That's a major misrepresentation of my argument. My "logic" was clearly presented in my argument and I never said any of the things you mentioned above. The key difference between people with the conditions you mentioned and those who choose to indulge in a drug that cause unstable side-effects is just that--choice. People with conditions such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia don't choose such conditions--people who smoke marijuana purely for their own enjoyment regardless of the consequences/unnecessary risk to those around them are making a fully conscious choice beforehand to partake in such ridiculous "activities." People who pose a danger to those around them need to be taken into consideration, but the issue of choice makes the methods of dealing with the different individuals very different. Those who are consciously choosing to partake in activities with no benefit to the collective society that pose an unnecessary risk around them need to be discouraged from making that choice. Those who don't have a choice to make need assistance for their own good as well as the good of those around them. You can't simply compare the two as they are completely and utterly different. Medication isn't the only remedy or method of assistance for individuals with conditions that they cannot help. However, when one consciously chooses to use a substance that manipulates and screws with brain chemicals, causing them to experience side effects that pose an unnecessary risk to those around them (when that individual knew the risks beforehand), consequences are necessary by society's standards. It's no different than speeding in a motor vehicle. Unnecessarily risky behavior results in consequences.

__________________
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

My father had bi-polar disorder and he chose not take his meds putting our family through hell. The doctor said it is common for someone with a condition like this to refuse medicine on purpose because the condition gives them a rush or a high and the medication blocks this feeling.

__________________
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
-George Orwell

And in that case, I suppose it would depend on the severity of the domestic issue, but obviously it disturbed you and your family, and like you said it was based on choice. While this debate isn't about bi-polar disorder, it's not about prescription medication or mental issues that people are born with, you bring up a valid question. After having time to think about the question--which I assume would have been phrased as "so by that same logic of yours, would you support forcing individuals with severe mental and psychological disorders to take medication?" I think I have a better answer for you.

When I take into consideration all the horrible stories in the news lately about the school and mall shootings which seem to be occurring more and more frequently, and one major common element between those shootings was that many of the individuals responsible for those atrocities were deeply mentally disturbed people who had chosen to stop taking their medication, I would support society's intervention in their lives so as to prevent innocent people from going to malls and schools and getting gunned down--or any other dangerous scenario brought about merely because of the choice of one individual. That doesn't necessarily mean in every case strongly encouraging or forcing them to take medication, it could entail any number of methods of helping them so as to preserve the safety and well-being of those around them. Yes, if they are not willing to make the choices to preserve the comfort, safety, well-being of those around them, then society needs to intervene for the sake of those who would be put at unnecessary risk because of their choices.

__________________
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

I would like to add that he did start taking his medicine regularly but at the begining he tried to refuse.

__________________
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
-George Orwell

Any negative side effects of marijuana use are extremely rare and, generally speaking, those that experience such side effects discontinue its use.

The fact that someone might choose to do something that is not beneficial to society can only be used as justification for prohibition if you support a totalitarian state. If you support personal liberty and freedom and oppose totalitarianism then the rights of the individual supersede the authority of the state.

Do you apply this principle to crack and prostitution?

The element of unnecessary risk of such side-effects, no matter how rare you might think they are--in and of itself--is enough to disallow its use in such a society when considering said substance that has no collective benefit to society in the first place.

Shiva, it seems as if you're either forgetting how this government functions, or you're simply not wanting to remember how it functions. You're talking about anarchy, which is the individual acting as executive and judicial of his own life. The problem with this of course, is that each individual does the same thing, and there's nothing to prevent crime and chaos. A government is a central authority (keyword: authority) that is created not only to prevent chaos, but also so that rights may be enforced. Shiva, total "liberty" is anarchy, but the ironic thing is, your rights don't mean jack in a state of anarchy, because no one else is required to respect them. What's going to stop one individual from stealing from another? What's going to stop one individual from killing another? Nothing in anarchy or total "individual liberty." So a government like this one therefore requires that people give up that total liberty (the state of natural right to do whatever they wish without consequences) in order so that the central authority of the government can enforce the much more important rights, such as property, the right of life, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, etc.

You cannot do whatever it is you want to do. This is not an anarchy. You speak of "rights and individual liberties" but what you're really talking about is something that leads to chaos and destruction. This is a society with a central government-- people benefit from working and living in it, and they benefit from the work and lives of one another. Therefore, the government (that central authority) makes collective decisions to preserve the well-being of all citizens within that society. To demand to be able to smoke weed as if it's some natural "right" of yours can be defined as nothing but anarchical and frankly you won't be happy living here if that's what you're looking for. The framers of our Constitution knew all of this, just as John Locke knew all of it. They created a brilliant system that works for the mindset of most people. Unfortunately for some strange reason, it seems as if people just keep progressively wanting more and more and it won't result in anything good.

__________________
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

locke9-05

please look up "slippery slope" argument, I provided a link in one of my earlier posts in this thread, it's a common logical fallacy, one you've been committing over and over and over all thru this thread

then consider alcohol which by itself blows away your argument as you have already made it clear your ok with it yet it violates everything your against with respect to marijuana--side effects, dangerous behavior, body altering chemistry, even death are what alcohol is all about

all done while admitting no actual experience with any of the drugs being discussed, that is pure ignorance per its primary definition not its pejorative definition

Pedex, please do your research, before spouting off such claims that you're obviously not so knowledgeable about. It would seem apparent that the statements you're making reflect an extreme degree of overall lack of information on a topic/argument you're attempting to incorrectly pin on me. For instance, you just said:
Ironically, that's incorrect. The "slippery slope" argument is not by definition a fallacy, and it states that in the link you yourself provided:

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It would seem as if you didn't read that in the link you're requesting that I read. Let's see, what would be a good word to describe when one requests that something be read for a debate when they obviously haven't familiarized themselves with it? Well, besides "appalling" and completely "discourteous," "ironic" also comes to mind.

Secondly, you're misusing the whole idea of the "slippery slope" argument. The slippery slope argument suggests inevitability. I have not once suggested inevitability and I challenge you to find a proper and specific example of any of my arguments that matches up with all the conditions of the "slippery slope" argument. I do not believe in inevitability because I believe in free will. My arguments in this particular debate are based on the negative risks of a worthless substance to far outweigh the non-existent positives (there are none to society as a whole--only to the selfish individual). This is no different of an issue than speeding in an automobile in terms of weighing the pros versus the cons, my friend. I like to speed. I get where I'm going faster and it's exhilarating. Is it inevitable that I'll crash into someone else and injure them and/or myself? No. Just like it's never inevitable that anything incredibly negative will happen with marijuana. However, with both activities there's a heightened risk, and because both "activities" are incredibly unnecessary and contribute absolutely nothing to collective society, the risk is by definition an unnecessary risk. Therefore, speeding is illegal and so are other unnecessarily risky behaviors such as drugs that impair mental cognitive abilities (ie marijuana--in context to this topic). I like to speed, but because I recognize that it's an unnecessary risk--not an inevitable danger though (which is how you manipulated my words way out of context with all that "slippery slope" garbage, thanks very much )--I do my best to abide by those laws that are designed to preserve the rights of general safety and prevent those overly unnecessary risks from becoming problems

That is what my argument is based on, there was no "slippery slope" argument, and it appears you didn't even seem to understand the very idea of the "slippery slope" argument when you were throwing such accusations around. That would lead one to believe that you simply lack the initiative to do the necessary research and work to support your claims and it really tells one a lot--an unflattering amount, even--about your style as a "debater."
Then you haven't been following this debate properly. There was a point in time at which I was pondering the idea of responsible drinking as opposed to drinking in general and outright intoxication, but my personal viewpoint has remained the same, and that can be seen after those posts. I see no need for any of those worthless activities and society has no need for them.
That may be the most ridiculous, illogical crap I've ever heard. It's ignorance not to screw up the chemicals in my brain just to get a selfish and idiotic "high" when there are so many natural pleasures to be found from life? Not even in the context of this topic can it be considered "ignorance." What it seems you don't understand is that this topic isn't called "marijuana: who knows what it's like?" The general issue of this debate isn't about the effects individuals using the drug experience. This is about whether pot should or should not be legal--in the context of this society, as the title of the topic very blatantly indicates. You don't have to smoke pot to understand the outward effects of the drug on society, which is what this debate is about. If this debate were about the effects of the drug in general on the individual using it, then maybe you'd have a bit more of a point, but even then, in a debate, personal experience is irrelevant. An experienced debater would understand that fact. Unbiased evidence is used to convey arguments, therefore medical documents, studies, etc. must be used in place of biased "personal testimony." You're not fooling anyone, pedex.

__________________
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

Good question. Personally, I can see no reason why the Government should ban the sale and use of marijuana. Furthermore, at the end of the day, the State should have no right to dictate what can and cannot be consumed by an individual, providing that consumption doesn't have a negative impact on society and/or other individuals.

K.P.