(no subject)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

P1) Drug use may indirectly lead to negative results
P2) Those same negative results can be directly brought about through legal action
C1) Outlawing drugs is illogical

As an example:

Heroin use may indirectly lead to a person becoming an unproductive, unhealthy member of society. The users of heroin may forsake their family and friends for another hit--they may lose their jobs, be rude and uncaring, and generally be a pretty lousy person--in addition to possibly being in an extremely physically unhealthy state.

But those same things may be directly done and no law would be violated.
It is simply outside the proper scope of the govt to make it illegal to be a jerk. To be uncaring and unkind, to forsake friends and family, to be uncaring at work--and thus be late and unhelpful and then eventually fired. And there's certainly not the case that laws are there to keep us from getting ourselves into bad shape.

A heroin user may contract HIV through a dirty needle used for heroin, or (s)he may contract it through unprotected promiscuous sex--but certainly we aren't banning the latter.

We wouldn't outlaw people becoming 900 lbs, would we? Though that is without doubt detrimental to their physical well being.

So, I must imagine everyone accepts P1--unless they are going to argue that it's not a "maybe" scenario; maybe some want to argue drugs *WILL* do bad things, without a doubt. But safe and healthy drug use is an obvious existent thing--safe use of alcohol is discoverable in most any town or village in the country, and examples abound of it world-wide being used in a safe and non-harmful way. (and then other examples showing it being harmful exist too--hence the obvious and truthful fact that drugs *may* lead to negative results)

P2 seems equally inarguable--unless you think we SHOULD outlaw people eating themselves to 800lbs or being jerks in general.

Thus the conclusion seems natural from those two premises.

We outlaw the indirect cause, but done directly without the use of drugs, such behaviors are acceptable.

Obviously things like crime are going to occur because people want their drugs(some addicts rob others to get their drug money)--but people also want money (just for the sake of money, e.g. Enron), and we shouldn't outlaw money because some people do fucked up things to obtain it.

Obviously driving while under the influence of a drug is a behavior that puts *other people* in mortal danger and thus is rightfully the place of government to prohibit such behavior.

If there is any drug that upon taking makes the user into a violent sociopath that is 100% incapable of not viciously attacking the first person they come across-that too would be an appropriate target of a govt ban

But outside of drugs that directly risk the health and well being of others besides the user, there is no drug that should be outlawed based upon the simple P1/P2/C1 offered above.

All that said: the negative results are not unforseeable and I'm not endorsing such negative results. Rehabilitation is much easier if the problem isn't one that lands addicts in prison. Alcohol rehabilitation isn't perfect, but it's much better now than how it would be if alcohol was 100% illegal as certain other drugs are.

Comments

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Drug may directly lead to negative results. Or indirectly. Your weasel premise is weasel.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Also, your premises are completely disconnected from each other, not to mention the conclusion. As follows:

P1)Drug use may indirectly lead to negative results. (Agreed.)
P2)Those same negative results can be directly brought about through legal action. (Agreed.)
C1)Outlawing drugs is illogical. (You're missing one or two steps here.)

Such that:

P3)Enacting punitive measures which reproduce negative results we want to avoid in the first place is counter-productive.
C1)Outlawing drugs is counter-productive and self-defeating.

Your use of "illogical" is specious, as "logic" can follow any line of reasoning, such as:

P1)Drugs are bad, mmkay.
P2)We should outlaw bad things, mkay.
P3)Outlawing drugs is good, mmkay.
C1)Outlawing drugs is "logical".

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

legal action actually entails prohibition in the same way JFK was assassinated entails JFK is dead

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What drug directly leads to a negative result?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Meth
Crack

Me taking vicodin. Or for a real negative result me taking an antihistomine (sp)

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

not so sure your argument is totally precise

you have to be able to derive illogical from both one or the other premises but the only language you could legitimately derive from either premise is "outlawing"

you'd have to replace illogical with something like self-defeating

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

perhaps inconsistent is a better term

the main jist remains the same--there's harm from drugs, yes, but those are *possible* harms that the users need to be educated about--meanwhile other methods that produce the same harms are not outlawed.

thus it seems like it is an abuse of govt power to prohibit drug use

[http://users.livejournal.com/aviation_/]

Your arguments are kind of messy but I agree with your conclusion so I forgive you

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

P2 seems equally inarguable

It does? I don't even understand what you're claiming there.


Thus the conclusion seems natural from those two premises.

Why would you go to the trouble of pretending to formalize an argument when all you really have is basically what you stated in what I'm quoting? "seeming natural" is hardly the point of formal logic. You're making a lot of assumptions here and relying on vague weasel words. My suspicion is that what you're arguing can be reapplied to most things that we make illegal, but your argument is too vague for me to be sure. Perhaps you'll discover the same thing if you try to tighten it up a bit.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Oh, or see http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/646071.html?thread=48224183#t48224183

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

P2 states that:

The negative results that are [in some cases] indirectly caused by drug use are directly causable by legal means.

That is, let us consider some negative results that drug use may result in, shall we?

Some such negative results are:

Abandoning friends and family
A poor work ethic
physically deteriorating health

These results can be brought about, directly, and yet the actions that directly bring about such are not outlawed.

Does P2 make more sense now?

[thies.livejournal.com]

10 points for hufflepuff

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Thanks?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

win for the day :D

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The law assumes a person is normally responsible for their actions. Taking drugs (most drugs) can cause a person to lose the ability to be in their proper mind thus creating unlawful behavior. A person who takes PCP isn't able to control themselves or act rationally with responsibility and that can create an issue in civil society. So I can understand completely regulating some narcotics.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

The same could be said for alcohol.

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

P1) Murder use may indirectly lead to negative results
P2) Those same negative results can be directly brought about through legal action
C1) Outlawing murder is illogical

A fat person may get TEH DIABITUS through a shitty diet.

We wouldn't outlaw people becoming 900 lbs, would we? Though that is without doubt detrimental to their physical well being.

I mean I am all for legalizing drugs but your argument does not hold. Simply because one may cause harm someway doesn't mean that a law is illogical. I still save money even though a catastrophe might render that useless.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"P1) Murder use may indirectly lead to negative results"

What stupid fucking shit is this?
That's moronic. That's the sort of shit Sarah Palin would say.

That's plain stupid.

Murder, very directly, leads to negative results.
It's not a "may" it's a "will"

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

That too.

Prohibitionists know that they aren't able to stop drugs from coming into the US yet they spend US taxpayer dollars to try and stop the flow, but they fail

if the demand is for 80 lbs, the drug traffickers send 120 knowing some of it will be caught
if we step up enforcement, they'll just send 150, knowing 80 will still get through

Prohibition is a waste of money, but how do you show people this?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

We have seen that Prohibition of Alcohol did not work - not because Americans aare weird, or different, but just b/coz if people want to buy this stuff, they will.

Making drugs illegal puts good money in the hands of bad people.

Ok, so drug addiction kills. And driving when high is dangerous.
So, why not treat cocain , weed and stuff like that like we treat booze and tobacco?

Ok, in the UK, doctors are telling us how many units of alcohol it is safe to consume per day. Cigarretes are labelled with health warnings, and alcohl has to show how many units are in the bottle and how much is safe for men and women to consume on a safe basis.

Make joints and wraps legal, sold to adults only, with approriate customer oriented info and what's the problem?
people who are old enough get to enjoy safe doses, government gets revenue, gangstas get to open legal stores and pay taxes like everyone else - what is there not to like?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"wraps" ? I'm unfamiliar with that terminology. Is that just another slang word for weed/marijuana?

I'm not just talking about pot though.

Pot legalization is something that ~80% of this community agrees with (per a poll I posted here awhile back)

But once you start talking about other drugs besides pot, people become much less likely to approve of decriminalizing/legalizing them.


Yet this argument that I have proposed here is a very solid one that people have yet to truly appreciate it seems.

I'm attacking the underlying premise for our criminalization of these drugs. But nobody wants to actually deal with that.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

P1) Dumping cadmium in the water supply use may indirectly lead to negative results
P2) Those same negative results can be directly brought about through dumping lead in the water supply
C1) regulating cadmium levels in industrial effluent that gets dumped in the water supply is illogical

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

But dump francium in the water supply and you'll see something really cool!*

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

that doesn't work because nobody is permitting us to dumb lead int he water supply, are they?