• 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!

Leftist Hypocrisy On Pot

What a pantload of hyperbole. Go have some scotch and chill out. Show me someone who overdosed on marijuana in the last 20 years.....then show me how many died from alcohol poisoning in the last 20 days.

There's a whole lot of you potheads trying to conceal the deadly truth about marijuana. If I knew nothing more about pot than the mountain of lies told by it's fiercest advocates, that alone would be enough to keep me away from it.

Cannabis 'kills 30,000 a year' | Daily Mail Online
 
I'm just wondering why the statist Left
The what now?

You do realize that most of the medical and recreational marijuana laws are passed by public referendums, yes?

Plus, people on the right and left, and libertarians, advocate for legal marijuana.


is trying to ban cigarettes everywhere and bankrupt the tobacco industry while at the same time promoting the legalization of pot.
1) Marijuana is nowhere near as addictive as tobacco.
2) Marijuana is not a carcinogen.
3) Second-hand tobacco smoke is a carcinogen.


Which is even worse on the lungs because it's rolled in a joint and smoked without a filter.
Uh... it doesn't work that way. They are completely different substances, with completely different properties. Pot doesn't need filtration, because it doesn't include tar.


I'm just wondering if the Left thinks that pot won't be commercialized and mass produced like cigarettes and that dominant pot companies won't amass fortunes at the expense of the people it kills.
Uhhhhh.... Pot doesn't kill anyone.

And yes, it's pretty obvious to the people who want to legalize pot that it will be commercialized.


I don't for a second believe that Leftists believe in personal freedom on this or any other issue, and that even feigned overtures to freedom mask a statist agenda.
Whatever dude
 
There's a whole lot of you potheads trying to conceal the deadly truth about marijuana. If I knew nothing more about pot than the mountain of lies told by it's fiercest advocates, that alone would be enough to keep me away from it.

Cannabis 'kills 30,000 a year' | Daily Mail Online

That is some fine "research" there, Skippy:

Researchers calculate that if 120,000 deaths are caused among 13million smokers, the corresponding figure among 3.2million cannabis smokers would be 30,000.

The problem with using ANY documented cause of death is that it was simply what killed you first since everyone born will die. Smoking anything will likely take years off of your life but they are the last years. It is not as if non-smokers do not die or develop costly diseases - they just tend to do so a bit later in life.
 
Last edited:
There's a whole lot of you potheads trying to conceal the deadly truth about marijuana.
Or not. The British Lung Society study apparently has a lot of methodological problems.

Marijuana Doesn't Increase Risk of Lung Cancer, Mental Illness or Death | U.S. Marijuana Policy: 10 Reasons to Change Laws | TIME.com

Listen, if you don't want to smoke pot, by all means don't smoke pot. But that is your choice. As it is barely harmful at all, you cannot viably justify taking away someone else's freedom on this matter.
 
There's a whole lot of you potheads trying to conceal the deadly truth about marijuana. If I knew nothing more about pot than the mountain of lies told by it's fiercest advocates, that alone would be enough to keep me away from it.

Cannabis 'kills 30,000 a year' | Daily Mail Online

"you potheads" LOL.....I didn't smoke it for 30 years. I smoke it about once a month.

It hurts no one.

Please, tell me how many people have ever overdosed on pot and died. Versus alcohol.

And...you don't have to smoke it, and even if you do, you certainly don't smoke the equivalent that the several pack a day cigarette smokers smoke.

Shame, someone as uptight and controlling as you could really benefit from some marijuana.
 
Or not. The British Lung Society study apparently has a lot of methodological problems.

Marijuana Doesn't Increase Risk of Lung Cancer, Mental Illness or Death | U.S. Marijuana Policy: 10 Reasons to Change Laws | TIME.com

Listen, if you don't want to smoke pot, by all means don't smoke pot. But that is your choice. As it is barely harmful at all, you cannot viably justify taking away someone else's freedom on this matter.

LOL, I'm just mirthful with laughter at the Pothead Left making things up and then calling real research and science on the issue lies and untruths. You people crack me up....maybe you should ease up a little on the MJ.
smoking-marijuana-027.gif
 
There's a whole lot of you potheads trying to conceal the deadly truth about marijuana. If I knew nothing more about pot than the mountain of lies told by it's fiercest advocates, that alone would be enough to keep me away from it.

Cannabis 'kills 30,000 a year' | Daily Mail Online

You would have to take lessons to show yourself more ignorant and uninformed concerning marijuana and its usage than you do currently. All this stupidity is nicely packaged with your posting of the second most dumbass person on the Internet, Michael Savage. Pardon me while I roll a joint!
 
LOL, I'm just mirthful with laughter at the Pothead Left making things up and then calling real research and science on the issue lies and untruths.
Here's the 2006 study. It was run by a professor of medicine at UCLA. It included 1200 cancer patients, and around 1000 control (no cancer).
Marijuana use and the risk ... [Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

In 2012 a second and separate long-term study, funded by the NIH, confirmed those findings.

There are some potential issues with cognitive functioning in minors/adolescents, so it makes sense to restrict their use, probably to age 21. In fact, the same studies that point out these cognitive issues are the ones which point out that marijuana is not carcinogenic.

So yeah... No one is "making stuff up." Sorry.

In addition, this is not a left/right issue. Popular support for marijuana legalization is at least 58% now, and that far outstrips the number of leftists in the US. You really ought to modify your rhetoric.
 
LOL, I'm just mirthful with laughter at the Pothead Left making things up and then calling real research and science on the issue lies and untruths. You people crack me up....maybe you should ease up a little on the MJ.
smoking-marijuana-027.gif

I've been through this whole thread, and you never responded to the most simple point made by someone. Liberals are not being hypocritical on Pot and Cigarettes. Most liberals want both Cigarettes and Pot legal. Most liberals want both Pot and Cigarettes to not be smoked in public places.

That was the main contention of your OP. Done. Case closed.
 
I've been through this whole thread, and you never responded to the most simple point made by someone. Liberals are not being hypocritical on Pot and Cigarettes. Most liberals want both Cigarettes and Pot legal. Most liberals want both Pot and Cigarettes to not be smoked in public places.

That was the main contention of your OP. Done. Case closed.

The push to ban cigarettes from the workplace, from public parks, and even from people's own homes when they live in apartments is coming from the statist Left.

You need to pay more attention to the world around you.
 
The push to ban cigarettes from the workplace, from public parks, and even from people's own homes when they live in apartments is coming from the statist Left.

You need to pay more attention to the world around you.
I'm sure you'll be able to provide mainstream media accounts of organized groups advocating for marijuana smoking in the workplace, public parks, and apartments, to display your claims of hypocrisy, no?
 
I'm just wondering why the statist Left is trying to ban cigarettes everywhere and bankrupt the tobacco industry while at the same time promoting the legalization of pot.

Which is even worse on the lungs because it's rolled in a joint and smoked without a filter.

I'm just wondering if the Left thinks that pot won't be commercialized and mass produced like cigarettes and that dominant pot companies won't amass fortunes at the expense of the people it kills.

Why do Leftists think that they can support freedom on one thing and restrict it on another, both acclaimed to be personal lifestyle choices? I don't for a second believe that Leftists believe in personal freedom on this or any other issue, and that even feigned overtures to freedom mask a statist agenda. They just can't help themselves.

images

The hypocrisy you see is not limited by party affiliation. Many far right leaning are also on the legalize mj bandwagon and yet support very stringent tobacco laws. This hypocrisy has long been noticed by both liberal and conservative smokers for a very long time.
 
The hypocrisy you see is not limited by party affiliation. Many far right leaning are also on the legalize mj bandwagon and yet support very stringent tobacco laws. This hypocrisy has long been noticed by both liberal and conservative smokers for a very long time.

I would love to see an example of far right groups pushing for tobacco bans. These bans only succeed in heavily Democrat cities.
 
I would love to see an example of far right groups pushing for tobacco bans. These bans only succeed in heavily Democrat cities.

