Post: #26

(09-06-2016 09:11 AM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  Comparing alcohol prohibition to the ban on illicit drugs is flawed logic. This argument has been soundly defeated.

Not at all. I might concede if alcohol & tobacco were at the bottom of the harm scale, but since they sit in the middle, it's a firm argument that you haven't addressed.

Illicit just means "forbidden", and when we mean "drugs" we mean "any psychoactive substance taken for entertainment". Alcohol qualifies, just as LSD, weed, or coke does.



Before I bother addressing the other items, should we also ban tobacco and alcohol or not?

Post: #27

Tobacco has been around for over 6000 years. Alcohol has been around for 10,000 years.

Post: #28

And?

Post: #29

(09-06-2016 10:29 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Alcohol was discovered 10,000 years ago. Tobacco was first discovered by the native peoples of Mesoamerica and South America. Since I've already commented on this area, you can predict my answer to your question.

Also, dodging a question to ask an irrelevant question that you already know the answer to is weak sauce. It also plays right into my perception that drug promoters have poor impulse control and don't care about the community.

So I'll ask again, "How many drug addicted 12 year olds is acceptable, just so you can get high?"

(09-06-2016 10:35 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Tobacco has been around for over 6000 years. Alcohol has been around for 10,000 years.

There is evidence of inhalation of cannabis smoke from the 3rd millennium BCE, namely charred cannabis seeds found in a ritual brazier at an ancient burial site in present-day Romania. [citation: Rudgley, Richard (1998). Lost Civilisations of the Stone Age. New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-684-85580-1.]

To answer your question as someone who consumed cannabis at a young age, infinity as marijuana has no impact on the out come of development of a person.

You've also devolved your argument into personal insults. I've been avoiding mocking your character, but you're a piss-poor debater MMX. Your points are just poor analogies and insults of character. At least Ghost Tiger avoids mocking one's character and gives valid points to defend his thesis. Yours is just a joke, something I would expect from a child.

So what will it be MMX? Should we also include alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine into your prohibition of all mind altering substances as well because that is frankly what it sounds like you're suggesting. Can't have one without the other using your own argument as a base.

Post: #30

Insults of character are effective when a person can't answer simple questions with simple answers. If you want to learn how to use rhetoric better, you can consult SJWs Always Lie.

I'm open to allowing weed to be decriminalized, but you have to give me an argument showing that it's in my best interest as someone who will never use it.

Post: #31

Phoenix,

And substances that have been used for many thousands of years are both safer and better handled than substances that don't fit these qualities.

Post: #32

Given the commonality of alcoholism, I'm not sure I can view your statement as an absolute.

Post: #33

(09-06-2016 10:52 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Insults of character are effective when a person can't answer simple questions with simple answers. If you want to learn how to use rhetoric better, you can consult SJWs Always Lie.

I'm open to allowing weed to be decriminalized, but you have to give me an argument showing that it's in my best interest as someone who will never use it.

Are you on the spectrum? Insults of character especially in this forum aren't effective at all.

This type of arguing is precisely what you'd see in a SJW.

Here are some immediate effects of legalization:

1. Reduction of prison populations of simple possession and dealing offenders means less tax revenue being spent on non-violent offenders. This money can be redirected to other areas.

2. Allow police to refocus their resources onto other crimes instead of marijuana enforcement.

3. Potential for a new "sin tax" source of revenue. Tax marijuana at the point of sale.

4. Limit access to children under a certain age by having dispensaries properly ID people attempting to purchase.

5. Allow cancer and AIDs patients a potential medicine that will help them eat (i've seen this first hand in cancer patients).

Post: #34

== Let's all agree to cease and forget any character attacks. ==

----

The evidence simply doesn't match up, MMX. Alcohol and Tobacco are not safer than weed or even ecstasy. They're in the same realm as sniffing solvents, if you'll consult that graph. Solvents, of course, having existed since time immemorial. And Amerindians have been chewing coca leaves since forever too.

How long something has been in existence is not particularly relevant to whether it is bad or not. It's bad, or it's not.

Post: #35

Anyone mentioned the experience of Portugal & their drug decriminalisation?

Post: #36

Also, had to post this I found during research. Caption is "cocaine for kids", hilarious

Post: #37

Beast,

So you're okay with twelve year olds getting high so long as they didn't directly buy their weed from the dispensary?

Post: #38

Phoenix,

Goodness/badness regarding personal health isn't the primary axis by which drugs should be evaluated. Neither is tax revenue, (and it's laughable to even suggest that).

Goodness/badness regarding personal character is the primary axis, and I've never heard convincing arguments that drug promoters are of superior personal character (let alone equal personal character).

Post: #39

CynicalContrarian,

Can you elaborate about Portugal?

Post: #40

(09-06-2016 11:11 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Beast,

So you're okay with twelve year olds getting high so long as they didn't directly buy their weed from the dispensary?

As someone who took his first puff and sip (of alcohol) at 13, yes.

What's your point?

Post: #41

(09-06-2016 11:14 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  I've never heard convincing arguments that drug promoters are of superior personal character (let alone equal personal character).

Not sure Al Capone was an angel . It's the money that comes from illegalization that draws out that certain character -- the mercenary type, someone willing to kill for money. If you don't want ants don't drip honey.

