legalization of cannabis and hemp

"First i would like to ask you something. Are you saying that the government has the right to intervene in everyone's day to day lives using your rationale that they could be doing something detrimental to society or themselves?" If these actions cause a net negative effect on society, and the remedy to these actions can be demonstrated to have a net positive effect on society, then the government should have this right. "I feel i should go to the government now and request to begin a new agency, call it the Central Goodness Agency. Task said agents to violate the peoples constitutional rights on the grounds that they deem certain acts harmful to them and to be intervening in their best interest, be able to take away tv, all unhealthy food in the establishment, confiscate anything that can be used in any bad way." My opponent misconstrues my argument as one that will take away anything that can be used in a bad way. This is not true. I would not argue that firearms should be blanket banned or confiscated, because there is compelling evidence that firearms deter crime from happening in many states. However, if it could be convincingly demonstrated that this was not in fact true, and that confiscating firearms would not within itself result in a larger problem than the solution set out to correct, then I would be in favor of banning firearms. My argument is one of pure pragmatism, not blind statism. My opponent goes on to point out several fictional stories emphasizing the evil of government. I am not sure why he does this. I can just as easily point out the films Gabriel Over the White House and Men in Black. "The same people you declare as incapable of making proper decisions are still doing so despite the restrictions of the godfigure who says he knows better for you." But they do it less than if it was legal. The Netherlands is a prime example of this, like I stated before. Use nearly tripled among the youth. "What you are suggesting is a complete revamp of our constitutional rights which our forefathers found to be self evident and the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of all people." I'm glad you're finally catching on. "Also, saying that the "tangible negative effects of legalization" outweigh our constitutional liberties and freedoms means that you must have conducted several studies of controlled civilizations and you know that if it were legalized that it would be outrageously bad on society and therefore should remain illegal." Constitutional rights and freedoms have no value in a purely logical assessment of the situation. Like I mentioned before, any attempt to justify an apparently "self evident" freedom draws upon an appeal to authority or false premise. The fact that something is in the Constitution or espoused by the founding fathers does not give it any intrinsic utilitarian value. Furthermore, the term "outrageously bad" is subjective, and I do not claim this to be the case. My assessment of the situation is the result of a very simple set of premises. 1. Cannabis is an abusable drug that can cause harm to society. 2. Prohibition of cannabis causes fewer people to use it. 3. Therefore, cannabis should remain illegal. "So how does one deduce when a freedom contributes to the well being and health of society? And how are we to take each case and judge it to be beneficial and good?" Through scientific and logical assessments of each individual situation without using logical fallacies such as civil liberties or God given rights. For example, one can hardly argue that the freedom to espouse Holocaust denial and hatred for minorities is beneficial for society, and as a result many countries have banned both of these things. However, freedom to express one's political opinion of, say, a presidential candidate is of the utmost value to a healthy society. "People are naturally inclined to cause themselves pain and suffering." Which is why we need to protect them from themselves. Is it not cruel to allow a mentally ill person to mutilate themselves? Is it then not cruel to fail to prevent people from participating in potentially self destructive behavior? Is there even a difference? "You close by saying that freedom can only bring pain and suffering. So what did we have before democracy? Did we fight for our independence on a false notion that we were right and should be free?" I would like my opponent to take a step back and realize the irony of this statement. Democracy is a far cry from freedom. Democracy allows for the majority to enact tyranny over the minority. We flirted with the concept of extreme freedoms under the Articles of Confederations, which failed miserably. Furthermore, I did not state that freedom brings only suffering. Freedom entails the ability to choose. This implies that in most cases, there will be a right choice, and a wrong choice. In some cases, this is a necessary function in that the benefits of having freedom of choice outweigh the negatives. Drug abuse is not such a scenario. "but i do know that why it is illegal today is not based on truth, and it needs to be adjusted." Cannabis was originally banned because of racist fears against Mexicans. We have already adjusted our reasoning as to why it is to remain illegal to be that it causes harm to society. While the levels of danger are not entirely well agreed upon, you do not dispute that danger exists, and you do not dispute that prohibition works. In summary, we both agree that prohibition inhibits the harms caused by cannabis on society. Your entire argument rests on the premise that there is some type of reasoning that transcends logic for which cannabis should be legalized.