In an unregulated monopoly there is competition between the seller and the buyers. The buyers get screwed. That's not cooperation. Cooperation in a monopoly setting would resemble regulated monopolies like public utlities. Interesting thing about the whole privitization push, when (for instance) factories in eastern-block countries are privatized, efficiency goes up. When (for instance) public utilities in South America are privatized, efficiency goes down.
I would say that conflict is inevitable, and productive, while competition, of the form where someone must lose in order for another to win is destructive and inefficient. Conflict can be resolved in such a way that everyone benefits. Competition means someone always loses.
Oh. My. Lord. I would go completely, Columbine style insane in an environment like that. Two years? You've got thicker skin than me, I wouldn't have lasted two months. I feel for you, man, I really do.
I call BS. Just as one example, the entire field of Operations Research (e.g. the mathematical study of efficiency) was born directly as a result of WW2.
Ever hear of opportunity cost? Who's to say what would have been invented or done had WWW2 not happened. Sure, there was a major research push, but that only proves my point: in a violence-centric society, research doesn't happen on that level unless the threat of violence is involved to motivate. Can you honestly claim that a peaceful society would not have created OR?
It's not about getting ahead, it's about playing games where someone has to lose in order for another to win. That is what leads to inefficiency, and violence is only one part of that syndrome.
Motivation is more complex than you make it out to be, and you give people too little credit. In the absence of the threat of starvation, etc. people are motivated by their passions. Why do people chose to take on low paying jobs doing things they love when there are higher paying jobs available? People don't work hard on pointless, unrewarding tasks unless motivated. People work very hard doing the things they love without any monetary of reward.
Please provide some kind of proof that competition spurs creativity or efficiency. If that really were the case, corporations would be internally arranged as multiple, redundant competing units. That was tried several times, and it has failed miserably every time. Corporations are internally cooperative because that more effectively spurs creativity and efficiency. If it didin't, they wouldn't do it that way.
Human nature is more malleable than you give it credit for. I find that people blame human nature when they have a vested interest in protecting the status quo. "That's just the way people are," is a cop out. People are the way they are given that the current system is the way it is. Given a different system, people would act differently. This has been proven in modern economic research experiments.
Resources are limited, to an extent, because we are violent. Violence and competition are not efficient. Violence destroys resources. Competition duplicates effort and undermines intrinsic motivation. We grow enough food every year to feed everyone, yet we don't. We have enough manpower to ensure that every human being is clothed and housed, yet we don't. Resources are not as limited as some people make them out to be, and the whole thing is a negative feedback loop. Scarcity is used to justify violence and competition, which create scarcity. This cycle helps ensure that those in power stay in power. They claim they will fix things, but fixing things would put them out of business. Instead they bandage the problem and let it fester.
It's a solid business plan for the bandage makers and bandage applicators, but it's bad for the rest of us.
We all cooperate for competitions sake. We all do, at any particular moment, just what we want to at that moment. For entirely selfish reasons. There are no others. Most people realize though, that we aren't primarily in competition with other humans.
As for accountability, I will hold you accountabale for anything you do which impacts me in the slightest. And living in the connected world we do, just about everything you do impacts me. We are all co-creators of the world, co-authors of the story. The world you and I make is the world that untold generations of humans after us will live in, and I hold you responsible for that world.
You speak of winning, but I don't think you have thought through the consequences of your philosophy. We don't play any finite game (and I use the term 'game' loosely, to describe any endeavor of more than one person) to determine the winner. No one will argue if you tell them they are a winner. We play those games to determine the losers, so the losers will not argue when told they are losers. You speak as if the "win-win" scenario doesn't exist, yet it is the basis for free trade
In a free market, both parties feel they have gained something of greater value than they gave up. Win win. No one has to lose. People who feel that someone else must lose in order for them to win make me physically sick. It's not reality, it's not healthy, and it's not anything any thinking, feeling human being has to accept.
I'm sure you don't mean to, but you come off sounding like a supporter of fascism.
Wow, you best get that knee looked at, it's jerking pretty hard there. Ask yourself this one question: how are corporations arranged, internally? Do they have multiple redundant units that compete with each other, or is a corporation arranged cooperatively?
Now consider, why do you assume that a cooperative society will not hold individuals accountable for their actions? Why do you assume that a competative society will? Does not the very nature of the corporation imply limited personal responsibility? Ambrose Beirce, in his book The Devil's Dictionary called the corporation a device for obtaining personal profit without personal responsibility, and he was right.
You are conflating competition and violence, two very different concepts. One can cooperate to use violence to protect against sociopaths and psychopaths. One frequently has to, in fact.
Modern economic research has shown that people are more motivated by feelings of reciprocity, justice and fair play than the traditional model of selfish gain. In experimental games, played in India and other less affluent countries for stakes approaching several months salary, people did not act as the "selfish actor" theory suggests. Now, when selfishness can not be punished, people may resort to acting selfish, but when it can, they naturally cooperate. Thus systems that support competition over cooperation damage us all by forcing us to choose the overall less efficient option.
Your points do not really address what I was taqlking about, but I am assuming that you were assuming I was trying to make some sort of justification for pacifism, which I was not. I admire people who's convictions lead them to that philosophy, and who's strength of character allows them to act upon those convictions in forceful and convincing ways. Ghandi and Thich Quang Duc spring to mind as two examples of people who's non-violent actions made a tremendous difference. But I am not one of them, and might act similarly to you in the situations you describe. Goblins, as you call them, are not people and do not deserve to be treated as such. The only thing mitigating this position is our human infallability and imperfect information, and thus we must act as if they are people unless absolutely convinced otherwise.
The use of violence must always be considered carefully, as the unintended consequences of such actions are very unpredictable. Violence, as they say breeds violence. Every act of violence is a justification for another act of violence, and the cycle continues. If I knew that by allowing myself to be killed, I could make a statement that lowered the overall level of violence and suffering in the world, I might do it. Might. I'm no saint. But the point remains, non violence can change the world, and has.
We will always have goblins: the sociopaths and psychopaths. We don't even know if we can afford to breed them out of the gene pool. Many of the genes for those conditions, if you don't get them all, can lead to genius and great leadership ability. So we must live with them, and be constantly vigilant of their potential for wrongdoing. I think perhaps that in a non violent society, the higher functioning sociopaths and psychopaths can be trained to emulate the faculties they lack, primarily empathy. Perhaps they can be shown that, although it does not come naturlly to them, they will be better off as cooperative members of society.
In any case, they make up less than 2% of the population, and we can not base our society around the fear of their potential. By making us more like themselves, they win, because they can play that game better than we ever can.
We are not hard-wired for violence. We are hard wired with the capacity for violence. We are also hard wired with the capacity for cooperation. Which of these hard wired strategies gets implemented is chosen in software. There is a self reinforcing element to the system as well. Cooperative societies reward cooperation and punish competition, ensuring more people run the cooperation strategy, while competative societies do just the opposite. This does make a paradigm shift difficult, but not as difficult as you make out.
Without cooperation, we would be less than ants. Cooperation is a more successful strategy, and therefore will win out over competition in the end. Given that, the end of violence is unavoidable. Sorry to rain on your pessimism parade.
Bullshit. We never would have made it as a species if people were "naturally" cruel to each other. Look at tribal societies that have not been massively impacted by violent western culture. The kids don't even play competative games, let alone taunt or harass each other. Try reading Jean Liedloff's The Continuum Concept.
The reason this sort of "humans are naturally cruel" thinking disturbs me is that it justifies any sort of repressive behavior, in the name of "fixing" the cruelty of humans. In fact, the repressive behavior is what generates the cruelty, leading to a self perpetuating cycle.
I'm not a libertarian because I don't believe in the supremacy of private property. If I had to call myself anything, I'd call myself an anarcho-syndicalist. Control of resources should be democratic, not market based.
But yes, as an anarchist (you libertarians are just a particular kind of anarchist, like presbytarians are a kind of christianity) my argument is based on freedom and personal responsibility.
And just because pot has a particular effect on you doesn't mean it has that effect on anyone else. I suppose you didn't catch that bit about Carl Sagan smoking pot like a fricken' chimney. No one I know would have called him stupid. I suffer from depression and anxiety and pot helps me deal with that. Different strokes for different folks and all that, for instance, I hate alcohol. I think it makes people who use it stupid and obnoxious, is horribly dangerous, and expensive for society to deal with. But I wouldn't try to take away anyone's right to drink.
I'm with you about alcohol. I think it makes people act like idiotic assholes. I can't stand being around people who drink unless I'm drunk, and I don't like getting drunk, at least in part because I always have awful hangovers.
I do like pot though. I suffer from anxiety and depression, and it really helps with both. And I've never accidentally peed in someone's closet when I was high. I have actually done that while drunk.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc That is the fallacy. Everyone who uses hard drugs drank coca cola before they turned to hard drugs. Therefore, coca cola causes drug addiction. In addition, I have known many pot smokers. Most are perfectly well adjusted, stable members of society. Those who aren't, wouldn't have been even without the pot. None I know have gone on to use harder drugs.
However, if they did, wouldn't it be logical to assume, that since pot is illegal, one has to visit a criminal to procure it. Said criminal may also be in the business of supplying other drugs. One becomes exposed to these harder drugs precisely because marijuana is illegal.
Lastly, I worked at a medical marijuana club. We checked the medical records of our clients. I personally witnessed 70 year old grandmothers with cancer smoke pot for the first time in their lives and get relief that no prescription pain killer or anti nausea medication could ever have given them. Our club also helped addicts of harder drugs quit with the help of pot, so the gate swings both ways.
In short, you are quite obviously a victim of government propaganda and a large part of your self image is tied up in the "I don't do drugs, drugs are bad, m'kay?" message, so any information that threatens the legitimacy of that message threatens the legitimacy of your self image. Such information simply can not be let past your mental filters lest your whole world-view and sense of self collapse. I suggest taking it in baby steps, perhaps by trying on an idea like this: "Perhaps not all drugs are bad, and responsible people with happy lives can often do them without suffering serious harm." If you can allow yourself to make such a statement, you will be well on your way to freeing your mind from the mental conditioning that is now imprisoning you.
The protestant ethic says that over-indulgence is bad. Capitalism says over-indulgence is our sacred duty as consumers. We get around this paradox by arbitrarily defining some behaviors (such as sex outside of marriage, or drugs) as automatically over-indulging. Other behaviors that the original protestants might have found objectionable (such as buying too many luxury items) we define as incapable of ever being over-indulgence. So capitalism and protestantism can play nicely together, the only victims being our rights and common sense.
In the philosophy of harm reduction there is the idea of the continuum of use. Starting from non-use, there is experimental use (I've tried it to see what it's like), social use (I'll never buy it, but I'll do it if others are), casual use (I like to do it once a month, or special occasions), regular use (I use it on weekends), heavy use (I use it every day, but still manage to keep a job, have relationships, other hobbies, etc.), abuse (I use it to the detriment of other parts of my life) and addiction (I am well on my way to destroying my life with it.)
Most people move partway through the continuum and either reach a stable position somewhere in the middle, or they decide it's not for them and quit. Very few go all the way to full blown addiction, and many who do will still, of their own accord, come partway or all the way back. This is the reality of drug use. The myth that anyone who takes one puff of pot will automatically become a degenerate crackhead is just that, a myth.
Wow, you have just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about economics. Let's review: supply and demand. If demand stays the same but supply goes down (due to, let's say, police seizing your product) then price goes up. Plus, illegality is a huge barrier to entry for some business people. If it weren't illegal, more suppliers would exist, competition would increase and the price would go down. I suggest taking econ 101 again, and this time don't smoke so much pot before class.
Here's another interesting idea: in jobs that require concentration and alertness, how about we test for reaction time? I saw a little device, basically a small LCD display with a joystick attached. The screen shows a dot which randomly swerves left or right, and you use the joystick to keep it centered. Such a device tests for actual impairment, so it will also catch the people who (for instance) have sleep issues and shouldn't be driving a truck.
