Not at all. I debate with people and I treat them the same way they treat me. You didn't make a point, you attempted to smear an argument of mine, yet you didn't understand the context of the argument I'd made. That's why I just explained it to you. Simple? Yes.

My debating tone differs, and it's influenced by my opponents. I adapt to various situations, if my opponents are aggressive in nature, so then am I. I haven't insulted anyone. If you've taken what I've said as insulting, you're more than free to bow out of the topic, I seem to remember the first time you replied to one of my posts you calling one of my arguments a "crock of shit." I quote that word for word. I didn't get offended, I simply laughed it off--I've got a post number for that, if you really want me to show exactly where you said that, by the way. Buck up, it's a debate.

By the way, Counterpointing didn't nullify that argument, because that argument was never made. Don't give me that strawman bullshit, apawllo, it doesn't work. I already told him the same thing, why don't you start quoting these alleged arguments of mine--with a post number inculded? Oh that's right, because it's not possible... Those kind of lies and slander completely rip on the credibility of your side of this debate as well as your individual credibility as a debater. I'd advise you to stop.

I post in this thread a lot because it's an issue I feel strongly about. It's also an issue I can personally relate to. I find that little attempted jab laughable. Quite so... There are bigger issues to deal with, you're right. So is it safe to assume you're conceding?

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke

Let me ask you a perfectly logical, perfectly legitimate question based on several interesting things I've found that I'll explain in a moment: are you blind?

Shiva, the first post you made in this debate was on 10-22-07 and was here:
Decrim of Marijuana (part 3)

I made this post, fairly closely after:
Decrim of Marijuana (part 3)

That post of mine explains everything. You'd been posting before I'd made that post. You'd seen it--you should have if you were a vigilant debater, yet you either ignored it or are now denying that you'd ever seen it. Congratulations, we can either conclude that you're either lying, you weren't capable of remembering it, or you just weren't paying attention in the first place. Either way, it sure as hell doesn't do anything positive for your credibility as a debater.

You never showed us those studies. Don't even mention studies that you aren't going to show us. Have you learned nothing so far?

You say all of that without providing a single freakin' source. Do you know what that means? It means nothing. It means jack shit. It means null, nada, zero. You don't get to say, here's the facts because I say so. This is debate. You cannot logically present something as fact without factual support in a debate. That is a mockery of the literary arts, and frankly it's pathetic. Sorry, Shiva, you apparently don't quite understand how debate works. Until you present some sort of actual unbiased fact, that entire quote of yours equates dick.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke

He did post some of those studies earlier.
Decrim of Marijuana (part 4)

While I can understand why you’d think their may be a correlation here I would still have to disagree. I just don’t think I see the significance of marijuana’s role in the increase of the crime rate in your source. Nowhere in the source you provided has it mentioned anything about marijuana. Additionally, the crime rate only went up from 0.4 per 100 to 1.2 per 100, a difference of 0.8 per 100. I know the title of the article says “murder rate tripled” but it wasn’t very high to begin with and it’s still not very high.

I got this from traval.state.gov and they describe the crime there to Americans who are thinking about taking a vacation in Amsterdam.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_p...s/cis_982.html

Sounds pretty much like America to me. Don’t leave your baggage unattended and that sort. It didn’t mention anything about staying away from violent stoners or the like either.

I searched the internet for any article describing the connection between marijuana and the crime rate in the Netherlands and this is all I got:

-By Drs. Lynn Zimmer and John Morgan

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

Not a source I know you will accept as legitimate but I nonetheless agree with the statement. I will continue to do so unless I see some evidence of marijuana triggering violent or hateful tendencies.

__________________

You're right. I was using that argument to emphasize that it prohibition could not be blamed for crime, rather crime was more or less a cultural thing:
This quote of yours essentially sums it up. That's what crime can be attributed to, not marijuana prohibition or legalization. That's the point I was making, it probably just wasn't perfectly clear, as I did it over the course of numerous posts.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke

Marijuana-Induced Psychosis May Foretell Future Episodes -- Arehart-Treichel 41 (3): 23 -- Psychiatr News

"The results do not prove that marijuana is causally linked with schizophrenia, the researchers stated"

Access : Cannabis boosts risk of psychosis : Nature News

Restricted access to this link so the information was not available.

BBC NEWS | Health | Cannabis raises risk of psychosis

"It gives support to the emerging understanding that a predisposition to psychosis combined with the early abuse of cannabis has an increased likelihood of triggering a psychotic illness."

The study addressed youth usage and not adult usage and relates to those with a predisposition to psychosis and not the average person. It can also be stated that the use of any mind altering drug from cocaine to coffee shouldn't be used by minors if they have a predisposition to psychosis.

Marijuana Triggers Schizophrenia-Like Symptoms

"this study provides some tantalizing support for the hypotheses that the brain receptor system that cannabis acts on may be involved in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia," he said."

