The Cellar - View Single Post

Xugumad · 02-04-2002, 06:41 AM

[dhamsaic]
> The fact of the matter is, however, if drugs were legal, there
> indeed would be no illegal drug profits... and the same is true
> with any other crime.

In US society, which is dominated by the profit aspect, making a case for improving society through monetary gains is often the only argument that will cut it. (apart from moral reasoning based on religious principles)

[dhamsaic]
> Instead of making an argument on semantics, I think we should
> present facts as to why drugs should be legalized

Undertoad's argument wasn't semantic. A semantic argument is based on proving that your opponent's use of language was in fact proving your argument, not his, i.e. you are showing that from a language point of view, your argument is more persuasive.
He was merely polemical, but his claim was reasonably accurate. There was little sophistry there.

As for 'facts as to why', since US society is biased against what is broadly labelled 'drugs' through emotional, rather than logical reasons, it's almost hopeless to hope that facts will change the political and social landscape. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of people will die from alcohol and tobacco related diseases or accidents.

> such as, for example, the fact that tax payer dollars could go
> toward more worthy causes (education, etc), less money would
> be required to run the prisons in the country (less inmates
> there on stupid charges), and we would virtually eliminate the
> druglords.

That's exactly the 'money' argument Tony was using, although he was emphasizing the fact that no money would go to illegal sources. Taxed properly, a lot of money from marijuana trade would be made by the government. (a *LOT*)

> This isn't a war we're going to win with semantics.

Precisely.

> It's one we're going to win with logic

As I said - since domestic policy is widely based on modulating the public's emotions, not factual senses, this isn't going to work. People react instinctively and violently when they are emotionally manipulated by certain stimuli, and the way the major parties have used the 'war on drugs' to give themselves a 'law and order' image to 'protect the children' and 'reduce crime', which is a fairly obvious ploy to sensationalize the drug issue to create fear and uncertainty.

Whatever happened to the pursuit of happiness, exactly?

X.

02-04-2002, 06:41 AM	#10
Xugumad Punisher of Good Deeds Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 183	[dhamsaic] > The fact of the matter is, however, if drugs were legal, there > indeed would be no illegal drug profits... and the same is true > with any other crime. In US society, which is dominated by the profit aspect, making a case for improving society through monetary gains is often the only argument that will cut it. (apart from moral reasoning based on religious principles) [dhamsaic] > Instead of making an argument on semantics, I think we should > present facts as to why drugs should be legalized Undertoad's argument wasn't semantic. A semantic argument is based on proving that your opponent's use of language was in fact proving your argument, not his, i.e. you are showing that from a language point of view, your argument is more persuasive. He was merely polemical, but his claim was reasonably accurate. There was little sophistry there. As for 'facts as to why', since US society is biased against what is broadly labelled 'drugs' through emotional, rather than logical reasons, it's almost hopeless to hope that facts will change the political and social landscape. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of people will die from alcohol and tobacco related diseases or accidents. > such as, for example, the fact that tax payer dollars could go > toward more worthy causes (education, etc), less money would > be required to run the prisons in the country (less inmates > there on stupid charges), and we would virtually eliminate the > druglords. That's exactly the 'money' argument Tony was using, although he was emphasizing the fact that no money would go to illegal sources. Taxed properly, a lot of money from marijuana trade would be made by the government. (a LOT) > This isn't a war we're going to win with semantics. Precisely. > It's one we're going to win with logic As I said - since domestic policy is widely based on modulating the public's emotions, not factual senses, this isn't going to work. People react instinctively and violently when they are emotionally manipulated by certain stimuli, and the way the major parties have used the 'war on drugs' to give themselves a 'law and order' image to 'protect the children' and 'reduce crime', which is a fairly obvious ploy to sensationalize the drug issue to create fear and uncertainty. Whatever happened to the pursuit of happiness, exactly? X. Last edited by Xugumad; 02-04-2002 at 07:13 AM.