First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Prop 19 has failed
47115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10


What? Dealt with? Your response in that old thread didnt deal with anything really.

Being a 220 pound muscle man beats being fat, but sure as hell people are going to be fat because they just choose to be so.
People get high for a reason, if there weren't any advantages to getting high, then people wouldn't get high. Don't simply say that being sober is auto-better than being high.

And what do you mean my post in that thread didnt matter? Problems are created in any sort of way imaginable, not simply whether a person is intoxicated or not. The point is the freedom of that choice should be higher than any sort of problem that could possibly counter it

Being sober does indeed have its advantages over being intoxicated, but the other way is true too. You make it sound like when someone is high, they are more likely to have problems as opposed to being sober. Which sure as hell ain't the case. Plus its not like when your sober you dont have problems already
Posted 11/4/10

superluccix wrote:



What? Dealt with? Your response in that old thread didnt deal with anything really.

Being a 220 pound muscle man beats being fat, but sure as hell people are going to be fat because they just choose to be so.
People get high for a reason, if there weren't any advantages to getting high, then people wouldn't get high. Don't simply say that being sober is auto-better than being high.

And what do you mean my post in that thread didnt matter? Problems are created in any sort of way imaginable, not simply whether a person is intoxicated or not. The point is the freedom of that choice should be higher than any sort of problem that could possibly counter it

Being sober does indeed have its advantages over being intoxicated, but the other way is true too. You make it sound like when someone is high, they are more likely to have problems as opposed to being sober. Which sure as hell ain't the case. Plus its not like when your sober you dont have problems already
Thank you for once again contradicting yourself with your own unrealistic expectations of "sober does indeed have its advantages over being intoxicated, but the other way is true too." Any further rants coming from yourself is futile, until you can clearly and distinctively explain just how a stoner is a better choice for problem-solving as oppose to someone being sober.
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10

DomFortress wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

According to the Aristotelian rule of non-contradiction, the science has changed. When old discovery just got disproved with new findings. And even without legalization, these information are made available for the public, so there's no stigma regarding medical marijuana usage. However, you're committing a naturalistic fallacy on multiple levels; the "is-to-ought" slide from medical benefits into recreational, and another one from voluntary slavery to freedom. With that kind of mindset, you might as well become an Islamic fundamentalist; it doesn't cost you a dime to start, while the results are instantaneous: you're voluntarily enslaved by the God of Islam.

Finally, when your only concern is the economics, that's still within the realm of utilitarianism morality.


Utilitarianism? Look at your government for that... I'm a Libertarian. I was not speaking about the economy of my behalf, but from the governments stand point...

Also about Islamic fundamentalists... Just because you think alike, doesn't mean you agree with everything... Also I am certain that Islamic fundamentalists were not the first to enjoy ideology of believing in 'individual freedom with personal liberty'

Also, the 'old science', was not disproved. It was modified to fit with the new research. Knowing that perhaps 25-50% of seizure patients would not see positive effects or see worsening effects due to their condition being from a different part of the brain does not completely rule out the possibility of a treatment. Especially when the study is with rats.
Enough with your red herrings logic fallacy and stay on topic, as in since you already denied my scientific proofs on the lack of medical marijuana benefits with insufficient justifications, nor had you came up with a strong argument against my criticism about how recreational marijuana usage is a poor objective moral choice. It's thereby futile of you to argue about my Canadian government's medical marijuana regulation program with clear and distinct guidelines, or the fact that you would had to be physically risking yourself being sick, in order for yourself to be qualified as a human lab-rat for medical testing.


superluccix wrote:



My response, its big

Overrated and dealt with. When sober beats being high.



It seems to me you are just trying to call me out on any logical fallacy you can possibly find because you don't agree with what I say. Also I am not talking about Canada, I am talking about prop 19, which is what this thread is about, and it deals with the United States. It is not my job to refute your criticism about my claims as I entirely agree with them on the scientific level, besides the idealistic diversion we obviously have, I have 'never' denied any of your claims, I denied your belief that it invalidates previous research. Now, one thing you need to understand is that new research 'corrects' previous research, it does not invalidate it unless it makes the previous understandings completely unless, which in this case it absolutely does not, it updates it.

It has proved that there are other treatments that can effectively help certain problems better than pot, yet that is a small win for you as pot is vastly a multi-purpose drug. Also, just because pot may be less effective that once thought at helping seizures because certain subjects have the problem in different parts of the brain... That at best would make it so that you need to find out what type case you have to see whether it is right for you or not. This is exactly the reason most pharmaceutical drugs advertise them as a great help, but 'not for everyone'



Your sources have at most told me that maybe four or five of the stimulants found in this chart have varying levels of effectiveness, and in some case the opposite with certain patients. And just because one specifically developed treatment may work slightly better on one of these problems listed. I don't know about you, but to me, that sure doesn't invalidate the usefulness of pot.
47115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10
Dude. How am I contradicting myself?

"the freedom of that choice should be higher than any sort of problem that could possibly counter it"
"Being sober does indeed have its advantages over being intoxicated, but the other way is true too. "

How the hell do those contradict myself? The first line says that I believe the freedom of choice has a higher priority than any sort of problem that marijuana has. People shouldnt be penalized for what they put into their bodies.
Then the 2nd line says that sober people have advantages over people who are high....and vice versa.

How the hell does that contradict myself?

Anyways "My unrealistic expectations?" What? Where the hell did I say anything about expectations....let alone being unrealistic?

You want me to explain how being high has an advantage over being sober? Did you really just ask that? Fine Ill answer. Its because you are HIGH. Thats the advantage being high has over being sober.....cant believe I had to actually answer that.

Who the hell said problem-solving? Where the hell did I say that marijuana will solve people's problems? First off, who the hell says that all marijuana users are smoking marijuana to run away from some life problem? Do you not listen when people say for "Recreational Use?" Do you not understand what this means? Recreational use of marijuana is on the same level of me playing a video game. And surely you wouldn't say Im running from reality or life's problems would you?

But for your sake, lets just all assume that marijuana users smoke to run away from problems, since thats obviously the only way you see it. So what if they smoke marijuana to maybe not have to think about their problem for another couple of hours? Its no different than me putting off studying for a test till the last minute, am I running away from the problem of my having to take a test by simply putting it off to a later date? I dont think so, since thats usually how I study for exams. They are going to have to face that problem sooner or later. What moral law is out there that tells me everytime I see any sort of problem, I must tackel it on head first right at that very moment?

Seriously dude, your entire response just now said nothing but false information. At least from the way I see it

Thank you for once again contradicting yourself with your own unrealistic expectations of "sober does indeed have its advantages over being intoxicated, but the other way is true too."

I fail to see where and how I contradict myself.

Any further rants coming from yourself is futile, until you can clearly and distinctively explain just how a stoner is a better choice for problem-solving as oppose to someone being sober.

As I already said, the advantage of being high to being sober is.........YOUR HIGH.

I seriously think that you are a firm believer that if your not doing something productive, then you aren't living a morally proper life. In some ways I envy that, which makes it seem like you are a strict follower of rules, and thats good. But really man, lets face it, the majority of reality likes relaxation time. Don't take it away from them


Posted 11/4/10

varnlestoff wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

According to the Aristotelian rule of non-contradiction, the science has changed. When old discovery just got disproved with new findings. And even without legalization, these information are made available for the public, so there's no stigma regarding medical marijuana usage. However, you're committing a naturalistic fallacy on multiple levels; the "is-to-ought" slide from medical benefits into recreational, and another one from voluntary slavery to freedom. With that kind of mindset, you might as well become an Islamic fundamentalist; it doesn't cost you a dime to start, while the results are instantaneous: you're voluntarily enslaved by the God of Islam.

Finally, when your only concern is the economics, that's still within the realm of utilitarianism morality.


Utilitarianism? Look at your government for that... I'm a Libertarian. I was not speaking about the economy of my behalf, but from the governments stand point...

Also about Islamic fundamentalists... Just because you think alike, doesn't mean you agree with everything... Also I am certain that Islamic fundamentalists were not the first to enjoy ideology of believing in 'individual freedom with personal liberty'

Also, the 'old science', was not disproved. It was modified to fit with the new research. Knowing that perhaps 25-50% of seizure patients would not see positive effects or see worsening effects due to their condition being from a different part of the brain does not completely rule out the possibility of a treatment. Especially when the study is with rats.
Enough with your red herrings logic fallacy and stay on topic, as in since you already denied my scientific proofs on the lack of medical marijuana benefits with insufficient justifications, nor had you came up with a strong argument against my criticism about how recreational marijuana usage is a poor objective moral choice. It's thereby futile of you to argue about my Canadian government's medical marijuana regulation program with clear and distinct guidelines, or the fact that you would had to be physically risking yourself being sick, in order for yourself to be qualified as a human lab-rat for medical testing.


superluccix wrote:



My response, its big

Overrated and dealt with. When sober beats being high.



It seems to me you are just trying to call me out on any logical fallacy you can possibly find because you don't agree with what I say. Also I am not talking about Canada, I am talking about prop 19, which is what this thread is about, and it deals with the United States. It is not my job to refute your criticism about my claims as I entirely agree with them on the scientific level, besides the idealistic diversion we obviously have, I have 'never' denied any of your claims, I denied your belief that it invalidates previous research. Now, one thing you need to understand is that new research 'corrects' previous research, it does not invalidate it unless it makes the previous understandings completely unless, which in this case it absolutely does not, it updates it.

It has proved that there are other treatments that can effectively help certain problems better than pot, yet that is a small win for you as pot is vastly a multi-purpose drug. Also, just because pot may be less effective that once thought at helping seizures because certain subjects have the problem in different parts of the brain... That at best would make it so that you need to find out what type case you have to see whether it is right for you or not. This is exactly the reason most pharmaceutical drugs advertise them as a great help, but 'not for everyone'



Your sources have at most told me that maybe four or five of the stimulants found in this chart have varying levels of effectiveness, and in some case the opposite with certain patients. And just because one specifically developed treatment may work slightly better on one of these problems listed. I don't know about you, but to me, that sure doesn't invalidate the usefulness of pot.
The fact still remains that not every sickness can be cured by pot alone, while pot can undermine other drug treatments when used in conjunction with them. That's the medical "updates". Way to go at making another naturalistic fallacy, just like how you still couldn't prove how smoking pot is a healthy recreational alternative than being sober.[/sarcasm]
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10

DomFortress wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

According to the Aristotelian rule of non-contradiction, the science has changed. When old discovery just got disproved with new findings. And even without legalization, these information are made available for the public, so there's no stigma regarding medical marijuana usage. However, you're committing a naturalistic fallacy on multiple levels; the "is-to-ought" slide from medical benefits into recreational, and another one from voluntary slavery to freedom. With that kind of mindset, you might as well become an Islamic fundamentalist; it doesn't cost you a dime to start, while the results are instantaneous: you're voluntarily enslaved by the God of Islam.

Finally, when your only concern is the economics, that's still within the realm of utilitarianism morality.


Utilitarianism? Look at your government for that... I'm a Libertarian. I was not speaking about the economy of my behalf, but from the governments stand point...

