Should marijuana be legalized for recreational use? (Part 3)

[Ziggy Stardust]

See? You think alcohol should be legal. You think weed should be illegal. The two are not related. You're a spade--call yourself a damn spade.

One of those positions is not mine, I'll let you figure out which one

I think you misunderstand why the legal status of alcohol is brought up debates like these. It is to test the consistency of those who do not want to legalise weed but do want alcohol to be legal. (I don't think this is your position though.)

You need to have reasons why one, the other, or both should be legal/illegal. And your reasons have nothing to do with alcohol.

Indeed, that's what I already said. Alcohol isn't brought up as an argument why weed should or should not be legal (Well, by me anyway, can't speak for anyone else). I stated the reason it is used (by me) in debates. I don't see what's so hard to understand.

 

[cristina2009]

Marijuana was known to be an illegal drug that the government trying to stop young people as well as adult one in using it. Eventhough marijuana can be used as medicine for those people who have an asthma but still the effect of it are very hazardous if it's not used in proper way.

 

[tycoonist]

Marijuana was known to be an illegal drug that the government trying to stop young people as well as adult one in using it. Eventhough marijuana can be used as medicine for those people who have an asthma but still the effect of it are very hazardous if it's not used in proper way.

err, what??

 

[Mylon]

Ideally, we wouldn't need alcohol or weed and life would be all we would need to get high on. But, in an ideal world we wouldn't have war and we'd all get along, too.

 

[bender19]

neglect caused by drug abuse.

No dog no death in this case, the dog is the direct cause.

The most recent official survey, conducted more than a decade ago, determined there were 4.7 million dog bite victims annually in the USA. A more recent study showed that 1,000 Americans per day are treated in emergency rooms as a result of dog bites. In 2007 there were 33 fatal dog attacks in the USA. Most of the victims who receive medical attention are children, half of whom are bitten in the face. Dog bite losses exceed $1 billion per year, with over $300 million paid by homeowners insurance.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

Maybe its time to outlaw dogs. Thats far more deaths than marajuana has ever directly caused.

This might seem obvious to all but the difference between murder and marajuana use is one always involves the death of somebody against their will the other doesn't. One can be done responsibly without injury to anybody, the other is by defination killing a person. If you need these differences spelt out the education system has failed you.

 

[tycoonist]

No dog no death in this case, the dog is the direct cause.


http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

Maybe its time to outlaw dogs. Thats far more deaths than marajuana has ever directly caused.

This might seem obvious to all but the difference between murder and marajuana use is one always involves the death of somebody against their will the other doesn't. One can be done responsibly without injury to anybody, the other is by defination killing a person. If you need these differences spelt out the education system has failed you.

1000 things which have caused more deaths than marijuana:
1. dogs ^^
2. roof tiles
3. deodorant
4. laughter
5. malmsey wine
6. baseball
7. scarves
8. umbrellas
9. hockey pucks
10. swimming pool drains
.......................

please continue.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Hippos are the mammal that has killed more humans than any other (except other humans).

 

[Shekwan]

This kid is awesome!

Basically, he wrote an essay for his class about why marijuana should be legalised then afterward sat dow and enjoyed a joint. Apparently he ate the roach afterwards, I guess maybe so he could deny it? That bit wasn't the smartest move.

 

[BasketCase]

You're really living up to your username with this one... this doesn't make the slightest bit of sense at all.

Well, the comprehension problem is on your end. Tycoonist understood it perfectly:

i would still be pro-legalization, but that is because i believe that marijuana is less harmful than just about anything

Most people who are pro-weed would still be pro-weed if alcohol was illegal.

 

[Elta]

Most people who are pro-weed would still be pro-weed if alcohol was illegal.

And pro alcohol as well for that matter.

 

[mrt144]

Well, the comprehension problem is on your end. Tycoonist understood it perfectly:

Most people who are pro-weed would still be pro-weed if alcohol was illegal.

What is the point of pointing this out? That you hate individual freedom?

 

[BasketCase]

One of those positions is not mine, I'll let you figure out which one

Holy crap. That's the worst typo I ever committed.

Previous post corrected. Ziggy thinks alcohol should be legal. Ziggy thinks weed should be legal. The two are not related to each other. On a similar note:

Totally wrong.

I'm pro-consistency. It is not consistent for alcohol and tobacco (much less the 1000s of OTC medicines anyone can buy) legal but not marijuana. You want marijuana illegal? Fine by me, let's just not be hypocrites and ban alcohol and cigarettes as well. Plus, we should take most OTC medicines and have them require prescriptions for usage.

Actually, I was blabbing at Ziggy and not you, but what the hey.

