• 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

I don't care what ANY doctor says...even that smoking pot will kill you in 5 seconds.

IT IS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS WHAT ANY SANE ADULT PUTS IN THEIR BODY.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

its different.. guns and pot are not same .. period...

So guns make people do bad things, or pot makes people do bad things. Which is it?

Why do you think it's intelligent to use liberal arguments? Do you have any respect for liberty whatsoever, or are you one of the big government statist types that wants to control what people do in the privacy of their own homes?

Alcohol, cigarettes, big macs, cars, guns, etc. etc. etc. all kill thousands and thousands of people every year, while marijuana kills zero. Why aren't you begging the government to control those things for you as well?

Your'e comparing soda to a chemical that's illegal in 48 States and Federally.

It seems to be a trend here.

You seem to be highly uneducated on the subject. Marijuana is legal as a medication in 20 states. If you actually read the history of it's prohibition, you'd realize it had more to do with being worried that black men will get high and rape white women than it has to do with any actual danger.

And why do you want the government defining what happens in the privacy of your home? Would you like them defining your sexual position, or what you may eat?
 
Last edited:
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Your rights can't infringe on mine endangering my life because you make a poor choice and get behind the wheel and kill someone. Using your logic murder should be legal.

Murder involves demonstrable harm, not the possibility of harm.

By your logic we should ban cars. Everybodys safer that way.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

So guns make people do bad things, or pot makes people do bad things. Which is it?

Why do you think it's intelligent to use liberal arguments? Do you have any respect for liberty whatsoever, or are you one of the big government statist types that wants to control what people do in the privacy of their own homes?

Alcohol, cigarettes, big macs, cars, guns, etc. etc. etc. all kill thousands and thousands of people every year, while marijuana kills zero. Why aren't you begging the government to control those things for you as well?



You seem to be highly uneducated on the subject. Marijuana is legal as a medication in 20 states. If you actually read the history of it's prohibition, you'd realize it had more to do with being worried that black men will get high and rape white women than it has to do with any actual danger.

And why do you want the government defining what happens in the privacy of your home? Would you like them defining your sexual position, or what you may eat?

No, he just wants the govt defining OUR sexual positions and deciding what WE eat based on HIS preferences.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

its different.. guns and pot are not same .. period...

Well, since you say "it's different" that clearly is enough of an argument to convince me...

Oh wait, it's not.

Just saying "it's different" and "they're not the same" doesn't actually say anything.

HOW, specifically HOW is it not the same?

An IRRESPONSIBLE person takes a gun, goes into a crowded area, and shoots people.

An IRRESPONSIBLE person smokes some weed, goes into a car, and hits someone.

In the first instance, the stance is we shouldn't blame the gun and ban it, we blame the person who CHOSE to take the gun and use it in an irresponsible way.

Yet in the second instance, the stance seems to be we should blame the pot and ban it, NOT blame the person who CHOSE to take the pot and use it in an irresponsible way.

Please, EXPLAIN how they're "not the same" because just saying "they're not the same" isn't an argument.

If that is your only argument, let me issue an equally legitimate and sound retort.

"Yes, they're the same"
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

.... and when the gov is involved maybe on any accident they will want to test you for THC... since now the gov is involved ... what point is not clear? whent he Obama gov is involved in making it "legal" your freedoms will be trampled.. soon sugar will be monitored and you will be tested..

Travis...

THE GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY INVOLVED.

The fact it's illegal means the government is involved. What you're arguing for is continued GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.

It's no more reasonable to suggest that legalizing weed is going to lead to sugar being monitored and test as it is to suggest that keeping the government involved with making weed illegal will lead to sugar being illegaled.

You're seriously trying to argue for continued, tangable, factual, UNQUESTIONED government involvement by putting forward a boogeyman of hypothetical, questionable, unknown government involvement.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Your rights can't infringe on mine endangering my life because you make a poor choice and get behind the wheel and kill someone. Using your logic murder should be legal.

See, here you seem to understand it and yet it's still going over your head.

YES! Your rights were infringed upon because they made a poor choice and got behind the wheel and killed someone.

Your rights were not infringed BECAUSE THEY SMOKE POT.

Smoking pot does not cause someone to kill someone with a vehicle.

Smoking pot, making the poor decision to drive, and then hitting someone with your car causes someone to kill someone with a vehicle.

The act of HITTING YOU WITH A CAR is what infringed upon your rights, not smoking pot.

By YOUR logic, guns should be illegal...because guns can be used irresponsably in the process of murdering someone, therefore they must be banned. This is YOUR logic in suggesting Marijuana should be banned, because it could be used irresponsably and in the process cause someone to be killed.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Travis...

THE GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY INVOLVED.

The fact it's illegal means the government is involved. What you're arguing for is continued GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.

It's no more reasonable to suggest that legalizing weed is going to lead to sugar being monitored and test as it is to suggest that keeping the government involved with making weed illegal will lead to sugar being illegaled.

You're seriously trying to argue for continued, tangable, factual, UNQUESTIONED government involvement by putting forward a boogeyman of hypothetical, questionable, unknown government involvement.

Boogie man? cmon... we already see that Obamacare will be testing for for all sorts of things to allow you to get insurance.. TRUST ME.. THC will be on that list and TRUST ME you do not want the gov involoved in anything they "make legal" ... making legal equate to GOV CONTROL...

take it to the bank..
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Funny my brother in law has smoked pot for over 30 years without any lung trouble. Also many people get liver disease from alcohol. Many things affect people differently. The point being marijuanna should not be illegal.

Is it healthy to smoke pot? Nope. However there are plenty of things that are unhealthy and legal.

How does this line jive with the government more and more trying to force people to be healthy?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

How does this line jive with the government more and more trying to force people to be healthy?

Outside of places like New York that are draconian in their "Healthy" measures, for the most part people can and still do eat, smoke, and drink things that are not healthy for them.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Boogie man? cmon... we already see that Obamacare will be testing for for all sorts of things to allow you to get insurance.. TRUST ME.. THC will be on that list and TRUST ME you do not want the gov involoved in anything they "make legal" ... making legal equate to GOV CONTROL...

take it to the bank..

Sorry Travis, but I just can't understand this logic.

You say making it legal will get the government involved? Well keeping it illegal already has the government involved. So I'm not sure what you're argument is other than "We can't let the government stop being involved, because then the government would be involved!"

You say they could test your blood for it for Obamacare to get insurance? Well, since it's ILLEGAL and the government is involved with it right now, the exact same hypothetical could happen NOW. If THC could be on the list to check for when getting insurance when it's legal, then THC could be on the list to check for when getting insurance when it's ILLEGAL currently.

NONE of what you're suggest in terms of government involvement, none of which is guaranteed, is any less capable of happening NOW. Actually, it's MORE capable, because they could use the basis of it's illegality as justification for it.

You say "making legal equates to GOV CONTROL"....well keeping it illegal already equates to GOV CONTROL, with the added caveat that the government can physically incarcerate you for it.
 
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

You think that is bad; the right denies and disparages something they claim to have Faith in regarding Intelligent Design, by claiming a potentially seed bearing is bad and not good. Why do "original sinners" believe they are more Right, that a god.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Sorry Travis, but I just can't understand this logic.

You say making it legal will get the government involved? Well keeping it illegal already has the government involved. So I'm not sure what you're argument is other than "We can't let the government stop being involved, because then the government would be involved!"

You say they could test your blood for it for Obamacare to get insurance? Well, since it's ILLEGAL and the government is involved with it right now, the exact same hypothetical could happen NOW. If THC could be on the list to check for when getting insurance when it's legal, then THC could be on the list to check for when getting insurance when it's ILLEGAL currently.

NONE of what you're suggest in terms of government involvement, none of which is guaranteed, is any less capable of happening NOW. Actually, it's MORE capable, because they could use the basis of it's illegality as justification for it.

You say "making legal equates to GOV CONTROL"....well keeping it illegal already equates to GOV CONTROL, with the added caveat that the government can physically incarcerate you for it.

well ..Im not going to do this dance again.. my point is valid .. once the Gov "makes it legal" the Gov will conrtol it and YOU.. very simple.. maybe one day my words will resonate ( no pun lol) with you..
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

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.

The people who started smoking cannabis in the sixties would be filling the cancer wards now that they are in their 60s and 70s if it was a significant cancer hazard. That is not happening.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

The people who started smoking cannabis in the sixties would be filling the cancer wards now that they are in their 60s and 70s if it was a significant cancer hazard. That is not happening.

any stats to back that up?..and do we know the quantity of it or what else it effected in their lives?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Boogie man? cmon... we already see that Obamacare will be testing for for all sorts of things to allow you to get insurance.. TRUST ME.. THC will be on that list and TRUST ME you do not want the gov involoved in anything they "make legal" ... making legal equate to GOV CONTROL...

take it to the bank..

"Controlled substance" does not equal illegal, but it does mean controlled...and taxed which is really the only reason that states are considering legalizing it. Liquor and cigs are controlled too.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

any stats to back that up?..and do we know the quantity of it or what else it effected in their lives?

Well we hear plenty about how all the stroke and heart attack and diabetes 2 and lung cancer patients ended up there....if it was strongly correlated to any non-infectious diseases I think we'd have heard about it.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Ever heard of a pothead going into a blind
rage and beating somebody to death for no reason at all? Ever heard of a pothead that smoked too much and died from an OD? No? Neither have I.

Ever hear of a pot head who wasted the next 20 years of their life in a perperual state of intoxication ?

Who's motivations changed all based on where the next bag of dope is going to come from ?

Who traded their future and 30 points off their IQ for a perennial state of stupidity ? Who put off maturity and growth until the long term effects of chronic marijuana use finnaly overwhelm them but by then its too late.

They've wasted decades of their lives being a lesser version of themselves.

Tragic isn't it ? As it turns out its a common theme among chronic pot heads.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Ever hear of a pot head who wasted the next 20 years of their life in a perperual state of intoxication ?

Who's motivations changed all based on where the next bag of dope is going to come from ?

Who traded their future and 30 points off their IQ for a perennial state of stupidity ? Who put off maturity and growth until the long term effects of chronic marijuana use finnaly overwhelm them but by then its too late.

They've wasted decades of their lives being a lesser version of themselves.

Tragic isn't it ? As it turns out its a common theme among chronic pot heads.

Alcohol does all of that and worse. Who are you to tell a person that they can't do something that is unhealthy for them?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Alcohol does all of that and worse. Who
are you to tell a person that they can't do something that is unhealthy for them?

No, the effects of pot and alcohol are different.

Why I have to tell YOU that is any ones guess.

You folks seem to place your entire argument on those distinctions.

I can drink 1 or two Scotch and waters ( Dewars White Label Please ) and still remain mentally sharp and with little to no long term effects on my motivation or my intellectual capabillities.

Marijuana's effects are ultimately A-motivational. Stupifying and addicting.

The REAL reason States are choosing NOT to go
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Alcohol does all of that and worse. Who
are you to tell a person that they can't do something that is unhealthy for them?

No, the effects of pot and alcohol are different.

Why I have to tell YOU that is any ones guess.

You folks seem to place your entire argument on those distinctions.

I can drink 1 or two Scotch and waters ( Dewars White Label Please ) and still remain mentally sharp and with little to no long term effects on my motivation or my intellectual capabillities.

Marijuana's effects are ultimately A-motivational. Stupifying and addicting.

The REAL reason States are choosing NOT to go after pot smokers is THEY ARE BROKE.

Good for pot heads, bad for society.

Democrat Politicians want their constituents to be as dumb and unimformed as possible.

Since burning books is a bit passe, legalizing pot is the next best thing.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

No, the effects of pot and alcohol are different.

Why I have to tell YOU that is any ones guess.

You folks seem to place your entire argument on those distinctions.

I can drink 1 or two Scotch and waters ( Dewars White Label Please ) and still remain mentally sharp and with little to no long term effects on my motivation or my intellectual capabillities.

Marijuana's effects are ultimately A-motivational. Stupifying and addicting.

The REAL reason States are choosing NOT to go after pot smokers is THEY ARE BROKE.

Good for pot heads, bad for society.

Democrat Politicians want their constituents to be as dumb and unimformed as possible.

Since burning books is a bit passe, legalizing pot is the next best thing.

You've made it abundantly clear that you know very little about marijuana and its side effects. You're grasping at straws to try to justify the legality of alcohol over the legality of marijuana, but the reality is you can't. It doesn't cause cancer, it is not chemically addictive, and you cannot OD on it. In every way alcohol is worse for society than marijuana, yet marijuana stays illegal. The real reason it is illegal is the DEA and other entities that exist to enslave drug users in prisons for profit will take a serious hit if pot becomes legal.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

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.
I think at worst they're about equal, and at best alcohol is worse. Part of that is likely because it's legal and thus used more?

To my understanding, however, alcohol is more addictive (much more?) than marijuana, and thus is more likely to become a long-term problem.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

I think at worst they're about equal, and at best alcohol is worse. Part of that is likely because it's legal and thus used more?

To my understanding, however, alcohol is more addictive (much more?) than marijuana, and thus is more likely to become a long-term problem.

Keep in mind legalizing it and regulating it will take the drug dealer out of the picture. It won't take a criminal to get weed, and also less kids will get their hands on it when it is regulated and you get it with an ID at the store. Alcohol is generally harder for minors to get their hands on than weed is. Weed is not chemically addictive at all; you can die from alcohol withdrawals. You can not overdose on weed, but people die from alcohol poisoning all the time. There is really no way around the fact that alcohol is worse for you.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Ever hear of a pot head who wasted the next 20 years of their life in a perperual state of intoxication ?

Who's motivations changed all based on where the next bag of dope is going to come from ?

Who traded their future and 30 points off their IQ for a perennial state of stupidity ? Who put off maturity and growth until the long term effects of chronic marijuana use finnaly overwhelm them but by then its too late.

They've wasted decades of their lives being a lesser version of themselves.

Tragic isn't it ? As it turns out its a common theme among chronic pot heads.

Yep. I have. That's an addict.

I've heard of and seen addicts of many types ruin their lives over alcohol, food, thrills, drugs, and other things

The fact that some people are addicts or some people act irresponsibly with something is not a viable justification for the government forcefully disallowing the public at large from choosing on their own to undertake an action that is singularly directly affecting to themselves.

You are no different at all from those who push for the banning of firearms and just as big of a statist, big government, mindset
 
Back
Top Bottom