Decrim of Marijuana (part 4) - Page 27 - Political Forum

Locke9-05 · #**261** (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

You can’t prove a negative.

What? Are you kidding me? Is that your idea of an argument? The idea of debate isn't necessarily to prove something, although it's certainly optimal. The idea is to make a case for your argument.

You can make a good case for yourself based on factors, world scenarios, history, studies, etc. and I can tell you that I've talked with people who have done it a hell of a lot better than what I've seen here. But hell, I'm not giving out hints...

Oregon Elephant · #**262** (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

You can’t prove a negative.

Than what have you been trying to do? Are you saying that all the studies that you posted earlier are boogus? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that you can not prove that marijuana has no negative side effects or that it should be legal.

Seer · #**263** (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

A reasonable degree of safety and security is, however, and when selfish addicts are experiencing unstable effects of a drug--ones that have been proved (irritability, anxiety, paranoia, hallucinations, impaired cognitive ability, etc), and ones that have been strongly correlated (cannabis psychosis and schizophrenia)--it becomes an issue of the safety and health of the people around the user, and since recreational marijuana has no societal pros, it's a no-brainer It's an indulgence, and those who choose to senselessly violate the right of law-abiding citizens for nothing more than a sense of "euphoric pleasure" are dealt with justly.

You have made this claim many times but I have still not heard an answer to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seer

Do you think you could provide me with an example of how marijuana leads to a moral or cultural decline? (You might have already but I’m not sure.) Thus far, I believe that the increase in violent crime in the Netherlands could be due to many factors unrelated to legalization entirely (including cultural changes). I ask only because I’m trying to understand your position about the unnecessary risk to safety of non-users marijuana presumably prescribes.

What leads you to believe that marijuana smokers harm those around them because of their smoking? (Please find another example besides driving accidences for it seems that is still something you and Shiva need to work out.)

counterpointing · #**264** (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

Than what have you been trying to do? Are you saying that all the studies that you posted earlier are boogus? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that you can not prove that marijuana has no negative side effects or that it should be legal.

I can’t prove that hairspray doesn’t make blond girls dumb, but I can reject the theory out of lack of evidence.

Oregon Elephant · #**265** (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

I can’t prove that hairspray doesn’t make blond girls dumb, but I can reject the theory out of lack of evidence.

Yes, you can. It's easy. All you have to do is get the chemical compunds in hairspray, and through knowledge of basic chemistry and anatomy, you can prove that hairspray has no impact what so ever on a person's IQ, regardless of that person's hair color.

But go ahead and reject what ever you want, that doesn't change things. If you can't prove it, you're not going to be able to change it.

counterpointing · #**266** (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

What? Are you kidding me? Is that your idea of an argument? The idea of debate isn't necessarily to prove something, although it's certainly optimal. The idea is to make a case for your argument.

You can make a good case for yourself based on factors, world scenarios, history, studies, etc. and I can tell you that I've talked with people who have done it a hell of a lot better than what I've seen here. But hell, I'm not giving out hints...

Are you saying your argument doesn’t meet any of the meanings of proven? Then I would agree with you on this one point.

prove (prv)
v. proved, proved or prov·en (prvn), prov·ing, proves
v.tr.
1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.
2. Law To establish the authenticity of (a will).
3. To determine the quality of by testing; try out.
4. Mathematics
a. To demonstrate the validity of (a hypothesis or proposition).
b. To verify (the result of a calculation).
5. Printing To make a sample impression of (type).
6. Archaic To find out or learn (something) through experience.

counterpointing · #**267** (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

Yes, you can. It's easy. All you have to do is get the chemical compunds in hairspray, and through knowledge of basic chemistry and anatomy, you can prove that hairspray has no impact what so ever on a person's IQ, regardless of that person's hair color.

But go ahead and reject what ever you want, that doesn't change things. If you can't prove it, you're not going to be able to change it.

Sure you could do a thirty year study to get to some preliminary findings that could support your supposition that hairspray doesn’t hurt blonds, or you could dismiss it out of ridiculousness.

Oregon Elephant · #**268** (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

Sure you could do a thirty year study to get to some preliminary findings that could support your supposition that hairspray doesn’t hurt blonds, or you could dismiss it out of ridiculousness.

Studies are the lazy way out. You can just do the chemistry and know through the properties of the compounds that they can't possibly effect the brain, then you dismiss it.

Studies are just a way out of learning the chemistry.

