it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Stupid or not, you have to balance the costs of banning drugs versus the benefits,

Read my earlier posts, I addressed that. It's a separate discussion, and I generally agree with the sentiment that the WoD in it's current format is misguided and ineffective.

 

[PokerGuy]

You're being anything but logical.

Just because you don't agree with the assumptions going into the equation doesn't mean it's not logical. It is completely logical.

The expected value of an action is a result of multiplying the probability of something occurring with the payoff (or cost) of that action.

Even if the probability is small, the cost if and when something happens would be very large. At a minimum you're looking at fines, but it could be much worse. If the expected value of the costs was so small, why are all the stupid dopeheads so concerned about legalizing it? Conversely, the benefits are (outside of medical needs) infinitesimally small at best. A high for a short time, which in reality isn't even a "benefit"... and that's not even accounting for the negative health consequences that smoking entails (any kind of smoking).

It's a dumb thing to do, no matter how you turn it.

 

[fskimospy]

Even if the probability is small, the cost if and when something happens would be very large. At a minimum you're looking at fines, but it could be much worse. If the expected value of the costs was so small, why are all the stupid dopeheads so concerned about legalizing it? Conversely, the benefits are (outside of medical needs) infinitesimally small at best. A high for a short time, which in reality isn't even a "benefit"... and that's not even accounting for the negative health consequences that smoking entails (any kind of smoking).

It's a dumb thing to do, no matter how you turn it.

Did you get what I meant about expected value? The cost of getting hig in the head by a meteor is very large, but it is such an improbable event that you don't bother to worry about it. If you don't consider feeling good to be a benefit... uhmmm... ok. Everyone else does.

People are concerned about legalizing it for a number of reasons. First, the stupidity of the law to begin with, the cost of enforcement, the fact that people who are actually conducting transactions with it are at significantly higher risk of arrest, etc.. etc. It's not because people are worried about being busted in their house by roving pot cops.

Your characterization of anyone smoking marijuana as being stupid for doing so is illogical if you look at the facts.

 

[woolfe9999]

How can anyone on the right, who presumably supports a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause, not at least think the federal law should be thrown out on that ground alone, or at least narrowed to only cover interstate trafficking and smuggling across national borders? I don't agree with that rationale and I oppose the law for other reasons, but I'm smelling an ideological inconsistency here.

 

[dank69]

...Even if the probability is small, the cost if and when something happens would be very large. ...

Once again, the consequences of smoking weed are not 'very large'

If the expected value of the costs was so small, why are all the stupid dopeheads so concerned about legalizing it?...

It's the principle. What right does the goverment have? As a conservative, you should know this.

 

[PokerGuy]

If you don't consider feeling good to be a benefit... uhmmm... ok. Everyone else does.

There are millions of ways to "feel good" that do not involve getting high on illegal drugs.

People are concerned about legalizing it for a number of reasons. First, the stupidity of the law to begin with, the cost of enforcement, the fact that people who are actually conducting transactions with it are at significantly higher risk of arrest, etc.. etc. It's not because people are worried about being busted in their house by roving pot cops.

I already addressed those in my earlier post(s), I don't really disagree with that part of the reasoning, though I have my doubts about the notion that decriminalizing something magically transforms everything into the land of milk and honey. There are other costs involved as well.

Your characterization of anyone smoking marijuana as being stupid for doing so is illogical if you look at the facts.

Nope, completely logical. Stupid is stupid, no matter the window dressing.

 

[novasatori]

Stupid is stupid

Indeed

 

[PokerGuy]

Once again, the consequences of smoking weed are not 'very large'

Tell me that again after you get busted and end up losing your job, or end up in jail etc. They are not always that bad, but they can be.

It's the principle. What right does the goverment have? As a conservative, you should know this.

I already addressed that in my earlier posts. I don't disagree with that logic.

 

[dank69]

Tell me that again after you get busted and end up losing your job, or end up in jail etc. They are not always that bad, but they can be.



I already addressed that in my earlier posts. I don't disagree with that logic.

I got 'busted' twice as a young adult. 10 hours community service. You are blowing things out of proportion to support your view.

 

[xj0hnx]

There are millions of ways to "feel good" that do not involve getting high on illegal drugs.

That doesn't make it any less enjoyable to those that enjoy it.

I already addressed those in my earlier post(s), I don't really disagree with that part of the reasoning, though I have my doubts about the notion that decriminalizing something magically transforms everything into the land of milk and honey. There are other costs involved as well.

Decriminalizing just weed will do nothing as far as cartels as concerned, it might even have the blowback effect of them pumping up supplies of other drugs to make up profit losses.

Nope, completely logical. Stupid is stupid, no matter the window dressing.

No, it isn't logical in the least, unless you mean "in your opinion", then sure, whatever, just as long as you realize that reality disagrees with you.

 

[fskimospy]

There are millions of ways to "feel good" that do not involve getting high on illegal drugs.

Irrelevant. You said it was not a benefit when it clearly is.

I already addressed those in my earlier post(s), I don't really disagree with that part of the reasoning, though I have my doubts about the notion that decriminalizing something magically transforms everything into the land of milk and honey. There are other costs involved as well.

Nope, completely logical. Stupid is stupid, no matter the window dressing.

I like how rationally considering the odds of being caught are 'window dressing'.

 

[CLite]

You're smoking something (pardon the pun) if you think any legalization of any of this stuff will put the cartels "out of business". They will do what criminal organizations have always done, they will simply shift their focus to other forms of crime to get their money. The criminals will not vanish just because you decriminalize one aspect of their business.

Actually they do. During prohibition 1920-1933 murders per 100,000 jumped from around 6.5 to 9.7, After prohibition repeal in 1933 murders per 100,000 plummeted back down and didn't reach back to 9.7 until the mid 70's.

http://www.jrsa.org/programs/Historical.pdf - link with crime rate plots

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/miron.prohibition.alcohol

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00492/Crime_Rate.htm

Just because you believe prohibition laws are beneficial and reduce crime doesn't change reality.

 

[TechBoyJK]

PokerGuy is a troll.

Gambling addictions cause more harm to society and if they outlawed poker, he'd still play.

 

[xj0hnx]

Actually they do you. During prohibition 1920-1933 murders per 100,000 jumped from around 6.5 to 9.7, After prohibition repeal in 1933 murders per 100,000 plummeted back down and didn't reach back to 9.7 until the mid 70's.

http://www.jrsa.org/programs/Historical.pdf - link with crime rate plots

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/miron.prohibition.alcohol

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00492/Crime_Rate.htm

Just because you believe prohibition laws are beneficial and reduce crime doesn't change reality.

That's just the murder rate, it is not an indication that the criminals went away, or stopped their criminal activity. Simply legalizing weed is not going to do anything to the cartels. Weed is a very large part of their profits, but there are still plenty of drugs that would be available for them to supply to users in the states.

 

[xj0hnx]

PokerGuy is a troll.

Gambling addictions cause more harm to society and if they outlawed poker, he'd still play.

Yip, I've watch guys literally spend their entire check in a couple hours playing slots. Then again, everyone thinks their vice is better.

 

[fskimospy]

That's just the murder rate, it is not an indication that the criminals went away, or stopped their criminal activity. Simply legalizing weed is not going to do anything to the cartels. Weed is a very large part of their profits, but there are still plenty of drugs that would be available for them to supply to users in the states.

Legalizing weed would definitely do something to the cartels, it represents a huge portion of their business. Sure they wouldn't go away, but it's pretty hard to claim that removing such a large portion of their profits 'wouldn't do anything' to them.

 

[PokerGuy]

Irrelevant. You said it was not a benefit when it clearly is.

Oh, you think getting high is "clearly" a benefit? I disagree. I don't think it's a benefit at all. Some do, some don't. And even to those who do, there are legal ways of doing the same thing, so that's a non-starter.

I like how rationally considering the odds of being caught are 'window dressing'.

Considering them is fine, but even if considering them, it's still illogical. If the odds are so small, how come there are millions in jail for it? And why do dopers push so hard to make it legal? Because they KNOW there are big potential consequences, and yet they do it anyway. Stupid.

 

[xj0hnx]

Legalizing weed would definitely do something to the cartels, it represents a huge portion of their business. Sure they wouldn't go away, but it's pretty hard to claim that removing such a large portion of their profits 'wouldn't do anything' to them.

It would hit them financially, but they would more than likely overload the US with cocaine, meth, and heroin to make up for it. It isn't going to get rid of them, or lessen the violence at all.

 

[PokerGuy]

PokerGuy is a troll.

Riiiiiight. You're the idiot killing brain cells smoking dope, whining about the laws, and I'm the troll.

Gambling addictions cause more harm to society and if they outlawed poker, he'd still play.

If have no doubt all sorts of addictions cause a lot of harm. That's not the issue under discussion, now is it.

And no, I play legally. If they outlawed it and made it a serious offense, I would most certainly not play. I'm neither addicted nor illogical.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, you think getting high is "clearly" a benefit? I disagree. I don't think it's a benefit at all. Some do, some don't. And even to those who do, there are legal ways of doing the same thing, so that's a non-starter.

The idea that there might be another way to accomplish the same goal in no way determines whether or not something is a benefit to you. As for the people who don't consider feeling high to be a benefit... so what? Clearly millions and millions of people do, so it's a benefit to them. End of story.

Considering them is fine, but even if considering them, it's still illogical. If the odds are so small, how come there are millions in jail for it? And why do dopers push so hard to make it legal? Because they KNOW there are big potential consequences, and yet they do it anyway. Stupid.

And how many of those arrested and jailed do you think were put in there due to being arrested for smoking weed in the privacy of their own home while doing nothing else that would arouse the attention of the cops? You're being completely irrational here, I think it's just out of pride at this point... but it could also be that you just know absolutely nothing people who smoke weed.

 

[PokerGuy]

Legalizing weed would definitely do something to the cartels, it represents a huge portion of their business. Sure they wouldn't go away, but it's pretty hard to claim that removing such a large portion of their profits 'wouldn't do anything' to them.

I'm sure it would impact the cartels, but I think it's pretty safe to assume that they'd do as criminal organizations have done for thousands of years, they simply move into other crime.