• 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!

Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

That's one way to completely ignore what I was saying, yeah.

No. It was a way to point out the absurdity of what you were saying.

Absolutely nothing can be said negative about marijuana, including whatever detrimental things smoking does to lungs, that can't be also said, and usually worse, about alcohol, and it's damage to the liver.


I have no idea why you hold a puritan view on anything, let alone this of all topics. By your logic we should legalize all manner of crime since some token minority of people are going to brake the law regardless.

Wasn't the argument. Nice way to "completely ignore what I was saying, yeah."

If a "crime" has no victim, why is it a crime? One cannot, by definition, be one's own victim.

Probably why I never supported the war on drugs.

Hmmm....let's see..you're fully supportive of keeping drugs illegal, but you claim you're anti-war on drugs?

That's beyond schizophrenic and well into Orwellian Doublespeak Master.
 
Your ignoring critical facts again, but let those stand in your way.

Critical facts are:

The concept of drug interdiction by massive military and police enforcement has failed, anyone that wants any drug can get it if they have the money.

The black market breeds crime.

The fact of attempted interdiction forces the price up.

Alclohol is responsible for thousands of deaths each year.

Marijuana is attributed to practically zero deaths and minimal health issues, and as far as I'm aware, since I don't use the stuff, it doesn't leave you a hangover in the morning.
 
this is an indefensible assertion and thus requires no refutation. It is nothing but a pithy saying... it proves nothing.

another pithy saying. Please, say something that you can support rather than balthering specious, superficial falsehoods.


Oh.

I thought you'd heard about the Wiemar Republic. My bad.

There was this great republic the died too. It was called the United States of America. The land is the same, the name is the same, but the republic died, and so did many freedoms.

In the "new" Germany, people don't have freedom of speech.
 
Oh.

I thought you'd heard about the Wiemar Republic. My bad.

There was this great republic the died too. It was called the United States of America. The land is the same, the name is the same, but the republic died, and so did many freedoms.

In the "new" Germany, people don't have freedom of speech.

I don't find that argument the least bit compelling given the vast differences in both location, world circumstances, geography, culture, population, era, poltical system (whew).... there's more but I think you get the point. Dismissed as a hasty generalization.

I understand you have a personal set of principles that you believe promote an optimal society but I'm under no obligation to agree with those based on unsubstantiated premises, specious arguments, and logical fallacies. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
I don't find that argument the least bit compelling given the vast differences in both location, world circumstances, geography, culture, population, era, poltical system (whew).... there's more but I think you get the point. Dismissed as a hasty generalization.

Here's what most to the point:


Define the descent of your authority to regulate someone else's life, from the source of that authority and how it came to reside in your hands.

Explain how that someone else lacks similar authority to regulate your life.
 
Here's what most to the point:


Define the descent of your authority to regulate someone else's life, from the source of that authority and how it came to reside in your hands.
I don't have any authority except my vote, my influence, and my power to rebel, at least in this society.

Explain how that someone else lacks similar authority to regulate your life.
By resigning to the government the authority to administer and impose justice. No person regulates my life but an entity, the government, can and will impose its will upon me.
 
Last edited:
I don't have any authority except my vote, my influence, and my power to rebel, at least in this society.

You vote to elect people to express your authority, so where does your authority come from that you pass on to your representative to control the lives of others?


By resigning to the government the authority to administer and impose justice. No person regulates my life but an entity, the government, can and will impose its will upon me.

So, since the government isn't an entity but a collection of persons who make decisions, from where do these persons derive their authority to control your life, and the lives of people you want controlled?
 
Let's cut to the chase.

You don't have any authority to regulate the lives of others, except those of your minor children.

The Constitution does not grant the government authority to interdict drugs.

Period.
 
OK you want to play stupid? Go ahead. You joined a thread about pot, not hard drugs, and when someone said they did not want pot legalized because it would lead to hard drugs becoming legal in the same way pot would be legal, you started defending hard drugs.

Well, I think hard drugs SHOULD be legalized. Just in a more controlled setting than the mild stuff.

Jerry said:
Since no one is talking about using pot on in "clinical settings", no one is talking about legalizing meth in "clinical settings" either.

Uhh I'm pretty sure I *did* just talk about using meth in a clinical setting. In response to a post about meth. :confused:

Jerry said:
This thread is about pot. The only way this thread is about hard drugs is if you think legalizing pot means also legalizing hard drugs, which a bull**** slippery slope you have yet to even try to prove.

I really have no idea what you're talking about, what point you are trying to argue, or what I said that pissed you off so much.
 
Last edited:
Marijuana is killing our children and giving feminists power. It is also financing communism and killing our freedom.

Vote Reagan!
 
Is there apoint to this? Skip to the end.

You vote to elect people to express your authority, so where does your authority come from that you pass on to your representative to control the lives of others?
I don't have any authority. The gov't does. This isn't like the law of thermodynamics where authority can't be destroyed or created but only passed on . The authority of the gov't comes from the totality of people who support it. It grants the government power and with that power is the authority to impose its will.

So, since the government isn't an entity but a collection of persons who make decisions, from where do these persons derive their authority to control your life, and the lives of people you want controlled?
individual usually citizens can't control others. (Exceptions to the president and other high level gov't officials)

But individual citizens support the gov't as a collective which enables the gov't to impose its will.
 
Let's cut to the chase.

You don't have any authority to regulate the lives of others, except those of your minor children.
Correct. I have no authority to. BUT, the government does. We can make it so the government has no authority to do these things but so far we have NOT. And its probably for the better.

The Constitution does not grant the government authority to interdict drugs.

Period.
Not explicitly. It doesn't say anything about abortion or murder, or jay walking explicitly either. That doesn't mean the government (fed or state) can't make laws about based on interpretations.

The only things the gov't can't do are the things that it explicitly says it cannot do. But even these can be overidden E.G. with amendments or new laws.
 
Last edited:
That's because the prohibition of hard drugs is equally as unjustified as the prohibition of marijuana or alcohol.

Hard drug bans are 100% justified due to their addictiveness and destructiveness.

The legalized pot movement is not attached or related in any way to the Liberal push to legalize hard drugs like meth. You're off topic.
 
Absolutely nothing can be said negative about marijuana, including whatever detrimental things smoking does to lungs, that can't be also said, and usually worse, about alcohol, and it's damage to the liver.

See you keep saying these things as though I disagree. Will you get to your ****ing point already?

Hmmm....let's see..you're fully supportive of keeping drugs illegal, but you claim you're anti-war on drugs?

That's right, I can support keeping something illegal without supporting that one specific government program ("War on Drugs") meant to serve that same end.
 
Critical facts are:

The concept of drug interdiction by massive military and police enforcement has failed, anyone that wants any drug can get it if they have the money.

That's why I don't support "The War on Drugs", keep going....

The black market breeds crime.

We could take that out of context and apply it to anything and it would be true.

The fact of attempted interdiction forces the price up.

....yeah, hence the crime.....

Alclohol is responsible for thousands of deaths each year.

....yup.....

Marijuana is attributed to practically zero deaths and minimal health issues, and as far as I'm aware, since I don't use the stuff, it doesn't leave you a hangover in the morning.

Right, exactly, sounds like we're voting the same way on this issue....so.....what's your point?
 
Well, I think hard drugs SHOULD be legalized.

That's nice, go start a thread on it. Right now you are no better than those who keep bringing up Bush in threads about Obama, or pedophilia in threads about gay-marriage. Quit trying to hijack this thread with conversations about hard drugs.
 
Last edited:
Correct. I have no authority to. BUT, the government does.

Cite the Constitutional clause.


Not explicitly. It doesn't say anything about abortion or murder, or jay walking explicitly either.

Murder violates the right of another to live. Protection of the innocent is the primary reason people create governments.

Abortion is murder.

Jay walking is illegal because the damn fool doing it can cause accidents and thereby harm others.

Notice they don't outlaw walking, only walking while under the influence of Jay.

Drug use in and of itself does not harm others, only the user. Operating a motor vehicle under the influence, that's against the law because the damn fool can harm others.

That doesn't mean the government (fed or state) can't make laws about based on interpretations.

Sure, that's true. The Constitution exists solely to grant politicians blank checks to do whatever they feel like doing at anytime.

The only things the gov't can't do are the things that it explicitly says it cannot do. But even these can be overidden E.G. with amendments or new laws.

Wrong.

What the federal government cannot do is things it's not explicitly authorized to do.

Speaking of Amendments, go back and read numbers Nine and Ten.

Then cite the Amendment that authorized the FDA. (Hint: it doesn't exist, the Amendment, not the FDA)
 
That's why I don't support "The War on Drugs", keep going....

You support the continued criminalization of drug possession and drug use. Don't insult us by pretending that it's not support of the war on drugs.

No. We're not on the same page. You support continued criminalization of arbitrary substances based on distorted perceptions of your own authority and the impact of the use of those substances on you personally. The implementation of that desire is called the War on Drugs whether you like that fact or not.

I support decriminalizing all drugs, and ending taxpayer subsidies for the incarceration and treatment of people stupid enough to do drugs and thereby mess up their lives. It was their body, it's their choice, it's their life, let them die when the confluence of trouble causes that to happen, without once violating the freedom others have to ignore them completely.
 
Last edited:
You support the continued criminalization of drug possession and drug use. Don't insult us by pretending that it's not support of the war on drugs.

Supporting the prosecution of someone found breaking a law doesn't equate to supporting programs that actively seek those that may or may not be breaking said law.

To the topic though, I fully support the legalization of Marijuana. It will all be worth the tax revenue generated and thousands of jobs created through the sale of marijuana. I also believe, as pointed out earlier in the thread, we will see a dilution of the strength in marijuana soon after legalization due to federal standards and the thousands of different home grown versions.
 
Last edited:
Cite the Constitutional clause.
Article 1 section 8. "To provide for the defense and general welfare..."

Amendment X

Murder violates the right of another to live. Protection of the innocent is the primary reason people create governments.

Abortion is murder.

Jay walking is illegal because the damn fool doing it can cause accidents and thereby harm others.

Notice they don't outlaw walking, only walking while under the influence of Jay.
right but NONE of these are explicit. They are DERIVED from the constitution. That's my point. Likewise drug control is derived as well.

Drug use in and of itself does not harm others, only the user.

Operating a motor vehicle under the influence, that's against the law because the damn fool can harm others.
There is direct harm (murder, assault) and potential harm (drunk driving). Some consider drugs potential harm.

I'm not saying I agree but can you comprehend that? Do you understand the difference between potential harm and direct harm? Do you understand that drunk driving is potential harm? Can you understand that some believe epidemic drug addiction or drug use is potential harm to the general welfare of the nation?

Sure, that's true. The Constitution exists solely to grant politicians blank checks to do whatever they feel like doing at anytime.
that's why there are checks and balances bucko.

Wrong.

What the federal government cannot do is things it's not explicitly authorized to do.
providing for the defense and general welfare is pretty damn openended don't you think? Isn't it possible that protecting the health of citizens be considered "providing for the general welfare"?

Also you should look up something called "strict scrutiny".

Speaking of Amendments, go back and read numbers Nine and Ten.

Then cite the Amendment that authorized the FDA. (Hint: it doesn't exist, the Amendment, not the FDA)
we aren't discussing the FDA nor am I familiar with it enough to defend its creation. Does that somehow prove your point either way? No it doesn't. So stay on topic.
 
right but NONE of these are explicit. They are DERIVED from the constitution. That's my point. Likewise drug control is derived as well.

Why was an amendment needed to ban alcohol but not drugs?
 
Back
Top Bottom