Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: January 18 2011 at 14:07
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Wait what? Why are people buying alcohol that is 100% poisonous?
Yes, because it's cheap, it won0't kill you in days, probably in weeks, maybe months. [/quote]
Sorry I've never heard of this stuff. Are you talking about moonshine, a close to pure alcoholic beverage?
Ivan wrote:
The responsible producers, the product has a cost if it's done the rights way
Why don't other producers just produce it legally at a reduced cost? There must be some legal mechanism stopping this or the situation would never occur.
Ivan wrote:
They sell a product with similar taste but distilled using dangerous substitutes to the real product, they accelerate the distillation with sugar and add Methyl alcohol to even make it faster and cheaper
But you don't have a problem, sell it freely, every person has the right to buy what they want even if it's going to kill them.
Iván
Well yes people should have that right. And they pretty much do. They can buy lots of things that will kill them.
If someone is selling a dangerous product there's legal ramifications of that outside of specific drug laws. How is this conversation at this point even related to the issue?
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Posted: January 18 2011 at 14:19
At least here in Pennsylvania I know all alcohol related laws were made with paramount importance placed on the safety of our citizens. Of course there is no chance they could be the result of sweetheart deals and government and union corruption.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: January 18 2011 at 15:05
Padraic wrote:
At least here in Pennsylvania I know all alcohol related laws were made with paramount importance placed on the safety of our citizens. Of course there is no chance they could be the result of sweetheart deals and government and union corruption.
Yeah government licensing never becomes a corrupt and politicized means of restricting competition and favoring the well connected.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: January 18 2011 at 15:19
Padraic wrote:
I don't know the law regarding Absinthe. Your link claimed it was illegal to manufacture or sell it in the US, and that it was not illegal to possess it. If that's true, I should be able to purchase it overseas. If it's not true, then the link misrepresented the law. Either way, I don't really care.
Read more carefully, everything I posted about Absinthe comes from that link
Those laws are exactly in the page of Beers and Wines you are talking about.
In that link you talk about says clearly that you can't purchase it from outside USA unless it's not for human use, so they teach you a way to avoid the law lying
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Posted: January 18 2011 at 15:24
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Padraic wrote:
I don't know the law regarding Absinthe. Your link claimed it was illegal to manufacture or sell it in the US, and that it was not illegal to possess it. If that's true, I should be able to purchase it overseas. If it's not true, then the link misrepresented the law. Either way, I don't really care.
Read more carefully, everything I posted about Absinthe comes from that link
Those laws are exactly in the page of Beers and Wines you are talking about.
In that link you talk about says clearly that you can't purchase it from outside USA unless it's not for human use, so they teach you a way to avoid the law lying
Iván
This particular point is really moot; see the Wiki entry I posted later.
I'm not even sure what your point was, to be honest. A website points out a way to circumvent a law. What of it?
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: January 18 2011 at 15:27
The T wrote:
Ivan, a conservative lawyer, will rarely see anything from a liberty point of view. The rule of law is everything and I really think the debate between Pat and him is pointless. He privileges safety, even if rights have to be curbed, decided by someone different than the person. He sees this as safer for society. Ivan seems to prefer a world with strict rules that assure safety, not actual safety, but the idea of safety. I don't think, Ivan, you could ever see things from a pure liberty point of view? It's ok. Just don't pretend people always see things your way. I'm sure you are also an advocate for some forms of censorship?
By the way, why is this obsession with "don't teach me law" exist?
1.- I believe in liberty, but with rules, no liberty can be absolute.
2.- Rights don't have to be curbed, if the law says it's illegal, then it's illegal.
3.- I don't pretend people see the things my way, I just give my point of view and defend it. I wrote my first post in page 24 with my position, THE NEXT SEVEN POSTS WERE A CRITICISM TO MY OPINION AND WHY I WAS WRONG.
In those 7 posts they talked about alcohol, central Government, etc, before I said anything
Who is pretending people to see the things the way they want?
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 18 2011 at 16:11
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: January 18 2011 at 16:08
1. Of course. You're stating it yourself Ivan. With rules, no liberty can be absolute. Who's arguing that? What's being questioned are the rules themselves and whether they should even exist, not that, obviously, liberty is restrained by them.
2. So if a new law said that stealing was legal, would that be enough not to punish thieves? Or if a law made it illegal to eat lettuce, we should punish whoever who eats it? Laws are set by the dominant class. They don't represent everybody. They represent a few dozen people really.