Also about Islamic fundamentalists... Just because you think alike, doesn't mean you agree with everything... Also I am certain that Islamic fundamentalists were not the first to enjoy ideology of believing in 'individual freedom with personal liberty'

Also, the 'old science', was not disproved. It was modified to fit with the new research. Knowing that perhaps 25-50% of seizure patients would not see positive effects or see worsening effects due to their condition being from a different part of the brain does not completely rule out the possibility of a treatment. Especially when the study is with rats.
Enough with your red herrings logic fallacy and stay on topic, as in since you already denied my scientific proofs on the lack of medical marijuana benefits with insufficient justifications, nor had you came up with a strong argument against my criticism about how recreational marijuana usage is a poor objective moral choice. It's thereby futile of you to argue about my Canadian government's medical marijuana regulation program with clear and distinct guidelines, or the fact that you would had to be physically risking yourself being sick, in order for yourself to be qualified as a human lab-rat for medical testing.


superluccix wrote:



My response, its big

Overrated and dealt with. When sober beats being high.



It seems to me you are just trying to call me out on any logical fallacy you can possibly find because you don't agree with what I say. Also I am not talking about Canada, I am talking about prop 19, which is what this thread is about, and it deals with the United States. It is not my job to refute your criticism about my claims as I entirely agree with them on the scientific level, besides the idealistic diversion we obviously have, I have 'never' denied any of your claims, I denied your belief that it invalidates previous research. Now, one thing you need to understand is that new research 'corrects' previous research, it does not invalidate it unless it makes the previous understandings completely unless, which in this case it absolutely does not, it updates it.

It has proved that there are other treatments that can effectively help certain problems better than pot, yet that is a small win for you as pot is vastly a multi-purpose drug. Also, just because pot may be less effective that once thought at helping seizures because certain subjects have the problem in different parts of the brain... That at best would make it so that you need to find out what type case you have to see whether it is right for you or not. This is exactly the reason most pharmaceutical drugs advertise them as a great help, but 'not for everyone'



Your sources have at most told me that maybe four or five of the stimulants found in this chart have varying levels of effectiveness, and in some case the opposite with certain patients. And just because one specifically developed treatment may work slightly better on one of these problems listed. I don't know about you, but to me, that sure doesn't invalidate the usefulness of pot.
The fact still remains that not every sickness can be cured by pot alone, while pot can undermine other drug treatments when used in conjunction with them. That's the medical "updates". Way to go at making another naturalistic fallacy, just like how you still couldn't prove how smoking pot is a healthy recreational alternative than being sober.[/sarcasm]


Heh, recreation in moderation. Never said it was a healthy alternative to 'sobriety', I was pointing out that it is not a 'unhealthy' alternative, or at least nowhere near as problematic when comparing it to your legal alternatives, cigarettes, alcohol, oh yes and even caffeine... With the absence of terrible negative effects, any positive effect that can be attributed to pot is just tilting it in a favorable way. Sort of an 'icing on the cake' way of looking at it I suppose. Really the health benefits don't need to be there to begin with, as you can see there are things with absolutely no health benefits, that are plagued with negative effects such as cigarettes being completely legal. Really think about it for a moment, what's the true motivation behind, or even a benefit behind the complete opposite to something destructive like cigarettes being illegal?

Franky, if you look at everything you can about the subject, the bottom line becomes. Is having it illegal really worth it fiscally or morally? It seems to me there are a lot more controversial things out there, and yet they are so accepted that they go right over our heads.

It can be shown that more people die due to pot because of it's illegality. People either do something stupid in fear of being caught with it, or drug cartels murder people. I've had cases of my own where I've been in a lot of trouble 'nothing illegal', but other people didn't want to help me out because they were worried if the police came to their house, they would get busted for possession.

Something so large, and so accepted by so many, is only creating problems when it is illegal like this.
Posted 11/4/10

superluccix wrote:

Dude. How am I contradicting myself?

"the freedom of that choice should be higher than any sort of problem that could possibly counter it"
"Being sober does indeed have its advantages over being intoxicated, but the other way is true too. "

How the hell do those contradict myself? The first line says that I believe the freedom of choice has a higher priority than any sort of problem that marijuana has. People shouldnt be penalized for what they put into their bodies.
Then the 2nd line says that sober people have advantages over people who are high....and vice versa.

How the hell does that contradict myself?

Anyways "My unrealistic expectations?" What? Where the hell did I say anything about expectations....let alone being unrealistic?

You want me to explain how being high has an advantage over being sober? Did you really just ask that? Fine Ill answer. Its because you are HIGH. Thats the advantage being high has over being sober.....cant believe I had to actually answer that.

Who the hell said problem-solving? Where the hell did I say that marijuana will solve people's problems? First off, who the hell says that all marijuana users are smoking marijuana to run away from some life problem? Do you not listen when people say for "Recreational Use?" Do you not understand what this means? Recreational use of marijuana is on the same level of me playing a video game. And surely you wouldn't say Im running from reality or life's problems would you?

But for your sake, lets just all assume that marijuana users smoke to run away from problems, since thats obviously the only way you see it. So what if they smoke marijuana to maybe not have to think about their problem for another couple of hours? Its no different than me putting off studying for a test till the last minute, am I running away from the problem of my having to take a test by simply putting it off to a later date? I dont think so, since thats usually how I study for exams. They are going to have to face that problem sooner or later. What moral law is out there that tells me everytime I see any sort of problem, I must tackel it on head first right at that very moment?

Seriously dude, your entire response just now said nothing but false information. At least from the way I see it

Thank you for once again contradicting yourself with your own unrealistic expectations of "sober does indeed have its advantages over being intoxicated, but the other way is true too."

I fail to see where and how I contradict myself.

Any further rants coming from yourself is futile, until you can clearly and distinctively explain just how a stoner is a better choice for problem-solving as oppose to someone being sober.

As I already said, the advantage of being high to being sober is.........YOUR HIGH.

I seriously think that you are a firm believer that if your not doing something productive, then you aren't living a morally proper life. In some ways I envy that, which makes it seem like you are a strict follower of rules, and thats good. But really man, lets face it, the majority of reality likes relaxation time. Don't take it away from them
No, believe it. You just sounded like a broken record with your entitlement claim that goes nowhere. Way to go at yourself running out of choice for words, when you can't even control your train of thought.

So do feel free to rant yourself off a cliff, you're entitled at least for that much.[/sarcasm]


varnlestoff wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

The fact still remains that not every sickness can be cured by pot alone, while pot can undermine other drug treatments when used in conjunction with them. That's the medical "updates". Way to go at making another naturalistic fallacy, just like how you still couldn't prove how smoking pot is a healthy recreational alternative than being sober.[/sarcasm]


Heh, recreation in moderation. Never said it was a healthy alternative to 'sobriety', I was pointing out that it is not a 'unhealthy' alternative, or at least nowhere near as problematic when comparing it to your legal alternatives, cigarettes, alcohol, oh yes and even caffeine... With the absence of terrible negative effects, any positive effect that can be attributed to pot is just tilting it in a favorable way. Sort of an 'icing on the cake' way of looking at it I suppose. Really the health benefits don't need to be there to begin with, as you can see there are things with absolutely no health benefits, that are plagued with negative effects such as cigarettes being completely legal. Really think about it for a moment, what's the true motivation behind, or even a benefit behind the complete opposite to something destructive like cigarettes being illegal?

Franky, if you look at everything you can about the subject, the bottom line becomes. Is having it illegal really worth it fiscally or morally? It seems to me there are a lot more controversial things out there, and yet they are so accepted that they go right over our heads.

It can be shown that more people die due to pot because of it's illegality. People either do something stupid in fear of being caught with it, or drug cartels murder people. I've had cases of my own where I've been in a lot of trouble 'nothing illegal', but other people didn't want to help me out because they were worried if the police came to their house, they would get busted for possession.

Something so large, and so accepted by so many, is only creating problems when it is illegal like this.
Who says I'm into any of those, when whatever that doesn't make you strong will kill you. That includes marijuana abuse.
47115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10


Due to you not actually attempting to tell me what exactly I did to sound like a hypocrite, and due to you somehow thinking I have run out of a choice for words, and someone thinking I cant control my train of thought, and acting like a total douche with all of your /sarcasm and just pure attacking of the person's character instead of actually proving the other person wrong in any sort of way. I am forced to simply label you as a Troll. Good day to you sir, since I surely won't be responding back to you again
Posted 11/4/10 , edited 11/4/10

DomFortress wrote:


superluccix wrote:

Dude. How am I contradicting myself?

"the freedom of that choice should be higher than any sort of problem that could possibly counter it"
"Being sober does indeed have its advantages over being intoxicated, but the other way is true too. "

How the hell do those contradict myself? The first line says that I believe the freedom of choice has a higher priority than any sort of problem that marijuana has. People shouldnt be penalized for what they put into their bodies.
Then the 2nd line says that sober people have advantages over people who are high....and vice versa.

How the hell does that contradict myself?

Anyways "My unrealistic expectations?" What? Where the hell did I say anything about expectations....let alone being unrealistic?

You want me to explain how being high has an advantage over being sober? Did you really just ask that? Fine Ill answer. Its because you are HIGH. Thats the advantage being high has over being sober.....cant believe I had to actually answer that.

Who the hell said problem-solving? Where the hell did I say that marijuana will solve people's problems? First off, who the hell says that all marijuana users are smoking marijuana to run away from some life problem? Do you not listen when people say for "Recreational Use?" Do you not understand what this means? Recreational use of marijuana is on the same level of me playing a video game. And surely you wouldn't say Im running from reality or life's problems would you?

But for your sake, lets just all assume that marijuana users smoke to run away from problems, since thats obviously the only way you see it. So what if they smoke marijuana to maybe not have to think about their problem for another couple of hours? Its no different than me putting off studying for a test till the last minute, am I running away from the problem of my having to take a test by simply putting it off to a later date? I dont think so, since thats usually how I study for exams. They are going to have to face that problem sooner or later. What moral law is out there that tells me everytime I see any sort of problem, I must tackel it on head first right at that very moment?

Seriously dude, your entire response just now said nothing but false information. At least from the way I see it

Thank you for once again contradicting yourself with your own unrealistic expectations of "sober does indeed have its advantages over being intoxicated, but the other way is true too."

I fail to see where and how I contradict myself.

Any further rants coming from yourself is futile, until you can clearly and distinctively explain just how a stoner is a better choice for problem-solving as oppose to someone being sober.

As I already said, the advantage of being high to being sober is.........YOUR HIGH.

I seriously think that you are a firm believer that if your not doing something productive, then you aren't living a morally proper life. In some ways I envy that, which makes it seem like you are a strict follower of rules, and thats good. But really man, lets face it, the majority of reality likes relaxation time. Don't take it away from them
No, believe it. You just sounded like a broken record with your entitlement claim that goes nowhere. Way to go at yourself running out of choice for words, when you can't even control your train of thought.

So do feel free to rant yourself off a cliff, you're entitled at least for that much.[/sarcasm]


varnlestoff wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

The fact still remains that not every sickness can be cured by pot alone, while pot can undermine other drug treatments when used in conjunction with them. That's the medical "updates". Way to go at making another naturalistic fallacy, just like how you still couldn't prove how smoking pot is a healthy recreational alternative than being sober.[/sarcasm]


Heh, recreation in moderation. Never said it was a healthy alternative to 'sobriety', I was pointing out that it is not a 'unhealthy' alternative, or at least nowhere near as problematic when comparing it to your legal alternatives, cigarettes, alcohol, oh yes and even caffeine... With the absence of terrible negative effects, any positive effect that can be attributed to pot is just tilting it in a favorable way. Sort of an 'icing on the cake' way of looking at it I suppose. Really the health benefits don't need to be there to begin with, as you can see there are things with absolutely no health benefits, that are plagued with negative effects such as cigarettes being completely legal. Really think about it for a moment, what's the true motivation behind, or even a benefit behind the complete opposite to something destructive like cigarettes being illegal?

Franky, if you look at everything you can about the subject, the bottom line becomes. Is having it illegal really worth it fiscally or morally? It seems to me there are a lot more controversial things out there, and yet they are so accepted that they go right over our heads.

It can be shown that more people die due to pot because of it's illegality. People either do something stupid in fear of being caught with it, or drug cartels murder people. I've had cases of my own where I've been in a lot of trouble 'nothing illegal', but other people didn't want to help me out because they were worried if the police came to their house, they would get busted for possession.

Something so large, and so accepted by so many, is only creating problems when it is illegal like this.
Who says I'm into any of those, when whatever that doesn't make you strong will kill you. That includes marijuana abuse.


Not me?

Lol nice 'strong link'

Btw interesting debate man, i'll continue it sometime once the effects of marijuana become directly linked with the great zombie outbreak of 2023, which I am dead serious about.
Posted 11/5/10

superluccix wrote:



Due to you not actually attempting to tell me what exactly I did to sound like a hypocrite, and due to you somehow thinking I have run out of a choice for words, and someone thinking I cant control my train of thought, and acting like a total douche with all of your /sarcasm and just pure attacking of the person's character instead of actually proving the other person wrong in any sort of way. I am forced to simply label you as a Troll. Good day to you sir, since I surely won't be responding back to you again
I meant your entitlement claim of being high is good because of being high, that's circular reasoning which get you nowhere. You douchebag.


varnlestoff wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


superluccix wrote:

Dude. How am I contradicting myself?

"the freedom of that choice should be higher than any sort of problem that could possibly counter it"
"Being sober does indeed have its advantages over being intoxicated, but the other way is true too. "

How the hell do those contradict myself? The first line says that I believe the freedom of choice has a higher priority than any sort of problem that marijuana has. People shouldnt be penalized for what they put into their bodies.
Then the 2nd line says that sober people have advantages over people who are high....and vice versa.

How the hell does that contradict myself?

Anyways "My unrealistic expectations?" What? Where the hell did I say anything about expectations....let alone being unrealistic?

You want me to explain how being high has an advantage over being sober? Did you really just ask that? Fine Ill answer. Its because you are HIGH. Thats the advantage being high has over being sober.....cant believe I had to actually answer that.

Who the hell said problem-solving? Where the hell did I say that marijuana will solve people's problems? First off, who the hell says that all marijuana users are smoking marijuana to run away from some life problem? Do you not listen when people say for "Recreational Use?" Do you not understand what this means? Recreational use of marijuana is on the same level of me playing a video game. And surely you wouldn't say Im running from reality or life's problems would you?

But for your sake, lets just all assume that marijuana users smoke to run away from problems, since thats obviously the only way you see it. So what if they smoke marijuana to maybe not have to think about their problem for another couple of hours? Its no different than me putting off studying for a test till the last minute, am I running away from the problem of my having to take a test by simply putting it off to a later date? I dont think so, since thats usually how I study for exams. They are going to have to face that problem sooner or later. What moral law is out there that tells me everytime I see any sort of problem, I must tackel it on head first right at that very moment?

Seriously dude, your entire response just now said nothing but false information. At least from the way I see it

Thank you for once again contradicting yourself with your own unrealistic expectations of "sober does indeed have its advantages over being intoxicated, but the other way is true too."

I fail to see where and how I contradict myself.

Any further rants coming from yourself is futile, until you can clearly and distinctively explain just how a stoner is a better choice for problem-solving as oppose to someone being sober.

As I already said, the advantage of being high to being sober is.........YOUR HIGH.

I seriously think that you are a firm believer that if your not doing something productive, then you aren't living a morally proper life. In some ways I envy that, which makes it seem like you are a strict follower of rules, and thats good. But really man, lets face it, the majority of reality likes relaxation time. Don't take it away from them
No, believe it. You just sounded like a broken record with your entitlement claim that goes nowhere. Way to go at yourself running out of choice for words, when you can't even control your train of thought.

So do feel free to rant yourself off a cliff, you're entitled at least for that much.[/sarcasm]


varnlestoff wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

The fact still remains that not every sickness can be cured by pot alone, while pot can undermine other drug treatments when used in conjunction with them. That's the medical "updates". Way to go at making another naturalistic fallacy, just like how you still couldn't prove how smoking pot is a healthy recreational alternative than being sober.[/sarcasm]


Heh, recreation in moderation. Never said it was a healthy alternative to 'sobriety', I was pointing out that it is not a 'unhealthy' alternative, or at least nowhere near as problematic when comparing it to your legal alternatives, cigarettes, alcohol, oh yes and even caffeine... With the absence of terrible negative effects, any positive effect that can be attributed to pot is just tilting it in a favorable way. Sort of an 'icing on the cake' way of looking at it I suppose. Really the health benefits don't need to be there to begin with, as you can see there are things with absolutely no health benefits, that are plagued with negative effects such as cigarettes being completely legal. Really think about it for a moment, what's the true motivation behind, or even a benefit behind the complete opposite to something destructive like cigarettes being illegal?

Franky, if you look at everything you can about the subject, the bottom line becomes. Is having it illegal really worth it fiscally or morally? It seems to me there are a lot more controversial things out there, and yet they are so accepted that they go right over our heads.

