Warcraft Legacy Starcraft Legacy BlizzForums
The Future?

Go Back   BlizzForums > General Forums > Serious Discussion

Serious Discussion Intelligent Debate and Discussion of Important Life Topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes


Old 02-10-2009
 
#31
United States GenocideAlive
You Want My Shoes?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,277
 GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...
Default Re: Mary Jane

Well, Ace, I can certainly acquiesce that I do not have a good measure of exactly how chemically addictive marijuana is. In my research and examination of what I can determine is unbiased material, my best estimate is that MJ is somewhere around cigarettes. There may not be any nicotine in MJ acting as an addictive substance, but I believe THC's psychoactive properties make up lost ground. I can't think of any way to assign an ordinal number to MJ out of all the addictive drugs out there, but I can say that I definitely do not think it is inert. I know people that like cigarettes but not MJ and vice versa, suggesting that there definitely exists some properties in one that make it more attractive than another.

As far as saying that vaporizers can be used and there are means of avoiding MJ's smoked side effects, I will retort that wearing a condom prevents the vast majority of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. While a condom is orders of magnitude cheaper than a vaporizer, more portable, and more convenient, getting the public at large to simply wrap it before they tap it is an onerous burden of public health. The effects of STDs are more immediate, dangerous, and transmissible than MJ could ever be. However, getting people to simply recognize the constant, looming danger of AIDS / HSV / warts / pregnancy and respond is all but a lost cause with many. I can only imagine how HHS plans on communicating a sense of urgency in regard to a debilitating disease that will afflict users in 20-40 years.

And in regard to people being unwilling to pay for pharmaceuticals, you're rapidly eroding my empathy for what are sounding more and more like addicts. They love this perfectly harmless "non-addictive", "unharmful" smoke so much they're willing to break the law and risk jail for it. OK, that sounds a little extreme but I'll go with it. Breaking news: A legal, viable alternative to their love arrives that is absolved of health risks involving smoking. But...they still don't want it, now citing that they begrudge "big pharma" for charging more than the uncultured plant would cost. Is this really an issue of the recreation, anymore? It's beginning to sound like that either A. Something is in this smoke that isn't in the pill denoting an addictive property, or B. The people smoking this possess so little regard for the law that they believe an urge on their part overrides legal process.

Either way, I don't see how it's either the government's problem to appease these people or endorse the use of this drug wholesale. If you truly wish to argue at length in regard to its legalization, the burden of proof is on you, not me or the law. The precedent has been set, regardless of whether or not you believe it was set correctly or fitting to your arbitrary definition of justice.

As for Zura and DE's trolling and equivocations, just ignore them and they'll go elsewhere for attention. Don't get in trouble over trying to point out the achingly obvious, they make their money goading a response to justify their circus.
 

Last edited by GenocideAlive; 02-10-2009 at 01:44 PM.
GenocideAlive has 2,277 Posts
 

GenocideAlive is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-11-2009
 
#32
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Default Re: Mary Jane

Well it's become evident at this point that you are not interested in a rational discussion of this topic, but rather would like to state your views, assert them as fact, and then go on to argue why you are right and why everyone else is wrong. I would never try to engage you in a subject that you clearly knew more about than me (microbiology for example), but you don't show the same courtesy because, as we have seen, you are not interested in learning.

I've asked you some pretty simple questions, but you refuse to answer them. They tie in directly to your argument.

1) You claim we should ban marijuana because of the medical costs associated with it being legal. Ignoring the fact that there are still medical costs associated with it being illegal (since the prohibition has had no effect on the availability of marijuana, and in fact more people smoke marijuana now than they ever did when it was legal), I've given you a counter-example, that of fast food. You replied that food is required for one to survive, I replied that drugs are required to survive also. The point you are missing is that not all food is necessary, just like not all drugs are necessary, we are in fact talking about which KINDS of foods/drugs should be legal.

But you won't address this blatant contradiction in your logic, why is that? As I've stated before, you are not interested in either learning about a subject you clearly have no knowledge of or debating in a rational manner what little you do know.

2) You never seem to think about the costs associated with your designs (this is the archetypical liberal view -- to ignore costs). You ignore the existence of sunk costs and oppurtunity costs, and other hidden costs, and probably didn't even bother to learn about the Broken Window Fallacy. If I wanted everyone to have a good car example, this would be a noble goal. However, it really depends upon what costs I am willing to accomplish this goal. When the costs outweigh the benefit then this becomes a net negative, but since you admittedly have little knowledge of economics, nor any interest in learning about how economies work, we can't really have a rational discussion about it.
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-12-2009
 
#33
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Default Re: Mary Jane

Since Fark.com is my homepage I went to open up my browser and look at the very first article I see (actual headline):

"Three respected former presidents say America's war on drugs is failing and the U.S. government should break with "prohibition" policies that have achieved little more than cram its prisons and stoke violence" with obvious tag.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori.../?zIndex=52098

They join ranks with our former drug Czar who acknowledged that the war on drugs has been a monumental failure. In my opinion, only the uninformed or unintelligent can still support the drug war at this point.
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-13-2009
 
#34
United States GenocideAlive
You Want My Shoes?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,277
 GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...
Default Re: Mary Jane

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hawaiian View Post
But you won't address this blatant contradiction in your logic, why is that? As I've stated before, you are not interested in either learning about a subject you clearly have no knowledge of or debating in a rational manner what little you do know.
While you loudly proclaim that I am uninterested in debate or learning, it does not slow down or shorten your responses and wild digressions from topic matter. If I am truly ignorant, unintelligent, irrational, and unlearning, you would assumably not be so dense as to waste your time attempting to ridicule and argue with me. Somewhere in your desperate equivocation between food that is more harmful than others and a non-medicinal drug used for recreational purposes, you've failed to "address [your own] blatant contradiction in logic". I am not surprised, as you seem habitually preoccupied with the supposed quality of every argument but your own.

I do not address your loaded questions because I do not agree with the implicit logic--as I've stated before. All you have done is re-written your previous assertion that eating McDonalds to fulfill a basic human need is the same as smoking marijuana for a self-actualizing activity and added in an ad hominem attack. Arguments about the War on Drugs involve digressions that are ostensibly not relevant to this topic (crack, cocaine, etc.), and prohibition as a historical extrapolation is relying so heavily on prognostications and predictions as to be largely an exercise in mental masturbation. The status quo remains, and such is not fuel for any machine to reverse it. From my perspective, nothing has changed.

I will admit, your remark that I've "proposed a ban" on marijuana is new, but I don't consider that a serious contribution, given that it's ostensibly false. Marijuana is illegal, and I had nothing to do with that; you are simply attempting to shift the burden of proof--you proving why the legal precedent should be overturned, to now my justifying its legal status to your satisfaction. If this means to you that I'm unwilling to learn, then we can agree on that. I'm unwilling to learn an ad hoc modus of argument that involves logic that you're making up as you go along. I much prefer the standard method, to wit the burden of proof you have failed.
 

Last edited by GenocideAlive; 02-13-2009 at 02:36 PM.
GenocideAlive has 2,277 Posts
 

GenocideAlive is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-14-2009
 
#35
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Default Re: Mary Jane

Here we go again, you just continue to stack up one unsupported assertion on top of another, thinking that the combined mass of these unsupported assertions somehow meld into a logical argument. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

You have pretty much dodged the questions in their entirety, and yet again failed to address the obvious contradictions in your logic which of course don't add up. Instead of addressing the contradiction, you simply re-assert this magical 'difference' between fast food and marijuana -- while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that neither are required or necessary for life. One could live their entire lives without ever having eaten fast food, and would probably live a much longer and healthier life for doing so. Therefore, it becomes obvious at this point that fast food is not necessary to life, and in fact is detrimental to both the quality and length of a persons life.

Your complete failure to acknowledge this obvious fact is proof positive that you are not interested in a rational discussion of the topic, nor learning anything new. To deny the existence of the holes in your own logic leads us to the conclusion that your only goal in making this thread was to assert your personal beliefs as fact then berate those who disagreed with or questioned your beliefs.

I will gladly accept the burden of proof, since the evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor. I've given several compelling, knock-down arguments for why marijuana should be legal. This of course does not absolve you of the responsibility to defend your own position, however. "Marijuana should be illegal because it is illegal" is not a valid argument, sorry GA, try again.
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-14-2009
 
#36
BlizzForums Neo
Boo!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 10,110
 Neo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulz
Default Re: Mary Jane

Not to butt in here, but if this is how you two are going to discuss this matter then I can go ahead and save you both the trouble and close this thread now. The posts should be centered on the topic, not on one-another's argument. It's one thing to disagree with someone, but you've both started repeating each other and aren't really getting anywhere.

GenocideAlive: Why do you feel Marijuana should not be legalized? (it is a drug, puts you in an altered mindset/impairing abilities, etc..)
The Hawaiian: Why do you feel Marijuana should be legalized? (Overcrowded prisons, possible medical applications, etc...)

Compromises people. With as stubborn as both of you are it would seem to me that neither of you are going to convince the other that they're wrong. Sorry again for butting in, but this topic is quickly derailing. Discuss the topic, don't just repeat one another.

seriously, it's boring reading the same thing =(
 
Neo has 10,110 Posts
 

Neo is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via AIM to Neo Send a message via MSN to Neo Send a message via Yahoo to Neo 
Reply With Quote


Old 02-14-2009
 
#37
BlizzForums Lackey
Forum Lackey
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,743
 Lackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whore
Default Re: Mary Jane

I just don't understand why we punish based on the substance instead of the actions of the individual. Alcohol, weed and many narcotics can be consumed in the privacy of one's own home without harm to anyone. Contrarily, these substances can also be consumed while operating motor vehicles or similar such actions that may be a danger to others. The same can be said about so many dangers in society. It's not what you have, it's how you use it responsibly.
 
Lackey has 12,743 Posts



I'm a dude, playing a dude, disguised as another dude.
 

Lackey is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-15-2009
 
#38
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Default Re: Mary Jane

Neo: I tried that, I addressed GA's argument in it's entirety, which seems to center around the medical costs associated with legalizing marijuana. He replied by calling me a troll, then saying he was going to ignore me (a complete dodge of the issue).

I'm sorry, but any reasonable person here can see that GA is simply refusing to acknowledge the gaping holes in his logic, and by that standard rational debate is impossible until he changes that.
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-16-2009
 
#39
United States GenocideAlive
You Want My Shoes?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,277
 GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...
Default Re: Mary Jane

My question is, Nuts, does your question match up with the rest of society?

Looking at tobacco companies, they have been successfully sued under the American litigation system, as being held responsible for the cigarettes they sold. Apparently, in America we consider the fallacy of the single cause to be a rather poor substitute for a careful examination of the circumstances. Do you contend that those people smoking cigarettes were the sole bearers of responsibility for their actions?

When you say that these things (narcotics, alcohol, etc.) can be consumed in the home "without harm to anyone", are you including the people consuming these drugs? Are you considering that once these people have partaken whatever drug that impairs judgment, they are far less likely to simply stay in place with the knowledge that their impairment prevents them from making decisions of which they would otherwise disapprove?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
Compromises people. With as stubborn as both of you are it would seem to me that neither of you are going to convince the other that they're wrong. Sorry again for butting in, but this topic is quickly derailing. Discuss the topic, don't just repeat one another.
This is a fundamental betrayal of my point. I created this for discussion, and I can appreciate a dissenting opinion, as I have attempted to show in my extrapolations of points I had with other users. I did not create this to convince anybody I'm "correct", nor to watch another thread I've spent hours in seeing to high quality go down the tubes. I gave DE a chance because I wanted this thread to see discussion from all sides. However, when someone tells me that in order to have an opinion I must answer their loaded questions or be labeled "unreasonable", "irrational", and "unlearning", it's fairly safe to assume that no real quality discussion is going to be had with that individual, you are correct. However, "compromise" requiring that I must be intellectually dishonest to continue is grossly mislabeled.

You parroting my statement that the argument is being repeated with no new contributions is shedding light where it isn't dark. The problem never was that we don't know what's going on as you seem to think, the problem is that we have no moderator stepping in to tell the troll to either accept that his question will not be accepted as is, or leave and stop spamming the thread with passive aggressive insults. I'll continue the thread amid his persistent shots from the sidelines until you either clue in or lock the thread to simply avoid admitting that an otherwise terrific thread is being derailed by one person with an obvious vendetta.
 

Last edited by GenocideAlive; 02-16-2009 at 06:46 PM.
GenocideAlive has 2,277 Posts
 

GenocideAlive is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-16-2009
 
#40
BlizzForums Lackey
Forum Lackey
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,743
 Lackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whore
Default Re: Mary Jane

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenocideAlive View Post
Looking at tobacco companies, they have been successfully sued under the American litigation system, as being held responsible for the cigarettes they sold. Apparently, in America we consider the fallacy of the single cause to be a rather poor substitute for a careful examination of the circumstances. Do you contend that those people smoking cigarettes were the sole bearers of responsibility for their actions?
For the greater part of last century, it was common knowledge that cigarettes were unhealthy. Perhaps there were some that did not fully understand the ramifications of their actions. But I am also inclined to believe these people to be somewhat dense to suggest that no danger existed from inhaling smoke.

But yes, I hold nobody harmless for today's smokers aside from themselves. We have been thoroughly educated and nobody that smokes today is unaware of the dangers.

Quote:
When you say that these things (narcotics, alcohol, etc.) can be consumed in the home "without harm to anyone", are you including the people consuming these drugs? Are you considering that once these people have partaken whatever drug that impairs judgment, they are far less likely to simply stay in place with the knowledge that their impairment prevents them from making decisions of which they would otherwise disapprove?
How is this different from alcohol? We punish the actions, not the substance. Why should we hold other mid altering drugs to a different standard? Is it not possible to be high and still remain conscious of your moral compass?

True, some drugs alter your mid to extremes, and perhaps these drugs should be regulated to a greater extent. But I would challenge anyone to prove that marijuana is a great purveyor of impairment over alcohol.
 
Lackey has 12,743 Posts



I'm a dude, playing a dude, disguised as another dude.
 

Lackey is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-16-2009
 
#41
United States GenocideAlive
You Want My Shoes?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,277
 GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...
Default Re: Mary Jane

You seem to have sidestepped my point about corporate responsibility entirely with a dandy tidbit about our knowledge gap. Currently tobacco companies are being sued for millions of dollars based on the idea that cigarettes that they were selling turned out to be bad for consumers' health. All cigarettes are bad for health, and everybody knows that. It was the cigarette smokers' claim that they were smoking "Light" cigarettes so as to avoid relatively more of the health problems as the manufacturer claimed. Obviously they knew their habit was unhealthy if they were choosing between a "Regular" and "Light".

Why, then, is the tobacco company responsible for the consumers' health? Why does the responsibility of the consumer go out the window when the consumer is uneducated? Whose responsibility is it to educate the consumer, and why does this person / entity bear the responsibility instead of the consumer that you claim should be responsible for him / her self?
 
GenocideAlive has 2,277 Posts
 

GenocideAlive is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-16-2009
 
#42
BlizzForums Lackey
Forum Lackey
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,743
 Lackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whoreLackey is obviously a rep whore
Default Re: Mary Jane

In the case of cigarettes, I find that both are guilty of neglect. If I were a judge, I would toss out every case. Saying that Big Tobacco is guilty of hiding the truth is akin to saying that Big Candy is misleading people by selling them candy bars with the hidden side effect of obesity.

While I appreciate the question, I fail to see what this has to do with legalization of marijuana? Unless we're going to outlaw cigarettes, I can't see the correlation.
 
Lackey has 12,743 Posts



I'm a dude, playing a dude, disguised as another dude.
 

Lackey is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-16-2009
 
#43
United States GenocideAlive
You Want My Shoes?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,277
 GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...
Default Re: Mary Jane

The point is that you suffer from a cognitive dissonance between reality and your fantasy world. The reality is, whether or not you like it or approve, that our society holds corporations responsible for their actions. When a corporation enacts some form of claim and the consumers in turn act in good faith, the corporation is held responsible for its claim. How is this relevant to marijuana? I'm not sure, but since you brought up personal responsibility, I thought it would be fair game to discuss.

Assuming it is, when you begin to reason with an audience about what is proper course, it becomes rather obvious rather quickly that you do not have a particular problem with any one law. Rather, you possess a greater problem with the legal paradigm that is relevant to the discussion but not necessarily integral to the law in question. So when you're questioning the law behind marijuana, you aren't in fact advocating marijuana, but rather you're advocating "personal responsibility in the vacuum of external responsibility or liability", a definition of which our society as a whole does not endorse.

This thread discusses marijuana in the context of our current legal system, not the role of personal responsibility in the reader's ideal government. The "legalization" of marijuana isn't mentioned once in this thread, simply because there is no such thing. Marijuana is patently illegal, and will remain for the foreseeable future.
 
GenocideAlive has 2,277 Posts
 

GenocideAlive is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-17-2009
 
#44
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Default Re: Mary Jane

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenocideAlive View Post
My question is, Nuts, does your question match up with the rest of society?

Looking at tobacco companies, they have been successfully sued under the American litigation system, as being held responsible for the cigarettes they sold. Apparently, in America we consider the fallacy of the single cause to be a rather poor substitute for a careful examination of the circumstances. Do you contend that those people smoking cigarettes were the sole bearers of responsibility for their actions?
Yes. Who else is responsible for your choice to smoke cigarettes, or eat fast food, or choose not to excercise? The government? The corporations? Your parents?

Personal responsibility should be encouraged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenocideAlive
When you say that these things (narcotics, alcohol, etc.) can be consumed in the home "without harm to anyone", are you including the people consuming these drugs? Are you considering that once these people have partaken whatever drug that impairs judgment, they are far less likely to simply stay in place with the knowledge that their impairment prevents them from making decisions of which they would otherwise disapprove?
It's ok to harm yourself since you are not violating other peoples rights, so by that standard the government should not be involved. If you get impaired then go out and commit a crime, thats still your fault, not the alcohol. People are still responsible for their actions while intoxicated, and you have not identified some magical difference between being intoxicated and being stoned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GA
This is a fundamental betrayal of my point. I created this for discussion, and I can appreciate a dissenting opinion, as I have attempted to show in my extrapolations of points I had with other users. I did not create this to convince anybody I'm "correct", nor to watch another thread I've spent hours in seeing to high quality go down the tubes. I gave DE a chance because I wanted this thread to see discussion from all sides. However, when someone tells me that in order to have an opinion I must answer their loaded questions or be labeled "unreasonable", "irrational", and "unlearning", it's fairly safe to assume that no real quality discussion is going to be had with that individual, you are correct. However, "compromise" requiring that I must be intellectually dishonest to continue is grossly mislabeled.
You are total fraud, GA. You are clearly not interested in rational debate, rather you simply dodge the pertinent questions as a substitute for having to form a valid reply. Using your exact same logic fast food should be illegal also, since you have failed to demonstrate any relevent differences between the two. You merely said "food is required to survive." Well yes, and so are drugs in many cases, what we are talking about is which KINDS of drugs/foods should be legal.

But instead you completely dodged this contradiction in your logic. And you're still pretending like it never happened. I got your number bro, and I think others are catching on as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GA
You parroting my statement that the argument is being repeated with no new contributions is shedding light where it isn't dark. The problem never was that we don't know what's going on as you seem to think, the problem is that we have no moderator stepping in to tell the troll to either accept that his question will not be accepted as is, or leave and stop spamming the thread with passive aggressive insults. I'll continue the thread amid his persistent shots from the sidelines until you either clue in or lock the thread to simply avoid admitting that an otherwise terrific thread is being derailed by one person with an obvious vendetta.
You just keep getting faker and faker with each post.

The point here remains -- you have a glaring contradiction in your logic that you fail to address -- in fact you simply ignored the contradiction by saying "oh this is a loaded question" (how is it loaded?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by GA
You seem to have sidestepped my point about corporate responsibility entirely with a dandy tidbit about our knowledge gap. Currently tobacco companies are being sued for millions of dollars based on the idea that cigarettes that they were selling turned out to be bad for consumers' health. All cigarettes are bad for health, and everybody knows that. It was the cigarette smokers' claim that they were smoking "Light" cigarettes so as to avoid relatively more of the health problems as the manufacturer claimed. Obviously they knew their habit was unhealthy if they were choosing between a "Regular" and "Light".

Why, then, is the tobacco company responsible for the consumers' health? Why does the responsibility of the consumer go out the window when the consumer is uneducated? Whose responsibility is it to educate the consumer, and why does this person / entity bear the responsibility instead of the consumer that you claim should be responsible for him / her self?
The tobacco company is held responsible because our society has abandoned the concept of personal responsibility. It's the same reason a woman can sue McDonalds because the coffee is too hot, or a criminal can sue a homeowner for injuring himself while robbing said home. Surely you are not trying to argue that because our system has created such a mess that this is the most optimal?

The consumer is responsible to educate himself about all the health aspects of any product he wishes to use ("talk to your doctor").

Quote:
Originally Posted by GA
The point is that you suffer from a cognitive dissonance between reality and your fantasy world. The reality is, whether or not you like it or approve, that our society holds corporations responsible for their actions. When a corporation enacts some form of claim and the consumers in turn act in good faith, the corporation is held responsible for its claim. How is this relevant to marijuana? I'm not sure, but since you brought up personal responsibility, I thought it would be fair game to discuss.

Assuming it is, when you begin to reason with an audience about what is proper course, it becomes rather obvious rather quickly that you do not have a particular problem with any one law. Rather, you possess a greater problem with the legal paradigm that is relevant to the discussion but not necessarily integral to the law in question. So when you're questioning the law behind marijuana, you aren't in fact advocating marijuana, but rather you're advocating "personal responsibility in the vacuum of external responsibility or liability", a definition of which our society as a whole does not endorse.

This thread discusses marijuana in the context of our current legal system, not the role of personal responsibility in the reader's ideal government. The "legalization" of marijuana isn't mentioned once in this thread, simply because there is no such thing. Marijuana is patently illegal, and will remain for the foreseeable future.
Here we go again, "Marijuana should be illegal because it is illegal."

We are discussing whether or not marijuana should be legal (it should), I'm not sure how any reasonable person could have missed that, it's been going on for 3 pages now.

Simply declaring the fact that marijuana is illegal is not a valid argument, since we are talking about what should be. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of Nullification, and how marijuana is pretty much legal in California, where anybody can get a license (even a growers license) for pretty much any reason?
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-17-2009
 
#45
United States Chaos
Eddie Harris
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 28,439
 Chaos should come up with their own damn reputation titles already, goshChaos should come up with their own damn reputation titles already, goshChaos should come up with their own damn reputation titles already, goshChaos should come up with their own damn reputation titles already, goshChaos should come up with their own damn reputation titles already, goshChaos should come up with their own damn reputation titles already, goshChaos should come up with their own damn reputation titles already, goshChaos should come up with their own damn reputation titles already, goshChaos should come up with their own damn reputation titles already, goshChaos should come up with their own damn reputation titles already, goshChaos should come up with their own damn reputation titles already, gosh
Default Re: Mary Jane

Quote:
Marijuana is patently illegal, and will remain for the foreseeable future.
Marijuana is patently illegal under federal law and the laws of about half the states. In the other half, possessing it is as illegal as driving with a burnt-out headlight.

That was not the situation a decade ago. Public opinion is clearly shifting towards decriminalization and treatment instead of the current situation of criminalization and incarceration.

A decade from now I suspect that the conversation will be should marijuana be legal or remain simply decriminalized, and the question of whether marijuana should be illegal will have been settled so firmly that only fringe figures will advocate criminal penalties for possession.

Your claim that it will remain illegal for the foreseeable future just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Marijuana decriminalization referendums and referendums forcing local police forces to make marijuana law enforcement "the lowest priority" have as far as I know an undefeated record when it comes to being passed by the voters.

Public opinion carries all and clearly it is gathering not inconsiderable momentum towards legalization. Simply because politicians refuse to listen to the people - which is the case for almost any issue you can name that is in the public consciousness, whether it be the "stimulus" or anything else - does not mean that the politicians will be able to do so for eternity.

We have already reached the point where a majority of the generation that just became adults either wants marjuana legalized or doesn't care either way. That will only get worse (from the perspective of drug warriors) in the future.

Oh by the way reading this thread reminded me why I refuse to post here anymore, mary jane is too much to resist though, see you in 11 months when I give my scathing review of the Socialist in Chief's first year of fucking things up. 38% think the stimulus will improve the economy, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has lost 2,000 points since his inauguration, good job Barack!
 
Chaos has 28,439 Posts

WELL THEY CALL ME MIKE D THE EVER LOVING MAN
IM LIKE SPOONIE GEE WELL IM THE METROPOLITICIAN
YOU SCREAM AND YOU HOLLER
BOUT MY CHEVY IMPALA
BUT THE SWEAT IS GETTIN WET AROUND THE RING AROUND YOUR COLLAR
 

Chaos is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:23 AM.
Designed by XG3