• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bloomberg Backs Plan to Limit Arrests for Marijuana

In later years when you're hacking blood out of your lungs, you can think of this moment.

Yeah well if that happens, I'll deal with it. People hack blood from years of smoking tobacco...it's their choice to smoke though, right? Tell me you dont think "smaller" Government should tell people they cant smoke pot, ciggs and drink booze?
 
Its a racist position to take. Ignoring marijuana busts while still enacting arrest and prison for crack use...tsk tsk...
 
This is entrapment. Anyone who has ever smoked pot knows you can't resist a 32 oz soda to quench the cottonmouth side effect.

Very sneaky, Bloomberg. :lol:
 
I am sure nobody is willing to deny a causative relationship between sugar consumption in beverages and increased instanced risks for diabetes.

For example, according to the empirical evidence found by the American Diabetes Association in 2009,
After adjustment for age, parity, race, physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake, prepregnancy BMI, and Western dietary pattern, intake of sugar-sweetened cola was positively associated with the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), whereas no significant association was found for other SSBs and diet beverages.

Of course the preferred method to deal with such externalities is to institute a consumption tax in regards to added-sugar beverages, disincentivizing the "buy on bulk" mentality eliminates the idea that purchasing large amounts of added-sugar beverages will lower the cost.

I would think that budget hawks would be in support of such a measure to decriminalize cannabis possession. Why? Because the U.S. spends (at least) $40 billion per year policing cannabis consumption, to the extent that has only resulted in utter failure. Kudos to Bloomberg in both instances.
 
This is entrapment. Anyone who has ever smoked pot knows you can't resist a 32 oz soda to quench the cottonmouth side effect.

Very sneaky, Bloomberg. :lol:

Au contraire, anyone who has ever bought a 32oz soda to quench the side effects of cottonmouth knows that 16oz of water is much more effective
joint.gif
 
I am sure nobody is willing to deny a causative relationship between sugar consumption in beverages and increased instanced risks for diabetes.

No ****, significant intake of soda's is not healthy for you.

The fact it's not healthy for you doesn't mean it's wise nor proper to give your local government the power to simply ban and restrict the sale of a legal substance to such a degree.
 
No ****, significant intake of soda's is not healthy for you.

The fact it's not healthy for you doesn't mean it's wise nor proper to give your local government the power to simply ban and restrict the sale of a legal substance to such a degree.

Nobody is banning a legal substance; they are just limiting the amounts sold to discourage the bulk-sales marketing technique. As stated, a consumption tax would have been preferable (IMO), but something is better than nothing.
 
Last edited:
What I find amazing is how people can be outraged by NY banning the sale of pop over 16oz AND be outraged by NY decriminalizing marijuana possession.
 
What I find amazing is how people can be outraged by NY banning the sale of pop over 16oz AND be outraged by NY decriminalizing marijuana possession.

So they should be outraged at neither?
 
What I find amazing is how people can be outraged by NY banning the sale of pop over 16oz AND be outraged by NY decriminalizing marijuana possession.




I find it amazing how the tyrant king has no problem being a raging hypocrite.

With all the smoking bans i guess its a moot point. :lol:
 
Or they can be outraged by one and fine with the other.


Being outraged at both is what doesn't make any logical sense.

From a purely political point, you have a good point. How about from a law enforcement point, are they both equal? How many crimes has a Big Gulp caused? Just saying.
 
So they should be outraged at neither?

I think his point is more that you should be outraged by one and support the other, or vise versa.

Basically you're outraged at the government intrusion into the private individuals choice of what to put in their body (limiting how they have access to soda) and support the removal of government intrusion into the private individuals choice of what to put in their body (limiting how they can be in trouble for marijuana).

OR

You support the government intrusion into the private individuals choice of what to put in their body (limiting how they have access to soda) and are outraged at the removal of government intrusion into private individuals choice of what to put in their body (limiting how they can be in trouble for marijuana).
 
From a purely political point, you have a good point. How about from a law enforcement point, are they both equal? How many crimes has a Big Gulp caused? Just saying.

The Big Gulp has "caused" probably about as many crimes...sans the crime of simply possessing/selling/etc of it...that Pot has.

You remember the phrase 2nd amendment fans use routinely...Gun's don't kill people, people kill people. Well, pot doesn't commit crimes, people commit crimes.
 
From a purely political point, you have a good point. How about from a law enforcement point, are they both equal? How many crimes has a Big Gulp caused? Just saying.

Marijuana doesn't cause as many crimes as criminalizing marijuana has.
 
I think his point is more that you should be outraged by one and support the other, or vise versa.

Basically you're outraged at the government intrusion into the private individuals choice of what to put in their body (limiting how they have access to soda) and support the removal of government intrusion into the private individuals choice of what to put in their body (limiting how they can be in trouble for marijuana).

OR

You support the government intrusion into the private individuals choice of what to put in their body (limiting how they have access to soda) and are outraged at the removal of government intrusion into private individuals choice of what to put in their body (limiting how they can be in trouble for marijuana).

Ideologically this is easy, but I'm not quite convince of these premises as a practical matter.
 
I think his point is more that you should be outraged by one and support the other, or vise versa.

Basically you're outraged at the government intrusion into the private individuals choice of what to put in their body (limiting how they have access to soda) and support the removal of government intrusion into the private individuals choice of what to put in their body (limiting how they can be in trouble for marijuana).

OR

You support the government intrusion into the private individuals choice of what to put in their body (limiting how they have access to soda) and are outraged at the removal of government intrusion into private individuals choice of what to put in their body (limiting how they can be in trouble for marijuana).


Or you can be outraged by neither if you are not a New Yorker and you are a neo-anti-federalist. ;)
 
The Big Gulp has "caused" probably about as many crimes...sans the crime of simply possessing/selling/etc of it...that Pot has.

You remember the phrase 2nd amendment fans use routinely...Gun's don't kill people, people kill people. Well, pot doesn't commit crimes, people commit crimes.

I'll have to think on that.
 
Ideologically this is easy, but I'm not quite convince of these premises as a practical matter.

I can respect that. Ideology and practicality sometimes bump head ot head within the real world and too often people want to try and claim the practical answer is absolutely ideologically sound as well. I can appreciate being willing to state that it's a balance between the two sometimes, and that when you balance you don't try to claim the outcome is one when it's really due to the other.

I tihnk we'd probably go round and round on the practicality of the situation but don't think I'm up for a full on "legalize marijuana" debate at the moment.
 
So it's not about health, but about how we can fine people. gotcha.

I don't think he's talking about fines. Pot laws cost billions of dollars in interdiction costs, trial costs, and penitentiary costs. Unhealthy food/drink adds to medical costs.
 
I don't think he's talking about fines. Pot laws cost billions of dollars in interdiction costs, trial costs, and penitentiary costs. Unhealthy food/drink adds to medical costs.


So smoking pot won't affect health costs? Why the hell is thier a stop smoking campaign. Statists, are so confusing sometimes.... :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom