Decrim of Marijuana (part 4) - Page 21 - Political Forum

Oregon Elephant · 10-31-2007, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

Do you have any idea what it takes to debunk something? Nothing has been debunked here, except for possibly the logic of the prohibition.

I love the way you think that no one is able to debunk any of your wild ideas, but you seem so sure that you have debunked everyone elses.

The only thing you've done against the logic of prohibition is say over and over who you don't like it and you think that it is stupid, not quite debunking standards. While the racing anology has so many flaws that it can't be compared to smoking marijuana.

If you would like, we can always restate the reasons.

counterpointing · 10-31-2007, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

I love the way you think that no one is able to debunk any of your wild ideas, but you seem so sure that you have debunked everyone elses.

The only thing you've done against the logic of prohibition is say over and over who you don't like it and you think that it is stupid, not quite debunking standards. While the racing anology has so many flaws that it can't be compared to smoking marijuana.

If you would like, we can always restate the reasons.

Ok, if you want to focus on something, I’ll debate it, but I won’t respond again to the societal clairvoyance that some debaters rely on. I don’t mind real debate.

“except for possibly the logic of the prohibition.” -- me. I made no claim of debunking here.

Oregon Elephant · 10-31-2007, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Thank you for your intervention and yes, to a degree it is a strawman argument.

True as well that I have only read the references posted on this thread 4 on the issue. I wasn't member prior to that so I will take your word that research and studies have been posted in the past that can support both sides of the argument. What I do know is that none of the links used as references on this thread support wild allegations that marijuana is either overly harmful to either the individual or to society at all.

If it is our choice to protect society then we already have laws in place to do that regardless of the legal status of marijuana. For example, it is against the law to "drive under the influence" of any substance that endangers other due to the intoxication of the individual. This applies to alcohol, marijuana, heroin, prescription drugs and even over-the-counter drugs. You don't need to ban the substance to make irresponsible actions of the individual against the law in order to protect society. We have "reckless driving" laws to protect society from irresponsible driving even when a person isn't under the influence of anything outside of being stupid and driving dangerously.

It is also not the place of our government to dictate what we, as individuals, can or can't do so long as we don't infringe upon the rights and liberties of others (i.e. if we aren't endangering other individuals in society then society has no right to interfer with our actions). What the heck, I am legally prohibited from smoking marijuana but can legally purchase and kill myself with rat poison!!!

There simply isn't any reason for marijuana to be against the law and never has been.

I understand that you haven't been here for the whole thing (nither have I, I came in in early part 2 if I remember correctly), and believe me, I don't expect others to read the whole bloody thing.

I see we have different views down fundementally on the government's duty. The rat poison that you could buy, has a usefull purpose other than to kill yourself (to kill rats, and I'm sure they trying to change that

). But rec marijuana's only purpose is to help one relax and the effects and risks that are tied with that relaxation are, in my mind, far to great to just let people make the dicision on their own, because they don't have such a good track record.

Oregon Elephant · 10-31-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

Ok, if you want to focus on something, I’ll debate it, but I won’t respond again to the societal clairvoyance that some debaters rely on. I don’t mind real debate.

“except for possibly the logic of the prohibition.” -- me. I made no claim of debunking here.

I'm not refering to just that statement of "debunkment." But the additude that you've been having in the past on this thread and others aswell. If you'd like, I can repost a handful of them.

But here's one made by you back on 10-14-2007 at 6:31 pm my time

Quote:

I can tear this argument down in a second. I want it legalized ,and I am breaking no laws, regardless of their stupidity. There are many others just like me, I ain’t nothing special. There goes your argument. See it, it just vanished over that hill of sh!t.

When he was arguing the rec marijuana use as a whole.

counterpointing · 10-31-2007, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

I'm not refering to just that statement of "debunkment." But the additude that you've been having in the past on this thread and others aswell. If you'd like, I can repost a handful of them.

But here's one made by you back on 10-14-2007 at 6:31 pm my time

When he was arguing the rec marijuana use as a whole.

I did debunk that, out of simple logic. Locke claimed that only those breaking the prohibition are for legalization. The fact that I’m not breaking the law therefore ruined his argument.

That is the kind of logic that can be disproved. If he had said only people that wear a white hat like Mexican girls, and I’m wearing a blue hat and I like Mexican girls, then the logic has been proven not to be logic at all.

Oregon Elephant · 10-31-2007, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

I did debunk that, out of simple logic. Locke claimed that only those breaking the prohibition are for legalization. The fact that I’m not breaking the law therefore ruined his argument.

That is the kind of logic that can be disproved. If he had said only people that wear a white hat like Mexican girls, and I’m wearing a blue hat and I like Mexican girls, then the logic has been proven not to be logic at all.

But he didn't say that, you misinterpted it. He claimed that those breaking prohibition are for legalizing, you put the "only" in there. People you chose to smoke pot on a regular basis want it legalized.

counterpointing · 10-31-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

But he didn't say that, you misinterpted it. He claimed that those breaking prohibition are for legalizing, you put the "only" in there. People you chose to smoke pot on a regular basis want it legalized.

If I made a “misinterpretation” sometime in the past, I would apologize. However, if that’s what he said, why did he say it at all? I hate pointless points.

Seer · 10-31-2007, 10:47 PM

...right... I’m going to try to change the direction of this conversation…

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seer

How many people die every year from a stoned person?

