• 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!

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

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

Deadly means you have to die, by the way.

Forgot to address this before.

Actually no, you do not have to die from something deadly. There are many ways to survive something that is deadly. For example if you continueally inject yourself with a rattlesnakes venom in small doses you will eventually become immune to its deadly venom (or at least immune enough to not die from it). The reason that you become immune to it is because you build up a tolerance to that venom. Your body will eventually inhibit the effects of that venom. This does not mean that if you get bit by a rattlesnake that the venom is not deadly because it is still the same venom. Your bodies defenses will just inhibit it. The only difference here is that it is the THC doing the inhibiting of the deadly carcinogens and not your body.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Forgot to address this before.

Actually no, you do not have to die from something deadly. There are many ways to survive something that is deadly. For example if you continueally inject yourself with a rattlesnakes venom in small doses you will eventually become immune to its deadly venom (or at least immune enough to not die from it). The reason that you become immune to it is because you build up a tolerance to that venom. Your body will eventually inhibit the effects of that venom. This does not mean that if you get bit by a rattlesnake that the venom is not deadly because it is still the same venom. Your bodies defenses will just inhibit it. The only difference here is that it is the THC doing the inhibiting of the deadly carcinogens and not your body.

Because you seemed to want to ignore what I wrote on that very same subject, I'll just repost it right here:

RabidAlpaca: "Let's, for a minute, assume there are "deadly" carcinogens that get completely nullified by the THC. Who cares? That's like saying "You know, if water didn't have oxygen to counteract the hydrogen, we'd be drinking pure hydrogen which would kill us."

It's a nonsense argument. Let's look at the plant as a whole. I use it regularly and I've found it dramatically enriches my life. If there were negative effects, or even deadly ones, where are they?"


So where are the bodies?
Donde estan los cuerpos?
Wo sind die Leichen?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Let's, for a minute, assume there are "deadly" carcinogens that get completely nullified by the THC. Who cares? That's like saying "You know, if water didn't have oxygen to counteract the hydrogen, we'd be drinking pure hydrogen which would kill us."

Actually your body also needs hydrogen. How Is Hydrogen Used in the Body? That is why we can survive just fine with hydrogen being in the air. Of course like anything else too much hydrogen can kill you. Just as too much pure oxygen can kill you also.

It's a nonsense argument. Let's look at the plant as a whole. I use it regularly and I've found it dramatically enriches my life. If there were negative effects, or even deadly ones, where are they?

How about we instead acknowledge that there are certain things in marijuana that are indeed dangerous to humans and start using the ways that are now available which eliminate them (such as vaporizers). You still get your high from the THC so whats the difference? Better safe than sorry.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Because you seemed to want to ignore what I wrote on that very same subject, I'll just repost it right here:

Or you can just be patient and give me time to respond to that post? I was writing that post that you just quoted while you were posting that one you know. Beyond that...what have I ignored exactly again?

Now...why didn't you address the post that you just quoted instead of claiming that I have ignored some part of your arguement?

So where are the bodies?

Where have I stated that marijuana kills? You seem to keep ignoring that question...as the post that you just quoted shows, just because something is considered deadly does not mean that it will always kill. Deadly things can be inhibited to the point where they are no longer deadly. But that...again...that doesn't mean that they themselves are not deadly.

Donde estan los cuerpos?
Wo sind die Leichen?

Sorry, I only speak English.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Actually your body also needs hydrogen. How Is Hydrogen Used in the Body? That is why we can survive just fine with hydrogen being in the air. Of course like anything else too much hydrogen can kill you. Just as too much pure oxygen can kill you also.



How about we instead acknowledge that there are certain things in marijuana that are indeed dangerous to humans and start using the ways that are now available which eliminate them (such as vaporizers). You still get your high from the THC so whats the difference? Better safe than sorry.

Or you can just be patient and give me time to respond to that post? I was writing that post that you just quoted while you were posting that one you know. Beyond that...what have I ignored exactly again?

Now...why didn't you address the post that you just quoted instead of claiming that I have ignored some part of your arguement?



Where have I stated that marijuana kills? You seem to keep ignoring that question...as the post that you just quoted shows, just because something is considered deadly does not mean that it will always kill. Deadly things can be inhibited to the point where they are no longer deadly. But that...again...that doesn't mean that they themselves are not deadly.