You are wrong about cannabis impairing driving. It also doesn't make you stupid. I suppose you think Carl Sagan is stupid? I agree that all drugs should be used in moderation. Cocaine is not the horrific drug that people make it out to be, and can eb used responsibly by many people. Heroin is dangerous, but as I stated elsewhere, I have met functional 60 year old heroin addicts. Crack is just cocaine with a slightly faster delivery method. LSD is only dangerous if used in an improper setting, or with an improper mindset. Ecstatsy was used as a psychotherapeutic drug for years. It is a methamphetamine, and can lead to depression, but almost all cases of death due to ecstasy are actually due to dehydration, due to the fact that it plays havoc on your bodies temperature controls. Meth is dangerous, no doubt about it.
I have seen what they do to people. Some people are prone to addictive behaviors. If not drugs, then food, sex, gambling, what-have-you. Those people would find something to ruin their lives with anyway. As a libertarian, I'm sure you can see how people who use drugs responsibly don't like to be punished for the actions of a small minority. I educate myself on the physical and psychological properties of any substance I ingest, and I can honestly say that for most people, most drugs are not nearly as bad as society makes them out to be. And that disjunct between drug myth and drug reality makes many people question the dangers of even truely dangerous drugs like meth.
Marijuana also took away drug company profits. Prior to the tax act, all major pharmaceutical companies carried cannabis products in their catalog, and every doctor in America knew what to prescribe it for. Americans did not connect the "cannabis" that their doctors prescribed for their back pains and nausea with the dread "marijuana" the evil mexicans were smoking. Cannabis was a commodity drug, though, and good for so many things that drug companies knew it would kill the profits on their new patent medicines if they didn't kill it first.
Add to that the leftover police apparatus from prohibition. Thousands of government bureaucrats might have lost their jobs if they couldn't justify their existence. Marijuana was, for them, the perfect replacement for alcohol.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it was dork matter. As in, it only matters to dorks.
Dark matter feels just like hot grits when you put it in your pants, everyone knows that.
In an unregulated monopoly there is competition between the seller and the buyers. The buyers get screwed. That's not cooperation. Cooperation in a monopoly setting would resemble regulated monopolies like public utlities. Interesting thing about the whole privitization push, when (for instance) factories in eastern-block countries are privatized, efficiency goes up. When (for instance) public utilities in South America are privatized, efficiency goes down.
I would say that conflict is inevitable, and productive, while competition, of the form where someone must lose in order for another to win is destructive and inefficient. Conflict can be resolved in such a way that everyone benefits. Competition means someone always loses.
Oh. My. Lord. I would go completely, Columbine style insane in an environment like that. Two years? You've got thicker skin than me, I wouldn't have lasted two months. I feel for you, man, I really do.
I call BS. Just as one example, the entire field of Operations Research (e.g. the mathematical study of efficiency) was born directly as a result of WW2.
Ever hear of opportunity cost? Who's to say what would have been invented or done had WWW2 not happened. Sure, there was a major research push, but that only proves my point: in a violence-centric society, research doesn't happen on that level unless the threat of violence is involved to motivate. Can you honestly claim that a peaceful society would not have created OR?
It's not about getting ahead, it's about playing games where someone has to lose in order for another to win. That is what leads to inefficiency, and violence is only one part of that syndrome.
Motivation is more complex than you make it out to be, and you give people too little credit. In the absence of the threat of starvation, etc. people are motivated by their passions. Why do people chose to take on low paying jobs doing things they love when there are higher paying jobs available? People don't work hard on pointless, unrewarding tasks unless motivated. People work very hard doing the things they love without any monetary of reward.
Please provide some kind of proof that competition spurs creativity or efficiency. If that really were the case, corporations would be internally arranged as multiple, redundant competing units. That was tried several times, and it has failed miserably every time. Corporations are internally cooperative because that more effectively spurs creativity and efficiency. If it didin't, they wouldn't do it that way.
Human nature is more malleable than you give it credit for. I find that people blame human nature when they have a vested interest in protecting the status quo. "That's just the way people are," is a cop out. People are the way they are given that the current system is the way it is. Given a different system, people would act differently. This has been proven in modern economic research experiments.
Resources are limited, to an extent, because we are violent. Violence and competition are not efficient. Violence destroys resources. Competition duplicates effort and undermines intrinsic motivation. We grow enough food every year to feed everyone, yet we don't. We have enough manpower to ensure that every human being is clothed and housed, yet we don't. Resources are not as limited as some people make them out to be, and the whole thing is a negative feedback loop. Scarcity is used to justify violence and competition, which create scarcity. This cycle helps ensure that those in power stay in power. They claim they will fix things, but fixing things would put them out of business. Instead they bandage the problem and let it fester.
It's a solid business plan for the bandage makers and bandage applicators, but it's bad for the rest of us.
We all cooperate for competitions sake. We all do, at any particular moment, just what we want to at that moment. For entirely selfish reasons. There are no others. Most people realize though, that we aren't primarily in competition with other humans.
As for accountability, I will hold you accountabale for anything you do which impacts me in the slightest. And living in the connected world we do, just about everything you do impacts me. We are all co-creators of the world, co-authors of the story. The world you and I make is the world that untold generations of humans after us will live in, and I hold you responsible for that world.
You speak of winning, but I don't think you have thought through the consequences of your philosophy. We don't play any finite game (and I use the term 'game' loosely, to describe any endeavor of more than one person) to determine the winner. No one will argue if you tell them they are a winner. We play those games to determine the losers, so the losers will not argue when told they are losers. You speak as if the "win-win" scenario doesn't exist, yet it is the basis for free trade
In a free market, both parties feel they have gained something of greater value than they gave up. Win win. No one has to lose. People who feel that someone else must lose in order for them to win make me physically sick. It's not reality, it's not healthy, and it's not anything any thinking, feeling human being has to accept.
I'm sure you don't mean to, but you come off sounding like a supporter of fascism.
Wow, you best get that knee looked at, it's jerking pretty hard there. Ask yourself this one question: how are corporations arranged, internally? Do they have multiple redundant units that compete with each other, or is a corporation arranged cooperatively?
Now consider, why do you assume that a cooperative society will not hold individuals accountable for their actions? Why do you assume that a competative society will? Does not the very nature of the corporation imply limited personal responsibility? Ambrose Beirce, in his book The Devil's Dictionary called the corporation a device for obtaining personal profit without personal responsibility, and he was right.
You are conflating competition and violence, two very different concepts. One can cooperate to use violence to protect against sociopaths and psychopaths. One frequently has to, in fact.
Modern economic research has shown that people are more motivated by feelings of reciprocity, justice and fair play than the traditional model of selfish gain. In experimental games, played in India and other less affluent countries for stakes approaching several months salary, people did not act as the "selfish actor" theory suggests. Now, when selfishness can not be punished, people may resort to acting selfish, but when it can, they naturally cooperate. Thus systems that support competition over cooperation damage us all by forcing us to choose the overall less efficient option.
Your points do not really address what I was taqlking about, but I am assuming that you were assuming I was trying to make some sort of justification for pacifism, which I was not. I admire people who's convictions lead them to that philosophy, and who's strength of character allows them to act upon those convictions in forceful and convincing ways. Ghandi and Thich Quang Duc spring to mind as two examples of people who's non-violent actions made a tremendous difference. But I am not one of them, and might act similarly to you in the situations you describe. Goblins, as you call them, are not people and do not deserve to be treated as such. The only thing mitigating this position is our human infallability and imperfect information, and thus we must act as if they are people unless absolutely convinced otherwise.
The use of violence must always be considered carefully, as the unintended consequences of such actions are very unpredictable. Violence, as they say breeds violence. Every act of violence is a justification for another act of violence, and the cycle continues. If I knew that by allowing myself to be killed, I could make a statement that lowered the overall level of violence and suffering in the world, I might do it. Might. I'm no saint. But the point remains, non violence can change the world, and has.
We will always have goblins: the sociopaths and psychopaths. We don't even know if we can afford to breed them out of the gene pool. Many of the genes for those conditions, if you don't get them all, can lead to genius and great leadership ability. So we must live with them, and be constantly vigilant of their potential for wrongdoing. I think perhaps that in a non violent society, the higher functioning sociopaths and psychopaths can be trained to emulate the faculties they lack, primarily empathy. Perhaps they can be shown that, although it does not come naturlly to them, they will be better off as cooperative members of society.
In any case, they make up less than 2% of the population, and we can not base our society around the fear of their potential. By making us more like themselves, they win, because they can play that game better than we ever can.
We are not hard-wired for violence. We are hard wired with the capacity for violence. We are also hard wired with the capacity for cooperation. Which of these hard wired strategies gets implemented is chosen in software. There is a self reinforcing element to the system as well. Cooperative societies reward cooperation and punish competition, ensuring more people run the cooperation strategy, while competative societies do just the opposite. This does make a paradigm shift difficult, but not as difficult as you make out.
Without cooperation, we would be less than ants. Cooperation is a more successful strategy, and therefore will win out over competition in the end. Given that, the end of violence is unavoidable. Sorry to rain on your pessimism parade.
The lesson here is: never strive. /sarcasm
What makes you so sure that humanity is forever destined to be violent? "Ever" is a very long time, you know.
Yes, but did you know the number of horns and hooves used in Jell-o brand gelatin has tripled in the last three months?
Hehe, yeah, although I'm not sure we'd get many potential members to, ah, actually admit they were potential members ;)
Bullshit. We never would have made it as a species if people were "naturally" cruel to each other. Look at tribal societies that have not been massively impacted by violent western culture. The kids don't even play competative games, let alone taunt or harass each other. Try reading Jean Liedloff's The Continuum Concept .
The reason this sort of "humans are naturally cruel" thinking disturbs me is that it justifies any sort of repressive behavior, in the name of "fixing" the cruelty of humans. In fact, the repressive behavior is what generates the cruelty, leading to a self perpetuating cycle.
I'm not a libertarian because I don't believe in the supremacy of private property. If I had to call myself anything, I'd call myself an anarcho-syndicalist. Control of resources should be democratic, not market based.
But yes, as an anarchist (you libertarians are just a particular kind of anarchist, like presbytarians are a kind of christianity) my argument is based on freedom and personal responsibility.
And just because pot has a particular effect on you doesn't mean it has that effect on anyone else. I suppose you didn't catch that bit about Carl Sagan smoking pot like a fricken' chimney. No one I know would have called him stupid. I suffer from depression and anxiety and pot helps me deal with that. Different strokes for different folks and all that, for instance, I hate alcohol. I think it makes people who use it stupid and obnoxious, is horribly dangerous, and expensive for society to deal with. But I wouldn't try to take away anyone's right to drink.
I'm with you about alcohol. I think it makes people act like idiotic assholes. I can't stand being around people who drink unless I'm drunk, and I don't like getting drunk, at least in part because I always have awful hangovers.
I do like pot though. I suffer from anxiety and depression, and it really helps with both. And I've never accidentally peed in someone's closet when I was high. I have actually done that while drunk.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc That is the fallacy. Everyone who uses hard drugs drank coca cola before they turned to hard drugs. Therefore, coca cola causes drug addiction. In addition, I have known many pot smokers. Most are perfectly well adjusted, stable members of society. Those who aren't, wouldn't have been even without the pot. None I know have gone on to use harder drugs.
However, if they did, wouldn't it be logical to assume, that since pot is illegal, one has to visit a criminal to procure it. Said criminal may also be in the business of supplying other drugs. One becomes exposed to these harder drugs precisely because marijuana is illegal.
Lastly, I worked at a medical marijuana club. We checked the medical records of our clients. I personally witnessed 70 year old grandmothers with cancer smoke pot for the first time in their lives and get relief that no prescription pain killer or anti nausea medication could ever have given them. Our club also helped addicts of harder drugs quit with the help of pot, so the gate swings both ways.
In short, you are quite obviously a victim of government propaganda and a large part of your self image is tied up in the "I don't do drugs, drugs are bad, m'kay?" message, so any information that threatens the legitimacy of that message threatens the legitimacy of your self image. Such information simply can not be let past your mental filters lest your whole world-view and sense of self collapse. I suggest taking it in baby steps, perhaps by trying on an idea like this: "Perhaps not all drugs are bad, and responsible people with happy lives can often do them without suffering serious harm." If you can allow yourself to make such a statement, you will be well on your way to freeing your mind from the mental conditioning that is now imprisoning you.
Studies show that nearly 100% of people who have gone on to DIE from heroin, crack and meth started drinking coke first.
This public service message brought to you by the fine people at Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
The protestant ethic says that over-indulgence is bad. Capitalism says over-indulgence is our sacred duty as consumers. We get around this paradox by arbitrarily defining some behaviors (such as sex outside of marriage, or drugs) as automatically over-indulging. Other behaviors that the original protestants might have found objectionable (such as buying too many luxury items) we define as incapable of ever being over-indulgence. So capitalism and protestantism can play nicely together, the only victims being our rights and common sense.
In the philosophy of harm reduction there is the idea of the continuum of use. Starting from non-use, there is experimental use (I've tried it to see what it's like), social use (I'll never buy it, but I'll do it if others are), casual use (I like to do it once a month, or special occasions), regular use (I use it on weekends), heavy use (I use it every day, but still manage to keep a job, have relationships, other hobbies, etc.), abuse (I use it to the detriment of other parts of my life) and addiction (I am well on my way to destroying my life with it.)
Most people move partway through the continuum and either reach a stable position somewhere in the middle, or they decide it's not for them and quit. Very few go all the way to full blown addiction, and many who do will still, of their own accord, come partway or all the way back. This is the reality of drug use. The myth that anyone who takes one puff of pot will automatically become a degenerate crackhead is just that, a myth.
Wow, you have just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about economics. Let's review: supply and demand. If demand stays the same but supply goes down (due to, let's say, police seizing your product) then price goes up. Plus, illegality is a huge barrier to entry for some business people. If it weren't illegal, more suppliers would exist, competition would increase and the price would go down. I suggest taking econ 101 again, and this time don't smoke so much pot before class.
Here's another interesting idea: in jobs that require concentration and alertness, how about we test for reaction time? I saw a little device, basically a small LCD display with a joystick attached. The screen shows a dot which randomly swerves left or right, and you use the joystick to keep it centered. Such a device tests for actual impairment, so it will also catch the people who (for instance) have sleep issues and shouldn't be driving a truck.
You are wrong about cannabis impairing driving. It also doesn't make you stupid. I suppose you think Carl Sagan is stupid? I agree that all drugs should be used in moderation. Cocaine is not the horrific drug that people make it out to be, and can eb used responsibly by many people. Heroin is dangerous, but as I stated elsewhere, I have met functional 60 year old heroin addicts. Crack is just cocaine with a slightly faster delivery method. LSD is only dangerous if used in an improper setting, or with an improper mindset. Ecstatsy was used as a psychotherapeutic drug for years. It is a methamphetamine, and can lead to depression, but almost all cases of death due to ecstasy are actually due to dehydration, due to the fact that it plays havoc on your bodies temperature controls. Meth is dangerous, no doubt about it.
I have seen what they do to people. Some people are prone to addictive behaviors. If not drugs, then food, sex, gambling, what-have-you. Those people would find something to ruin their lives with anyway. As a libertarian, I'm sure you can see how people who use drugs responsibly don't like to be punished for the actions of a small minority. I educate myself on the physical and psychological properties of any substance I ingest, and I can honestly say that for most people, most drugs are not nearly as bad as society makes them out to be. And that disjunct between drug myth and drug reality makes many people question the dangers of even truely dangerous drugs like meth.
Marijuana also took away drug company profits. Prior to the tax act, all major pharmaceutical companies carried cannabis products in their catalog, and every doctor in America knew what to prescribe it for. Americans did not connect the "cannabis" that their doctors prescribed for their back pains and nausea with the dread "marijuana" the evil mexicans were smoking. Cannabis was a commodity drug, though, and good for so many things that drug companies knew it would kill the profits on their new patent medicines if they didn't kill it first.
Add to that the leftover police apparatus from prohibition. Thousands of government bureaucrats might have lost their jobs if they couldn't justify their existence. Marijuana was, for them, the perfect replacement for alcohol.
No, just an idiot. Guess I deserve a troll mod for that.