3. Ok. Fair enough. But you should stop the "don't teach me laws" thing. That you are a lawyer, and maybe a good one at that, doesn't mean you're always right, not even in legal matters which mean much more than the dead text of the law.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: January 18 2011 at 16:24
The T wrote:
1. Of course. You're stating it yourself Ivan. With rules, no liberty can be absolute. Who's arguing that? What's being questioned are the rules themselves and whether they should even exist, not that, obviously, liberty is restrained by them.
Sorry, that was a missing comma, should had said:
I believe in liberty but with rules, no liberty can be absolute.
In other words,there must be rules because no liberty can be absolute.
The T wrote:
2. So if a new law said that stealing was legal, would that be enough not to punish thieves? Or if a law made it illegal to eat lettuce, we should punish whoever who eats it? Laws are set by the dominant class. They don't represent everybody. They represent a few dozen people really.
No law can say stealing is legal, because there's a Constitution and international treaties, but if a Government created that law, no thief could be sent to prison
Now, there is something called civil disobedience, but has it's risks.
The T wrote:
3. Ok. Fair enough. But you should stop the "don't teach me laws" thing. That you are a lawyer, and maybe a good one at that, doesn't mean you're always right, not even in legal matters which mean much more than the dead text of the law.
But it's true, I won't dare to teach a chemist about chemistry (I never learned the elements table ), he knows much more than me, but seems that each time I give a legal opinion contrary to what somebody would love the law to be, they usually contradict me in a harsh way in a field in which I'm an expert, even if they don't have a clue about what they are talking about.
Joined: November 02 2010
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 101
Posted: January 18 2011 at 16:48
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
But it's true, I won't dare to teach a chemist about chemistry (I never learned the elements table ), he knows much more than me, but seems that each time I give a legal opinion contrary to what somebody would love the law to be, they usually contradict me in a harsh way in a field in which I'm an expert, even if they don't have a clue about what they are talking about.
Iván
That's because the law is malleable. This is about what the law should be, not about what it is. The fact that you're a lawyer probably makes you an expert in what the law is but, since law is not as exact a science as chemistry, different opinions exist about what the law should be and whether there should be laws at all.
This is partly a philosophical question, I think, and not just a legal one. In fact, I would argue that it is more philosophical, as philosophy precedes law; and what is occurring here is a clash in philosophies. This puts everyone, theoretically, on level ground depending on how familiar they are with their own premises and conclusions. While your insight on the law is useful and beneficial, it can never be the be-all end-all of this conversation.
Should marijuana be legalized? As I have said before, it absolutely should, because government intervention in private matters that do not affect third parties or only tangentially affect third parties is almost always unjustifiable. That is a philosophical answer to a theoretical question. You can't answer a should with an is.
EDIT: Or in Hume's words, you can't derive an ought from an is. That applies very well to this case.
EDIT 2: Do I endorse Hume's view? Not completely; I'm a moral realist. But it's useful for tightly-wound philosophical analyses, which this is. The transition from is to ought seems nonexistent in Ivan's case.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: January 18 2011 at 17:27
Hanyou wrote:
That's because the law is malleable. This is about what the law should be, not about what it is. The fact that you're a lawyer probably makes you an expert in what the law is but, since law is not as exact a science as chemistry, different opinions exist about what the law should be and whether there should be laws at all.
This is partly a philosophical question, I think, and not just a legal one. In fact, I would argue that it is more philosophical, as philosophy precedes law; and what is occurring here is a clash in philosophies. This puts everyone, theoretically, on level ground depending on how familiar they are with their own premises and conclusions. While your insight on the law is useful and beneficial, it can never be the be-all end-all of this conversation.
Should marijuana be legalized? As I have said before, it absolutely should, because government intervention in private matters that do not affect third parties or only tangentially affect third parties is almost always unjustifiable. That is a philosophical answer to a theoretical question. You can't answer a should with an is.
EDIT: Or in Hume's words, you can't derive an ought from an is. That applies very well to this case.
EDIT 2: Do I endorse Hume's view? Not completely; I'm a moral realist. But it's useful for tightly-wound philosophical analyses, which this is. The transition from is to ought seems nonexistent in Ivan's case.
Please understand me, there's not a legal reason why marihuana should be legal or illegal, that's a legislative choice and nothing more.
The reasons why I'm against legalization of marihuana, is because I seen it's consequences and from very near. But if somebody tries to talk me about legal arguments, that's my field.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: January 18 2011 at 17:28
^Exactly. Ivan, you know a lot about law. But law is man-made, so man can alter it, make a flawed one, or eliminate it at will... Physics laws are something else. Even market laws are something else. They just.... are. But societal laws are man-made, and even if you're an expert in what it says and in the processes to use it, you're no more of an expert than any other person in deciding whether it is just or no or whether it should even exist or not...
Many of the people who enforce the marijuana laws in America are also "experts", but how quick will these "experts" backpedal if it were their children being locked up in prisons. It is wrong to put someone in prison for a victimless crime. To ruin a life for such a thing is , in my mind, the real crime. Let's face it america there is something deeper going on and you can bet the "experts" are making a buck off of it. I do not care how it goes down in Peru. In america it is shameful and backwards thinking.
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
Posted: January 18 2011 at 19:33
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Proletariat wrote:
I think the biggest argument against (or for) Ivan is not based on high minded concepts but on the simple facts that in the United States the trend is moving twards legalization and the areas that have already made Marijuana more accessable have not yet fallen into turmoil.
My argument is that in my opinion Marihuana is absolutely dangerous, I seen some extreme cases, I'm more concerned about the health of the people than in the personal rights to get high.
Now, don't tell me I'm guessing, I also been young and in my surfer days I used to smoke good amounts of Pot, but I saw how some friends ended after starting with Pot, following with Cocaine and ending with PVC (The coccaine of those who can't pay the real one).
Of course the excuse will be that there are worst things that are legal, but that's not an excuse, having somnething hazardous doesn't imply we must add more dangers-
Proletariat wrote:
IHowever the United States is obviously not Ivans native Peru and the two countries dont really have that much in common. As Ivan has pointed out Peru has been through military dictatorships and civil unrest, like many Latin American countries and perhaps because of this, or Peruvian society, or Culture, or socioeconomic trends (none of which I know much about) Peru may not be in the same position as the USA and political comparisons or arguments based on life experiances in one location are a waste of time.
Please,. in Perú is almost legal, Cocaine costs 3 dollars the gram (I remember a WWF wrestler who came here and bought US$ 50 bucks of cocaine and was dead after the first 5 minutes because it was a the size of a small brick and 99% pure), and marihuana costs cents, the police is so inefficient and corrupt that you would have to be absolutely unlucky to be captured and don't have 5 bucks in the pocket to pay the policeman.
When I was a kid is was extremely dangerous to use drugs with a military Government and you could end in State Security, and the use of illegal drugs was extremely low compared with today, so hard rules work sometimes.
So don't tell me strong prohibitions don't work.
Iván
BTW: We are not a Banana Republic, we have Constitutional Presidents since 1980 and we got rid of terrorism (without help of anybody) in 1992, we have a lot in common (at least in Lima), but is true that in the near past we had more experiences than you had, but today, Lima is a little USA.
Well in the United States we are able to easily controll many legal products, for the most part. Also legalizing marijuana would destroy the link between pot and coke because they will not be sold at the same place. Regardless of all that however my country has a lot of farm land and farmers who are struggling and marijuana grows in their fields as a weed. It would be an economically sound decision to allow them to grow and sell the plant.
I did not mean to insult your country or imply it is a "banana republic" I simply meant to say that as much as it may be copying the USA it perhaps shouldn't as the government of one nation need not be a model for another. If your country did follow the US lead and legalize marijuana it may poorly effect your nation. As a US citizen and anti-colonialist I support its legalization in the US for the economy and put that first before Peru or Mexico or Canada or Brazil or Europe.
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: January 18 2011 at 21:07
timothy leary wrote:
Many of the people who enforce the marijuana laws in America are also "experts", but how quick will these "experts" backpedal if it were their children being locked up in prisons. It is wrong to put someone in prison for a victimless crime. To ruin a life for such a thing is , in my mind, the real crime. Let's face it america there is something deeper going on and you can bet the "experts" are making a buck off of it. I do not care how it goes down in Peru. In america it is shameful and backwards thinking.
It would be absurd to criminalize the consumer, at least here the consumer is not a criminal.
BTW: I know most USA citizens don't care how things go down here in Latin America.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: January 18 2011 at 22:03
^As most south Americans don't care how it goes here in the US Ivan... Yes, they see it all time in the news, with morbid satisfaction when something bad happens, and yes, they know all about American celebrities... But do you really think they give two damns about what happens to the American people and abot its well being? Not.One.Bit.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.240 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Should marijuana be legalized?
Topic Options
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
