• 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!

Teen shot to death during home invasion

danarhea said:
You need to move to Texas. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I would probably enjoy it, as long you'd promise to show me the ropes :p

Lol and i'd probably exercise your second amendment more than you Americans if i ever moved over there
 
winston53660 said:
She needs to learn how to ride a horse first. And how to do the reverse cowgirl.
Click to expand...

Pfft, i may be a city girl but i know some of the ropes tyvm
I am very good at reverse cowgirl :mrgreen:
 
Laila said:
Pfft, i may be a city girl but i know some of the ropes tyvm
I am very good at reverse cowgirl :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

BTW I'm the official reverse cowgirl inspector for the State of Texas:mrgreen:
 
I don't do drugs on a daily basis but I do weekly. Actually, I mix drugs most weekends.

Jack Daniels with that horrible drug Alcohol mixed with Coke with that horrible drug Caffine.

I swear, its amazing that with probably almost weekly inhaling of drugs since I've turned 21 that my penis isn't just one giant pussing pile of ooze :roll:
 
winston53660 said:
BTW I'm the official reverse cowgirl inspector for the State of Texas:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Oh yeah? Danarhea might have something to say about that
Self appointed are you? lol
 
Zyphlin said:
You accused him of being a "stoner".

"your probably just a stoner with a personal agenda "
Click to expand...

Probably. I was just saying. :roll:


Nor is it the right of the United States Government to determine what we can or can't put in our bodies if you want to go technical, since its no where deliniated as such in the Constitution that should be a state issue.
Click to expand...

Says who? Substances as lethal and as addictive as drugs should all be outlawed and yes i believe that is the right of the government to protect us, whether you like it or not. I think if we legalized drugs it would shatter us as a nation and as a society the way drugs are already doing.

Yeah, trying to say "well other places in the world do it!" isn't an argument for what's correct, simply what's possible. I'm frankly estatic we don't do some things like the majority of europe does them.
Click to expand...

All im telling you is no other country in the world does it because quiet frank what you propose is retarded.


He did tell you, he also provided you with historical evidence, both of which you ignored.
Click to expand...

What has this got to do with what you quoted?

If they were legalized, regulated, and made available similar to how hard alcohol would be then there would be little to no competition.
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence of this, that cartels wont go off and try and achieve a better yield by adding even crappier substances to there mix to lower the cost?

Legitiamte companies would be attempting to sell these things, much like alcohol was done. These would have to be up to a federally regulated standard, sold in a safe environment of a shop, and are completely legal to have. The free market would dictate a reasonable price, again much like alcohol.
Click to expand...

Your talking about drugs, here. I dont think you realize how badly they can destroy you and how badly you can get addicted to them even the first time around. Alcohol, bad foods and cigarettes are all legal because they are ok until a certain point. Drugs (exception class C) are all bad for you, in the extreme, regulated, or not. They are bad for you.

At best the cartel's could try to undercut the competition by making even CHEAPER drugs than the cheapest sold legally, but the amount they'd have to cut down the price to over come the benefits of:

1. Legal to buy
2. Legal to have
3. Safe location to buy
4. Higher standard of production / less chance for extra nefarious substances included
Click to expand...

Okay because point 2 is distinguishable between cartel drugs and those obtained on the shop, and point 4 is totally irrelevant to pot heads (including the ones the government - since it has legalized drugs - are now spawning like rabbits), and point 3 is hardly much of a valid point.


Even currently look now with alcohol. Sure, in theory, you could still have people making boot legged alcohol and selling it but for the most you don't. You have a few pockets that sell moonshine or make absynth, but its a relatively small minority.
Click to expand...

Two totally different substances and markets we are talking about here. Dont even bother comparing.

See, Tucker has produced HISTORICAL evidence to the contrary to what you said and logical common sense evidence, both of which you've shrugged away based on....you thinking they're stupid.
Click to expand...

How are his points historical? Have i not also produced facts which you have all conviently decided to look over and repeat the same crap?


I would dare say minors make up a very, very small percentage of the drug cartel's finances and that having them as they're only likely reasonable customer is going to be a revenue negative venture.
Click to expand...

Legalization wont make any difference. Junkies, i can gaurentee you, make up a very very large percentage of there business. Junkies dont want there intake to be regulated, they dont want wussy government made mixes and they sure as hell want the lowest priced they can get. You ending the war of drugs will only exasperate the current trend of drug taking.
 
kaya'08 said:
Probably. I was just saying. :roll:
Click to expand...

If I were to say "You're probably retarded" would you not take that as an attack?

Of course you would, anyone would.

Why?

Because it's definitely an attack.

NOTE: The above is an illustration of the absurdity of the defense being used and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
Says who? Substances as lethal and as addictive as drugs should all be outlawed and yes i believe that is the right of the government to protect us, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

Government's don't have rights, they have Power.

Because Power is always abused, the United States has a government that by design is supposed to be limited in power and scope.

One of the functions of any legitimate government is the use of power to protect the people and their property from the violent and deliberately harmful and fraudulent acts of others.

Under no circumstances is it necessary or even desirable that government be granted enough power to protect people FROM THEMSELVES. First off, it's impossible, and secondly, that kind of power will be abused and turned to other purposes. The government's war on drug users makes both these points perfectly clear.

You're not afraid of someone sneaking around and forcing you to smoke a joint, are you?

You can say "no", right?

Then you don't need your government to "protect you" from drugs.


kaya'08 said:
I think if we legalized drugs it would shatter us as a nation and as a society the way drugs are already doing.
Click to expand...

Drugs are not doing that.

The government's efforts to control us in the name of drug eradication is.

Civil forfeiture laws place the burden of demonstrating innocence on the accused, which is totally contrary to the former presumption of innocence in US law, to cite one example.

Citizens cannot carry more than $10,000 in cash, because if "caught", it will be assumed to be drug money and impounded, under those civil forfeiture laws.

kaya'08 said:
All im telling you is no other country in the world does it because quiet frank what you propose is retarded.
Click to expand...

Freedom is retarded?

kaya'08 said:
Do you have evidence of this, that cartels wont go off and try and achieve a better yield by adding even crappier substances to there mix to lower the cost?
Click to expand...

It's called the free market.

People will buy quality if it's available and competitively priced.

How many bathtub-gin bootleggers stayed in the business when Prohibition was repealed?

Hmmmm?

kaya'08 said:
Your talking about drugs, here. I dont think you realize how badly they can destroy you and how badly you can get addicted to them even the first time around.
Click to expand...

They can't destroy me. I can't get addicted. I don't use them. That's a choice every adult has to make for themselves.

kaya'08 said:
Alcohol, bad foods and cigarettes are all legal because they are ok until a certain point. Drugs (exception class C) are all bad for you, in the extreme, regulated, or not. They are bad for you.
Click to expand...

Oxygen is bad for you.
 
kaya'08 said:
ProbablySays who? Substances as lethal and as addictive as drugs should all be outlawed and yes i believe that is the right of the government to protect us, whether you like it or not. I think if we legalized drugs it would shatter us as a nation and as a society the way drugs are already doing.
Click to expand...

Says the document you're attempting to use as your reasoning why guns are a right to be had. You can't quote the 2nd amendment as a defense but ignore the 10th.

What has this got to do with what you quoted?
Click to expand...

It had to do with you stating:

"tell me how legalization WOULDNT simply just prompt a price competition for drugs between government and cartel? "

He already did.

Do you have evidence of this, that cartels wont go off and try and achieve a better yield by adding even crappier substances to there mix to lower the cost?
Click to expand...

Historical evidence with the last time we had a major prohibition on a recreational product. What evidence do you have it wouldn't happen?

Yes, I figure at first the cartel's will do as you said. And as I said below, ultimately it will do them no good.

You can ignore the historical evdience if you wish, but the difference being is its at least is evidence of some kind where you've given absolutely zero evidence to support your claim other then siting its "common sense" to you...which, news flash, isn't evidence.

Your talking about drugs, here. I dont think you realize how badly they can destroy you and how badly you can get addicted to them even the first time around. Alcohol, bad foods and cigarettes are all legal because they are ok until a certain point. Drugs (exception class C) are all bad for you, in the extreme, regulated, or not. They are bad for you.
Click to expand...

Some drugs you can get addicted to, very quickly. Others, like marijuana which is not in your "okay" class, have been found to be no more habit forming and addictive than alcohol or caffine from what I've read in the past.

One single joint of marijuana is not astronomically worse for you than downing a glass of liquor on the rocks.

Is there worse drugs? Sure. Same with alcohol. Please, get someone to take 4 shots back to back to back to back of Everclear and tell me that's somehow not "as bad" as a joint of pot.

Okay because point 2 is distinguishable between cartel drugs and those obtained on the shop and point 4 is totally irrelevant to pot heads (including the ones the government - since it has legalized drugs - are now spawning like rabbits), and point 3 is hardly much of a valid point.
Click to expand...

How in the world is point 4 irrelevant to pot heads. Do you have some kind of evidence to this at all? All you're doing is stating stereotypical, emotional charged, bull****, and nothing more.

