| | | But under that assumption, he can then claim that marijuana leads to violence only because it is illegal.
You don't need that assumption. It pretty much does lead to violence only because its illegal. Sure even if it was legal some people might fight over it, or act stupid because of it leading to violence, but other people would be less violent because of its direct effects. If it was legal the change in violence because of the drug (as opposed to a counterfactual scenario where it didn't exist) is likely to be low, and would most likely be a reduction. The change in violence from making it legal would clearly be negative (as in a reduction, not as in "a bad thing").
So if we just extend that "logic" to kidnapping, of which the vast majority are the result of domestic disputes and (from a certain perspective) have no impact on public safety.
Nice bait and switch there. You go from violence when talking about the drug to public safety when talking about kidnapping. Abduction is often itself directly violent, or at least occurs with intimidation and threats of threats of violence. Also if you make kidnapping legal, then more non-domestic kidnapping would occur. Domestic situations might be muddy, but if kidnapping because of them were legal you might see more dueling abduction attempts, or violence to perpetrate or prevent such attempts.
we can then conclude that kidnapping only leads to violence only because it is illegal.
No you can't because abduction is itself violence, and also often involves violence, and if legal would still be resisted possibly involving violence on both sides.. Taking a drug is not a violent act and if legal is very unlikely to result in violence, esp. a relatively mild drug like pot. |
|
