Should pot be legal? Yes or no. - Page 22 - Political Forum

presluc · 03-18-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

What does that have to do with the fact that it is harmful? The more people doing pot and other wasteful idiotic illegal drugs, the more people breathing in the crap from that junk if it's made legal, the more people affected in negative and harmful ways from such drugs, the higher insurance costs are going to be for all taxpayers and that is an infringement upon the rights of those who don't do any of that crap. We don't want to be around that crap, we don't want to be around the harmful effects of it, and we don't want to have to pay for hiked up insurance costs that result from the health issues and other insurance problems that will most certainly arise--as they've shown to in the past. Cigarette smokers have higher insurance rates than non-smokers. Alcohol abusers have higher insurance rates than non-drinkers, and marijuana users are no different.
I'm not talking just about free health care. I'm talking about health insurance premiums as well. You wouldn't believe the ridiculous costs that companies heap on the rest of taxpaying society because of the idiotic behaviors of some law-breaking individuals with very unhealthy lifestyles. Those of us who don't do pot, those of us who don't do illegal drugs don't want to have to pay for those kinds of expenses. They would all even out in the end if it was legalized and the government knows that it wouldn't be worth it.
I just said. Those who don't use marijuana. Those who use marijuana are illegally infringing upon the rights of those around them who do not use it, putting them in a generally unpleasant, unhealthy and potentially hazardous environment.
Yes, the list goes on, but that list right there has nothing to do with this topic. Health insurance premiums that skyrocket because of the unhealthy lifestyles of selfish individuals--that are then dumped on the taxpayers, are not logical, and they are not worth the trouble of legalizing such a pointless, worthless recreational drug--is what I was talking about.

So I guess obeisity, bolimia,anarexia,steriod use,depression, don't have anything to do with health premiums huh?
I don't drink booz you think if some drunk throws up on me on the subway,or drives while he's drunk he might be infringing on my rights?
The topic was should pot be legal.
TOPIC You expect to have a debate on this topic with no references?
lIFESTYLES ARE DUPED ON THE TAXPAYERS? WHO GETS CHOOSE.WHICH LIFESTYLE IS OK TO "DUPE" THE TAXPAYER?
Example when a corporation ask for the government to bail them out with a loan of taxpayer dollars you think the ceo and the board of directors are selling their private jet or that extra house?

Example oli companies had record profits, plus a tax cut, and still they needed taxpayer dollars for research?

I'm a bit confused cause you keep sayin dupted by the taxpayer, yet the one who would pay the most tax is the ones who actually use marijunia.
Has far as health insurance premiums going up because of legalizing weed.
Two simple questions.
1 Has marijunia ever been legal in the U.S.?
2 Has insurance premiums went up in the U.S.?

presluc · 03-18-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nash

listen i never said that weed did not serve a medical purpose it most likly does so does cocaine(codien) and morphine but the 98% of people who want to legalize it want only to abuse it. When you smoke weed and there is clearly nothing wrong with you you are an abuser alcohol can be good as well but how many use it for medical purpose, they abuse it
well i was talking about lowminded people who abuse weed just to get some high feeling BOOKS can do the same thing!! But they subject themselves to the low level of becoming an abuser killing of the brain more and more when reading and learning new things enhances the brain. And for intellegent people its a shame that their intellegence has reached a level that they start to degress and become an abuser, there must not be enough for them to study or maybe their bored in any event they are subsituting their intellect to act like a low minded creature. And your last statement well i believe you put yourself into that catogory i never called you low minded i had said also intellegent people as well you classified yourself. SAY NO TO ABUSE!!

I agree wholheartly!! you are most definitly correct!!

uhhhh 1. america is always in debt and will alwaysbe in debt the federal reserve makes sure of that they print money and lend key word lend out and every dollar has debt attached to it. Weed selling is not going to help pay debt off, ask yourself why the pharmicies are not paying off this debt all the new drugs comming out and the debt is still there and you think that WEED wrapped in a superman costume is going to magicly bring america out of debt, who ever told you that tell them to get off of cloud 9!!

2.the same can be said of guns

never did i say it is a myth

then when it becomes legal watch the surgeon generals warning weed alchol and cigaretts is bad.

As far as weed coming out in a superman costume to "magicaly" bring America out of debt ain't going to happen never said it would.
However here's a question for you.

Do you think that the tax on cigaretts might have some impact on the national or state reserve?

Allso there is the fact that cigarettes mostly come from the U.S.A, not some other country. Could not mairijuna be grown here as well.?

Locke9-05 · 03-18-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lying Dutchman

the topic is on marihuana, but the logical comparison is offcourse made with legal non-constructive goods because it exposes a double standard of society.

A double standard that little can be done about. What else can be done but to point it out and to show that yes--alcohol is legal. Yes, it's dumb. Society should ban alcohol as it's no different--pointless and potentially hazardous. That's as much as can be said about it in this debate. Continuing to "expose" the double standard over and over again doesn't really accomplish anything.

nerv14 · 03-18-2008, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

A double standard that little can be done about. What else can be done but to point it out and to show that yes--alcohol is legal. Yes, it's dumb. Society should ban alcohol as it's no different--pointless and potentially hazardous. That's as much as can be said about it in this debate. Continuing to "expose" the double standard over and over again doesn't really accomplish anything.

sorry to bring up the double standard again... but if you feel that alcohol should be outlawed does that mean that you support what what going on in prohibition where all peopel were able to get alcohol anyway while also experiencing increased crime. Also see how that relates to today where pot and crime from pot is commmon.

FRYandBENDER · 03-18-2008, 05:50 PM

Legalize it Mon!!

The Lying Dutchman · 03-18-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

A double standard that little can be done about. What else can be done but to point it out and to show that yes--alcohol is legal. Yes, it's dumb. Society should ban alcohol as it's no different--pointless and potentially hazardous. That's as much as can be said about it in this debate. Continuing to "expose" the double standard over and over again doesn't really accomplish anything.

perhaps it proofs that the interests of society consists of more than what is logical? and that double standards can exist in government as they exist in humans as long as they are understood?

Locke9-05 · 03-18-2008, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nerv14

sorry to bring up the double standard again... but if you feel that alcohol should be outlawed does that mean that you support what what going on in prohibition where all peopel were able to get alcohol anyway while also experiencing increased crime. Also see how that relates to today where pot and crime from pot is commmon.

Hey, it's fine to bring it up--especially when it prefaces a new discussion point like you just brought to the table. That's a good question, and let's just say this much: I support the government acting in the vested interests of the collective populace--in the case of alcohol, yes, that means enforcing consequences for those who indulge in a substance that is both societally pointless (individualistically selfish) and has a high risk of hazard to those around the user. The prohibition's failure cannot be blamed on the ordinance itself, because the ordinance itself was to enforce consequences. I would say there were more than a few factors that led to the downfall of the prohibition, such as the methods of enforcing the prohibition, government corruption, etc. Also, one must not forget that those who choose to commit crimes and defy such ordinances are the ones who are to blame for the increased crime rates--the laws preventing the selfish and unnecessary behaviors (which are designed and implemented to uphold and enforce consequences for the actions in question anyway) cannot be somehow held responsible for crime.

As for today and the crime rate argument with pot, I've been debating in this thread and others like it for quite some time, and I'll present you with a post of mine from before which shows my stance on how crime is principally the result of a society's culture, and cannot be blamed on laws:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

:
In the Netherlands--a country which has firsthand experienced the effects of legalization--reports these statistics (direct from Statistics Netherlands):

CBS - Murder rate tripled - Web magazine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Statistics Netherlands

Until 1965 the relative number of victims of murder and manslaughter was low: around 0.4 per 100 thousand inhabitants. Between 1965 and 1990 the number of victims rose sharply to around 1.2 per 100 thousand in 1990.

The murder rate rose sharply coincidentally during that whole time period when marijuana was legalized. Interesting. The one country known for legalization--the one country with actual experience, and that's what happened? Japan, on the other hand, has an even stricter drug policy than the US and they enjoy a crime rate that is a fraction of ours here in the States. That leaves us really only with two possible conclusions:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Two Possible Conclusions - Marijuana and Crime

A. Legalization is what causes crime--whether you deny it or not, that's a bit too remarkable of a coincidence to be considered pure coincidence. Interpret it as you will.

otherwise...

B. Crime is purely cultural. If you deny conclusion A., conslusion B. is all that's left, and that's still a huge blow to your side of this debate. Pro-legalization advocates seem quick to blame crime rates--which only result from criminals anyway (aka people who commit crimes--drug abusers included--irony...)--on prohibition, which is completely illogical, given that Japan has an even stricter prohibition than the US, and their crime rate is much lower than the US crime rate.

As you can see, the law cannot be blamed for crime. Criminals are responsible for crimes. If anything within a country affects crime, it's that country's culture. The government of the United States cannot be blamed because the government opposes crime and enforces consequences for those who commit crimes. The criminals are to blame and they are influenced by the culture and environment around them--not the government and laws that are put in place for the collective

Locke9-05 · 03-18-2008, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by presluc

So I guess obeisity, bolimia,anarexia,steriod use,depression, don't have anything to do with health premiums huh?
I don't drink booz you think if some drunk throws up on me on the subway,or drives while he's drunk he might be infringing on my rights?