Really, some of the most stringent are in really red states. Idaho was one.
List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've never noticed the party affiliation of no-tobacco groups. I do know that leftist groups like the ACLU has come to the defense of smokers. So it can't be a leftist conspiracy. Furthermore checking wiki there are a long list of red states, always been red states, with the same smoking bans as the blue states,... not terribly partisan in it's end result. Stuns me that it's true, but it is. I never figured bright red Idaho would enact some of the strictest bans, they are right up there with some of the worse because they accept not only private workplace discrimination against smokers, but also in the public service arena such as the Ada County Sheriffs office that can legally refuse to hire or retain a smoker.
 
Really, some of the most stringent are in really red states. Idaho was one.
List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've never noticed the party affiliation of no-tobacco groups. I do know that leftist groups like the ACLU has come to the defense of smokers. So it can't be a leftist conspiracy. Furthermore checking wiki there are a long list of red states, always been red states, with the same smoking bans as the blue states,... not terribly partisan in it's end result. Stuns me that it's true, but it is. I never figured bright red Idaho would enact some of the strictest bans, they are right up there with some of the worse because they accept not only private workplace discrimination against smokers, but also in the public service arena such as the Ada County Sheriffs office that can legally refuse to hire or retain a smoker.

I said cities and you mention states and missed the whole point. The Boise area is the only real blue part of a very red state. It contains a university and many wealthy, rich "liberals". It actually proves my point. Furthermore, if you read your source, the ban is only in restaurants but not bars, which are usually the subject of bans in far more Left wing cities. Sometimes I even smoke in a bar, though not often because I'm just an occasional cigar smoker.

And I don't consider the ACLU Leftist. I've paid close attention to them and they aren't always defending Left wing causes. Some of them are very conservative.

So let's stop playing games. It's the Republican Party where Tobacco companies have found safe haven and have given their massive contributions and it was Republicans who fought against the lawsuits against tobacco companies. Let's not pretend that tobacco is non partisan. The demonization of tobacco has come almost entirely from the Left because of this.
 
I said cities and you mention states and missed the whole point. The Boise area is the only real blue part of a very red state. It contains a university and many wealthy, rich "liberals". It actually proves my point. Furthermore, if you read your source, the ban is only in restaurants but not bars, which are usually the subject of bans in far more Left wing cities. Sometimes I even smoke in a bar, though not often because I'm just an occasional cigar smoker.

And I don't consider the ACLU Leftist. I've paid close attention to them and they aren't always defending Left wing causes. Some of them are very conservative.

So let's stop playing games. It's the Republican Party where Tobacco companies have found safe haven and have given their massive contributions and it was Republicans who fought against the lawsuits against tobacco companies. Let's not pretend that tobacco is non partisan. The demonization of tobacco has come almost entirely from the Left because of this.
Only in your addled mind is this blue issue. The stats in the wiki link prove totally red states are making the same choices. In a blue state/city/county, it's done because it's for everyone's health and happiness. In a red state, it's done because it's costing taxpayers' money in healthcare costs.

Different reasons, same result, blue or red.
 
So let's stop playing games. It's the Republican Party where Tobacco companies have found safe haven and have given their massive contributions and it was Republicans who fought against the lawsuits against tobacco companies. Let's not pretend that tobacco is non partisan. The demonization of tobacco has come almost entirely from the Left because of this.

You have a point. Big business politics is matched with libertarian values of freedom of choice versus anti-corporatism and the inclination to believe that both the individual smoking and the non-participant are being harmed. Meanwhile marijuana enjoyed a counter-cultural embrace, as it was abhorred by the corporate world, sold by those who were not corporatists, and the dividing lines would frequently revolve around those perceptions.

The alliances are probably ever-evolving as a result of city bans of use in the public sphere (causing some left-wingers to be just as upset about the bans as right-wingers), but I think much of your point also has to do with regional politics as well. It's not exactly the most Northern of crops and hasn't had quite the history as the South. Match that with the South's political inclinations and you have some pretty interesting political dynamics at work.
 
