Should pot be legal? Yes or no. - Page 18 - Political Forum

HenryDavidThoreau · 03-14-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spm150

That sort of logic is flawed. Your assumption that every time a person speeds he/she puts those around him at risk does not correlate with a completely opposite scenario where the driver speeding (person lighting up) is not risking any harm because there are no drivers around him to cause harm to others. Collectively group a number of marijuana abusers and you can succesfully draw the conclusion that with the induced effects of marijuana, every person lighting up in that group is putting another at risk.

I am not understanding what you are getting at. I was addressing my comment to Locke who said that marijuana use like speeding presents a constant risk to those around them. My point was that only speeding presents a constant risk each and everytime the behavior is happening which is not the case with marijuana use.

Also were alcohol users of the 1900s become alcohol abusers during the 1920s.

Spm150 · 03-14-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenryDavidThoreau

I am not understanding what you are getting at. I was addressing my comment to Locke who said that marijuana use like speeding is presents a constant risk to those around them. My point was that only speeding presents a constant risk each and everytime the behavior is happening which is not the case with marijuana use.

Also were alcohol users of the 1900s become alcohol abusers during the 1920s.

I don't understand then, your response to it. (I am by no way trying to intervene with your debate with Locke, I just need this explained). If Locke says that Marijuana is a constant risk to those around them, and you said this isn't true, therein referencing a person lighting up alone at their house, then that is not at all explaining how a person with a group of people, keeping in mind actual contact, lighting up is not putting those around him in constant danger. Therefore, I matched your relationship, asking how a person is putting those around him at risk by speeding if there is noone around him/her to put at harm?

HenryDavidThoreau · 03-14-2008, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spm150

I don't understand then, your response to it. (I am by no way trying to intervene with your debate with Locke, I just need this explained). If Locke says that Marijuana is a constant risk to those around them, and you said this isn't true, therein referencing a person lighting up alone at their house, then that is not at all explaining how a person with a group of people, keeping in mind actual contact, lighting up is not putting those around him in constant danger. Therefore, I matched your relationship, asking how a person is putting those around him at risk by speeding if there is noone around him/her to put at harm?

Locke believes that some sort of violence will arise after someone uses marijuana, you are more likely to see violence at a miniature golf course than at a "stoner's pad"

Speeding increases your stopping distance which increases your risk for an accident.

Locke9-05 · 03-14-2008, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenryDavidThoreau

Locke believes that some sort of violence will arise after someone uses marijuana, you are more likely to see violence at a miniature golf course than at a "stoner's pad"

Speeding increases your stopping distance which increases your risk for an accident.

I would appreciate it if you didn't phrase what I believe/the meaning of my arguments, rather it would be best to phrase what you perceive my arguments to mean and your perception of my beliefs.

There is an unnecessary risk factor that comes along with any individual experiencing side-effects like psychosis, schizophrenia-like symptoms, hallucinations, and paranoia, I never said "I believe some sort of violence will arise after someone uses marijuana" I expressed the truth that the side-effects include unstable mental symptoms--diagnosable as hazardous to those experiencing them. Then you add the factor that they're induced by a recreational drug that has no benefit or purpose to collective society and you have a pointless waste that has a harmful potential. It's completely illogical to allow that in society--by definition

HenryDavidThoreau · 03-14-2008, 09:22 PM

Lets finally agree to disagree.

Locke9-05 · 03-14-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenryDavidThoreau

Lets finally agree to disagree.

That's a good way to approach this. Fine by me.

Alba · 03-15-2008, 01:14 AM

Yes. Why not?

The Lying Dutchman · 03-15-2008, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

No, "majority rules" is not how a representative Democracy works, we've been over this at least twice. Decisions are made in order to preserve the well-being of the collective. Marijuana is by definition an individualist want, it's not required for any aspect of human life, and it produces and unhealthy, unstable, and potentially hazardous environment to those around the user. Society will not tolerate behavior like that--especially when it has no benefit to the collective. It's anarchical--individualistic.

It is the majority that gets to decide what is in the best interest of the collective, this does not make it necessarily truly the best interest of the collective, it is so in the perspective of the majority. this majority and society also accepts smoking and drinking as you know, so it is not entirely rue that good virtues are not always overuled by thing with no use in a society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

I said motor "vehicles." All motor vehicles. It's not an exaggeration, nor is it an "exacerbation." Both activities are useless except to the individual--they're anarchical and go against collective society. Both activities are potentially hazardous and most definitely unpleasant to those around the user who are not partaking in such activities. Those activities are violating the rights of the individuals who do not wish to experience such unpleasant, unstable and potentially hazardous effects of marijuana users' side-effects and the government is bound by the United States Constitution--as a matter of fact--to preserve the well-being of the collective--not the individual, and not the "majority." Context is what wins in this debate, logical context. The safety, security, rights and well-being of the collective are far more important than the selfish desires of marijuana smokers. And there you have it.

yes offcourse if you take it like that you can make a comparison, but everyone knows that speeding vehicles can kill directly and that why it doesnt stand in proportion to the negative effects of marihuana.

presluc · 03-15-2008, 12:15 PM

I have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand there would probably be a lot more people getting high and forgetting about things that's going on, we got enough people doing that already.
On the other hand it takes a lot more pot to kill than it does pills or booz.

Of course if does become legal it will be taxed through the roof not too many people will be able to afford it, look at cigarettes.

Locke9-05 · 03-15-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lying Dutchman

It is the majority that gets to decide what is in the best interest of the collective, this does not make it necessarily truly the best interest of the collective, it is so in the perspective of the majority. this majority and society also accepts smoking and drinking as you know, so it is not entirely rue that good virtues are not always overuled by thing with no use in a society.

That's simply incorrect. The majority doesn't rule in a collective society, not in American society. This is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy and the framers of our Constitution constructed it that way for good reason. The masses/majority do not know what's best for a nation, if the masses/majority were in control, they would almost certainly make decisions that would eliminate and undermine the authority of the government altogether--rendering their most important rights meaningless anyway. "Majority rules" is not how this system works, this system looks out for the collective, it looks to see what benefits the collective in terms of health, safety, rights, etc. Marijuana causes side-effects that are at best unpleasant, unhealthy, and potentially hazardous to those around the user--it inflicts upon those persons' (those nonusers') rights to live their lives without unnecessary or harmful disruption. So the government, the authority that is necessary for the balance of this nation logically determines that because recreational marijuana is not needed for any aspect of human life whatsoever, and because it negatively affects those around the user without their choosing, it cannot be a free part of this society. It's a selfish, harmful want and it has no place in this nation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lying Dutchman

yes offcourse if you take it like that you can make a comparison, but everyone knows that speeding vehicles can kill directly and that why it doesnt stand in proportion to the negative effects of marihuana.

Speeding vehicles doesn't kill or harm any more directly than marijuana. It causes several things that in turn cause accidents--loss of control, increased stopping time, etc--those things lead to accidents if the person is careless. But speeding by itself does not directly kill or harm anyone. The side-effects of marijuana do not directly harm anyone, but they create an environment that is at best unpleasant, unhealthy, and potentially hazardous to non-users (just like speeding to those who aren't actually speeding). The only difference is the actual activities themselves. Other than that, they hold the exact same pointless selfish stupidity and society will not have it inflicting upon the rights of non-users, just like they will not have speeders inflicting upon the rights of those who drive within the safe confines of the law. A collective society doesn't mean "majority rules" it means that the decisions made benefit the entire collective populace (everyone, not just the majority). Since marijuana is harmful and selfish--by definition, it's individualistically beneficial, but collectively harmful (unpleasant, unhealthy, and hazardous) therefore it does not fit in with a collectivist society. Is that clear now?