Shiva_TD · #**269** (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

You know what's funny here? You want me to tell you what's really freakin' hilarious here?

1. You've posted 2 studies throughout the course of this entire debate.
2. Those 2 studies--the only 2 you've provided--were completely misrepresented as:
a. You didn't even provide links to where you found them. Coincidence? I think not, as I searched for the text in the study and found them both listed on bullshit propaganda spewing websites (big surprise there...)
b. The studies were completely outdated and unreliable.

So you're lecturing me--after I've provided numerous studies, including this recent full study, I didn't take it out of context, I followed standard debate procedure by the book, I used it merely to emphasize my point--which I've made clear and you still dishonestly deny ever being stated/posted. You still don't understand the idea of societal "pros versus cons" do you? Don't worry about replying to that, I'll address that in your next "post."

You're lecturing me about sources when you failed to do ANY of that? What's that word again...? You know that "H" word, the one that you seem so quick to forget because your arguments seem so full of it? AH! That's right! Got it. Hypocrisy. Watch what you say and work on that. Hypocritical arguments aren't taken lightly in any debate, and it's not an issue of integrity. It just shows a real lack of responsibility and or initiative in a debater who wrongfully calls someone out for

A. something that is incorrect (that the accuser completely misunderstands in the first place)
B. that the accuser is guilty of ten-fold themselves.

Shiva, you're really doing some damage to your side of this debate. You should really pose your "arguments" a bit more tactfully.

Actually I have used numerous links... of yours to show that you are misrepresenting the actual studies. You pull information out of context, such as your statement that marijuana smokers are 10 times more likely to be involved in an auto accident resulting in injuary or death but failed to mention that these statistics related to individuals that WERE NOT UNDER THE INFLUENCE AT THE TIME!! As the study stated, "However, after adjustment for these confounders plus other risky driving at the time of the crash (blood alcohol concentration, seat-belt use, travelling speed and sleepiness score), the effect of acute marijuana intake was no longer significant.." What part of the "no longer significant" did you fail to understand?

Your Source: Blackwell Synergy - Cookie Absent

So the study does not support your allegations that a person that smokes marijuana is any more of a danger on the road than the average person. This has been your entire argument that marijuana use endangers society and it is a false argument based upon the very source you provided.

You continue to bring up marijuana induced pschosis. Of course no study has supported the argument that marijuana causes psychosis or that it causes schizophrenia. I have reviewed your references and presented the truth on these studies by using exact quotations from these (your) sources. You have not replied to any of these posts because you can't. When the research scientist states, "we found no causal link between marijuana use and psychosis" (paraphrased) you cannot deny that fact but continue to misrepresent what the study found.

As for what an American can or cannot do, that is none of your business and certainly not the business of the government, so long as they do not present a threat to others by their actions. If you want laws that make people responsible for results of their actions, fine. We already have those laws. For example, it is already against the law to drive under the influence of any sustance that impairs their driving ability to the point that it potentially endangers others. Fine, if you want to smoke pot and know that it adversely effects your driving then don't drive after you smoke pot. Its that simple.

So, my respected opponent, when you actually come up with references that support your position then you let me know. You wanted me to read Thread 3 and research your references and I did. None of them supported the allegation you make. I have presented the actual study findings and/or issues related to the reported results that would invalidate the findings.

By the way, here is another link on a study.

University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents

Quote:

The safety hazards of smoking marijuana and driving are overrated, says University of Toronto researcher Alison Smiley.

Recent research into impairment and traffic accident reports from several countries shows that marijuana taken alone in moderate amounts does not significantly increase a driver's risk of causing an accident -- unlike alcohol, says Smiley, an adjunct professor in the department of mechanical and industrial engineering. While smoking marijuana does impair driving ability, it does not share alcohol's effect on judgment. Drivers on marijuana remain aware of their impairment, prompting them to slow down and drive more cautiously to compensate, she says.

University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents

Seer · #**270** (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

Studies are the lazy way out. You can just do the chemistry and know through the properties of the compounds that they can't possibly effect the brain, then you dismiss it.

Studies are just a way out of learning the chemistry.

Ok... take that and apply it to the subject of marijuana:

You can just smoke marijuana and through the experience of smoking (or eating) the plant, you can see it's effects.

or

You can continue arguing for 120 pages about one subject. It is just a way of rounding out your understanding instead of actually knowing anything about the subject.

I'm kind of kidding.