Would you care to respond to the evidence posted above? Or does your preference lie with shooting off absurd "strawman" arguments and logical fallacies? You realize that your extreme suppositions only make you appear uninformed and they make your opinion appear very shallow--considering that it lacks the proper support. On a sidenote, do not put words in people's mouths and do not assume anything about anyone else because I guarantee that it will only come back to hurt you. Oregon Elephant didn't say any of what you acted like he said. If your major "tactical" intention is to be repeatedly throwing out such false implications and "strawman" arguments like you've been doing, it would seem your credibility in the entire language arts division of debate is lacking, let alone your credibility on this specific topic.

Is there something specific that you don't get about debate? This is not the "tell me a story from your personal life" hour, this is a "prove what you're saying or shut the hell up" debate--to put it bluntly. Obviously it's still your prerogative to continue rambling incessantly about your irrelevant "experiences" but the only thing that's accomplishing is the deterioration of your position in this debate. Provide support, stop putting words in other debaters' mouths and for God's sake, make some actual logical comparisons...

__________________
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

Sure, no problem. But could you give me some of your thoughts to the short posts I’ve made? I’ll repost them so you don’t have to go back.

The first post was:
“I’m not about to argue your point at all here but I’m just trying to clarify what you said. Would you say that you don’t believe pornography negatively impacts a person’s judgment to the point where it could lead to harm towards another person?”
------------------------------------------------
The second post was:

If you made your money selling drugs you would want it to stay illegal. Someone I know who sold pot made around $350 in two hours selling it. I can’t prove this to you but I’m just going to throw it out there anyway.

Another example of someone making a lot of money in a short amount of time is Gorge Jung. He was the main character in the movie “Blow” played by Johnny Depp. Gorge Jung was able to make thirty thousand dollars a week selling pot when he first started in the illegal drug trade.

Edit: Just to clarify, the move “Blow” is based off of a true story and Gorge Jung was a real person.
George Jung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
----------------------------------------------

Do you not believe that the example I gave (Gorge Jung’s high profits in the illegal marijuana selling business) is some evidence for the profit paradox? The profit paradox, if you do not already know (I’m sure you do), is the idea that the illegal product’s value will be artificially increased by the fact that they are illegal (harder to get), thus, stimulating the criminal activity surrounding the trade. Whereas, if said product were legal, the value would drop significantly eliminating all criminal activity relating to the distribution of the product. I believe I read a post of yours were you claim to have debunked this theory. If you already have, could you either repost that comment or explain it again for me?

If you don’t hear from me again tonight it is because I’m studying for my political economy exam tomorrow.

__________________

Sure thing. See below:

No, I don't see pornography on the same level as drugs. I don't exactly think it's good, but the major factor at hand with drugs like marijuana is the physical alteration and manipulation of brain chemistry, making the side-effects that result from said drugs difficult--if not impossible--to actually resist. The other "activities" that have been mentioned are ones people take part in when they're fully conscious on a normal human level, and nothing unnatural is interfering in that regard.

I don't deny that dealers appreciate the high prices they can illegitimately sell it at, but once again, it's all about individual choice here. The dealers are making the choice to sell it, and maybe more importantly, the users are making the choice to repeatedly do business with the dealers. It's a vicious cycle, but society isn't to blame for it. Society discourages the use of drugs like marijuana so that hopefully users will see that it's selfish and unnecessary and they'll stop giving drug dealers business. Society cannot prevent people from making the final choice. Society can--and must--however, punish people who disregard the right choice for selfish reasons.

Once again, however, it's not Whereas, if said product were legal, the value would logical to simply pawn off responsibility on the systematic "flow" of economics. Human reason is superior to that, and the lack of human reason--or lack of human responsibility, anyway--is what's causing this.

drop significantly eliminating all criminal activity relating to the distribution of the product. I believe I read a post of yours were you claim to have debunked this theory. If you already have, could you either repost that comment or explain it again for me?[/quote]Sure thing. In that post awhile back, I explained the difference in crime rates in the US, the Netherlands and Japan and I was able to prove that if anything, the crime rate is to be blamed on cultural aspects of a nation. Otherwise, in the Netherlands, after marijuana was legalized, the crime rate and hard-drug use rate spiked. That leaves one of two possibilities, given the three varying nations (examples) with this same sort of drug issue:


The two logical possible conclusions that can be taken from the data comparing the crime rates of the United States, the Netherlands, and Japan:

A. Legalization causes more crime, as seen in the Netherlands
(which I would say is not the case)

or

B. The crime rate is to be blamed on cultural aspects of a country
(which seems to be the most logical conclusion)

For instance, marijuana is illegal in both the US and Japan. However, Japan's crime rate is a fraction of the proportion of the US crime rate. It's interesting then to note that the single only different factor when comparing the two countries--in specific regard to this issue--is culture. American culture is just simply a much more violent culture than Japanese culture.

I believe that's where the real problem lies. Society, however, cannot be blamed for the actions of criminals, nor can it even be blamed for the collective crime rate. If you wish to see those specific stats again, I would have no problem finding them from prior to this.

Not a problem. I'm usually in and out, when you reply, I'll see it on here sooner or later.

__________________
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

Ok, lets replace skateboarding with other sports. Here’s a little info on the subject of sports and unnatural brain function. I am sure that sports would fail your two condition Locke. Don’t mind the numbers; they’re for the separation of the sources.

1 “A blow or jolt to the head can disrupt the normal function of the brain. This type of brain injury is often termed a concussion or "closed head injury" because the skull is not pierced by an object. Each year, 40,000 high school football players nationwide suffer concussions, which are usually considered mild traumatic brain injuries (MTBI), but still require medical attention.
Many other sports and recreational activities, including wrestling, hockey, soccer (from head collisions), snowboarding and in-line skating, can also result in concussions. Even whiplash can cause a concussion. Altogether, about 300,000 traumatic brain injuries occur each year in sports and recreation in the United States.”
Sports Concussions a Growing Concern



2 Concussions
Symptoms of a concussion may include:
"seeing stars" and feeling dazed, dizzy, or lightheaded
memory loss, such as trouble remembering things that happened right before and after the injury
nausea or vomiting
headaches
blurred vision and sensitivity to light
slurred speech or saying things that don't make sense
difficulty concentrating, thinking, or making decisions
difficulty with coordination or balance (such as being unable to catch a ball or other easy tasks)
feeling anxious or irritable for no apparent reason
feeling overly tired

3 The study was conducted by the University of North Carolina’s Center for the Study of Retired Athletes and based on a general health survey of 2,552 retired N.F.L. players. It corroborates other findings regarding brain trauma and later-life depression in other subsets of the general population, but runs counter to longtime assertions by the N.F.L. that concussions in football have no long-term effects.


4 ( A doctor who studied pro wrestler Chris Benoit's brain says the brain damage suffered during his years in the ring could help explain why he killed his wife, his son and himself )




5 ( Nowinski didn't know he had suffered a concussion. He didn't know that he shouldn't have been wrestling immediately afterward, and he didn't know that this was probably the sixth concussion of his athletic career. There was a lot Nowinski didn't know about concussions.

Hard hits were nothing new to Nowinski, 28, a tree of a man who had played sports since childhood. Blows to the head punctuated many of the games and matches in his career, he said. Sometimes he blacked out.


"The sky would change colors, or I would see stars, and get really dizzy, and I would just collect myself on the field or in the ring, and continue going, because that's what I thought I was supposed to do," he told CNN in a telephone interview. "I didn't realize that it was a serious brain injury." )

That is a very lagitiment point, however, that portrays to the sellers, not the users. There are plenty of sellers that want the stuff to stay illegal, but there are far more users that want the stuff to become legal. That's the difference in interests between users and sellers.

The only link is duration.



This is Robin Williams, an admitted big time smoker of pot back in his day. I don't know of many caffine drinkers that have had this same experience (actually, I don't know a single one). If you know someone who has the same kind of reaction to caffine as that, they should see a doctor, because they are probably alergic to it. To skip the drinking part, you can skip forward to the 4:10 left in the skit to go strait to the pot section.

Actually, say a man is daring enough to sell to twenty people. He is most likely at the bottom of a long chain of dealers. That combined with the fact that it is usually more personal than that. That is, selling at the side to a few people to make some extra money.

Let’s just say there are a lot of dealers.

But there aren't nearly as many dealers as there are users. What it is, something like 15 million Americans smoke pot at least once a month, do you believe that there are 15 million dealers?

7 million maybe

Alright, Counterpointing, this has gone on for awhile now. Consider yourself lucky I humored you for as long as I did, I don't usually respond to irrelevant tangents such as this. The issue here is marijuana. The only logical reason I can see that you would veer from the topic at hand of on to a completely ridiculous and irrelevant tangent would be a desperate attempt to divert negative attention from the obvious failure of your side of the debate to respond adequately to the arguments they've been presented with. I responded to the skateboarding argument, and I really didn't have to. Skateboarding isn't a national issue, is it? Obviously neither the people nor society/the government are concerned enough with skateboarding/sports to make the asinine comparison you just did.

Do you see how that makes your position in this debate look? Desperate. That's how. Marijuana is a chemical that you introduce unnaturally into your system. It unnaturally manipulates and alters human brain chemistry, causing extremely unnatural and unstable side-effects that are dangerous to those around the user. There are no benefits of recreational marijuana on any societal level whatsoever. Participants of sports are exercising their bodies and minds, not polluting them. That right there is enough to outweigh marijuana. That in and of itself is enough for me to conclude my argument, but I'm going to drive this into your head once and for all if possible:

Athletes are healthy people who play healthy recreational sports. Marijuana impairs cognitive abilities, clogs lungs. Sports (physical activity) work the mind (tactical/strategic/team-oriented thinking), and clear the lungs. Marijuana is a selfish indulgence.

Sports do not directly affect the mind. Marijuana does. Accidents happen in sports, but accidents can happen anywhere. It's absurd to try and use that argument as if a concussion is exclusive to playing a sport. The positives of sports far outweigh the negatives, but the negatives of marijuana far outweigh the positives. That's the real deal here. marijuana-induced schizophrenia, cannabis psychosis, and the other directly mind altering side-effects that come from marijuana use are exclusive to marijuana. Athletes are healthy and team-players. Marijuana addicts are unhealthy, selfish law-breaking rejects. Case and point.

__________________
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