This study does not make any claims that marijuana induces schizophrenia but merely notes that marijuana, like a lot of other commonly used substances, effects the same receptors in the brain that are associated with schizophrenia. No cause and effect was even implied.

BBC NEWS | Health | Cannabis link to schizophrenia

"Two recent studies have shown that heavy use of cannabis is associated with a fourfold increased risk of developing the mental illness."

The abuse of almost any substance can be an indicator of an underlying mental condition. This study relates to heavy use over a long period of time and does not present any facts related to normal use by an adult with no underlying mental conditions. Certianly someone with a predisposition to mental illness should be aware that heavy use of marijuana over a long period of time presents a increased risk of developing mental illness. We can also note the the occurances of mental illness in young people is about 1:1000 (I haven't found information on the occurances adults) so at most the study suggested it might increase that risk to 4:1000 in heavy users over a long period of time. The percentage of heavy users of marijuana further limits because "heavy users over a long period of time" are extremely rare.

Howstuffworks "How Marijuana Works"

"In addition to the brain, the side effects of marijuana reach many other parts of the body. Marijuana is filled with hundreds of chemicals, and when it is burned, hundreds of additional compounds are produced. When marijuana is inhaled or ingested in some other form, several short-term effects occur. Some of the marijuana's side effects are:
Problems with memory and learning
Distorted perception
Difficulty with thinking and problem solving
Loss of coordination
Increased heart rate
Anxiety, paranoia and panic attacks"

The report (not study) does not address the fact that these side effects are extremely rare or that they may only occur in the first few moments of marijuana use during the initial "rush" and may only effect certain people with underlying problems. It also fails to establish whether this rare side effects are caused by heavy usage but does state that it is related to the THC levels in the individual which would indicate extremely heavy use is required. Normal use by normal adults is not addressed as being problematic.

Marijuana in normal usage by normal people provides stress relief and enjoyment of many activities which benefits the individual and therefore benefits society. Marijuana abuse (i.e. heavy use over a long period of time) as with the abuse of any substance may indicate underlying psychological problems with the individual and the individual should seek professional help.

The side effects are limited to rare cases of marijuana abuse (i.e. heavy use over a long period of time) and studies have not shown that normal marijuana use by normal adults presents any substantial risks or danger to the individual. The abuse of any substance is an indicator of underlying pschological problems and an individual experiencing such symptoms should seek professional assistance. The counterpoint being that because marijuana is non-addictive the individual experiencing any undesired side effects can simply quit. Let me provide an example. Some people love raw oysters and yet they make some people feel like puking. Hey, if oysters make you puke don't eat them. There is no physicalogical addiction to marijuana and any user that experiences unwanted side effects can easily quit at anytime.

Let me close with this quotation:

"Beyond these effects that marijuana has, marijuana smokers are susceptible to the same health problems as tobacco smokers, such as bronchitis, emphysema and bronchial asthma. Other effects include dry-mouth, red eyes, impaired motor skills and impaired concentration. Long-term use of the drug can increase the risk of damaging the lungs and reproductive system, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)."

The DEA? Now there is an unbiased source known for its honesty. Get real. Statements related to drug abuse by the DEA have been repeatedly shown to be pure propaganda without any scientific support whatsoever.

The fact remains that tens of millions of Americans use marijuana in limited amounts, they don't abuse it, and it is beneficial to them. The risk factors, according to the sources you have provided, are rare and limited to marijuana abuse which is indicative to underlying mental problems as with the abuse of any substance. As a final analogy let us consider people with eating disorders which lead to obesity. These disorders are primarily linked to psychological disorders and present serious health risks including premature death in millions of people (far more serious than marijuana use). Would you propose that we outlaw food because these individuals eat too much?

If you are going to make statements then do the research and actually read the articles you are offering as supporting your position. As I have noted repeatedly the reference links you have provided do not support your wild allegations when it comes to normal use by normal adults.

Post #199. Of course you then insulted him at some point on the next page, but hey....whatever works.

He didn't say anything worth any value on post 199. He plays at the difinition of "society" which did nothing, but show that all he can do is pick on words and not show anything for his argument.

Locke said that the government needs to protect the greater good of society, and CP's response was to imply that we should be coping other nations' governments that don't care about what is best for it's people. He didn't post anything that backs his argument, nor did he post anything against Lockes.

I think you misinterpreted his response in the last of the three quotes, which is the one that I was focusing on. He said that American society has different values across different regions, not anything about other nations.

You're right, I thought he was talking about other nations. But Marijuana is illegal in all states I do believe. The argument that if "one state thinks it's okay so all should" can work both ways. If one state thinks it's not okay than all shouldn't. So that kind of argument isn't plausible. But this isn't about what people want. The "greater good" isn't what the society wants, it is what is best for society.