Economics and the market simply don't bare out what you're talking about. If you can buy a product that is up to a certain standard of quality of its products, sold in a safe environment, and is legal to purchase and you can buy that for $10.00 people, in general, do not go and buy something that is of questionable quality (perhaps bad enough to cause major harm), in unsavory areas, and engaging in illegal activity to save $5.00.

Yes, pot heads likely don't care too much now becasue there's no good alternative. Buy from one potentially sleezy, illegal dealer or buy from the other. The only real difference in the market in such a situation is the amount you trust your sleezy dealer and the price.

However, by legalizing it, suddenly you're injecting numerous other factors into the equation...the legality of it, the location, the quality of materials, etc.

Again, you can look at similar situations. Are people going out and buying tons of bootlegged alcohol or cigerettes? No, because there's no good reason to. Indeed, there's such poor reasons to now that most bootlegged alcohol actually sells higher, hoping instead to target a niche market and make the most they can off of that.

Simple economics show you're emotional, unfounded, unbacked up comments are wrong.

Two totally different substances and markets we are talking about here. Dont even bother comparing.
Click to expand...

No, they're not.

Both are mind and body affecting substances that can have a negative affects and are used for recreational purposes by people and have been/are prohibited by the government and who had nefarious groups take advantage of said situation to create a black market for said goods.

You can bitch, whine, and complain all you want about how they don't compare and attempt to invalidate any argument based on that, but all you're doing is showing every neutral person reading this that you've got nothing to go on...no facts, no history, NOTHING....and are thus running scared from actual facts presented by the other side.

How are his points historical? Have i not also produced facts which you have all conviently decided to look over and repeat the same crap?
Click to expand...

Please, what facts have you shown other than saying "its common sense" that by legalizing a material it will actually increase the profits and reach of groups who attempt to illegally sell it?

Please, what facts have you shown that show that the legalization of it would result in an extremely hightened amount of youths using it.

Please, link me to the posts you've posted these "facts" because I'd be happy to go back and read them. So far I've seen a bunch of "opinion" on your part, trumped up as "common sense", that references nothing but your own views. The only thing you've said I can remember as a fact is that most other places in the world ban them, which in and of itself isn't an argument nor proves anything that you're saying as a plea to majority does not make something correct.

Where as Tucker has pointed out where a parrellel issue historically, the prohibition of a substance that is detrmenetal to health and is used as a recreational substance, has backed up the things he's saying is likely to happen in this case.

Legalization wont make any difference. Junkies, i can gaurentee you, make up a very very large percentage of there business. Junkies dont want there intake to be regulated, they dont want wussy government made mixes and they sure as hell want the lowest priced they can get. You ending the war of drugs will only exasperate the current trend of drug taking.
Click to expand...

Proof?

I'm JUST as credible stating that while they make a great deal of money off junkies, large amounts of casual users aslo greatly influence their streams of revenue. Many of these junkies however ARE likely to feed their habit through legal means if they're able to, even if they can't get as "good" of stuff, because the alternative of "get it legal, but not as strong perhaps" is not as an extreme alternative as "stop doing it" which is the alternative currently. As well, much like alcohol, there will probably be different varietys of "Strength" that people could buy that would make up for the issue. Mass production, as well, mixed with legalized sell is an ingredient for higher profits meaning likely lower prices in stores to purchase, thus further hurting the cartel's.

Guess what, what I said above is just as credible, just as much "common sense", just as provable, just as legitimate, as anything you just said because you've backed it up with nothing.
 
Ethereal said:
The Ninth Amendment states that the BoR is not an exhaustive listing of rights.
Click to expand...

Exactly! It's not a list of all rights; it's just a list of rights protected by the Constitution.

No where in the Constitution is the government given the authority to dictate what people are allowed to ingest. Pretty simple.
Click to expand...

10th Amendment. Just because the Federal Government can't do it doesn't mean state governments can't either. In fact, quite the opposite.

No, the Ninth Amendment was created so people wouldn't try to "disparage or deny other rights retained by the people." AKA unenumerated rights.
Click to expand...

Um, did you read the whole thing? The first part says that the ENUMERATION OF RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION won't be used to do just that. In other words, just because rights are in the Constitution, doesn't mean people can't have other rights NOT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Note how it says "retained by the people". In the 10th Amendment, "the people" is listed as an entity separate from the Constitution; obviously it would be the same case in the 9th Amendment.

I'm sorry, could you explain the difference between a Constitutional right and a non-Constitutional right?
Click to expand...

Is that really not clear to you? Constitutional rights are protected by the Constitution. Non-Constitutional rights are "retained by the people"- they might be listed in a state constitution, or state laws, or otherwise, but they are NOT protected by the Constitution.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Inalienable Rights
Click to expand...

So tell that to your state legislators. But don't try to use the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to push a non-Federal issue.
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't do drugs on a daily basis but I do weekly. Actually, I mix drugs most weekends.

Jack Daniels with that horrible drug Alcohol mixed with Coke with that horrible drug Caffine.

I swear, its amazing that with probably almost weekly inhaling of drugs since I've turned 21 that my penis isn't just one giant pussing pile of ooze :roll:
Click to expand...

Jesus.

Yeah, I know, drinking some caffeine is on the same level as doing real drugs, like weed, heroin, crack, cocaine, etc, etc isnt it?

Sorry, but the "your a hypocrit if you arent against all drugs" doesnt work on me.

Its also ridiculous to fly off the handle and assume I said anybody doing drugs would have a leaky penis. I mean are we all adults here, or do we need to explain the obvious all the time?
 
TheHat said:
Jesus.

Yeah, I know, drinking some caffeine is on the same level as doing real drugs, like weed, heroin, crack, cocaine, etc, etc isnt it?

Sorry, but the "your a hypocrit if you arent against all drugs" doesnt work on me.

Its also ridiculous to fly off the handle and assume I said anybody doing drugs would have a leaky penis. I mean are we all adults here, or do we need to explain the obvious all the time?
Click to expand...

When you state legalizing drugs will increase STD rates by 10000000%, thats one hundred million percent, with nothing factual backing you up and state that you're SERIOUS when you say that why in the world SHOULD we interpret the things you say in the most reasonable rational way.

Still happily waiting you to respond to my post I linked that actually counters your ludicrous assertion.
 
Zyphlin said:
When you state legalizing drugs will increase STD rates by 10000000%, thats one hundred million percent, with nothing factual backing you up and state that you're SERIOUS when you say that why in the world SHOULD we interpret the things you say in the most reasonable rational way.

Still happily waiting you to respond to my post I linked that actually counters your ludicrous assertion.
Click to expand...

Your asking for evidence?

And you sit there telling us legalizing drugs will end the damage drugs is causing society on a whole with what real life examples and evidence, exactly? Purely a guess with what you believe is "unemotional, rational thinking", or rather "illegitemate, baseless" thinking which you have managed to sum up as "rational thinking"....again, with what evidence?
 
kaya'08 said:
Your asking for evidence?

And you sit there telling us legalizing drugs will end the damage drugs is causing society on a whole with what real life examples and evidence, exactly?
Click to expand...

Where did I say that?

No, even if we legalize drugs there will DEFINITELY still be damage caused by them to society. You're never going to get rid of all the damage they cause to society.

I'm saying there won't be more damage than there is currently, and that the benefits of legalization many drugs would outweigh the negatives.

I have been citing a historical equivalent, which is more than you've provided...at all.

Purely a guess with what you believe is "unemotional, rational thinking", or rather "illegitemate, baseless" thinking which you have managed to sum up as "rational thinking"....again, with what evidence?
Click to expand...

Evidence in regards to our notion that we've presented: Historical facts that parallel this issue. Simple economic rules of supply and demand

Evidence in regards to your notion that you've presented: Its "common sense" to you.
 
Zyphlin said:
Where did I say that?

No, even if we legalize drugs there will DEFINITELY still be damage caused by them to society. You're never going to get rid of all the damage they cause to society.

I'm saying there won't be more damage than there is currently, and that the benefits of legalization many drugs would outweigh the negatives.

I have been citing a historical equivalent, which is more than you've provided...at all.
Click to expand...

Again, no evidence to back this up!

I dont consider your "historical" evidence anything to take seriously considering drugs are by far much worse than alcohol is, have a bigger mental and physical impact on the human body and are bad for you regardless how regulated or moderated they are (Alcohol is good for you; to a certain extent).



Evidence in regards to our notion that we've presented: Historical facts that parallel this issue. Simple economic rules of supply and demand

Evidence in regards to your notion that you've presented: Its "common sense" to you.
Click to expand...

No, its rational thinking.
 
kaya'08 said:
Again, no evidence to back this up!

I dont consider your "historical" evidence anything to take seriously considering drugs are by far much worse than alcohol is, have a bigger mental and physical impact on the human body and are bad for you regardless how regulated or moderated they are (Alcohol is good for you; to a certain extent).

No, its rational thinking.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving me right.

You still provide no evidence, you reject the evidence provided against you because you don't like it, you call your thoughts "rational thinking" but reject other peoples "common sense" or "rational thought" that goes against yours as obviously being wrong even though you are in no way shape or form more credible on this than anyone else on this forum

So essentially what its came down to is you saying "I can't give you any actual facts, and the facts your providing I don't like, and your opinion differs from mine so it doesn't count, so I'm write, so ha!"

Great debating

:roll:

Your unhappiness with the fact that SOME drugs can be worse than alcohol is irrelevant to whether or not the historical facts are prudent in this case, because the discussion is not in regards to their damaging effects but in regards to the market and capitalistic economic practices which ARE extremely similiar in both cases.
 
kaya'08 said:
I dont consider your "historical" evidence anything to take seriously considering drugs are by far much worse than alcohol is, have a bigger mental and physical impact on the human body and are bad for you regardless how regulated or moderated they are (Alcohol is good for you; to a certain extent).
Click to expand...

Can you name for me the only two types of drugs with fatal withdrawal symptoms and the major thing that both of these drug types have in common?
 
Perfect example of why some people need to stay away from substances they simply cannot handle. I've known people who have become violent on shrooms but that's usually because they lacked the mental fortitude to handle the situation they put themselves in.

Using this as an argument for why psychedelics should remain illegal is laughable.
 
Zyphlin said:
Thanks for proving me right.

You still provide no evidence, you reject the evidence provided against you because you don't like it, you call your thoughts "rational thinking" but reject other peoples "common sense" or "rational thought" that goes against yours as obviously being wrong even though you are in no way shape or form more credible on this than anyone else on this forum
Click to expand...

Likewise, ive accepted your arguments and have gone out of my way to refute them, hence this debate. I havent at any point deliberately "ignored" your points, i just refuse to entertain you by repeating the same answers for your looped questions. And on the point, you accuse me of rejecting your opinions because i think my opinions are common sense and rational, yet you are doing the exact same thing and recieving the same treatment; calling my opinions emotion filled and yours derived of "common sense".

So essentially what its came down to is you saying "I can't give you any actual facts, and the facts your providing I don't like, and your opinion differs from mine so it doesn't count, so I'm write, so ha!"

Great debating

:roll:
Click to expand...

Where have i said this? Quote please. :lol:

Your unhappiness with the fact that SOME drugs can be worse than alcohol is irrelevant to whether or not the historical facts are prudent in this case, because the discussion is not in regards to their damaging effects but in regards to the market and capitalistic economic practices which ARE extremely similiar in both cases.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the capitalist economy, what i do have a problem is, is a capitalist market for a substance that is highly addictive, lethal and should under no circumstances be used - therefore, banned. They have no buisness in our daily lives. You think the government has no right to protect us, yes there are boundaries, but some things the government needs to step in and set straight before it gets out of hand.

And as for your comment about only "some" drugs being worse than alcohol, well, just lol.

Tucker Case said:
Can you name for me the only two types of drugs with fatal withdrawal symptoms and the major thing that both of these drug types have in common?
Click to expand...

Everything thats class A and B for starters.
 
kaya'08 said:
Everything thats class A and B for starters.
Click to expand...

Totally and completely false.

Benzodiazapines and Alcohol are the ONLY two types of drugs that have fatal withdrawal symptoms... and they are both legal.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
Likewise, ive accepted your arguments and have gone out of my way to refute them, hence this debate.
Click to expand...

Your only refutation of the history argument is "I don't accept it"

That's in essence ignoring it. Plugging your ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you" is not "refuting" anything.

Everything thats class A and B for starters.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong but I think, don't have the time to research this at the moment so I'm sure Tuck will probably know, that marijuana does NOT have lethal withdrawl symptoms
 
Zyphlin said:
I may be wrong but I think, don't have the time to research this at the moment so I'm sure Tuck will probably know, that marijuana does NOT have lethal withdrawl symptoms
Click to expand...

See above. Only benzodiazapines and alcohol have fatal withdrawal symptoms.

Marijuana doesn't even run the risk of a fatal overdose, let alone withdrawal.
 
Zyphlin said:
I may be wrong but I think, don't have the time to research this at the moment so I'm sure Tuck will probably know, that marijuana does NOT have lethal withdrawl symptoms
Click to expand...

No, im totally for Marijuana to get legalized. Theres no evidence to suggest it is any worse for you than smoking your normal cigarettes. I used to take alot of it (or at least its worse equivalent, skunk), and yeah you can get addicted to it, but i wouldnt call it life threatening stuff and no better/ worse than tobacco.

But again, MJ (Marijuana) is class - C (except for here in Britain due to sheer stupidity).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom