• 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

scourge99 said:
Article 1 section 8. "To provide for the defense and general welfare..."
Click to expand...

and the following list of specifically enumerated powers is ALL that congress was allowed to do.

scourge99 said:
Amendment X

right but NONE of these are explicit. They are DERIVED from the constitution. That's my point. Likewise drug control is derived as well.
Click to expand...

Well, that's weird.

What the Tenth Amendment really says is that if it's not SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY allowed to the Federal government in the Constitution, that it's SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY NOT allowed.

How you manage to get the opposite meaning is not a good reflection on your training.

scourge99 said:
There is direct harm (murder, assault) and potential harm (drunk driving). Some consider drugs potential harm.
Click to expand...

Ah.

Well, you see...drunk driving is outlawed, not alcohol.

scourge99 said:
providing for the defense and general welfare is pretty damn openended don't you think?
Click to expand...

Not once a person learns how to read, no.

scourge99 said:
Isn't it possible that protecting the health of citizens be considered "providing for the general welfare"?
Click to expand...

Since that wasn't a power given to the Congress, no, it's not.

The Constitution is not a blank check.

Get over it.

scourge99 said:
Also you should look up something called "strict scrutiny".
Click to expand...

Is that something like "learning how to read basic english"?

scourge99 said:
we aren't discussing the FDA
Click to expand...

Where do you think the line of descent for drug interdiction comes from?

If comes from the enabling arguments for the FDA...which, btw, doesn't have any Constitutional standing, either.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...
BS, I'm not off topic and you'd know that if you'd actually read and understood the argument. I wish you'd address what I posted instead of dodging it.

Jerry, please read carefully this time: If you justify banning any drug due to its "addictiveness and destructiveness," then it must be because you believe the bans actually protect people from those consequences. You assume that if the bans on hard drugs were lifted, more people would start using them. In other words, you assume that there is a correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. You assume this in spite of the fact that the world's foremost experts on the subject have not been able to find such a correlation. And you assume this in spite of the fact that you've been shown what the world's foremost experts on the subject have to say about your assumption, in this thread as well as others. So, Jerry, why do you keep assuming things that you know are wrong?
 
Binary_Digit said:
BS, I'm not off topic and you'd know that if you'd actually read and understood the argument. I wish you'd address what I posted instead of dodging it.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm dodging it, IT'S NOT ABOUT POT!!

Binary_Digit said:
Jerry, please read carefully this time: If you justify banning any drug due to its "addictiveness and destructiveness," then it must be because you believe the bans actually protect people from those consequences. You assume that if the bans on hard drugs were lifted, more people would start using them. In other words, you assume that there is a correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. You assume this in spite of the fact that the world's foremost experts on the subject have not been able to find such a correlation. And you assume this in spite of the fact that you've been shown what the world's foremost experts on the subject have to say about your assumption, in this thread as well as others. So, Jerry, why do you keep assuming things that you know are wrong?
Click to expand...

I need you to read carefully now: This thread is not about hard drugs; this thread is about pot; on this thread I support legalizing pot, and not a ban.

You have no grounds to get all pissy at my dodging your argument because your argument has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic. That's why I'm dodging it.

If you want to discuss hard drugs, go open a thread on hard drugs.
 
Jerry said:
Of course I'm dodging it, IT'S NOT ABOUT POT!!



I need you to read carefully now: This thread is not about hard drugs; this thread is about pot; on this thread I support legalizing pot, and not a ban.

You have no grounds to get all pissy at my dodging your argument because your argument has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic. That's why I'm dodging it.

If you want to discuss hard drugs, go open a thread on hard drugs.
Click to expand...
You brought up hard drugs when you claimed that it's your business since it affects you. Erod brought up hard drugs when he mentioned the slippery slope of legalizing marijuana might lead to legalizing hard drugs. Catz Part Deux posted his belief that pot should be legal but hard drugs like meth should remain illegal. This was all on page 1.

When discussing marijuana laws, it's a natural progression of the debate to discuss the drug laws as a whole. You're the one who wants to draw an arbitrary line at marijuana, and I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't make sense to do that. Legalizing hard drugs is just as necessary as legalizing marijuana, because none of the arguments for throwing drug users in jail make any sense whether it's marijuana or meth.
 
Binary_Digit said:
You're the one who wants to draw an arbitrary line at marijuana, and I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't make sense to do that.
Click to expand...

This is why the lossertarian party always fails.

Overreaching.

You can't pass any single law which will legalize all drugs in one grand motion.

Even if I supported legalizing hard drugs, it's still a perfectly legitimate position to only want to deal with pot at this time, in this piece of legislation. It could be seen as pushing the line back one step at a time.
 
Jerry said:
This is why the lossertarian party always fails.

Overreaching.
Click to expand...
That's because things are so far from where they should be that the end goals seem unachievable and unrealistic. That's not the fault of Libertarians.

Jerry said:
You can't pass any single law which will legalize all drugs in one grand motion.