And for a completely unrelated question:
Would [anyone] mind if hemp were legalized?

Does anyone know the answer to the first question?

p.s. Happy Halloween! I’ll probably be out all night. I’m the Big Lebowski this year! But you can call me the dude...(Not real creative but my costume is extremely comfortable and warm.)

HenryDavidThoreau · 10-31-2007, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seer

.And for a completely unrelated question:
Would [anyone] mind if hemp were legalized?

I have yet to hear a educated arguement against hemp.

Locke9-05 · 11-01-2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

-- “Oregon Elephant and I have already debunked the auto racing” -- Locke

Do you have any idea what it takes to debunk something? Nothing has been debunked here, except for possibly the logic of the prohibition.

Counterpointing, you're in over your head. You posted no sources worth even considering as legitimate over the entire course of this debate. The only articles you posted were completely biased and spouted meaningless propaganda. Many of your arguments have blown back up in your face because you've failed to research all angles of said arguments--for instance when you took Barack Obama's words completely out of context.

Nowhere in this debate has the logic of prohibition been debunked, in fact--on the contrary--we completely reinforced the logic of prohibition by providing numerous sources showing exactly what happened when marijuana was legalized in the Netherlands:

CBS - Murder rate tripled - Web magazine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Statistics Netherlands

Until 1965 the relative number of victims of murder and manslaughter was low: around 0.4 per 100 thousand inhabitants. Between 1965 and 1990 the number of victims rose sharply to around 1.2 per 100 thousand in 1990.

Yeah... legalization is just so freakin' logical there huh...? An article direct from "Statistics Netherlands" entitled "Murder Rate Tripled" that happens to coincide with the exact same period of time when marijuana was legalized. Not only that, but Japan currently has an even stricter prohibition system than we do here,and they have a much lower crime rate than the US. That would be the only possible argument against the "logic" of prohibition, but it's been quickly destroyed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

Society has to take action and make administrative decisions that benefit the collective law-abiding populace. Individuals must also do their part to help out by making responsible choices that benefit the people around them. Any individuals that make irresponsible choices--choices that impede upon society's responsibility to do that must be punished. That's how it is in any society anywhere.

Source please. Sorry, your argument has been reduced to a vague rambling. Society this, society that, and it means nothing. You have said nothing, and have hurt your own point.

You want a source for this? You want me to go through the old dictionary 2+2 "add 'em together and whaddya get" routine and embarrass you? Sobeit...

Society - Definitions from Dictionary.com

According to Dictionary.com, a society is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.

So we've got a society. Now what is necessary for a society to function? A government

Government - Definitions from Dictionary.com

According to Dictionary.com, a government is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration

So we've got a society and the governing body of a society... What country do we live in? Oh that's right, this is the United States. This is a Democratic Republic, or as some would call it, a Constitutional Republic. The people vote individuals into office to represent them in a governing body--the political administration of the country... That's the makeup of a Democratic Republic...

Democratic Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Constitutional republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's the basic function of how a democratic republic and/or a constitutional republic functions for you.

I realize that's Wikipedia, but if you didn't realize how a democratic republic functions prior to now, there's not a whole damn lot anyone can say or do that'll help you there. I'm using it to emphasize a point, not prove it. I'm hoping that you have some basic understanding of how this country works... In a constitutional republic/democratic republic, voting members of a society elect officials into office to represent their best interests at a political level. If you don't understand any of this, you should seriously consider going back to high school--or maybe even junior high and taking some very basic level civics courses. Here's the clincher:

Voters - Definitions from Dictionary.com

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a voter is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by American Heritage Dictionary

One who has the right to vote.

Law-abiding citizens take precedence in the voting process, as their rights are untouched--no felonies/violations against their fellow citizens/government, and they have the most important right of all: the right to a reasonably safe/healthy way of life. The government is binded by the constitution to make decisions in the best interests of those law-abiding citizens that elect said government officials into office. Game over, Counterpointing. 2 + 2 = 4. Put it together next time instead of throwing out these desperate attempts to save your side of the debate that only end up hurting your own credibility

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

Let’s look at this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

Society's role is to preserve the greater good.

Is it? What is the greater good?

I've told you numerous times throughout this debate what the "greater good" is, you just seem to be quick to ignore the details of an opposing argument and throw out absurd straman suppositions when it suits your side of the debate. The "greater good" is the law-abiding populace, or the people who contribute most to society. They're the one's who--as I said--take precedence in the voting process, they're the ones who are represented by government officials, they're the ones who matter. They don't indulge in selfish idiotic substances that recklessly endanger the safety and health of those around them. That's why they're the greater good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

If it is a concrete object or idea, then, and as you said, it would be a constant. So, if said plant is legal one place, then so should it be in another. Your argument is vague and ineffective.

Congratulations, Counterpointing, you just beat Superdude's record for "Strawman of the century." I hope you're proud. Arguments like that show only one thing--desperation. Believe me, that doesn't help your case. It's not a concrete object or idea, but debate is. In the United States, we've established that it shouldn't be legal, and we've also shown nations around the world in which legalization caused huge problems, and others in which prohibition massively helped. That shreds your argument relating prohibition to crime. If anything, that shows that crime is purely cultural. Your argument is completely nonsensical, Counterpointing.