Last edited:
You have a point. Big business politics is matched with libertarian values of freedom of choice versus anti-corporatism and the inclination to believe that both the individual smoking and the non-participant are being harmed.

The alliances are probably ever-evolving as a result of city bans of use in the public sphere (causing some left-wingers to be just as upset about the bans as right-wingers), but I think much of your point also has to do with regional politics as well. It's not exactly the most Northern of crops and hasn't had quite the history as the South. Match that with the South's political inclinations and you have some pretty interesting political dynamics at work.

You've got a great point there. It may be that all pro-tobacco states/city/counties are red, since they are mostly in the South. But the inverse is not accurate, red states not in the South are as anti-tobacco as the blue. So the red-ness that the OP sees is a regional phenomenon not a result of party affiliation.
 
You've got a great point there. It may be that all pro-tobacco states/city/counties are red, since they are mostly in the South. But the inverse is not accurate, red states not in the South are as anti-tobacco as the blue. So the red-ness that the OP sees is a regional phenomenon not a result of party affiliation.

In some sense, yes. Perhaps I am too embedded in politics extending, perhaps, into the 1990s, rather than the 2000s. In the 1990s, the Red South vs. Blue North was still fairly evident with tobacco.
 
In some sense, yes. Perhaps I am too embedded in politics extending, perhaps, into the 1990s, rather than the 2000s. In the 1990s, the Red South vs. Blue North was still fairly evident with tobacco.

Actually I think you've hit the nail on the head. Perhaps in the east, it's painted as blue vs red, but really it's about the South pretty much standing against northern blue, and also nearly all western states, regardless of color.
 
The push to ban cigarettes from the workplace, from public parks, and even from people's own homes when they live in apartments is coming from the statist Left.

You need to pay more attention to the world around you.

You are focusing on the fringes to support your argument. The vast majority of liberals do not support making cigarettes illegal. You can find isolated examples of politicians and a small segment of the population that supports a full ban on smoking, but to convince me at all that you have a legitimate point, you'll have to produce some kind of study or good polling data that shows that, at the very least, a majority of liberals who support legalizing marijuana also support making cigarettes illegal. To my knowledge, you won't be able to do anything close to that.
 
You've got a great point there. It may be that all pro-tobacco states/city/counties are red, since they are mostly in the South. But the inverse is not accurate, red states not in the South are as anti-tobacco as the blue. So the red-ness that the OP sees is a regional phenomenon not a result of party affiliation.

Boise has been a battleground for outside (Democrat) special interests trying to pass a city wide ban on smoking in public, the same groups that have pulled this off in other cities. My question is, why doesn't the Left protest this like they do laws against pot? Could it be because pot hasn't been corporatized yet? And it will, you know. It will be taken over by corporations, packaged and commercialized, and probably a lot of additives and chemicals added to enhance addiction. Maybe then they'll become the bad guys.
 
You are focusing on the fringes to support your argument. The vast majority of liberals do not support making cigarettes illegal. You can find isolated examples of politicians and a small segment of the population that supports a full ban on smoking, but to convince me at all that you have a legitimate point, you'll have to produce some kind of study or good polling data that shows that, at the very least, a majority of liberals who support legalizing marijuana also support making cigarettes illegal. To my knowledge, you won't be able to do anything close to that.

Start here What Are They Smoking? - William J. Bennett and Christopher Beach - POLITICO Magazine and we'll work from there.
 

Start? It doesn't start at all.

It does EXACTLY what I already called you out about. Bringing up a Obama, The Colorado Senate, or Bloomberg...these are small pockets of SOME hypocrisy, not even the hypocrisy levels that you are talking about. There's not a push from any of those listed to fully make illegal cigarettes.

I could go after the other obvious anti-marijuana propaganda that is blatantly misleading. But I want to see how long you'll continue to deny the obvious on this single point: The vast majority of liberals who favor legalizing marijuana also favor keeping cigarettes legal.
 
Back
Top Bottom