• 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

By that logic, texting should be made illegal. Period.

that is silly, I have never injested my smart phone, have you?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

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.

that is not logic, just assumption. Guns should not be illegal because no one's judgement becomes impaired by owning one? See how that works? smoke a joint, you no longer have the same judgement as you did before smoking it so your choices will be different.

Owning guns, my judgement remains the same, before and after the purchase.
 
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.

For those looking for more high, pot is only the first step before they get to other drugs that are more addictive
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Aren't libertarians the one's that advocate for minimal government intrusion? Are they the ones the generally advocate that the nation's drug war is a lost cause? So much for the theory that libertarian is just a conservative that wants to get laid and smoke dope....

using your logic as to the definition of libertarian there should not be laws against murder or rape which is silly and illogical
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Sorry for your loss, but if alcohol was all your uncle drank, he would have died a lot sooner.

I don't know which is more harmful...neither is good for you, IMO.

The point should not be which is worse.

The point should be does the government have the right to tell a sane adult what they can put into their own bodies?

I say 'NO'.

thanks, not sure I agree with the alcohol statement though, my grandfather drank at least one glass of wine almost every night and he lived to be 94, never going to a rest home or assisted living
 
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.

By that logic, texting should be made illegal. Period.

that is silly, I have never injested my smart phone, have you?

Which statement had to do with ingestion? Do you have a relevant response? Or perhaps you can explain that one.
 
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.

the hell it isn't, my uncle was one of those people, of the five closest friends he hung out with, only two are left and the others died of cancer as well, how odd is that?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Which statement had to do with ingestion? Do you have a relevant response? Or perhaps you can explain that one.

alcohol and pot are injested, cell phones and texting are deflection and not part of this thread
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

For those looking for more high, pot is only the first step before they get to other drugs that are more addictive

If people are looking for 'more high' pot has nothing to do with it. Pot isnt much of a high compared to plenty of other things out there....and people know it.

Alcohol and nicotine give you a high....but somehow escaped the whole 'gateway' drug label. It's just more anti-drug hype.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:
alcohol and pot are injested, cell phones and texting are deflection and not part of this thread

No, you are deflecting....this statement had NOTHING to do with ingestion:

Rocketman said:
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.alcohol and pot are injested, cell phones and texting are deflection and not part of this thread

Can you support the statement or not? Is not texting in the car potentially (and proven to be) deadly?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

C'mon, Texas will never legalize it, not in my lifetime and it's still illegal in 48 States and possession is illegal in a majority of countries.

Maybe, Maybe not.

While staunch conservative Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said "What I can do as the governor of the second largest state in the nation is to implement policies that start us toward a decriminalization and keeps people from going to prison and destroying their lives, and that’s what we’ve done over the last decade," , he did stop short of advocating legalization in Texas, but did say - "States should be allowed to make those decisions."
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

People that have no experience with or understanding of pot think it should be illegal for reasons that are largely false and completely made up. Right now you remind me of the idiots on the left that want to outlaw guns.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

using your logic as to the definition of libertarian there should not be laws against murder or rape which is silly and illogical

You are not a libertarian. You want the government to be powerful enough to dictate to private citizens what they can consume in their own homes. Rape and murder are violent crimes where there is a victim. Ingesting a plant has no victim.

Who do you know that has gotten high then went on a killing spree? By your logic, alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and hundreds of prescription and over the counter medications should be illegal too. All of them alter your state of mind and change your decision making process.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

If people are looking for 'more high' pot has nothing to do with it. Pot isnt much of a high compared to plenty of other things out there....and people know it.

Alcohol and nicotine give you a high....but somehow escaped the whole 'gateway' drug label. It's just more anti-drug hype.

no its not, my wife's son is dead now from an overdose and he started with pot, soon that was not enough to quell his demons. Her brothers son is fighting a herioin addiction and he also started with pot. It is not purely recreational for everyone.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

You are not a libertarian. You want the government to be powerful enough to dictate to private citizens what they can consume in their own homes. Rape and murder are violent crimes where there is a victim. Ingesting a plant has no victim.

Who do you know that has gotten high then went on a killing spree? By your logic, alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and hundreds of prescription and over the counter medications should be illegal too. All of them alter your state of mind and change your decision making process.

I knew two people that are no longer with us, one because he co-worker smoked a joint before coming into work, they other was killed by someone driving while high on pot. I don't care what you do at home if you keep your ass at home, but in younger people that is hardly ever the case and even in older people that think they can control it even it their judgement is impaired.

Fact is pot is illegal because it alters judgement and hard to detect within a reasonable amount of time in the workplace. There are victims from altered minds with bad judgement and your illogical comments like the one above do not change that.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

No, you are deflecting....this statement had NOTHING to do with ingestion:



Can you support the statement or not? Is not texting in the car potentially (and proven to be) deadly?

yes but it is a totally different animal than alcohol and drugs and BTW texting is illegal in many states. SO if texting is illegal, pot should be as well. Thanks for proving my point.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

I knew two people that are no longer with us, one because he co-worker smoked a joint before coming into work, they other was killed by someone driving while high on pot. I don't care what you do at home if you keep your ass at home, but in younger people that is hardly ever the case and even in older people that think they can control it even it their judgement is impaired.

Fact is pot is illegal because it alters judgement and hard to detect within a reasonable amount of time in the workplace. There are victims from altered minds with bad judgement and your illogical comments like the one above do not change that.

How is pot intrinsically more dangerous than alcohol and the other legal drugs, and why do you want to lock people in cages that haven't ever hurt anybody? You're letting a few bad apples criminalize tens of millions of people. People rape, murder and steal while drunk, at an even higher per capita rate, and yet you have no problem with that at all?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

yes but it is a totally different animal than alcohol and drugs and BTW texting is illegal in many states. SO if texting is illegal, pot should be as well. Thanks for proving my point.

Not at all. The premise is that supposedly, pot or booze affects someones focus and ability to drive. As does texting. Texting is not illegal. Booze is not illegal. Pot is not illegal in WA and CO.

Driving while texting and driving while *under the influence* (pot or alcohol) ARE illegal.

Your point is not proven. According to your statement, texting *should* be illegal in order to prevent distracted driving, just like you're implying pot should be illegal so that someone cannot drive under the influence.

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.

By that logic, texting should be made illegal. Period.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

How is pot intrinsically more dangerous than alcohol and the other legal drugs, and why do you want to lock people in cages that haven't ever hurt anybody? You're letting a few bad apples criminalize tens of millions of people. People rape, murder and steal while drunk, at an even higher per capita rate, and yet you have no problem with that at all?

I never said it was worse or more dangerous, I just don't think it should be made legal and until the structure for testing is similar to alcohol enforcement. And they may while high once the structure to track is similar to alcohol. I am not criminalizing anyone, that is an asinine statement.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Not at all. The premise is that supposedly, pot or booze affects someones focus and ability to drive. As does texting. Texting is not illegal. Booze is not illegal. Pot is not illegal in WA and CO.

Driving while texting and driving while *under the influence* (pot or alcohol) ARE illegal.

Your point is not proven. According to your statement, texting *should* be illegal in order to prevent distracted driving, just like you're implying pot should be illegal so that someone cannot drive under the influence.

no that is your statement, there is no structure in place to test for pot users in the workplace in a reasonable amount of time, until there is it should remain illegal IMO and I will not change my mind no matter what deflection you post. People do not injest their cellphones as they do alcohol and pot so that argument is asinine.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

no that is your statement, there is no structure in place to test for pot users in the workplace in a reasonable amount of time, until there is it should remain illegal IMO and I will not change my mind no matter what deflection you post. People do not injest their cellphones as they do alcohol and pot so that argument is asinine.

Um nope...back to square one, see if you can get it this time:


Rocketman said:
yes but it is a totally different animal than alcohol and drugs and BTW texting is illegal in many states. SO if texting is illegal, pot should be as well. Thanks for proving my point.

No....texting is LEGAL. Texting WHILE DRIVING is not. Booze and pot are LEGAL (in 2 states, and proposed for more)....driving WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE is not.

Lursa said:
Not at all. The premise is that supposedly, pot or booze affects someones focus and ability to drive. As does texting. Texting is not illegal. Booze is not illegal. Pot is not illegal in WA and CO.

Driving while texting and driving while *under the influence* (pot or alcohol) ARE illegal.

Your point is not proven. According to your statement, texting *should* be illegal in order to prevent distracted driving, just like you're implying pot should be illegal so that someone cannot drive under the influence.

Original:

Rocketman said:
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.

Lursa said:
By that logic, texting should be made illegal. Period.

Lursa said:
It's a bad choice to get behind the wheel and text or drink or smoke pot. All the same...all endanger other drivers. The first things are not illegal unless involved with driving.

So your claim that pot should be illegal because it infringes on your right because it endangers you is invalid. No one is claiming driving while high will be or should be legal.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

There are no harmful chemicals. If you'd like to make an accusation, please be specific. THC is not dangerous, nor are the Cannabinoids, which occur naturally in the body.
Perhaps I am mistaken. I was under the impression that marijuana smoke had harmful chemicals in it, much as tobacco smoke does - I specifically excluded THC.



Then don't hang around stoners. Seems like an extremely easy solution to a fabricated problem.
You have misinterpreted my meaning.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

For those looking for more high, pot is only the first step before they get to other drugs that are more addictive
That's hardly marijuana's fault. It's relatively easy to produce, and relatively cheep to acquire (I think?)...plus it's not very dangerous, compared to other drugs.

If something else were cheaper, easier to produce, and less dangerous, it would be the "first step" you speak of.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Um nope...back to square one, see if you can get it this time:




No....texting is LEGAL. Texting WHILE DRIVING is not. Booze and pot are LEGAL (in 2 states, and proposed for more)....driving WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE is not.



Original:

you are still comparing apples and oranges, reposting all of that crap created by you does not change that.....LOL
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

That's hardly marijuana's fault. It's relatively easy to produce, and relatively cheep to acquire (I think?)...plus it's not very dangerous, compared to other drugs.

If something else were cheaper, easier to produce, and less dangerous, it would be the "first step" you speak of.

I disagree. pot is cheap here, making it legal made it expensive in CO
 
Back
Top Bottom