Sorry, I only speak English.


If you're not claiming that marijuana has killed anyone, or willing to provide any evidence of such, we don't really have anything to discuss. There doesn't seem to be a point to anything you're saying. Good day.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

If you're not claiming that marijuana has killed anyone, or willing to provide any evidence of such, we don't really have anything to discuss. There doesn't seem to be a point to anything you're saying. Good day.

Just as well. Your refuseal to acknowledge that marijuana has the same deadly carcinogens that tobacco has is getting redundant.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Just as well. Your refuseal to acknowledge that marijuana has the same deadly carcinogens that tobacco has is getting redundant.

Give me one case where those carcinogens have been deadly and I'll concede. Until then, it's not deadly.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Give me one case where those carcinogens have been deadly and I'll concede. Until then, it's not deadly.

Tobacco kills all the time due to the same carcinogens that are in marijuana. I've given plenty of links that show that the two have the same carcinogens.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Tobacco kills all the time due to the same carcinogens that are in marijuana. I've given plenty of links that show that the two have the same carcinogens.

And yet you haven't given one link showing Marihuana has ever killed anyone. They are not the same drugs. I will not respond again until you provide a link showing people dying from Marihuana.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

And yet you haven't given one link showing Marihuana has ever killed anyone. They are not the same drugs. I will not respond again until you provide a link showing people dying from Marihuana.

Wow. Why am I not surprised here? You continueally ignore the fact that your initial response to me was your contention that marijuana has no deadly carcinogens. I showed you that marijuana has THE SAME DEADLY CARCINOGENS as tobacco and yet you STILL refuse to acknowledge this SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT of which I have provided links showing that they have the same.

And to top it all off every time I show this to be true you try to shift and claim that I claimed that Marijuana kills. SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE SAID THIS? ALL that I have said was that Marijuana has the SAME DEADLY CARCINOGENS as Tobacco. I have provided links showing this to be true.

Thank you for proving that marijuana apparently does kill brain cells.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Wow. Why am I not surprised here? You continueally ignore the fact that your initial response to me was your contention that marijuana has no deadly carcinogens. I showed you that marijuana has THE SAME DEADLY CARCINOGENS as tobacco and yet you STILL refuse to acknowledge this SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT of which I have provided links showing that they have the same.

And to top it all off every time I show this to be true you try to shift and claim that I claimed that Marijuana kills. SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE SAID THIS? ALL that I have said was that Marijuana has the SAME DEADLY CARCINOGENS as Tobacco. I have provided links showing this to be true.

Thank you for proving that marijuana apparently does kill brain cells.

Jesus ****ing christ. Because WITHOUT DEATHS SOMETHING CAN'T BE DEADLY. There have been no deaths from marijuana, therefore marijuana can not be deadly. That's the simplest ****ing statement in the world. That's like saying corn is full of deadly carcinogens, when nobody has ever died from corn. That just makes it carcinogens! You're essentially saying that if a chemical compound can kill someone in any situation, it can kill them in all situations. That's idiotic.

You can not classify something that has never in the history of mankind killed anybody as deadly. That's bull****. I guess my left nutsack is deadly too, even though I've never killed anyone with it, I just feel like calling it deadly to prove a point.

In summary:

Deaths
- Tobacco: Millions
- Marijuana: Zero


Therefore Marijuana is not in any way, shape or form deadly.
 
Last edited:
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Jesus ****ing christ. Because WITHOUT DEATHS SOMETHING CAN'T BE DEADLY. There have been no deaths from marijuana, therefore marijuana can not be deadly. That's the simplest ****ing statement in the world. That's like saying corn is full of deadly carcinogens, when nobody has ever died from corn. That just makes it carcinogens! You're essentially saying that if a chemical compound can kill someone in any situation, it can kill them in all situations. That's idiotic.

You can not classify something that has never in the history of mankind killed anybody as deadly. That's bull****. I guess my left nutsack is deadly too, even though I've never killed anyone with it, I just feel like calling it deadly to prove a point.

In summary:

Deaths
- Tobacco: Millions
- Marijuana: Zero


Therefore Marijuana is not in any way, shape or form deadly.

Where have I stated that Marijuana is deadly? I haven't. I have said that there are deadly caracinogens in marijuana. When are you going to get that into your head? Do you not know or understand the difference between the two phrases? Do you not know what the following words mean?...

Both tobacco and cannabis smoke contain the same cancer-causing compounds (carcinogens).

Pot Smoke: Less Carcinogenic Than Tobacco?

Smoke from tobacco and cannabis contains many of the same carcinogens and tumor promoters

Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic

Do you not know what the word "inhibits" means?

1: to prohibit from doing something

2a: to hold in check : restrain
b: to discourage from free or spontaneous activity especially through the operation of inner psychological or external social constraints

Merriam-Webster definition of inhibit

This does not say that it gets rid of or makes something to not exist. It simply stops something from working. In this case the THC in marijuana is stopping the same cancer causing carcinogens that are in marijuana that is in tobacco from taking effect.

Again. THC does not get rid of or keeps those cancer causing carcinogens from being in the marijuana plant. It just stops those carcinogens from causing cancer. Those carcinogens still exist. They are still in the marijuana plant. Just as they are in the tobacco plant. They are just prevented from causing cancer. They are not gone. They are not deleted, ate at, prevented from existing or anything else like that. They are simply stopped from causing cancer due to the THC's suppressive effect. If the THC was not inhibiting them, IE if you removed the THC from the marijuana plant, those carcinogens are just as deadly in that marijuana plant as they are in a tobacco plant due to the fact that they are the SAME deadly carcinogens.

Reading comprehension....learn it. Now, if you STILL do not get it then there is nothing I can do for you.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Where have I stated that Marijuana is deadly? I haven't. I have said that there are deadly caracinogens in marijuana. When are you going to get that into your head? Do you not know or understand the difference between the two phrases? Do you not know what the following words mean?...



Pot Smoke: Less Carcinogenic Than Tobacco?



Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic

Do you not know what the word "inhibits" means?



Merriam-Webster definition of inhibit

This does not say that it gets rid of or makes something to not exist. It simply stops something from working. In this case the THC in marijuana is stopping the same cancer causing carcinogens that are in marijuana that is in tobacco from taking effect.

Again. THC does not get rid of or keeps those cancer causing carcinogens from being in the marijuana plant. It just stops those carcinogens from causing cancer. Those carcinogens still exist. They are still in the marijuana plant. Just as they are in the tobacco plant. They are just prevented from causing cancer. They are not gone. They are not deleted, ate at, prevented from existing or anything else like that. They are simply stopped from causing cancer due to the THC's suppressive effect. If the THC was not inhibiting them, IE if you removed the THC from the marijuana plant, those carcinogens are just as deadly in that marijuana plant as they are in a tobacco plant.

Reading comprehension....learn it. Now, if you STILL do not get it then there is nothing I can do for you.

If they're being inhibited and haven't killed anyone, then they're not deadly. I have no idea why you're even trying to make this point because it's completely idiotic. "It has non-deadly deadly carcinogens that haven't killed anyone. I just wanted to make everyone super aware of how non-deadly deadly it is!"
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Oh, because it tells you means people listen? Get real. Allegra D is an over the counter medication which actually does have side effects with low risk so no warnings are given. Allegra D is also a stimulant which is a major difference so apples and oranges on your part not mine. Alcohol a LEGAL over the counter drug which causes the same type effects on the body as THC. That would be apples to apples. But you can't win that argument so you have to move the goal posts to an over the counter med (Allegra D) which is stimulant and not a depressant. Zyrtec, Claritin or Benadryl are depressants which have the same effects as Alcohol/THC and are all SOLD over the counter.

Just admit you are wrong.. I don't have the time to waste arguing with a parrot who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

can't you respond without personal attacks or is that just beyond your intellect?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

No, it was not. You claimed texting was not relevant. It is a parallel example showing that something being legal does not infringe on your rights *until* they drive distracted. Your objection to legalizing pot was that it would infringe on your rights..

and texting is so far out in left field it is laughable
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

White House docs say pot causes brain damage and lower IQ in teens, alcohol does not

President Obama’s latest claims about marijuana are contradicted by research and official positions of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which is part of the White House. And Mr. Obama’s words have anti-drug leaders worried about negative repercussions among youth.

Mr. Obama claimed to The New Yorker magazine that marijuana is no worse than cigarettes or alcohol and he promoted state efforts by Colorado and Washington to legalize marijuana, which remains illegal under federal law.

The National Drug Control Policy’s official stance, posted on the whitehouse.gov website, says the opposite of Mr. Obama on all counts.

For example, as documented in agency reports, marijuana smoke has significantly more carcinogens than tobacco smoke.

And as reported by the government’s National Institute on Drug Abuse, adolescent use of marijuana does something that alcohol does not; it causes permanent brain damage, including lowering of I.Q.

Taxpayers have spent billions of dollars warning about drugs, often about marijuana, but these efforts were dramatically undercut by the president’s comments.

Mr. Obama might as well have rolled that money into a joint and smoked it on national television.

He told the interviewer, David Remnick, that his earlier years of prodigious puffery were “a bad habit and a vice.” Yet he doesn’t warn others not to follow in his footsteps.



Read more: ISTOOK: Obama's White House drug experts contradict his marijuana claims - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

The truth is, freedom depends on a well educated citizenry. The politicians, especially liberals, are trying to dumb down the population. That's why they want the rampant use of mind altering drugs. That is also why our schools have been failing, especially since the government has taken over (illegally) the public school system. There are a host of other things they are doing to dumb our children down.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

and texting is so far out in left field it is laughable

How so? It is legal to do at home and infringes on no one else's rights, but becomes deadly when driving. Thus, most states have enacted laws against driving and texting...but NOT texting itself.

Smoking pot at home infringes on no one else's rights (and it legal to do so in 2 states). It can be dangerous if people drive with pot in their systems. Hence, all states have enacted DUI laws...but the smoking of pot at home is legal where the substance is legal and legal or not, infringes on no one. If it does so, please give examples.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

can't you respond without personal attacks or is that just beyond your intellect?

That's not even close to a personal attack but rather an observed fact. So how about you refute the facts I brought in my posts.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

How so? It is legal to do at home and infringes on no one else's rights, but becomes deadly when driving. Thus, most states have enacted laws against driving and texting...but NOT texting itself.

Smoking pot at home infringes on no one else's rights (and it legal to do so in 2 states). It can be dangerous if people drive with pot in their systems. Hence, all states have enacted DUI laws...but the smoking of pot at home is legal where the substance is legal and legal or not, infringes on no one. If it does so, please give examples.

no one stated it did at home, unfortunately it does not leave your system immediatley. I will be glad when you actually decide WTF you are talking about :lamo
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Obama is such a fraud.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

That's not even close to a personal attack but rather an observed fact. So how about you refute the facts I brought in my posts.

refute what? there were no facts in that post
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

no one stated it did at home, unfortunately it does not leave your system immediatley. I will be glad when you actually decide WTF you are talking about.

What does that have to do with it? Texting at home infringes on no one...or does it? You tell me.

Smoking pot...just like taking prescription drugs or drinking alcohol...at home infringes on no one. Or does it...you tell me. Your initial claim, as I reposted several times, is that smoking pot infringes on the rights of others. It doesnt, no matter what you think...unless you can support it.

Any actions taken while under the influence of ANYTHING, including the distraction of texting, booze, alcohol, is something completely separate and we DO NOT legislate the legality of something based on that.

So why dont you try to figure things out again, because once again, your reading comprehension comes into question. Actually, you understand just fine....you just either cant support your claim or wont admit you were wrong. :mrgreen:

Now, can you possibly figure out how to respond without trying bob and weave or not?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

What does that have to do with it? Texting at home infringes on no one...or does it? You tell me.

Smoking pot...just like taking prescription drugs or drinking alcohol...at home infringes on no one. Or does it...you tell me. Your initial claim, as I reposted several times, is that smoking pot infringes on the rights of others. It doesnt, no matter what you think...unless you can support it.

Any actions taken while under the influence of ANYTHING, including the distraction of texting, booze, alcohol, is something completely separate and we DO NOT legislate the legality of something based on that.

So why dont you try to figure things out again, because once again, your reading comprehension comes into question. Actually, you understand just fine....you just either cant support your claim or wont admit you were wrong. :mrgreen:

Now, can you possibly figure out how to respond without trying bob and weave or not?

And I specifically pointed out those idiots that hit it right before showing up to work, damn do you actually read anything prior to responding? Jesus
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

It may just depend on the type of work. I don't mind digging ditches while stoned.
 
Back
Top Bottom