Post: #42

My point is, Beast, that there must be an acceptable number of drug-addicted twelve year olds that you think is acceptable, just so you can get high.

Did you say infinite earlier?

Post: #43

Phoenix,

You don't know that for sure. It's just as likely that the reality-distorting nature of the drug inspires people to use it. If true, people who need to distort reality are of superior character than those who refuse to distort reality.

Post: #44

(09-06-2016 11:28 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  My point is, Beast, that there must be an acceptable number of drug-addicted twelve year olds that you think is acceptable, just so you can get high.

Did you say infinite earlier?

I'd say infinite because i don't care how many stoned 12 year olds there are!

Being stoned is far less damaging to the body than being drunk.

You also didn't answer my question above too: are you for the prohibiton of alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine as well? Your argument essentially should include them all as well.

Do you abstain from all mind altering substances as well? Take note that there are many mind altering substances out there. You can get a pretty good high from caffeine.

Post: #45

Right, so you don't care how many stoned twelve year olds there are; you just want to get high, and fuck everyone else.

If you say "Fuck everyone else!", isn't the necessary and masculine response, "oh yeah? Well fuck you, too, buddy."?

Post: #46

(09-06-2016 11:30 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  My point is, Beast, that there must be an acceptable number of drug-addicted twelve year olds that you think is acceptable, just so you can get high.

...
Phoenix,

You don't know that for sure. It's just as likely that the reality-distorting nature of the drug inspires people to use it. If true, people who need to distort reality are of superior character than those who refuse to distort reality.

And so to be clear, Beast smoking pot means 12 year olds get shittier parents? Is this what they call the classic "straw man"?

Post: #47

I think weed should be legalized, it's been around forever. In Arab countries where alcohol is banned, you have weed in the form of hash, and it keeps Jihad down tremendously. Weed is not worse than tobacco, in fact it is less addictive.

As for virtually every other drug, keep them controlled. BUT the punishment for using an illegal substance should not be anything beyond a violation. Selling drugs should carry harsh consequences, but using should just be a mandatory trip to the rehab center.

And, like the Rat Park experiment shows, banning drugs is just a band-aid solution to the fact that people have sucky lives; no jobs, and anti-nuclear family policies are the main factors to be addressed if we want people to stay away from drugs.

Post: #48

By a regulation of drugs, there would be more pressure on the dispensary to make good judgement calls. Its a business after all, and the risk falls on the owner.

Now, with just a 'de regulation' of drugs, people are caught in the 'fiend' cycle where they smash a car window for $.50 and jack an old lady for her purse. If they had to be a good customer, it might change their habits. When weed stores started popping up all over the hood, most were just dealers who saw the light and went legit. These are the best case scenarios, as some dealers are smart business men who should be in the real economy paying leases and sweeping their sidewalks every day like other business owners.

Street dealers give no fucks about clients, as long as they pay. I catch teens here all the time, trying to but shit. I seen some shady dudes pass two kids a lit joint, some suburban looking kids, must have been about 11 or 12. That shit looked WRONG! I was pissed.

Again, to what GT was saying about heroin is true. The misery is short lived, and completely doable without methadone. Its just that many of these junkies have zero willpower and its just easier to get free government shit to help ease the cravings than it is to power through the first nights.

One of my best friends dries out from H once a year, and goes back on once a year. Basically a 6 month life of an addict. He drops it "like a bad habit", all for work reasons. Very high functioning guy. He knows every thing I would ever need to know about this type of addiction, albeit from a guy that also enjoys life. So many of his peers are just sad people, and this is so often why they are addicts.

For him, and for my dead cousin, I wish drugs were regulated. Even though I don't think opiates should be legal- because they are that damn good- the thought of buying unknown shit from guys who don't like them creates too many deadly scenarios.

Post: #49

Phoenix,

You're not very good at recognizing when two EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE explanations exist, you DON'T just get to pick the one you like better (and stick with it). Instead, you have to say, "I don't know. Either one of those could equally be true."

In your case, you believe decriminalizing drugs makes them less popular, because they'll be less cool. But it's equally plausible that decriminalized drugs makes them more popular, because they'll be less scary.

In the Beast's case, he believes that dispensaries can prevent twelve year olds from getting access to drugs, but I believe dispensaries can't control secondary sellers providing those drugs to twelve year olds.

When advocating for social change, a stalemate means you lose. But when advocating to avoid social change, a stalemate means you win. So I just defeated both you and the Beast by stalemate.

Post: #50

(09-06-2016 11:57 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Phoenix,

You're not very good at recognizing when two EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE explanations exist, you DON'T just get to pick the one you like better (and stick with it). Instead, you have to say, "I don't know. Either one of those could equally be true."

In your case, you believe decriminalizing drugs makes them less popular, because they'll be less cool. But it's equally plausible that decriminalized drugs makes them more popular, because they'll be less scary.

In the Beast's case, he believes that dispensaries can prevent twelve year olds from getting access to drugs, but I believe dispensaries can't control secondary sellers providing those drugs to twelve year olds.

When advocating for social change, a stalemate means you lose. But when advocating to avoid social change, a stalemate means you win. So I just defeated both you and the Beast by stalemate.

Where do you think kids get their alcohol from? Their friendly neighborhood alcohol reseller (kid with a fake).

Your last bit makes absolutely no sense.