Decriminalization vs. Criminalization

[BubberMiley]

It's not like the system as it stands limits access to meth. If it were decriminalized, we would be better able to help these people, rather than send them out in the streets to steal and rob to support their habit. We could also be better able to keep it out of the hands of kids (I'm beginning to sound like a broken record).

[Argus]

Picasso was a nasty, bad tempered man who treated his women like dogs and his children like animals. He also was great fan of Joseph Stalin. Yeats was obsessed with the occult and eugenics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is it with conservatives that they are so quick to resort to character assassination when they can't win an argument? This from someone who claims his poorly constructed arguments are "logical" and that he, unlike is pot-smoking friends, isn't a moron.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you are confused about the nature of character assasination. That is where you, unable to construct any kind of coherent or sensible argument, try to smear me. Whereas all I did was point out to someone who claimed Picasso was such a swell guy, that in fact, despite his undeniable talent, the man was a creep and a jerk who enthusiastically endorsed Joe Stalin.

[BubberMiley]

Yes, and where you were unable to construct any kind of coherent or sensible argument (like, say, Picasso wasn't a genius because he took drugs; he was a genius despite taking drugs) you just resort to saying he beat his wife.

[normanchateau]

And that only worsens when they get drugs and too much alcohol into their system.

You don't think alcohol is a drug? Why, because it's legal? Or because it's a liquid?

How about nicotine? Is that a drug?

[BubberMiley]

I wouldn't expect Argus to reply, Norm. He's still licking his wounds after being wupped in an argument by a stoned guy.

[normanchateau]

I wouldn't expect Argus to reply, Norm. He's still licking his wounds after being wupped in an argument by a stoned guy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Outstanding comment BM!

[Argus]

Yes, and where you were unable to construct any kind of coherent or sensible argument (like, say, Picasso wasn't a genius because he took drugs; he was a genius despite taking drugs) you just resort to saying he beat his wife.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is English a second language to you? I never said Picasso was or was not a genius. Nor did the original poster. The subject was on mental stability, not genius. Perhaps Picasso was a genius, though I never liked his work, but as to his mental stability and strength, well, history speaks for itself. I didn't accuse him of beating his wife. I said he treated the women in his life horribly, and treated his children worse. He was also a great admirer of Joe Stalin. None of that speaks to someone who should be held out as a model of intelligence and judgement.

[BubberMiley]

Oh, okay, but Pierre Berton smoked week regularly, and not only was he a model of intelligence and judgement, he wrote well and wore a smart bowtie.

[Argus]

And that only worsens when they get drugs and too much alcohol into their system.

You don't think alcohol is a drug? Why, because it's legal? Or because it's a liquid?

How about nicotine? Is that a drug?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is akin to trying to take apart an argument by questioning the spelling. I use the term alcohol to differentiate liquor, which is legal, from illegal narcotics, much as the original poster decried alcohol being legal but drugs being illegal.

Clearly, as is usual, you have nothing logical, sensible or substantive to say.

[Argus]

I wouldn't expect Argus to reply, Norm. He's still licking his wounds after being wupped in an argument by a stoned guy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps pot really is a hallucingenic, for surely the only way you could "whoop" anyone in an argument would be in your own dazed mind.

[Argus]

Oh, okay, but Pierre Berton smoked week regularly, and not only was he a model of intelligence and judgement, he wrote well and wore a smart bowtie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know anything about Berton smoking pot.

I do know Berton was a balless wonder who exemplifies all that went wrong with this country; a self-righteous blowhard who was a legend in his own mind.

[Argus]

I wouldn't expect Argus to reply, Norm. He's still licking his wounds after being wupped in an argument by a stoned guy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's nothing quite so wearisome as two barely literate, intellectual puff-balls gleefully engaging in mutual mental masturbation as they congratulate each other on their own cleverness.

[Argus]

I wouldn't expect Argus to reply, Norm. He's still licking his wounds after being wupped in an argument by a stoned guy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Speaking of replies, you seldom do.

You claimed that banning things was pointless as it just created a black market - for that shadowy conspiracy of people you seem to believe is responsible for criminalizing your favorite narcotics.

So I'm still waiting to hear whether you believe child pornography should be banned.

[BubberMiley]

I replied already. You must not have caught it. I said:

Actually, Argus, it's not a logical argument at all. You demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between making something illegal and banning it. My point was that "banning" something simply doesn't work. It just creates a black market and changes the means of distribution. From that, you extrapolate that this argument would lead to legalizing child pornography. Child pornography laws as they exist have sadly done nothing to eliminate child pornography, but they are necessary to enforce negative consequences to the dirtbags who consume/create it. It's the same with all crimes. The thing with weed is it is a VICTIMLESS crime, and there is no logical (or even moral) argument for legal consequences. Therefore, we wind up with a situation where the laws do nothing but hurt people who never hurt anyone else. The laws don't prevent distribution; in fact, they just make it easier for kids to have access.

[BubberMiley]

Oh, and once again you prove yourself completely out to lunch. Weed is a narcotic now. Narcotics are addictive depressants. Weed is neither. Hallucinogen, narcotic, geez. Why do I bother trying to debate with people who have no idea what they're talking about? People who can't even distinguish between the harm of child pornography versus marijuana. Good god.

[err]

Yes, and where you were unable to construct any kind of coherent or sensible argument (like, say, Picasso wasn't a genius because he took drugs; he was a genius despite taking drugs) you just resort to saying he beat his wife.

Is English a second language to you? I never said Picasso was or was not a genius. Nor did the original poster. The subject was on mental stability, not genius. Perhaps Picasso was a genius, though I never liked his work, but as to his mental stability and strength, well, history speaks for itself.

You said that people like Picasso were mental weaklings:

Then again, there is no question that those who feel the need to get drugged up regularly are mental weaklings.

So according to CPC logic, is it possible to be a genius and a "mental weakling" at the same time ????

[Argus]

I know it's difficult for you to understand the logical progression of a discussion, Err, but perhaps if you wave aside the smoke in front of you and try to focus you would understand why this is a perfectly logical reply to someone who says banning things only encourages a black market.

Actually, Argus, it's not a logical argument at all. You demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between making something illegal and banning it.

Uhmm, explain it to me. If you ban something, you are making it illegal. If it's not illegal, it's not banned.

From that, you extrapolate that this argument would lead to legalizing child pornography. Child pornography laws as they exist have sadly done nothing to eliminate child pornography, but they are necessary to enforce negative consequences to the dirtbags who consume/create it.

So you're saying these laws are a waste of time, but they're necessary as a sort of moral lesson, as a demonstration of society's dissaproval of something.

Which I can say is exactly why pot is banned. Because society doesn't want people smoking pot, because it doesn't approve of pot, and because it feels those who use one mind-altering substance are more likely to try other mind-altering substances which are more dangerous.

It's the same with all crimes. The thing with weed is it is a VICTIMLESS crime,

Except for those killed by the dirtbags who sell it, perhaps. But you could say that much of child porn is victimless, as well. What about written child porn? What about child porn which consists of drawings or paintings from the imagination? What about child porn which is actually using adult actors and actresses (it's still legally called child porn). Tracy Lords gleefully posed as a 22 year old when she was 15 to appear in Penthouse, and then did dozens of X-rated videos in the following years before they found out her true age. All her "work" was victimless, but is still kiddy porn, and illegal. What about teenagers screwing around on webcams, videotaping each other for larks. That's victimless, but still kiddy porn, and illegal. For that matter, what about other forms of porn which are illegal? Take bondage and sadomasochism. That's all banned even if it has no victims, even if it's actors and actresses or willing participants. It's banned because society dissaproves of it.

[Argus]

So according to CPC logic, is it possible to be a genius and a "mental weakling" at the same time ????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, yes. Does that surprise you?

[Argus]

Oh, and once again you prove yourself completely out to lunch. Weed is a narcotic now. Narcotics are addictive depressants. Weed is neither. Hallucinogen, narcotic, geez. Why do I bother trying to debate with people who have no idea what they're talking about? People who can't even distinguish between the harm of child pornography versus marijuana. Good god.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not attempting to use precise definitions. This is not a technical argument but an argument about the morals and rightness of society banning certain substances and practices.

BTW, would you care to demonstrate the harm done by child porn? There are all kinds of suggestions and allusions as to the harm done by pot, as there are about the harm done by child porn, but there is probably less absolute evidence on the harm done by kiddy porn than pot. It is banned because society doesn't like it, not because it causes harm. That is one of the reasons I've used it as a comparison, that and your claim that banning things was pointless.

[BubberMiley]

I'm not going to pursue this argument, other than to say that anyone who can't recognize that child porn is harmful (and yet finds himself morally superior to everyone else) is a total freak.

[err]

I'm not going to pursue this argument, other than to say that anyone who can't recognize that child porn is harmful (and yet finds himself morally superior to everyone else) is a total freak.

It's the old "Accuse them of supporting child porn" if you're losing an argument strategy... It's commonly used by Harper and other CPC supporters.

By the way, Argus probably never watched "Up in Smoke", or he'd be going on about growing tails.... and oh my God... leading to trans-gender problems....

[Riverwind]

? There are all kinds of suggestions and allusions as to the harm done by pot, as there are about the harm done by child porn, but there.

Argus, I suspect that you are using this argument to make a point rather than because you actually believe it. That said: kiddy porn causes harm because the children used as models are never volunteers - they are always being raped often by someone they trust.

I apply the same argument to those that wish to decriminalize marijuana: making marijuana possession and use legal while keeping the production banned simply promotes organized crime and all of the problems that go with it. marijuana should be made completely legal everywhere in North America or it should be illegal - no half measures.

[normanchateau]

I am not attempting to use precise definitions. This is not a technical argument but an argument about the morals and rightness of society banning certain substances and practices.

BM/Err:

Argus gets funnier by the minute. Now he admits that he has no technical knowledge of pharmacology and makes no attempt to be precise. He even acknowledges that his arguments are morality-based rather than evidence-based.

This is eerily reminiscent of Stephen Harper who could have just said that he'd get tough on drug pushers but instead blurted out that he opposes the decriminalization of simple possession of marijuana, effectively acknowledging that he favours permanent criminal records and potential jail time for possession of less than 30 grams.

[BubberMiley]

Uhmm, explain it to me. If you ban something, you are making it illegal. If it's not illegal, it's not banned.

I'm glad they banned murder. I can rest easy it will never happen again.

[Canuck E Stan]

Except as George Carlin once said:

"If your legally drunk why do you get arrested?"

Hey officer,it's okay,I'm legally drunk.