Marijuana: Legalization vs Decriminalization

Here's a recent [12/15/08] Q & A copied from Obama's "change.gov" site/blog:

Q: "Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?" S. Man, Denton

A: President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.

This discussion was closed, so I couldn't ask if P-EO would favor "decriminalization." The L and the D of marijuana are very different.

As suggested by the Q, L would entail many and various changes and accommodations while greatly assisting the federal budget. It would also be severely contentious.

D would entail far far less, and be far less politically explosive. It would only entail not penalizing persons for personal use and cultivation (for adults) -- period! And the justification seems obvious: it's called no harm, no foul in sports. John Stuart Mill referred to it in the context of his "Harm Principle." There is a moral standard here -- thou shalt not penalize anyone who acts in such a way as to bring harm or the possibility of harm upon no one but oneself. [The Eleventh Commandment??]

This would bring NO public outrage whatsoever! Sure, there would be some who think this would be a big step along the way toward legalization.

So be it!

The Bad Argument for Torture -- Again!!

What IS the "bad argument for torture"?

Good question -- glad you asked.

You all already know what it is. It's the only argument torture advocates [TA's] use to make their case, and it's so obviously "bad" [a fallacy, in philosophy-speak] that I'm amazed TA's still use it. [See one of my earlier blogs.]

Here it is, in case you need a refresher:

If you knew for sure [and this is the key point] that you could extract crucial information from a particular person that would save lives, prevent a catastrophe, end genocide, etc, etc, etc. by torturing this person, wouldn't you gladly do it?

Well, what's wrong with this argument, you say?

Another good question -- glad you asked.

What's wrong with it is that it's perfect!!!!

What?

That's right....IT'S PERFECT!

How can this be, you wonder?

....glad you asked!

Here it is schematized as logicians are wont to do:

P: Person X has information that would prevent event E from happening.
P: Person can be persuaded to give up this information only by means of torture.
P: It is highly desirable to prevent E from happening.
C: Therefore Person X should be tortured.

PERFECT!

And by "perfect" I mean that given the premises, the conclusion must follow with absolute certainty -- and it does!!

That's precisely the problem! NO moral argument is capable of doing this. If it were, then there would be no moral disputes whatsoever. And the last time I checked....this is not the case. All moral arguments allege that something is good or right or obligatory based on more general moral principles -- which are almost always in dispute. But more important, there is nothing in a moral argument that can assert factual certainty....because there is no such thing as factual certainty -- about anything -- factual claims are only more or less probable....never certain!!

To put it in philosophy-speak, this argument is actually inductive [leading to a conclusion that is more or less probable] in nature, but it pretends to be deductive [leading to a conclusion that is absolutely certain].

The second premise about is a factual claim -- and therefore only more or less probable. But it is used as if it were logically certain, like "all dogs are animals."

Again in philosophy-speak, THE ARGUMENT IS CIRCULAR! IT BEGS THE QUESTION! IT'S FALLACIOUS!

So, TA's now that you are enlightened, will you stop being so STUPID! [See one of my earlier blogs on "stupidity"!] If this is your only argument, and it is, then there is NO reason to torture whatsoever!

O.J...Guilty...???

"Say it ain't so, Joe!"

What in the hell are we going to do now.....?? O.J. in jail for a felony -- is there nothing holy?

Who could possibly believe that this "paragon of virtue" [He has devoted his life to finding the "real" killer of Nicole and Ron, right?!] has intentionally injured, or threatened to injure, anyone?!

Well, I know 12 jurors [from so long ago] who wouldn't have convicted him on these trumped-up charges -- they are still walking around and breathing and, no doubt, outraged?!

Right??

Awwwwwww....I'm only kidding. Those 12 jurors from so long ago....KNEW he killed N and R....sure they did...that's WHY they declared him "not guilty"! THEY DID IT INTENTIONALLY. After all, NO one could be STUPID enough to think he was innocent!!

NO ONE!

That's right...absolutely EVERYONE on the planet who even rarely followed that infamous trial KNEW he did it...and they still do!

So did this jury in Las Vegas!

Did they vote "pay-back" this time?

Probably...

Do I care???

Hmmm....good question...glad you asked!