It can be shown that more people die due to pot because of it's illegality. People either do something stupid in fear of being caught with it, or drug cartels murder people. I've had cases of my own where I've been in a lot of trouble 'nothing illegal', but other people didn't want to help me out because they were worried if the police came to their house, they would get busted for possession.

Something so large, and so accepted by so many, is only creating problems when it is illegal like this.
Who says I'm into any of those, when whatever that doesn't make you strong will kill you. That includes marijuana abuse.


Not me?

Lol nice 'strong link'

Btw interesting debate man, i'll continue it sometime once the effects of marijuana become directly linked with the great zombie outbreak of 2023, which I am dead serious about.
Then the pleasure is all yours, when you hardly worthy of a challenge.
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 11/5/10 , edited 11/5/10

digs wrote:

This is good news. Legalizing marijuana is a bad idea in my opinion and I'm glad California voters struck it down. Regardless, I'm not sure that a state can legalize a federally illegal substance.



Ares_Mars wrote:

I'm kinda glad they didn't pass it.



Easy for you to say Digs since you don't live in California. I live in California and our enormous debt is fucking up with the entire state. Our public college fees keep going up and other things cost a shit ton as a result of our debt. The one prop that could have significantly and quickly reduced our threat was shot down because people can't open up their minds beyond "Oh jesus (lisp), drugs are bad!"

It's completely insane that people can legalize alcohol under specific conditions and consider marijuana to be distinctly more harmful than alcohol when in truth weed is probably a better recreational substance overall. Not to mention, the people who provide marijuana to California aren't saints. The people who provide the weed also don't return the money into the economy. Alcohol, since legalized and controlled, provides income for the state. Why can't we make Marijuana the same?

I suggest those who are advocates of "not passing prop19" lose their ridiculous held beliefs for one second and consider the law in an objective and practical way. Then again, that is like telling illogical people to start becoming logical.

In other words, our state will continue to fund questionable groups buy buying their weed and we'll continue to be in an enormous debt.




To those talking about the possibility of "increased crime rate" with the legalization of marijuana, I want you people to think for a second. What is crime? Crime is when someone commits a deed that is considered illegal by the state/country. If we pass marijuana, there is an instant decrease in crime since people will no longer be arrested for owning marijuana. (Do you people realize how many people are arrested in California alone for simply possessing weed?) Then again, you'll argue, "But marijuana is a gateway drug! It will cause people to seek out stronger drugs and this will cause the increase in crime!"

I have read both positions while holding off as much bias as I could. Based on my research, I found that people arguing against the "gateway drug" theory more often relied on pure numbers, proper research techniques, and some even admits that a minority do indeed use marijuana as a gateway drug. (Don't be a lazy bum and ask me for the research. Go to a Search engine, type in proper search words and read. Also read the people who control the website and look at the sources carefully. Proper Research 101) In other words, these studies present overwhelming numbers that show marijuana is only a gateway drug to a minority of the overall smoking population. This also proves another fact: Marijuana itself cannot possibly be the gateway drug, there is another factor which causes individuals to move from marijuana to other harder drugs.

So after that, I continued researching the opposite side: those who claim that marijuana is a gateway drug. Many of the arguments I've read in this side were not pure numbers, but mostly sensationalist journalism based off of the minority (stated up) who do use marijuana as a gateway drug.

Consider this carefully people. Toss your pre-disposed doubts and judgments aside and read both sides; if you are keen at picking up the use of rhetoric devices, you'll observe the same thing.
Posted 11/5/10

makix wrote:



Easy for you to say Digs since you don't live in California. I live in California and our enormous debt is fucking up with the entire state. Our public college fees keep going up and other things cost a shit ton as a result of our debt. The one prop that could have significantly and quickly reduced our threat was shot down because people can't open up their minds beyond "Oh jesus (lisp), drugs are bad!"

It's completely insane that people can legalize alcohol under specific conditions and consider marijuana to be distinctly more harmful than alcohol when in truth weed is probably a better recreational substance overall. Not to mention, the people who provide marijuana to California aren't saints. The people who provide the weed also don't return the money into the economy. Alcohol, since legalized and controlled, provides income for the state. Why can't we make Marijuana the same?

I suggest those who are advocates of "not passing prop19" lose their ridiculous held beliefs for one second and consider the law in an objective and practical way. Then again, that is like telling illogical people to start becoming logical.

In other words, our state will continue to fund questionable groups buy buying their weed and we'll continue to be in an enormous debt.

To those talking about the possibility of "increased crime rate" with the legalization of marijuana, I want you people to think for a second. What is crime? Crime is when someone commits a deed that is considered illegal by the state/country. If we pass marijuana, there is an instant decrease in crime since people will no longer be arrested for owning marijuana. (Do you people realize how many people are arrested in California alone for simply possessing weed?) Then again, you'll argue, "But marijuana is a gateway drug! It will cause people to seek out stronger drugs and this will cause the increase in crime!"

I have read both positions while holding off as much bias as I could. Based on my research, I found that people arguing against the "gateway drug" theory more often relied on pure numbers, proper research techniques, and some even admits that a minority do indeed use marijuana as a gateway drug. (Don't be a lazy bum and ask me for the research. Go to a Search engine, type in proper search words and read. Also read the people who control the website and look at the sources carefully. Proper Research 101) In other words, these studies present overwhelming numbers that show marijuana is only a gateway drug to a minority of the overall smoking population. This also proves another fact: Marijuana itself cannot possibly be the gateway drug, there is another factor which causes individuals to move from marijuana to other harder drugs.

So after that, I continued researching the opposite side: those who claim that marijuana is a gateway drug. Many of the arguments I've read in this side were not pure numbers, but mostly sensationalist journalism based off of the minority (stated up) who do use marijuana as a gateway drug.

Consider this carefully people. Toss your pre-disposed doubts and judgments aside and read both sides; if you are keen at picking up the use of rhetoric devices, you'll observe the same thing.
I argue that the outside factor is strictly a human one; substance abuse. And judging from the history of how humans had abused themselves with their recreational drug usage, I reason that without a comprehensive ethic study on the proper recreational usage of marijuana, as a guideline to minimize the harm of human substance abuse on the greater society as a whole. I personally cannot support Proposition 19 based on the utilitarian school of moralities known as the Harm Principle and the Ethic of Care.

However, insofar that's exactly the opposite of what the strongest supporters of Proposition 19 want for themselves. When all they cared about is to remove the negative stigmas associated with recreational marijuana usage through decriminalization. I don't see any sort of remorse nor practice of self-control, self-regulation, nor a sense of responsibility for their own actions. Hence I don't have sufficient objective moral reasoning to legalize recreational marijuana usage from the population that supports the notion. Even though ironically as it many seen, the proposition itself does include a comprehensive regulation plan on recreational marijuana usage both in the public and the private spheres.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/5/10 , edited 11/5/10

makix wrote:


digs wrote:

This is good news. Legalizing marijuana is a bad idea in my opinion and I'm glad California voters struck it down. Regardless, I'm not sure that a state can legalize a federally illegal substance.



Ares_Mars wrote:

I'm kinda glad they didn't pass it.



Easy for you to say Digs since you don't live in California. I live in California and our enormous debt is fucking up with the entire state. Our public college fees keep going up and other things cost a shit ton as a result of our debt. The one prop that could have significantly and quickly reduced our threat was shot down because people can't open up their minds beyond "Oh jesus (lisp), drugs are bad!"

It's completely insane that people can legalize alcohol under specific conditions and consider marijuana to be distinctly more harmful than alcohol when in truth weed is probably a better recreational substance overall. Not to mention, the people who provide marijuana to California aren't saints. The people who provide the weed also don't return the money into the economy. Alcohol, since legalized and controlled, provides income for the state. Why can't we make Marijuana the same?

I suggest those who are advocates of "not passing prop19" lose their ridiculous held beliefs for one second and consider the law in an objective and practical way. Then again, that is like telling illogical people to start becoming logical.

In other words, our state will continue to fund questionable groups buy buying their weed and we'll continue to be in an enormous debt.




To those talking about the possibility of "increased crime rate" with the legalization of marijuana, I want you people to think for a second. What is crime? Crime is when someone commits a deed that is considered illegal by the state/country. If we pass marijuana, there is an instant decrease in crime since people will no longer be arrested for owning marijuana. (Do you people realize how many people are arrested in California alone for simply possessing weed?) Then again, you'll argue, "But marijuana is a gateway drug! It will cause people to seek out stronger drugs and this will cause the increase in crime!"

I have read both positions while holding off as much bias as I could. Based on my research, I found that people arguing against the "gateway drug" theory more often relied on pure numbers, proper research techniques, and some even admits that a minority do indeed use marijuana as a gateway drug. (Don't be a lazy bum and ask me for the research. Go to a Search engine, type in proper search words and read. Also read the people who control the website and look at the sources carefully. Proper Research 101) In other words, these studies present overwhelming numbers that show marijuana is only a gateway drug to a minority of the overall smoking population. This also proves another fact: Marijuana itself cannot possibly be the gateway drug, there is another factor which causes individuals to move from marijuana to other harder drugs.

So after that, I continued researching the opposite side: those who claim that marijuana is a gateway drug. Many of the arguments I've read in this side were not pure numbers, but mostly sensationalist journalism based off of the minority (stated up) who do use marijuana as a gateway drug.

Consider this carefully people. Toss your pre-disposed doubts and judgments aside and read both sides; if you are keen at picking up the use of rhetoric devices, you'll observe the same thing.


The law failed because it was poorly written.

It left it up to the towns and counties to decide tax levels, and it didn't clearly define the criminal penalties of driving under the influence of pot.

Fix those and it would probably pass.

But diggs is right, even if it did pass, its still not legal, pot is illegal under federal law, states cannot legalize pot.
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 11/6/10

DomFortress wrote:


makix wrote:



Easy for you to say Digs since you don't live in California. I live in California and our enormous debt is fucking up with the entire state. Our public college fees keep going up and other things cost a shit ton as a result of our debt. The one prop that could have significantly and quickly reduced our threat was shot down because people can't open up their minds beyond "Oh jesus (lisp), drugs are bad!"

It's completely insane that people can legalize alcohol under specific conditions and consider marijuana to be distinctly more harmful than alcohol when in truth weed is probably a better recreational substance overall. Not to mention, the people who provide marijuana to California aren't saints. The people who provide the weed also don't return the money into the economy. Alcohol, since legalized and controlled, provides income for the state. Why can't we make Marijuana the same?

I suggest those who are advocates of "not passing prop19" lose their ridiculous held beliefs for one second and consider the law in an objective and practical way. Then again, that is like telling illogical people to start becoming logical.

In other words, our state will continue to fund questionable groups buy buying their weed and we'll continue to be in an enormous debt.

To those talking about the possibility of "increased crime rate" with the legalization of marijuana, I want you people to think for a second. What is crime? Crime is when someone commits a deed that is considered illegal by the state/country. If we pass marijuana, there is an instant decrease in crime since people will no longer be arrested for owning marijuana. (Do you people realize how many people are arrested in California alone for simply possessing weed?) Then again, you'll argue, "But marijuana is a gateway drug! It will cause people to seek out stronger drugs and this will cause the increase in crime!"

I have read both positions while holding off as much bias as I could. Based on my research, I found that people arguing against the "gateway drug" theory more often relied on pure numbers, proper research techniques, and some even admits that a minority do indeed use marijuana as a gateway drug. (Don't be a lazy bum and ask me for the research. Go to a Search engine, type in proper search words and read. Also read the people who control the website and look at the sources carefully. Proper Research 101) In other words, these studies present overwhelming numbers that show marijuana is only a gateway drug to a minority of the overall smoking population. This also proves another fact: Marijuana itself cannot possibly be the gateway drug, there is another factor which causes individuals to move from marijuana to other harder drugs.

So after that, I continued researching the opposite side: those who claim that marijuana is a gateway drug. Many of the arguments I've read in this side were not pure numbers, but mostly sensationalist journalism based off of the minority (stated up) who do use marijuana as a gateway drug.

Consider this carefully people. Toss your pre-disposed doubts and judgments aside and read both sides; if you are keen at picking up the use of rhetoric devices, you'll observe the same thing.
I argue that the outside factor is strictly a human one; substance abuse. And judging from the history of how humans had abused themselves with their recreational drug usage, I reason that without a comprehensive ethic study on the proper recreational usage of marijuana, as a guideline to minimize the harm of human substance abuse on the greater society as a whole. I personally cannot support Proposition 19 based on the utilitarian school of moralities known as the Harm Principle and the Ethic of Care.

However, insofar that's exactly the opposite of what the strongest supporters of Proposition 19 want for themselves. When all they cared about is to remove the negative stigmas associated with recreational marijuana usage through decriminalization. I don't see any sort of remorse nor practice of self-control, self-regulation, nor a sense of responsibility for their own actions. Hence I don't have sufficient objective moral reasoning to legalize recreational marijuana usage from the population that supports the notion. Even though ironically as it many seen, the proposition itself does include a comprehensive regulation plan on recreational marijuana usage both in the public and the private spheres.


People who support Proposition 19 are not aiming for legalization of marijuana in order to remove the "Social stigmas" associated with recreational marijuana. I'm not sure why you do this, but it appears that you take the concept of marijuana into the most possible level of representation when in fact, people in your own life who you think wouldn't smoke marijuana, do smoke marijuana. There is a reason why people who smoke marijuana keep it a secret - there is a social stigma; this I will not deny. However, the social stigma is created by the very people who insensibly decide that "weed is bad" in order to improperly criticize/prosecute individuals who decide to use marijuana with very pure motives - remove mental stress or relieve physical pain. It is ridiculous to make such a beneficial substance as a stigma in society when in fact, any form of medication can be potentially abused. Medical marijuana is legal in California, but this requires patients to meet a certain "threshold" of necessity in order to posses marijuana when marijuana is used in various ways; whether it is migraine pains or simply daily stress.

It is no surprise when I say, "Stressed people drink alcohol to escape". If this is the case, why can't people use Marijuana as a substance of escape?

I understand where your arguments are coming from, but I think you are thinking this too much. People overestimate the negative side effects of marijuana.
Posted 11/6/10

makix wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

I argue that the outside factor is strictly a human one; substance abuse. And judging from the history of how humans had abused themselves with their recreational drug usage, I reason that without a comprehensive ethic study on the proper recreational usage of marijuana, as a guideline to minimize the harm of human substance abuse on the greater society as a whole. I personally cannot support Proposition 19 based on the utilitarian school of moralities known as the Harm Principle and the Ethic of Care.

However, insofar that's exactly the opposite of what the strongest supporters of Proposition 19 want for themselves. When all they cared about is to remove the negative stigmas associated with recreational marijuana usage through decriminalization. I don't see any sort of remorse nor practice of self-control, self-regulation, nor a sense of responsibility for their own actions. Hence I don't have sufficient objective moral reasoning to legalize recreational marijuana usage from the population that supports the notion. Even though ironically as it many seen, the proposition itself does include a comprehensive regulation plan on recreational marijuana usage both in the public and the private spheres.


People who support Proposition 19 are not aiming for legalization of marijuana in order to remove the "Social stigmas" associated with recreational marijuana. I'm not sure why you do this, but it appears that you take the concept of marijuana into the most possible level of representation when in fact, people in your own life who you think wouldn't smoke marijuana, do smoke marijuana. There is a reason why people who smoke marijuana keep it a secret - there is a social stigma; this I will not deny. However, the social stigma is created by the very people who insensibly decide that "weed is bad" in order to improperly criticize/prosecute individuals who decide to use marijuana with very pure motives - remove mental stress or relieve physical pain. It is ridiculous to make such a beneficial substance as a stigma in society when in fact, any form of medication can be potentially abused. Medical marijuana is legal in California, but this requires patients to meet a certain "threshold" of necessity in order to posses marijuana when marijuana is used in various ways; whether it is migraine pains or simply daily stress.

It is no surprise when I say, "Stressed people drink alcohol to escape". If this is the case, why can't people use Marijuana as a substance of escape?

I understand where your arguments are coming from, but I think you are thinking this too much. People overestimate the negative side effects of marijuana.
I didn't overestimate the medical benefits of marijuana, because just like the state of California, Canada has a nationwide regulation on legalized medical marijuana usage. My problem is the constant illogical naturalistic fallacy of the "recreational" usage of marijuana for healthy people to escape, using the "medical" benefits of marijuana on those who are unhealthy. Since when did healthy people equal unhealthy patients? Do the recreational marijuana users see themselves being too weak to handle the natural struggle that is their own life in the first place? Why is the objective definition of recreation has anything to do with actively weakening humans' natural coping ability to manage stress? Just what's that got to do with promoting a good society through wellness lifestyle in California? All that need to be considered when you wanna make a law that maximizes flourishing.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.