Yes, if someone is driving around you on the roads under the influence of alcohol, he's most definitely infringing on your rights. He's putting you in a very hazardous situation that you didn't choose to be put in because of his choosing to become impaired from a stupid mindlessly "indulgent" drink. That's more than infringing on your rights, yes. All those things have to do with health insurance premiums. All those problems should be worked on. But in the case of bulimia, anorexia, and depression, you're talking about things that are literally out of the person's control. They cannot help it because those are mental disorders. They do not mentally make the choice to succumb to those mental disorders, so the best thing we can do is help them get over it. Obesity is a tough one. Too many Americans are overweight and obese, but the only thing that can really be done about it is encourage them to lose weight... It's not the same situation as pot with the many unpleasant, unhealthy, and potentially hazardous side-effects to non-users that come along with the problem and hiked up insurance premiums itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by presluc

The topic was should pot be legal.
TOPIC You expect to have a debate on this topic with no references?
lIFESTYLES ARE DUPED ON THE TAXPAYERS? WHO GETS CHOOSE.WHICH LIFESTYLE IS OK TO "DUPE" THE TAXPAYER?

The word I used was "dump" and I was referring to the high costs of insurance premiums that would become even higher with unnecessarily unhealthy drugs like marijuana out on the market. The point I was making is that taxing it would not make any difference, because the taxpayers collectively would be paying the insurance premiums for health insurance that we would undoubtedly see zooming skyward with legalized marijuana. Those of us who don't do stupid drugs don't want to pay for those wasteful expenses, and the government knows just how wasteful those expenses are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by presluc

Example when a corporation ask for the government to bail them out with a loan of taxpayer dollars you think the ceo and the board of directors are selling their private jet or that extra house?

Example oli companies had record profits, plus a tax cut, and still they needed taxpayer dollars for research?

I'm a bit confused cause you keep sayin dupted by the taxpayer, yet the one who would pay the most tax is the ones who actually use marijunia.
Has far as health insurance premiums going up because of legalizing weed.

We as United States taxpayers pay for insurance premiums, yes. We also pay for expenses that go to the healthcare plans. These expenses are going to even out with any taxes placed on marijuana if it's legalized and it's simply not worth the trouble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by presluc

Two simple questions.
1 Has marijunia ever been legal in the U.S.?
2 Has insurance premiums went up in the U.S.?

There was a point at which it wasn't illegal, but it's never been legalized--I suppose you could consider that "legal," sure. Yes, insurance premiums go up and down--affected by numerous factors.

The Lying Dutchman · 03-18-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

Hey, it's fine to bring it up--especially when it prefaces a new discussion point like you just brought to the table. That's a good question, and let's just say this much: I support the government acting in the vested interests of the collective populace--in the case of alcohol, yes, that means enforcing consequences for those who indulge in a substance that is both societally pointless (individualistically selfish) and has a high risk of hazard to those around the user. The prohibition's failure cannot be blamed on the ordinance itself, because the ordinance itself was to enforce consequences. I would say there were more than a few factors that led to the downfall of the prohibition, such as the methods of enforcing the prohibition, government corruption, etc. Also, one must not forget that those who choose to commit crimes and defy such ordinances are the ones who are to blame for the increased crime rates--the laws preventing the selfish and unnecessary behaviors (which are designed and implemented to uphold and enforce consequences for the actions in question anyway) cannot be somehow held responsible for crime.

As for today and the crime rate argument with pot, I've been debating in this thread and others like it for quite some time, and I'll present you with a post of mine from before which shows my stance on how crime is principally the result of a society's culture, and cannot be blamed on laws:

As you can see, the law cannot be blamed for crime. Criminals are responsible for crimes. If anything within a country affects crime, it's that country's culture. The government of the United States cannot be blamed because the government opposes crime and enforces consequences for those who commit crimes. The criminals are to blame and they are influenced by the culture and environment around them--not the government and laws that are put in place for the collective

im afraid conclusion A and B dont quite cut it to explain the increase in crime. you cant just narrow down the cause of an increase in crime to either the legalisation of a plant or a 'culture'. these where the years of increased migration, consequent multi-culturality and the increase of overall wealth. there are numerous more variables that can explain the increase in crime in any country outside of plants or culture

Locke9-05 · 03-18-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lying Dutchman

im afraid conclusion A and B dont quite cut it to explain the increase in crime. you cant just narrow down the cause of an increase in crime to either the legalisation of a plant or a 'culture'. these where the years of increased migration, consequent multi-culturality and the increase of overall wealth. there are numerous more variables that can explain the increase in crime in any country outside of plants or culture

Yes I know, and the post at that time was reflective of the fact that while there are so many factors, one cannot blame crime on the laws put in place against it.