I say pro-consistency is the wrong way to do it. A thing is right or wrong on its own merits. Should negroes have the right to vote? How about Irish? Or Chinese? Or women? Just because neither Irish nor negroes can vote (and I think that actually WAS the case in the U.S. for quite some time), didn't make it okay to ban Irish and negroes from the polls. If Irish can vote but blacks can't (which I'm pretty sure also really happened), well, hey--it ain't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

Basketcase, you've been restating the same arguments for around two thousand posts now, most usually without any support. I imagine that this gets quite tiresome.

Yeah. It's tiresome. As the saying goes, the truth hurts.

So what, if anything, would actually convince you to change your mind? It doesn't have to be anything you see as plausible, but would there be anything that could convince you that legalisation was the right route?

Nope. Never. The number one reason I hate weed is because it messes up the brain. I am completely and violently opposed to anything that messes up the brain (and, no--before some wise guy makes some stupid claim about food, coffee, or inevitably, sex--those things do not mess up the brain).

Things such as whether weed causes cancer and whether weed causes you to have car accidents are lower down on my list.

 

[BasketCase]

Most people who are pro-weed would still be pro-weed if alcohol was illegal.

What is the point of pointing this out?

Because it's the truth.

 

[BasketCase]

1000 things which have caused more deaths than marijuana:
1. dogs ^^
2. roof tiles
3. deodorant
4. laughter
5. malmsey wine
6. baseball
7. scarves
8. umbrellas
9. hockey pucks
10. swimming pool drains
.......................

Absolutely true, and I can think of a whole lot of things to add to that list.

But this list leaves something out: why do all those things kill more people than weed? Because weed is illegal.

 

[Elta]

Absolutely true, and I can think of a whole lot of things to add to that list.

But this list leaves something out: why do all those things kill more people than weed? Because weed is illegal.

You can not OD on Marijuana. Furthermore, 100s of OTC medications are more detrimental to your ability to operate heavy machinery and yet they are still legal.


The fact that doctors actually prescribe Marijuana pretty well kills your allegations that it gives cancer and kills slowly. Even if it did a vaporizer solves that problem completely.

Marijuana does not kill people and any reasonable person can see that. You would be a fool to believe it kills people.

 

[BasketCase]

You can not OD on Marijuana.

Yes, you can. It's just extremely difficult to OD on it by smoking it.

Besides, weed kills you in several ways other than overdose. I've seen many of my opponents pull this trick: trying to limit the terms of the debate to overdose only. I'm not going to fall for it.

Marijuana does not kill people and any reasonable person can see that.

I'm never going to fall for that pathetic trick either.

 

[Elta]

Yes, you can. It's just extremely difficult to OD on it by smoking it.

Besides, weed kills you in several ways other than overdose. I've seen many of my opponents pull this trick: trying to limit the terms of the debate to overdose only. I'm not going to fall for it.


I'm never going to fall for that pathetic trick either.

If You honestly want to try and stop the almost inevitable legalization I would try coming up with some better arguments other than covering your ears and yelling "la la la I am not listening"

You have yet to convince a single person in well over 2,000 post. You need to work on your rhetoric. You are just terrible at this.

 

[BasketCase]

That's why I'm here, Elta: to work on my rhetoric.

The more you argue against me, the better I get. I test my arguments in the real world every now and then--and they work.

Thanks for the practice.

Debate is not a search for truth. It is an exercise in rhetoric.
-- Ian Samuels​

 

[Elta]

That's why I'm here, Elta: to work on my rhetoric.

The more you argue against me, the better I get. I test my arguments in the real world every now and then--and they work.

Thanks for the practice.

Yeah back at yay. Though I can say you have wowed me with anything I couldn't be able to handle in real life thinking on my feet

 

[BasketCase]

In fact, I'll go right ahead and give you guys a little tip.

There's one . .. .. .. .. . in my armor: the question of whether government has the right to intervene in what we smoke/shoot/snort. That's not something we can measure with a slide rule. It's an intangible based on emotion rather than facts or statistics. There's no numerical scale saying "the government should only have 47 qwadzors of power over our personal lives--marijuana rates 82 on the quadzor scale, therefore government shouldn't regulate it". Doesn't work that way.

When I argue with real people on this topic, they almost always eventually resort to that line: "even if weed does cause cancer or cause car accidents, the government shouldn't have that kind of power over our personal lives". Thereby ending the argument with "fine, we're just going to have to agree to disagree".

So next time you get into an argument over weed, just save everybody a bunch of headaches and skip to that key argument I underlined. And, at the same time--keep in mind that it might be me you're talking to. I could be anywhere on the planet right now. Hell, I might be living next door to you at this very moment......

Edit: You've gotta be kidding me--the language filter bans THAT word????