Quote:
Originally Posted by Etbauer
Ok, I think we have reached the circular point a while ago, let me paraphrase a piece of this debate.
Me: The existence of pot makes society worse, as does alcohol.
Slon: So life was better during the prohibition?
Me: If it wasn’t then it wasn’t due to the lack of alcohol, it was due to the criminal activity.
Slon: So in other words prohibition doesn’t work
Me: The point was that forgetting for now what the effects of prohibition are, the overall effect of alcohol and drugs is that society is worse.
|
If you're going to try to present a good argument as to why pot (or alcohol or whatever) should be illegal, you CANNOT separate the harmful effects of the drugs (if any) from the harmful effects of prohibition, and consider it in isolation. You must, in order to have a valid cost-benefit analysis, analyze the costs of prohibition as well as the benefits. The benefits would arise from any reduction in drug use and consequent reduction in the direct harm caused by drugs (if any). The cost would arise from the harmful effects of prohibition itself.
If you "forget for now what the effects of prohibition are," you are considering only the benefits without considering the costs, and that is not valiid.
But I'm getting a little suspicious, frankly, because you have addressed your points only to Slon. Slon is a fairly easy target, as he openly endorses the absurd, such as claiming that society has no obligation to protect children from their own behavior. The fact that you are addressing only him, suggests to me that you are not looking to discuss the issue honestly.