• 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

Lursa said:
No...I posted your own words that prove either YOU are lying or only capable of reading at a 4th grade level.

The pool of Americans disproving of legalizing pot IS shrinking and those 2 states is evidence.

So.....where's the lie?
Click to expand...

48 still say no. so you are lying
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:
48 still say no. so you are lying
Click to expand...

My mistake, your reading level seems more like 2nd grade...just starting out.

Others would recognize the verb tense in 'shrinking' and understand it.

Or maybe it's the definition of lying that you need:

ly·ing1 [lahy-ing] noun

1. the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness.


There was no falsity or untruthfulness or lie.

Now that your distraction to save face has failed, would you like to support your initial claim or not?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Lursa said:
My mistake, your reading level seems more like 2nd grade...just starting out.

Others would recognize the verb tense in 'shrinking' and understand it.

Or maybe it's the definition of lying that you need:

ly·ing1 [lahy-ing] noun

1. the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness.


There was no falsity or untruthfulness or lie.

Now that your distraction to save face has failed, would you like to support your initial claim or not?
Click to expand...

personal attacks, you got nothing, we are done as we were days ago
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:
personal attacks, you got nothing, we are done as we were days ago
Click to expand...

*You* called me a liar. I showed you why you were wrong and asked you to support your claim...which you continue to avoid.

Would you like to now? I prefer to stay on topic instead of attempting to educate you.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Kal'Stang said:
Did you read the one from the sciencedaily.com? I know I messed up the link however according to it...
Click to expand...

Of course. Further research is necessary to establish the casualty for which your previous statement depends. Cannabis research is still in its infancy, due in part to the confirmation bias that plagues government funded research.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Kushinator said:
Of course. Further research is necessary to establish the casualty for which your previous statement depends. Cannabis research is still in its infancy, due in part to the confirmation bias that plagues government funded research.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you would say this when having previously used a .gov link for proof of "an example of quality research that has established causality."
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:
We do not track deaths from illegal drugs by drug, so this argument is silly
Click to expand...

Actually, we do. CDC collects all death certificates and compiles a list of all causes of deaths. It's called the Wonder. The only flaw in the system is it counts for each drug in the system at time of death so many of the causes of deaths are counted twice. So for example if you had Cocaine and Heroin in your system and died of an overdose, you'd be counted as Cocaine death and a Heroin death.

Latest statistics (2010): There were 38,329 overdose deaths, of that 22,134 (60%) were prescribed. In the same year there were 88,000 deaths related to Alcohol. The economic cost for Alcohol related issues is over $200 billion a year. For prescribed and illegal drug use in the US, it's a mere $55 billion.

But hey don't let the facts get in the way.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Lursa said:
*You* called me a liar. I showed you why you were wrong and asked you to support your claim...which you continue to avoid.

Would you like to now? I prefer to stay on topic instead of attempting to educate you.
Click to expand...

we are done, your personal attacks are like babysitting. no thank you
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

austrianecon said:
Actually, we do. CDC collects all death certificates and compiles a list of all causes of deaths. It's called the Wonder. The only flaw in the system is it counts for each drug in the system at time of death so many of the causes of deaths are counted twice. So for example if you had Cocaine and Heroin in your system and died of an overdose, you'd be counted as Cocaine death and a Heroin death.

Latest statistics (2010): There were 38,329 overdose deaths, of that 22,134 (60%) were prescribed. In the same year there were 88,000 deaths related to Alcohol. The economic cost for Alcohol related issues is over $200 billion a year. For prescribed and illegal drug use in the US, it's a mere $55 billion.

But hey don't let the facts get in the way.
Click to expand...

but they do not track people that were high a killed someone else while driving or operating machinery.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Kal'Stang said:
Interesting that you would say this when having previously used a .gov link for proof of "an example of quality research that has established causality."
Click to expand...

I don't think it is interesting at all. Cannabis continues to be classified as a schedule 1 drug while government funded research on the matter is entirely based on negative effects. All the while, privately funded research has ascertained a plethora of medical uses for the substance.

Alcohol on the other hand is not a schedule 1 drug, and has been shown to cause more than 40,000 deaths annually, contribute to birth defects, and permanent loss of brain function.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:
but they do not track people that were high a killed someone else while driving or operating machinery.
Click to expand...

Umm, yeah they track that just the way the track drunk drivers. ;)
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

austrianecon said:
Umm, yeah they track that just the way the track drunk drivers. ;)
Click to expand...

which is a small percentage of all the accidents in the US. Abstractions are silly asssertions.:roll:
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Kushinator said:
I don't think it is interesting at all. Cannabis continues to be classified as a schedule 1 drug while government funded research on the matter is entirely based on negative effects. All the while, privately funded research has ascertained a plethora of medical uses for the substance.

Alcohol on the other hand is not a schedule 1 drug, and has been shown to cause more than 40,000 deaths annually, contribute to birth defects, and permanent loss of brain function.
Click to expand...
I would be interested to see what would happen if marijuana use was governed by the same rules that govern alcohol use.

Of course in PA that would mean state-owned pot stores for the high-grade stuff...:2razz:

But in general it would be interesting to see which caused more problems out of the two.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:
we are done, your personal attacks are like babysitting. no thank you
Click to expand...

Didnt see any attacks there...just asking you to support your claim.

But you cant...so now we're done :)
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Johnson said:
My Co-workers wife has lung cancer at 38, and she never smoked either.
Click to expand...

as scientists are finding out,smoking doesnt cause lung cancer,it aggrevates it,meaning it brings it about much quicker,and for alot of people thats generally bad.however many people can get lung cancer without smoking,liver cancer without drinking etc.


heck exhaust fumes can cause lung cancer,yet it is impossible to escape it in todays world
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:
which is a small percentage of all the accidents in the US. Abstractions are silly asssertions.:roll:
Click to expand...

I never made an assertion. 31% of all traffic deaths are due to drunk driving, roughly 10,000 a year. But all I was saying is that data is collected. I am not advocating for allow people under the influence of THC be allowed to drive. My position is the same stance that we use for Alcohol. We already have laws that say if you are suspected to being under the influence of THC you must submit to a sobriety test which would be a blood test which ironically is already mandated for a person who refuses a breathalyzer when it comes to Alcohol. What is even more ironic there is actually a Marijuana breathalyzer being used now.

So we have the ability to test Alcohol usage and Marijuana equally.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Kal'Stang said:
It causes brain damage in children. It does this by blocking connections as the brain continues to grow.

Adolescent pot use leaves lasting mental deficits; Developing brain susceptible to lasting damage from exposure to marijuana
Click to expand...

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/health-teen-pot/index.html]Pot smoking may leave mark on teen brains
Heavy marijuana use may damage developing brain in teens, young adults

You'll note that not one of those is from a government source.



Smoking ANYTHING will damage lungs. Doesn't matter if its MJ, Tobacco, or seaweed (a very nutritous marine plant). Lungs are not designed to handle smoke period. Thats why firemen wear oxygen tanks in burning buildings. The addition of carcinigens that is in MJ and tobacco makes this damage even worse. As for it causing "less damage". Common sense question here....if smoked MJ has 300 more deadly carcinigens than tobacco then how can it cause less damage?



There isn't one single real bonafide doctor that will prescribe marijuana in joint form. They all agree that it is harmful if smoked. That is why doctors, when prescribing marijuana, will precribe it in either pill form or in an inhaler where it is sprayed into the body in mist form. Not smoked. This is something that a lot of pro-marijuana folks love to ignore and skip over when they make the type of arguement that you just made here.[/QUOTE]

for number,i forgot about that study,but if i remember correctly affects prepubescent kids the most,while having lessening effects until the brain fully developes,but then again booze at 21 causes the same as the brain hasnt fully developed yet.but i would argue its fine within adults within the same range as alchahol.


for second i already said it had carcineragins,it does heavily affect breathing,but overall has less longterm affects than cigarrettes even though short term is greater.


last,i agree smoking anything is harmfull to a degree,its kinda like the regular vs lite cigarettes,the lite cigarettes are less harnfull,but not healthy and still carry the same risks.but with the overall risks,the benefits are high,most specifically for cancer patients,as it can be a strong painkiller,increase appetite,and has been shown to kill cancer cells,which combined with chemo in no way cures cancer by a longshot,but helps slow its progression.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Lursa said:
Didnt see any attacks there...just asking you to support your claim.

But you cant...so now we're done :)
Click to expand...

we were done after your snide comments with no substance
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

austrianecon said:
I never made an assertion. 31% of all traffic deaths are due to drunk driving, roughly 10,000 a year. But all I was saying is that data is collected. I am not advocating for allow people under the influence of THC be allowed to drive. My position is the same stance that we use for Alcohol. We already have laws that say if you are suspected to being under the influence of THC you must submit to a sobriety test which would be a blood test which ironically is already mandated for a person who refuses a breathalyzer when it comes to Alcohol. What is even more ironic there is actually a Marijuana breathalyzer being used now.

So we have the ability to test Alcohol usage and Marijuana equally.
Click to expand...

we need a machine that reads hair sample, a joint two hours earlier will not register on that machine you speak of. Until detection is equal legalization should be suppressed.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:
we were done after your snide comments with no substance
Click to expand...

I provided substance and awaited yours. None is forthcoming.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Lursa said:
I provided substance and awaited yours. None is forthcoming.
Click to expand...

nope, you deflected with a personal attack, typical post for you from what I have read here so far
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:
nope, you deflected with a personal attack, typical post for you from what I have read here so far
Click to expand...

Really? Is that when you read where I was lying? ROFLMAO

Oops, never lied. But that's the attack you used to deflect anyway.

My position is completely supported. If you would like clarification, please just ask.

Just like I ask that you support your claim. *crickets*
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:
we need a machine that reads hair sample, a joint two hours earlier will not register on that machine you speak of. Until detection is equal legalization should be suppressed.
Click to expand...

Sorry bud.. Your ignorance is GLARING. Hair samples only detect non-psychoactive residues and requires 7-10 days AFTER you smoked to show up. If you smoke just 1 joint it will not be in your hair at the time being pulled over, period. That being said it's like any other system. With Alcohol if you weigh 180 pounds.. you can have 4 beers in 1 hour and not be above the legal limit in theory. You will be impaired but not arrested. Same with THC. A few states have "guidelines" or laws which state between 2ng/ml - 8ng/ml is considered "Drugged and Driving" (like Drunk Driving). So if you smoke and fall below those limits it's not a DUI.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

beerftw said:
as scientists are finding out,smoking doesnt cause lung cancer,it aggrevates it,meaning it brings it about much quicker,and for alot of people thats generally bad.however many people can get lung cancer without smoking,liver cancer without drinking etc.


heck exhaust fumes can cause lung cancer,yet it is impossible to escape it in todays world
Click to expand...

This makes sense. Cancer just happens. If we knew exactly what caused cancer we could prevent it. This is where the unsupportable stats about second-hand smoke come in. "Oh, you have lung cancer? Have you ever been around cigarette smoke? Yep, second-hand smoke causes cancer." The only problem with that is that I don't know a single person that has never been exposed to second-hand smoke. In order to make a conclusion about the effects of second-hand smoke, you have to have be able to compare exposure to non-exposure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom