Bid to legalize pot is counter to U.S. trend

I'd like to see it legalized myself but it won't happen because the government wants the authority to control people and they have an easy excuse because pot smokers tend to be non-productive and anti-social. About half of all crime is drug-related so it gives government the excuse to have more employees (cops, prosecutors and judges) and to further control the population. Your typical government administrator wants growth in his sector which means bigger budgets and more employees and a better chance to score a higher position. Since they have passed confiscation laws for drug criminals they have adequate funding to provide these dis-services.

There is basically very little incentive for the government to legalize drugs and every incentive for them to keep them illegal.
 
It would be the biggest boom to the economy EVER.
Billions in tax revenues directly
Billions in tax revenues from all the minorities ya'll love to jail for gods herb.
 
I think it's incorrect to say this runs against the trend in this country.

Not too long ago it was unthinkable to even vote on this kind of thing, and now if this measure doesn't pass, it will at least be very, very competitive with the forces that vote no.

On this issue, despite the best efforts of the old guard, the direction of the people in this country is toward reform, not toward more government.
 
Look at the last legislative year. The trend is for more government control, less government accountability and less freedom for individuals.
 
Southern Man said:
We're not talking cancer patients but the population as a whole. Again, what benefit does pot give the average consumer in low doses? And what constitutes a low dose? Are you going to assert that folks light up a bone, take a small hit then put it out until the next day?

In contrast it is quite common for folks to crack open a beer when they get home from work, or pour a glass of wine to enjoy with dinner, or have a "night cap" with a jigger of scotch.

Lets face it, dopers smoke to get stoned, then sit around for a few hours and eat junk food. That's why they tend to be non-productive members of society as well as anti-social, and I give you Topstool as a good example.
Click to expand...

Are you going to try and claim cancer patients AREN'T a part of the population as a whole? Don't their needs count in your book?

Pot reduces stress. It is an anti-nauseant. And most importantly, pot has NEVER killed one single person who used it.

How many deaths has alcohol caused in just the last 100 years alone? Or maybe the past decade? And you're not really going to try and claim that someone who has consumed a 12 pack of beer is an energetic, industrious workhorse, are you? Drunks are just as likely to be non-productive members of society as pot smokers.

And don't forget, there isn't a thread on this site devoted to peoples' favorite food for the pot munchies, but there is a discussion going on about what makes the best DRUNK FOOD.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Are you going to try and claim cancer patients AREN'T a part of the population as a whole? Don't their needs count in your book?

Pot reduces stress. It is an anti-nauseant. And most importantly, pot has NEVER killed one single person who used it.

How many deaths has alcohol caused in just the last 100 years alone? Or maybe the past decade? And you're not really going to try and claim that someone who has consumed a 12 pack of beer is an energetic, industrious workhorse, are you? Drunks are just as likely to be non-productive members of society as pot smokers.

And don't forget, there isn't a thread on this site devoted to peoples' favorite food for the pot munchies, but there is a discussion going on about what makes the best DRUNK FOOD.
Click to expand...

Lot of straw men there; too many to comment.
 
Jarod said:
Generally speaking Conservatives are more likely to want marijuana illegal than Liberals.
Click to expand...


wrong
I'm the biggest pothead on this site.

Most of the people I'm spoken to about this subject that fall on the prohibition side of the argument have simply ignored the point about legitimate dealers (via legalization) vs illegal dealers and the specific elimination of the dangerous element created by prohibition's artificial shortening of supply which thereby increases profit margins to levels that attract criminal elements.

Prohibition creates the monster it purports to fight
 
Southern Man said:
Lot of straw men there; too many to comment.
Click to expand...

The Southern "Man" cuts and runs again...

So you can't refute my points...just as I thought.

Keep that mind closed and those blinders on, it makes your arguments that much easier to discredit.
 
Last edited:
tinfoil said:
wrong
I'm the biggest pothead on this site.

Most of the people I'm spoken to about this subject that fall on the prohibition side of the argument have simply ignored the point about legitimate dealers (via legalization) vs illegal dealers and the specific elimination of the dangerous element created by prohibition's artificial shortening of supply which thereby increases profit margins to levels that attract criminal elements.

Prohibition creates the monster it purports to fight
Click to expand...

wish we had more repubs like you, freak, cawacko but I've never seen a poll that had repubs higher than liberals on leagalization. And I've seen dozens.
 
Let's see what the verse says:

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

(in the old Hebrew it actually says "for meat")

It continues to say:

30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
 
some who can't smoke use brownies.
So he gave us all seed bearing plants, but it's ok for politicians to take them away. OK got it.
 
Topspin said:
it doesn't in fact the bible says god gave us all seed bearing herbs. Genisis 1:29
Click to expand...
Here is what the Bible says about altering your mind...

1 Peter 5:8-9 (King James Version)

8Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

9Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
The Southern "Man" cuts and runs again...

So you can't refute my points...just as I thought.

Keep that mind closed and those blinders on, it makes your arguments that much easier to discredit.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I just refuse to argue an argument that isn't mine. Don't you know what a straw man is?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Yeah, a "strawman" is the excuse you keep using to duck responding to the points I made.
Click to expand...
Apparently you don't know what a straw man is. It is a logical fallacy; your caricature of my argument because you are afraid to address my actual argument.
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.

In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Lot of straw men there; too many to comment.
Click to expand...

Toppy and I show how beneficial pot is to cancer patients and immediately you don't want to talk about them anymore...okay.

You ask what the benefits are to the population in general, I tell you and you won't respond.

You make baseless assertions I which I point out are just that and immediately you don't want to talk about them anymore...okay.

Then you set up a couple strawmen of your own, but refuse to discuss my points...you ran AWAY.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Toppy and I show how beneficial pot is to cancer patients and immediately you don't want to talk about them anymore...okay.

You ask what the benefits are to the population in general, I tell you and you won't respond.

You make baseless assertions I which I point out are just that and immediately you don't want to talk about them anymore...okay.

Then you set up a couple strawmen of your own, but refuse to discuss my points...you ran AWAY.
Click to expand...
Since you have your pink panties in a wad over this I'll explain your first logical fallacy in some detail.

I wrote: "We're not talking cancer patients but the population as a whole." Obviously I am talking about the population that does not suffer from cancer.

And you turn this into: "Are you going to try and claim cancer patients AREN'T a part of the population as a whole?" Your caricature of my argument is that I am trying to claim that cancer patients aren't part of the population.

Your caricature of my argument is silly, and totally unrelated to the point that I had made: a classic straw man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top