• 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!

Rand Paul: Marijuana users lose IQ points and lack motivation

Guy Incognito said:
Are you even reading what I write or are you just on a ****ing tirade because I dared to impugn your beloved herb? Read my first post and see how idiotic what you are saying is.

You are proving my point!
Click to expand...

I did, you are judging people as using pot as a dumb idea, when in fact that is simply a steroetype you and others like you continue.

You are proving MY point. Maybe you need hooked on phonics.

And FYI while your on your soapbox, I don't even smoke pot. But the stereotypes from idiots judging pot smokers is astounding.
 
TheNextEra said:
I did, you are judging people as using pot as a dumb idea, when in fact that is simply a steroetype you and others like you continue.

You are proving MY point. Maybe you need hooked on phonics.
Click to expand...

Your point is idiotic. Yes, i proudly pass judgment on drug users, as is my right, and the judgment is that the liberarian party does not need to be associated with you. We would let you have your substances and let it be perfectly legal, but for God's sake keep it to yourself!

If you read my first post you would see that I already said smoking pot is equally bad as drinking alcohol.
 
Last edited:
ReformCollege said:
If you choose to see it that way, that's up to you. Just realize that you and people like you could be the exception to the rule.
Click to expand...

And Rand Paul could also be wrong. Do you accept that possibilty?
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, you can't separate people who want drugs to be illegal from people who acknowledge that drugs are bad.
Click to expand...

I freely admit that drugs can be good or bad, depending on the drugs, the person using them, and how they are used. What's your point? We both agree it should be legal, so what are we disagreeing on? No one here is advocating public service announcements encouraging people to go out and smoke more weed.
 
ReformCollege said:
If you choose to see it that way, that's up to you. Just realize that you and people like you could be the exception to the rule.
Click to expand...

He made an unjustifiably wide generalization, that's all there is to it unless you can come up with some facts and figures to support his argument.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Your point is idiotic. If you read my first post you would see that I already said smoking pot is equally bad as drinking alcohol.
Click to expand...

LOL, so because I hold a point that it isn't bad, you say my point is idiotic. :roll

So called liberatrians make me laugh.
 
HumanBeing said:
I freely admit that drugs can be good or bad, depending on the drugs, the person using them, and how they are used. What's your point? We both agree it should be legal, so what are we disagreeing on? No one here is advocating public service announcements encouraging people to go out and smoke more weed.
Click to expand...

Weed isn't "good and bad.". It is just bad.
 
TheNextEra said:
LOL, so because I hold a point that it isn't bad, you say my point is idiotic. :roll

So called liberatrians make me laugh.
Click to expand...
See, you are calling into question my libertarian bona fides because I DARE to mention the fact that smoking weed is bad. Well I have news for you, the fake libertarian is you. A real libertarian realizes that there is more to the philosophy of liberty than smoking dope! Get the **** out of this party. The fewer stoners we having ruining our reputation the better.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Weed isn't "good and bad.". It is just bad.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you don't know anything about it :( Science is past the point of debating whether or not weed has any positive effects on the mind or body, it's currently just a case of working out how positive it can be. This is already widely recognized by the "mainstream" you seem so desperate to impress.
 
Guy Incognito said:
See, you are calling into question my libertarian bona fides because I DARE to mention the fact that smoking weed is bad. Well I have news for you, the fake libertarian is you. A real libertarian realizes that there is more to the philosophy of liberty than smoking dope! Get the **** out of this party. The fewer stoners we having ruining our reputation the better.
Click to expand...

LOL, ok big internet tough guy. What are you gonna do if I don't leave the party, gonna huff and puff some more? :lamo

You make me laugh, you call any pot smoker a stoner and make generalizations. Here's a hint, you're not the libertarian party. Part of pot being LEGAL is part of the libertarian philosphy as much as you hate it. Maybe the problem of the libertarian party not getting major traction is people like YOU!
 
HumanBeing said:
Sounds like you don't know anything about it :( Science is past the point of debating whether or not weed has any positive effects on the mind or body, it's currently just a case of working out how positive it can be. This is already widely recognized by the "mainstream" you seem so desperate to impress.
Click to expand...
We are talking about recreational drug use, not prescribed. Getting stoned for non medicinal reasons is always bad. End of story.
 
Guy Incognito said:
No; you and people like you would prefer it be all about pot.
Click to expand...

Nope, but as usual your generalizations show how much you are a deteriment to the libertarian party. Maybe you should seek out the fascist party.
 
TheNextEra said:
LOL, ok big internet tough guy. What are you gonna do if I don't leave the party, gonna huff and puff some more? :lamo

You make me laugh, you call any pot smoker a stoner and make generalizations. Here's a hint, you're not the libertarian party. Part of pot being LEGAL is part of the libertarian philosphy as much as you hate it. Maybe the problem of the libertarian party not getting major traction is people like YOU!
Click to expand...

Nope, I am not the problem, I am the solution. We need to be unafraid to condemn pot smoking for the filthy habit it is.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Nope, I am not the problem, I am the solution. We need to be unafraid to condemn pot smoking for the filthy habit it is.
Click to expand...

You are sounding quite the fascist. Maybe the libertarian party isn't for you.
 
TheNextEra said:
Nope, but as usual your generalizations show how much you are a deteriment to the libertarian party. Maybe you should seek out the fascist party.
Click to expand...

I advocate legalization of all drugs. I am no fascist. Retract your unfounded slur.
 
Last edited:
Oftencold said:
The arguments didn't fail. That's why we got Prohibition, that is, the arguments succeeded. The burdens of that success were why we lost it.
Click to expand...

Why we lost prohibition is that demand was basically unchanged yet production and especially the distribution then became super profitable, untaxed and under control of organized crime. This is true of all "recreational" drugs, including marijuana. While social problems certainly exist due to recreational drug (ab)use (for any such substance, including alcohol) they pale in comparison to the problems involved with keeping them legally banned.
 
DA60 said:
First - sorry for Rocketman's loss. Hopefully he died quickly of an OD and not a slow progression into irreversible deterioration.


Second - I used to be a crackhead (smoked it big time for 3 years - quit it in 2002) and I personally found alcohol FAR more of a gateway drug then anything else to rock (crack).

Also, I find weed tends to appeal to a mellower kind of person. Someone that wants to chill (which is DEFINITELY not me - so I have little use for pot).

The more serious drugs (crack, meth, heroin) tend to appeal to someone who wants to escape hard and fast and completely...which was my attraction to crack (I never did meth/heroin).

SO, my guess is that Rocketman's stepson was more of a harder core personality to start with.

Having said that - perhaps he never would have gone to the harder drugs if he had not tried weed.

Imo, no one and I mean NO ONE decides to start crack/meth/heroin if they have never drank hard or done lighter drugs...unless you are monumentally stupid. Even the dumbest cluck knows these drugs are serious and not to be taken lightly. I believe everyone that started them either was tricked into it or used something else as a gateway or a combination of both. You don't just wake up one day - having never drank or used other rec drugs - and say 'I think I will try crack tonight'.

But in the end, I guess I am saying that since Rocketman knows his stepson a billion times better then we do - then he is best to judge why he made the transition to the path he took.

And if he says weed was to blame in his particular case, I assume that is so until I have evidence to the contrary.


I would like to add one more thing.

Anyone that says that they have not been negatively effected by smoking a lot of weed OR that their lives would not have been better had they not smoked a lot of weed simply - with respect - cannot know this.

It is impossible to know what someone or something would have been like in the past under different circumstances.

You can guess, believe or hope...but you cannot know.


That is not saying they are wrong - but they can never know for certain whether they were or were not.

It is simply not possible.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that Marijuana is a gateway drug.

Marijuana as a Gateway Drug: The Myth That Will Not Die | TIME.com

Every year, the federal government funds two huge surveys on drug use in the population. Over and over they find that the number of people who try marijuana dwarfs that for cocaine or heroin. For example, in 2009, 2.3 million people reported trying pot — compared with 617,000 who tried cocaine and 180,000 who tried heroin.
Click to expand...

So, the notion that Marijuana acts to entice to other drug use is false. And I just don't buy that you can say what you would have done, or anyone else would have done. I am inclined to say that people who like the idea of altering their consciousness will choose to do so, and will start with SOMETHING.

We could say that the thrill of skiing leads people who are Adrenalin junkies to learn to skydive, where many are killed. Nobody just jumps out of a plane unless they are bat**** crazy. Etc.

Many of the most fun things in life are also deadly. So, I will just say that if our goal is to save lives, legalization will make drug use safer. Taxing illegal drugs enough to pay for rehabs, which are not available right now for people who need them, would make addiction less deadly. Instead of channelling profits into drug kingpins coffers, we could channel them into recovery programs for addicts. We can also much more easily regulate hard drugs if they are legal. We can then squeeze them into vastly reduced use, like we have done with cigarettes.

So, the saving of lives through prohibition argument is ass backwards, in my book.
 
Aderleth said:
I am not, although it depends what you mean (and he meant) by "all the time." Sure being inebriated all day is not conducive to productivity no matter what you're taking.
Click to expand...

Well, looks like you agree with Rand Paul then on this. So why are freak out attack of it in terms of "Silicon Valley" people? Just a base knee jerk reaction to "OMG THEY SAID A BAD THING ABOUT POT!"?

Of course you're only addressing a portion of Paul's statement. The other part tended to suggest disapproval of marijuana use in general.
Click to expand...

Yes, silly me...addressing what he actually said and what hte articles title was and what hte OP focused on and what people were largely responding to, including yourself...and not just the overall tone you felt.

Yeah, he sounds disapproving of pot use. So? If THAT was your focus, your original comment was even more ridiculous. Not to mention, one doesn't need to "approve" of something to feel it needs to be decriminalized or legalized.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yeah, he sounds disapproving of pot use. So? If THAT was your focus, your original comment was even more ridiculous. Not to mention, one doesn't need to "approve" of something to feel it needs to be decriminalized or legalized.
Click to expand...

So do you feel he doesn't deserve criticism for his generalizations of drug users?
 
Zyphlin said:
Well, looks like you agree with Rand Paul then on this. So why are freak out attack of it in terms of "Silicon Valley" people? Just a base knee jerk reaction to "OMG THEY SAID A BAD THING ABOUT POT!"?



Yes, silly me...addressing what he actually said and what hte articles title was and what hte OP focused on and what people were largely responding to, including yourself...and not just the overall tone you felt.

Yeah, he sounds disapproving of pot use. So? If THAT was your focus, your original comment was even more ridiculous. Not to mention, one doesn't need to "approve" of something to feel it needs to be decriminalized or legalized.
Click to expand...

For once, I completely and unreservedly agree with you. Also, way to keep it under a thousand words this time:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom