Legislators aim to snuff out penalties for pot use

[Sailor Steve]

Platapus, you raised some interesting questions, and I agree that some of them require some thought. That said, I would like to address a couple of your thoughts I do disagree with.

Originally Posted by Platapus

One argument I can't support is the argument that if some or all recreational drugs were legalized that the criminal aspects of the drug industry would disappear. This has not been demonstrated as being true. Drug crime may, in fact, go up as the established drug industries (drug lords) will fight (literally) to keep out the competition regardless of whether the competition is legal.

When was the last time a gang machine-gunned another gang over a case of booze? I know that sounds flippant on the face of it, but I think it's true. Legalize the stuff, allow stores to sell it and tax them to death.

Another argument is popular opinion. If the majority of people want some or all of the recreational drugs legalized, upon what authority does a government have to infringe on this? A spurious argument at best. One of the many reasons why there are few democracies in the world is to avoid what Thomas Jefferson warned about -- the Tyranny of the Masses. A representative government does not just represent the views of the majority but the minority also.

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
--Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.

Where does that "tyranny of the masses" concept come from? Here's a link to a whole series of letters and speeches that indicate that Jefferson felt just the opposite.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/...s/jeff0500.htm

Can a society allow the popular opinion of the masses to set policy and laws? Suppose a majority of citizens decided that owning the darkies as slaves was not all that bad or that family law has gone far to the extreme in favour of women' rights so let's go back to the old days? Would a government be justified in acquiescing to the masses or should it resist? This is a tricky question that plagues political analysts.

A good question, and one deserving of further discussion.

If the majority of the citizens want pot legalized...so what? should anyone care? Does anyone have to care?

The problem is, if the government does not care about the popular view, upon what authority does it have to make this decision? If it does not have this authority then does government have to acquiesce to the vulgar viewpoint?

An intriguing issue that once you take away the emotions and biases, becomes a difficult one to answer objectively.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Where does that "tyranny of the masses" concept come from? Here's a link to a whole series of letters and speeches that indicate that Jefferson felt just the opposite.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/...s/jeff0500.htm

My apologies. It was Alexis de Tocqueville. I knew it was some dead guy.

[Frame57]

I have known a lot of Potheads growing up. Not a one of them amounted to jack squat. I am not sure whether it is because the dope makes em lazy or if it is just some other inherant issue.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

My apologies. It was Alexis de Tocqueville. I knew it was some dead guy.

:rotfl: "Some dead guy."

I've never read de Tocqueville, and always meant to. I've heard a lot about the French tourist who thought America was the greatest place in the world.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I've never read de Tocqueville, and always meant to. I've heard a lot about the French tourist who thought America was the greatest place in the world.

Well worth the read