Page 10 of 33 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 324

Thread: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W:91]

  1. #91
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,276

    Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

    Moderator's Warning:
    ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W:91]Both of you take the basement slap fight downstairs where it belongs. The trail of posts that don't deal with the topic at all and just complain about each other need to end

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Last Seen
    08-02-17 @ 02:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,375

    Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Because the right YOU'RE asking for is forcing other people to act in a certain way to accomodate YOUR desires.

    The right THEY'RE asking for is the ability for HTEMSELVES to act in a certian way to accomodate THEIR desires.

    YOU don't have hte right to demand how other people act if it does not DIRECTLY impact you. What you're basically saying is that as long as that impact can be manufactured through loose jumps of logic and multiple steps of seperation, then it's reasonable for the government to act.

    Well thank you Mr. Bloomberg, I didn't realize Mr. Soda Ban was posting on the Debate Politics forum under the screen name of Fenton

    so if a stoned out fool , all wasted and jolly crashes their car into someone and hurts or kills them or their family.. it does not "infringe on the victims rights"....


    yea that makes sense.. so should they infringe on their rights and get a blood sample on the spot?... wait.. what if they say they werent stoned should we still take blood samples.. so whos rights again are preserved here...?? If its made "legal" trust me your rights will be taken..

    nice try

  3. #93
    Hot Flash Mama
    Summerwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Seen
    01-23-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,010

    Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis007 View Post
    so if a stoned out fool , all wasted and jolly crashes their car into someone and hurts or kills them or their family.. it does not "infringe on the victims rights"....


    yea that makes sense.. so should they infringe on their rights and get a blood sample on the spot?... wait.. what if they say they werent stoned should we still take blood samples.. so whos rights again are preserved here...?? If its made "legal" trust me your rights will be taken..

    nice try
    How is this different from any of the other legal intoxicants and pharmaceuticals that interfere with a person's ability to drive? From steroids that can increase road rage to sleeping pills that will let you drive without even knowing you've left your bed.... Seems the only way to assure safe roads is to ban driving altogether.
    jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "

  4. #94
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,276

    Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis007 View Post
    so if a stoned out fool , all wasted and jolly crashes their car into someone and hurts or kills them or their family.. it does not "infringe on the victims rights"....
    The car crashing into you infringes on your right...not the being stoned.

    Just like a guy talking on the phone while driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you...not by talking on a cell phone.

    Just like a guy drinking and then driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you...not by drinking.

    Just like a guy trying to eat while driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you....not by eating.

    Just like a guy whose on 2 hours of sleep and crashes a car into you infringines upon your rights by crashing into you...not be being deprived of sleep.

    It's hillarious watching a group of people normally on the side decrying "Guns don't kill people, People kill people" and suggesting people should blame the PERSON, not the OBJECT, basically turn around and blame the thing.

    If someone crashes their car into you, THAT'S the action infringing upon your right. Not the texting, the smoking, the eating, the drinking, or anything else...it's the CRASHING INTO YOU that is the infringement.

    If someone crashes into you, that is not justification to make weed illegal anymore than it is to make less than 8 hours of sleep a night illegal or making texting illegal. There's justification for perhaps making those actions WHILE driving illegal, but again...that's different than the item/action by itself.

    Now, I agree that there's significant things that would need to happen to make legalization happen in a repsonsable manner. I'm not a rose colored glasses type of guy. For example, I'm absolutely someone that believes driving while intoxicated, whether it's weed or alcohol, is something that should be illegal. And I absolutely believe we'd need to find a test for that. And guess what, I'm a fan of this crazy "free market" thing and believe that some sort of quick response test would likely be able to be discovered if there was a viable market for it...say, if suddenly marijuana was legal and so every police station in the country would need said testing unit. Are there hurdles to get over? Absolutley. "Wahhh, it'd be difficult" however isn't a reason to NOT do something to me however.

    Neither are poor analogies that are ridiculous on their very surface.

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Last Seen
    08-02-17 @ 02:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,375

    Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    The car crashing into you infringes on your right...not the being stoned.

    Just like a guy talking on the phone while driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you...not by talking on a cell phone.

    Just like a guy drinking and then driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you...not by drinking.

    Just like a guy trying to eat while driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you....not by eating.

    Just like a guy whose on 2 hours of sleep and crashes a car into you infringines upon your rights by crashing into you...not be being deprived of sleep.

    It's hillarious watching a group of people normally on the side decrying "Guns don't kill people, People kill people" and suggesting people should blame the PERSON, not the OBJECT, basically turn around and blame the thing.

    If someone crashes their car into you, THAT'S the action infringing upon your right. Not the texting, the smoking, the eating, the drinking, or anything else...it's the CRASHING INTO YOU that is the infringement.

    If someone crashes into you, that is not justification to make weed illegal anymore than it is to make less than 8 hours of sleep a night illegal or making texting illegal. There's justification for perhaps making those actions WHILE driving illegal, but again...that's different than the item/action by itself.

    Now, I agree that there's significant things that would need to happen to make legalization happen in a repsonsable manner. I'm not a rose colored glasses type of guy. For example, I'm absolutely someone that believes driving while intoxicated, whether it's weed or alcohol, is something that should be illegal. And I absolutely believe we'd need to find a test for that. And guess what, I'm a fan of this crazy "free market" thing and believe that some sort of quick response test would likely be able to be discovered if there was a viable market for it...say, if suddenly marijuana was legal and so every police station in the country would need said testing unit. Are there hurdles to get over? Absolutley. "Wahhh, it'd be difficult" however isn't a reason to NOT do something to me however.

    Neither are poor analogies that are ridiculous on their very surface.

    your wordy response actually proves me correct.. that weed will end up harming those who oppose it and will infringe on their rights at some point.. a very simple point that you seem to be not understanding and spinning to back your false erroneous point of view..

    if its legal , like a bar or bartender , who can the victim go after for "serving the mega dose of THC" to the person that killed or crippled someone else ..and trust me your rights will be stepped all over by the goverment that will be now involved now that they conrtol it and 'made it legal"....

    its best to keep it illegal and available as it has always been..good debate though

  6. #96
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,361

    Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
    he and most supporters think legalized pot is less harmful than alcohol, when it fact it is probably much worse. My uncle died at 47 from lung cancer and pot was all he smoked.
    All lung cancer isn't caused by smoking. His might have been but might also not have been. Marijuana does have tar just like tobacco. But you don't have to smoke it to get high.

  7. #97
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,276

    Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis007 View Post
    your wordy response actually proves me correct.. that weed will end up harming those who oppose it and will infringe on their rights at some point..
    Except I didn't say that at all.

    Weed will "end up harming" people an "infringing on their rights" as much as a Gun will "end up harming" people and "infringing on their rights".

    Is it POSSIBLE that someone may smoke, drive, and crash into someone? Yes.

    Is it POSSIBLE that someone may take a gun and shoot someone? Yes.

    What is responsible in both those instances? The Person.

    What is the infringement happening in both of those instances? The actual ACTION that impacts another person (crashing into someone, shooting someone) and NOT the item that they possess/use (gun, weed)

    Is your argument that HYPOTHETICALLy peoples right MIGHT get infringed in some fashion, and that's your justification for actual, factual, tangable infringment of rights going on currently? Sorry, but that's a horribly weak argument in my book.

    So lets get you on the record travis. What's responsible when someone kills someone else...the items that are present and contribute to the situation, or the individual and the action taken BY said individual?

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis007 View Post
    so if a stoned out fool , all wasted and jolly crashes their car into someone and hurts or kills them or their family.. it does not "infringe on the victims rights"....


    yea that makes sense.. so should they infringe on their rights and get a blood sample on the spot?... wait.. what if they say they werent stoned should we still take blood samples.. so whos rights again are preserved here...?? If its made "legal" trust me your rights will be taken..

    nice try
    So you want alcohol banned to then right? You are talking about someone doing an ILLEGAL activity such as driving a car on weed. What rights are being taken from you by some guy minding his own business at home smoking weed?

    Seems YOU want to be the one to infringe on someone's rights.

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Last Seen
    08-02-17 @ 02:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,375

    Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Except I didn't say that at all.

    Weed will "end up harming" people an "infringing on their rights" as much as a Gun will "end up harming" people and "infringing on their rights".

    Is it POSSIBLE that someone may smoke, drive, and crash into someone? Yes.

    Is it POSSIBLE that someone may take a gun and shoot someone? Yes.

    What is responsible in both those instances? The Person.

    What is the infringement happening in both of those instances? The actual ACTION that impacts another person (crashing into someone, shooting someone) and NOT the item that they possess/use (gun, weed)

    Is your argument that HYPOTHETICALLy peoples right MIGHT get infringed in some fashion, and that's your justification for actual, factual, tangable infringment of rights going on currently? Sorry, but that's a horribly weak argument in my book.

    So lets get you on the record travis. What's responsible when someone kills someone else...the items that are present and contribute to the situation, or the individual and the action taken BY said individual?
    I understand your point of view.. I think you are missing my biggest point.. " if the gov is involved everyones rights will be trampled, history proves that to be true"..much like Holder and gun control now.. and I want to be clear, the Libs will be the ones looking to infringe on rights the fastest as they are all about CONTROL...dont be fooled by them making it legal, what LEGAL means is WE OWN YOU"

  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Last Seen
    08-02-17 @ 02:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,375

    Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    So you want alcohol banned to then right? You are talking about someone doing an ILLEGAL activity such as driving a car on weed. What rights are being taken from you by some guy minding his own business at home smoking weed?

    Seems YOU want to be the one to infringe on someone's rights.
    wrong.. alcohol is a substance that leaves the body as far as testing very quickly.. weed does not. so when you have an accident they may want to do a blood test to test for this LEGAL pot.. as that will be the trade off.. much like the LEGAL liquer.. so again whos rights are being preserved?

Page 10 of 33 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •