There's been a lot said, I'll address what I can with what energy remains in me
.
In short: you have continually tried to justify what ought to be based on what is. This doesn't stand logical muster, as it simply reiterates the status quo as a justification for the status quo. In other words, Appeal to Tradition. Merely pointing out something is legal or illegal does not address the question of whether it should be legal or illegal, it simply states a tautology.
lol Your problem,cleverly disguised in lofty philosophy,is with the law. On the one hand you cite letter and verse as the highest measure of justice when confronted with the police concerning OC and weapons in general but when your line of thinking is derailed with "marijuana is illegal" somehow the law loses its potentcy and is even relegated as an antiquated piece of legislature.One could hold every law in contempt in this fashion as a simple measure of counterpoint. Simply legalizing a substance isn't a panacea to the actual drug use.Alcohol is a robust testament to this. Your zeal to start another fire is unnerving and even puzzling. However,for the record, I believe that some of the punishments dont fit the crime. I would rather leave those cells empty for the more immediate criminals.
Clearly, you hold the written letter of law to a much higher degree than I. The highest measure of justice is not merely what is written, but those fundamental truths that embody the absolute freedoms of a society not beholden to its rulers. That is to say, I believe in the fundamental rights to self-determination and its intrinsically tied self-defense implications. To deny one right is to lose the other. When the law supports our rights I will quote it as a means to uphold the ideal, but when the law loses sight of that ideal, I cannot in good faith say I support the law. Each law must be evaluated upon its own merit; rather than relying on the fact the law is codified, I reflect upon what the codified law represents.
I agree that simple legalization is not a panacea, and I even addressed that. However, I did so in context of the tradeoffs of the drug's effects while legal versus illegal. To put it simply, the cost of keeping it illegal far outweigh any harm that results from its legalization. Yes, there may be harm to a select few that would otherwise not experience such if the drug remained illegal. But(!), this number is orders of magnitude smaller than those who have been harmed, directly or indirectly, by our current legal stance.
Repeatedly saying "marijuana is illegal" is the true non sequitur in the discussion.
It is the very makeup of the debate and is logical to its core. You hold the police to a high standard yet make excuses and cherry pick which laws are viable and which are a matter of inconvience. If you believe the law to be sheer folly, then I venture to guess a considerable amount of your time is spent to reverse this agregious injustice. I mean we pretty much have it locked up here with the exception of a couple of rogue librarians and park officials making up illegal signs as they go along this OC stuff is pretty much locked up. Keep us posted on your fight to legalize marijuana goes.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say when you say "you hold the police to a high standard yet make excuses and cherry pick which laws are viable and which are a mater of inconvience[sic]." I judge police on a case-by-case basis, though I cannot honestly say my view remains untainted by the numerous abuses that have occurred as police shifted from civil servants to revenue collection agents and paramilitary enforcers of potentially unconstitutional practices. As for my political aspirations, I do attempt to right those wrongs I find "agregious" [sic] (egregious). The most important means by which I could hope to influence the political status quo is education of those who don't know any better of the harms their pro-illegal stance brings upon their society. To that end, I engage in the best reasoned discourse I can with those who would have the means to listen and receive what I can present.
If the pro-marijuana movement was serious and ceased to be caricuture of itself then it would be a conduit to enact laws that reflect thier views. Are thier viable candidates that reflect NORML's views? Is the pro-marijuana movement willing to put blood,sweat and tears into the cause? etc
Answer me this (I dont know the answer):
You make stereotypes about the pro-marijuana movement, but fail to spell numerous words correctly. For example: sequitur, potency, egregious, caricature, their, necessity... The point is: you try to paint those who support legalization as illegitimate, stupid, or ill-informed, yet show yourself incapable of even wielding English appropriately. As for the question of blood, sweat, and tears... I must first inquire as to what you think should be the required level of commitment to enact what should be a self-deterministic right, and then ask why you presume those who are pro-freedom would not be so willing. The only reason I could think is that those who are pro-legalization tend to be, generally, better educated and more willing to solve their problems with words instead of weapons where possible, hence the concept of shedding blood, sweat, and tears is seen as counter-productive to the overall goals of the supporters.
If the constitutionality, effectiveness and its nessacity are in serious question why have the laws remained on the books? If the pro-marijuana side has such an articulate,concise and coherent argument then why the lack of change? Surely, if the numbers are on the pro side isn't a mere bill away from law?
There is momentum in politics. Many of the older generation are, to put it quite frankly, willfully ignorant. They bought the political lies of the drug war, and have failed to move behind the notions they have held for many years. These same people have been there to appoint judges, vote for policies, and ultimately establish a system under which the concept of legalization was anathematic without significant sociopolitical progress. In the past decade, that progress has begun, but it has been a slow process, much the same way the plight of slavery took decades of policies and decisions before the ills wrought by
Dred Scott v. Sanford were unwound. Especially, consider the revitalized second amendment, long since restrained by a poorly written
Miller decision. Without the slow but inexorable steps made by those who support the right to self-defense via the keeping and bearing of arms, we may still be living with the onus of "collective rights". So, too, is the slow but inevitable revision of the war on (some) drugs.
You ask if we're a mere bill away from law, but I don't think that's the case, regardless of public sentiment. Ultimately, one must weigh the political capital required to put forth a policy that could galvanize the modern temperance movement to action. To operate under such a system, those of us who support legalization as a means to reduce harm, increase freedom, and restore constitutional law must do so piecewise. Show that the threat comes not from a free people, but from the government trying to crack down on that freedom. At the point the majority of the populace realizes this, this issue will be settled and we'll be onto our next debate pitting the free people versus the controlling government. Ah, history, you never cease to Ah, history, you never cease to Ah, history, you never cease to find a good time to stop repeating yourself.