Even if I supported legalizing hard drugs, it's still a perfectly legitimate position to only want to deal with pot at this time, in this piece of legislation. It could be seen as pushing the line back one step at a time.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.
 
Binary_Digit said:
I agree with that.
Click to expand...

Right, so when someone comes along promoting legalized pot, and counters the only real obstacle to public support: legalized hard-drugs, your way to deal with this person who serves your purpose is to stand in their way?

Sometimes I wonder if you folks even realize it when you shoot yourselves in the foot.

I mean, we had a guy who's only concern was that legalizing pot meant legalizing everything, and instead of putting his worries at ease, your arguing against me proves him right, thus reducing public support for legalized pot :doh
 
Jerry said:
Right, so when someone comes along promoting legalized pot, and counters the only real obstacle to public support: legalized hard-drugs, your way to deal with this person who serves your purpose is to stand in their way?
Click to expand...
When you counter with something that assumes things which aren't true, then yes. The assertion that "drug use affects me therefore drugs should be illegal" falsely assumes that drug use is kept low because of the drug laws. You aren't serving anyone's purpose by propagating the false notion that drug laws have any influence on the rate of drug use.

Jerry said:
Sometimes I wonder if you folks even realize it when you shoot yourselves in the foot.

I mean, we had a guy who's only concern was that legalizing pot meant legalizing everything, and instead of putting his worries at ease, your arguing against me proves him right, thus reducing public support for legalized pot :doh
Click to expand...
No, I intended to put those "hard drug" concerns at ease by pointing out that removing the penalties for hard drug use does not constitute the extreme, drastic, and unacceptable scenario that people generally make it out to be. All available data shows with little doubt that hard drug use would not increase if the hard drug laws are repealed (subsequent to repealing the marijuana laws). This means that, of all the problems associated with hard drug use that people are rightfully concerned about, not one of them would become any worse if the laws were repealed, because not one of them is even partially solved by the drug laws in the first place.
 
Binary_Digit said:
When you counter with something that assumes things which aren't true, then yes. The assertion that "drug use affects me therefore drugs should be illegal"
Click to expand...

You wana show where I said that? Quote me.
 
Jerry said:
You wana show where I said that? Quote me.
Click to expand...
Ok.

Jerry said:
However, drug addiction and all related crime does directly affect me, not only through taxes, but in having to live in or near those neighborhoods.
Click to expand...

Jerry said:
Yeah, it is, because your drug use would violate my life, liberty or property.



Oh yes they can, I live 4 blocks away from one, and Pine Ridge reservation...which is on the other side of my ****ing state...affects me directly.



You keep assuming I give a crap about you. I give a crap about me, and that **** is harming me, so **** you and liberties and **** your hard-drugs argument because this thread is about pot which doesn't cause any such crime rate.
Click to expand...
.
 
Last edited:
Well this is getting stupid now isn't it? Sorry, but no matter how many times I read "**** your liberties" and "that **** is harming me," there's really only one way I can interpret them. If I'm getting the wrong idea then maybe you need to clarify yourself a little better. That is, assuming you're not just splitting hairs because you've been busted by your own words.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Well this is getting stupid now isn't it? Sorry, but no matter how many times I read "**** your liberties" and "that **** is harming me," there's really only one way I can interpret them. If I'm getting the wrong idea then maybe you need to clarify yourself a little better. That is, assuming you're not just splitting hairs because you've been busted by your own words.
Click to expand...

Yup, busted in my own words:

Jerry said:
Yeah actually it is in this case.

We all have to follow the same rules, so I can oppose those rules which you also have to follow simply out of my own self interest with out giving a damn about you either way.

However, drug addiction and all related crime does directly affect me, not only through taxes, but in having to live in or near those neighborhoods.

I support legalizing pot, and not just this "medicinal" fagot bull****, but "because I want to get pie-faced because I can" recreational use, just like liquor. Your argument does not do the cause any favors.
Click to expand...

Wow, you got me :roll:
 
It serves this country right that all the money raked in from selling pot goes to the bad guys. We get what we deserve. What a bunch of dumbasses we are. :mrgreen:
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

What in the **** is your problem? YOU were the one who mentioned meth, I just responded to it! If you didn't want to talk about it anymore, you could have just not responded instead of being a douchebag. Get a ****ing grip.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
What in the **** is your problem? YOU were the one who mentioned meth, I just responded to it! If you didn't want to talk about it anymore, you could have just not responded instead of being a douchebag. Get a ****ing grip.
Click to expand...

There's a significant difference between briefly mentioning something is passing and devoting an entire discussion to it.

You want pot legalized because you want all drugs legalized? Fine, great, but let's keep this about pot and no go off on all those other drugs.
 
Kandahar said:
What in the **** is your problem? YOU were the one who mentioned meth, I just responded to it! If you didn't want to talk about it anymore, you could have just not responded instead of being a douchebag. Get a ****ing grip.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Please do not call posters names or there will be more consequences.
 
Binary_Digit said:
No, I intended to put those "hard drug" concerns at ease by pointing out that removing the penalties for hard drug use does not constitute the extreme, drastic, and unacceptable scenario that people generally make it out to be. All available data shows with little doubt that hard drug use would not increase if the hard drug laws are repealed (subsequent to repealing the marijuana laws). This means that, of all the problems associated with hard drug use that people are rightfully concerned about, not one of them would become any worse if the laws were repealed, because not one of them is even partially solved by the drug laws in the first place.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you why you're not making a connection.

When I walk out the door, I personally have to deal with this meth problem in my city. While the laws in place are largely ineffective, they are at least something. You're not telling me how repealing those laws will reduce the problem. You are not presenting an existing and proven program in the same breath you want hard-drugs legalized.

All I hear from you is 'remove what little legal protection you have so everyone can get addicted'.

Um...no...I'm not for that.
 
What blows me away the most, is how anyone that supports government healthcare can support the legalization of hard drugs. Proponents of legal weed have at least have a very minute argument.
 
apdst said:
What blows me away the most, is how anyone that supports government healthcare can support the legalization of hard drugs. Proponents of legal weed have at least have a very minute argument.
Click to expand...

That's an extraordinary point I hadn't realized before...and hey, guess what, since Obama is instituting a tax payer funded health-care program while outlawing private health-care, all sorts of issue are now going to become 'my business'; like tax payer funded abortion and health costs of gay couples.

Q: "How does _________ directly affect you?"

A: "I'm paying for it."
 
Jerry said:
I'll tell you why you're not making a connection.

When I walk out the door, I personally have to deal with this meth problem in my city. While the laws in place are largely ineffective, they are at least something.
Click to expand...

What, exactly, do these laws help accomplish then? I mean, you readily admit there is a meth problem in your city, yet meth is criminalized to a greater extent than most drugs.

You're not telling me how repealing those laws will reduce the problem.
Click to expand...

No, we're telling you how repealing those laws won't make anything worse.

You are not presenting an existing and proven program in the same breath you want hard-drugs legalized.
Click to expand...

Take money saved from prosecuting the war on drugs along with tax revenue accrued from their usage in order to increase police funding and make infrastructural improvements in impoverished and underdeveloped areas in America.

The former will decrease the risk of people being the victim of crime while the latter will facilitate economic growth, thus decreasing poverty, thus decreasing the likelihood of drug abuse across wide swaths of American demographics.

All I hear from you is 'remove what little legal protection you have so everyone can get addicted'.
Click to expand...

You don't have legal protection? Did they stop charging people with crimes or something?
 
You are not presenting an existing and proven program in the same breath you want hard-drugs legalized.
Click to expand...

Oh, I forgot, the removal of black market incentives from society will eliminate the primary revenue source for violent street gangs and criminal organizations, subsequently eliminating them along with the most provocative career choice for young black males in urban areas not yet in a gang, thus decreasing crime in urban areas, thus increasing the economic potential and viability of such areas, thus decreasing poverty in such areas, thus decreasing the likelihood of drug abuse in such areas, thus resulting in a further drop in crime in such areas, thus further increasing the economic potential and viability of such areas, thus...:2wave:
 
Jerry said:
There's a significant difference between briefly mentioning something is passing and devoting an entire discussion to it.

You want pot legalized because you want all drugs legalized? Fine, great, but let's keep this about pot and no go off on all those other drugs.
Click to expand...

I didn't devote an entire discussion to it. I made ONE two-sentence comment that said I think even drugs like meth should be legal, albeit in a more controlled setting than would be necessary for pot (in response to YOUR post about meth). YOU then made a big deal out of it and jumped down my throat.

If anyone has devoted an entire discussion to the subject, it is you. You've spent a lot more time and energy criticizing me for responding to your meth comment, than I did in actually MAKING said comment.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
What blows me away the most, is how anyone that supports government healthcare can support the legalization of hard drugs. Proponents of legal weed have at least have a very minute argument.
Click to expand...

Only if you accept the premise that legalized drugs = more sickness/death related to drugs, AND if you believe that there are no sociological/economic/legal benefits that could outweigh any possible health costs. I don't accept either of those premises.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
What, exactly, do these laws help accomplish then?
Click to expand...

They do give officers a tool to get people off the street at times.

Ethereal said:
No, we're telling you how repealing those laws won't make anything worse.
Click to expand...

'Support this because it's benign and won't do a single thing.'

Yeah, well, if it won't change anything, then leaving it in place is just as effective and I don't have to give money to anyone.

Ethereal said:
Take money saved from prosecuting the war on drugs along with tax revenue accrued from their usage in order to increase police funding and make infrastructural improvements in impoverished and underdeveloped areas in America.
Click to expand...

That's not a proven system, that's political mantra from some random stranger online.

Ethereal said:
You don't have legal protection? Did they stop charging people with crimes or something?
Click to expand...

SO you admit that I do currently have some level of legal protection. Good. I reject the idea that I should surrender what little protection exists even more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom