Legalize Pot! Says Pat Robertson

[Guest TrueMetis]

Are you an idiot? You think breathing smoke into your lungs is healthy? You think inhaling some of the same ingredients found in tobacco is healthy?

Vapourizers, oh problem solved. (Not that there is much evidence showing that problem exists in the first place)

Edited December 30, 2010 by TrueMetis

[dre]

There is evidence. There's also logic and reason. If something contains much of the same toxins found in cigarette smoke, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the connection.

That's a great strawman argument. That must mean that you want to keep things criminalized.

You should NEVER use the words logic and reason. You dont even have an elementary school grasp of those concepts.

You better stop posting and get to work. You have hundreds of thousands of things to criminalize.

[dre]

Vapourizers, oh problem solved. (Not that there is much evidence showing that problem exists in the first place)

This thread illustrates why prohibition is on the run and less and less people support it all the time. Every time the government or anyone else tries to justify criminalization they wind up sounding like Shady and Saipan... conmpletely unable to present any sort of logical case or reconcile their position on this, with their position on other substances.

Shady touts "health" as the reason to criminalize, so if he was consistant he would want thousands of other things criminalized as well... everything from greasy foods, to transfats, ciggarettes and booze.

Thus my earlier assertion... Thats theres two kinds of people that support criminalization.

1. People that profit from it.

2. People incapable of using basic logic and reason.

[Guest TrueMetis]

This thread illustrates why prohibition is on the run and less and less people support it all the time. Every time the government or anyone else tries to justify criminalization they wind up sounding like Shady and Saipan... conmpletely unable to present any sort of logical case or reconcile their position on this, with their position on other substances.

Shady touts "health" as the reason to criminalize, so if he was consistant he would want thousands of other things criminalized as well... everything from greasy foods, to transfats, ciggarettes and booze.

Thus my earlier assertion... Thats theres two kinds of people that support criminalization.

1. People that profit from it.

2. People incapable of using basic logic and reason.

Don't worry next he's just going to accuse us of being potheads. I don't know about you but I'm not allowed to smoke weed, I'm trying to get into the military.

[BubberMiley]

That's a great strawman argument. That must mean that you want to keep things criminalized.

Nope. I'm perfectly consistent with my belief that government shouldn't interfere when grown adults do things that don't hurt other people.

And it's hilarious watching you squirm in hypocritical goo cowardly avoiding the question of whether possession of cheez whiz should be criminalized.

[Shady]

Shady touts "health" as the reason to criminalize, so if he was consistant he would want thousands of other things criminalized as well... everything from greasy foods, to transfats, ciggarettes and booze.

Complete nonsense. Just because other bad things exist in society, doesn't mean we should allow even more. If cigarettes were a new product being introduced today, they'd never be made legal. In fact, society keeps regulating them, and regulating them. Soon, they'll be regulated out of existence. It doesn't make sense that we're trying to get rid of one harmful substance, while at the sametime making another one legal.

But don't you have work to do? Don't you have C02 to classify as a pollutant? Don't you have certain energy to tell people they shouldn't produce? Don't you have certain cars you should be telling people not to buy and drive? Don't you have certain lightbulbs to tell people to stop using?

[dre]

Don't worry next he's just going to accuse us of being potheads. I don't know about you but I'm not allowed to smoke weed, I'm trying to get into the military.

I dont smoke anything since I quite tobacco about 5 years ago. My only vice is drinking, and Im gonna try to shut that one down soon too.

My opposition to criminalization is simply based on the fact it has absolutely no use as a public policy, in fact is has hugely negative results, and costs a pile of money. It benefits nobody besides trial laywers and organized criminals.

[Shady]

And it's hilarious watching you squirm in hypocritical goo cowardly avoiding the question of whether possession of cheez whiz should be criminalized.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Who said anything about cheez whiz? Smoking the pot again?

[dre]

Complete nonsense. Just because other bad things exist in society, doesn't mean we should allow even more. If cigarettes were a new product being introduced today, they'd never be made legal. In fact, society keeps regulating them, and regulating them. Soon, they'll be regulated out of existence. It doesn't make sense that we're trying to get rid of one harmful substance, while at the sametime making another one legal.

But don't you have work to do? Don't you have C02 to classify as a pollutant? Don't you have certain energy to tell people they shouldn't produce? Don't you have certain cars you should be telling people not to buy and drive? Don't you have certain lightbulbs to tell people to stop using?

As usual its impossible for anybody to tell what the fuck your talking about. Youve done nothing at all to justify prohibition... your argument is a complete joke.

[Shady]

My opposition to criminalization

The subject is legalization, not decriminalization.

[Shady]

As usual its impossible for anybody to tell what the fuck your talking about. Youve done nothing at all to justify prohibition... your argument is a complete joke.

Ahh, that's what I thought. You have no answer. The tables were turned on you, and it shut you up. Nice dodge though. Anyways, move along.

[dre]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Who said anything about cheez whiz? Smoking the pot again?

You did... you think unhealthy choices should be criminalized. You want the government to make personal choices for you, which in your case is probably a good idea because any rational person would worry about you making choices for yourself. But most people can make their own choices.

Edited December 30, 2010 by dre

[guyser]

Complete nonsense.

Your post? I agree

Just because other bad things exist in society, doesn't mean we should allow even more. If cigarettes were a new product being introduced today, they'd never be made legal. In fact, society keeps regulating them, and regulating them. Soon, they'll be regulated out of existence. It doesn't make sense that we're trying to get rid of one harmful substance, while at the sametime making another one legal.

What clinical experiments have you conducted to prove it a "harmful substance" ?

Hypocrisy rules ! Youre one giant babysitter of people. Congrats.

[dre]

Ahh, that's what I thought. You have no answer. The tables were turned on you, and it shut you up. Nice dodge though. Anyways, move along.

Yeah... the tables were turned.

You have not done a single thing to prove that this policy is intelligent. You want the government to make personal choices for people, and then throw the people who make different choices in prison... and you expect me and other taxpayers to flip the bill. I dont even think its possible for someone with more than an IQ of about 65 to think that makes sense.

Theres absolutely no evidence prohibition has ANY EFFECT AT ALL besides putting billions of dollars in the coffers of organized crime. It probably does not even effect usage rates. When they decriminalized in portugal usage rates barely changed at all. Meaning the policy had no real effect to start with.

Edited December 30, 2010 by dre

[Moonbox]

What clinical experiments have you conducted to prove it a "harmful substance" ?

Do you need clinical experiments to tell you that breathing smoke is bad for your lungs?

Not that I really care about the argument itself. Legalize it, or don't, it really makes no difference to me.

[Shady]

Do you need clinical experiments to tell you that breathing smoke is bad for your lungs?

Exactly. Not only that, it's breathing in smoke containing 50 of the same substances found in cigarette smoke.

But what does the Canadian Cancer Society know that a few potheads on an internet forum don't?

[dre]

Exactly. Not only that, it's breathing in smoke containing 50 of the same substances found in cigarette smoke.

But what does the Canadian Cancer Society know that a few potheads on an internet forum don't?

So what? The fact that a substance that when abused can cause health problems is not reason to criminalize something.

To defend a policy you have to demonstrate that the effect of that policy is worth the money spent on it. You have not demonstrated the policy has ANY EFFECT AT ALL.

What we DO know is that the policy puts billions of dollars in the hands of organized criminals, and imposes criminal penalties on people who make a poor personal choice. So the policy has a lot of huge negative effects. You still havent named a single positive one yet.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Exactly. Not only that, it's breathing in smoke containing 50 of the same substances found in cigarette smoke.

But what does the Canadian Cancer Society know that a few potheads on an internet forum don't?

well we know what it knows that you don't, "To date, no epidemiological studies have consistently confirmed an association between long-term marijuana use and cancer risk because there is no standard amount of THC (the main active ingredient in marijuana) in every marijuana cigarette." The thing about "containing 50 of the same substances found in cigarette smoke" is that not all carcinogens are equal. Some take a lot more than other to cause cancer, the dose make the poison.

Oh and Dre, told ya.

[BubberMiley]

But what does the Canadian Cancer Society know that a few potheads on an internet forum don't?

How do you feel about banning cheez whiz?

Still can't answer that one, eh?

Until then...pwned!

[Moonbox]

Bubber there's never any excuse to say 'pwned'.

It immediately makes you look dumb.

What is your signature trying to prove btw? It's not much of a burn...

[dre]

Bubber there's never any excuse to say 'pwned'.

It immediately makes you look dumb.

What is your signature trying to prove btw? It's not much of a burn...

Well... the thing is were a few pages into this thread now, and still no argument has been provided in favor of this policy. Just a bunch of intellectually dishonest fallacy.

Tell me why this is a good policy, and how we get our moneys worth out of it. Back it up with some evidence. Then we could maybe have a discussion about this, but until that happens theres not much to do here but laugh at Shady.

[guyser]

Do you need clinical experiments to tell you that breathing smoke is bad for your lungs?

If one says it is bad, it would be up to him (and with that guy it aint happening) to show how and or why.

I admit it isnt the greatest thing for one's lungs, but beyond that, its silly to ban it for any health reasons.

[Shady]

So what? The fact that a substance that when abused can cause health problems is not reason to criminalize something.

You don't seem to understand the difference between legalizing, and decriminalizing.

[Shady]

not all carcinogens are equal. Some take a lot more than other to cause cancer, the dose make the poison.

Which ones are you referring to?

[Wild Bill]

Unfortunately that has to be part of the equation. That's part of the negative consequences of single-payer health care. We all pay for eachother's costs, so our actions and choices become part of our business.

Yeah, that's the smarmy way it works in Canada! We have a system where any other alternative to the government paying is illegal and then we use the fact that "society pays" as a justification to force people to change their lifestyles.

Frankly, I find the situation rather morally disgusting! Not the concept of government medicare but just the idea of making it a monopoly and then using it as a lever for social engineering.