Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 
Klipspringer
2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  #825829 27-May-2013 08:58
Send private message

plod:
GBristow: And now Dunne's new law is going to make drugs a priori illegal. They must be proven non-harmful before they can be scheduled. Yet he makes explicit exceptions for tobacco and alcohol and makes absolutely no explanation for this. It's hypocritical. If legality is based on harm then such laws should be applied to all drugs. Marijuana and MDMA is by far least harmful.
just wait till some smart person has the money to prove pot is not harmful.


No matter how rich that person is it will be a time/money waster, you talking about proving the evidence of absence

The only proof that is really needed is proving it harmful. And that's been done already.







JimmyH
2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554


  #826532 27-May-2013 18:07
Send private message

Klipspringer:

No matter how rich that person is it will be a time/money waster, you talking about proving the evidence of absence

The only proof that is really needed is proving it harmful. And that's been done already.



That's not the issue. No one is arguing that it isn't harmful (except, arguably, for people on chemotherapy where it is potentially beneficial). The issue is whether the harm is sufficient to justify using the full force of the law to criminalise it, and whether the harm through having it illegal is greater or less than the harm that would result if it were legal.

You need to weigh up all the elements:
- likely impact on consumption
- how socially corrosive is having it illegal (keeping the gangs in business, tens of thousands of fairly innocuous people getting criminal records etc)
- tax foregone
- costs to the criminal system (courts, police, prisons)
- whether it's something that adults should be able to make up their own minds about
- anything else relevant

Then come to an "on balance" view after weighing up all the pluses and minuses. Simply saying "ban and jail" for anything that can be shown to cause harm/risk, without looking at context and overall ramifications, is silly. Otherwise you would have to ban a long list of things - wine, beer, motorbikes, mountain climbing, rugby, coffee, hamburgers, barbecues, scuba diving, tobacco, helicopters, boxing ...........

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic








Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.