• 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!

ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W:91]

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

The comparison argument doesn't fly with me.

Pot and alcohol are different as are their effects both short time and long term.

When it comes down to it, by legalizing pot your allowing it to wash into the Communities that MY kids have to grow up in.

And its effects ARE self destructive.

Why does a stoners self destructive habit have to infringe upon my wanting to raise my family in a Community not awash with idiot stoners ?

Why does his "rights" supercede mine ?

Cuz its your job to raise your kids, not mine.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

I live in Texas, so I dont have to "deal with it ".

Is keeping black tar heroin illegal a "authortarian" policy ? Laughing gas ?
Cocaine ?

Where do you draw the line ? Do we use the drug addicts position to justify flooding a harmful chemical into a society ?

Don't draw a line.

Natural selection ftw!
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

he and most supporters think legalized pot is less harmful than alcohol, when it fact it is probably much worse. My uncle died at 47 from lung cancer and pot was all he smoked.

Do you have any idea how many people die from alcohol related illness? No you don't.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

NO, your "personal freedom" STOPS when it imposes upon my personal freedoms.

Your comparing movies to a highly potent chemical and mild hallucinogen is just desperate flailing.

Bet you don't support gun control, even though it CAN endanger your family.

Picking and choosing like your ilk always do.

An argument can be made that spectator sports have a negative effect on the family.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Yeah, because TAR HEROIN is the same as pot. :lamo

Your ignorance is the problem. Unless you are asking for prohibition as well, making pot illegal is compeltely illogical.

Pot is the same as alcohol is. BOTH are to be used by ADULTS only. Anything more than that is criminal by either the parents or the person who buys it for them. But BOTH should be LEGAL. And yes, eventually YES, pot will be legal even in Texas when they realize what fools they have been.

When states see the money, it will be all over.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

When states see the money, it will be all over.

Exactly. When they see other states rolling in the sales tax, they will follow as well.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Or cigarettes for that matter.
So glad our fighting men were given the gift of death during WW2 as part of their rations.
Even insurance and pensions are based on half the population dying young .
Do you have any idea how many people die from alcohol related illness? No you don't.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Bet you don't support gun control, even though it CAN endanger your family.

Picking and choosing like your ilk always do.

An argument can be made that spectator sports have a negative effect on the family.


the ? is... does anyone give your post even a moniker of credence..I sure dont..
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Exactly. When they see other states rolling in the sales tax, they will follow as well.

I absolutely agree. The first state that goes on the east coast will bring 5 along with it. If Rhode Island legalizes, MA and CT will do their best not to lose the tax money. They will follow, bringing in NY and NH. Dominoes.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

the ? is... does anyone give your post even a moniker of credence..I sure dont..
Which says so much more about you than he. ROFL.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Why does a stoners self destructive habit have to infringe upon my wanting to raise my family in a Community not awash with idiot stoners ?

Why does his "rights" supercede mine ?

Because the right YOU'RE asking for is forcing other people to act in a certain way to accomodate YOUR desires.

The right THEY'RE asking for is the ability for HTEMSELVES to act in a certian way to accomodate THEIR desires.

YOU don't have hte right to demand how other people act if it does not DIRECTLY impact you. What you're basically saying is that as long as that impact can be manufactured through loose jumps of logic and multiple steps of seperation, then it's reasonable for the government to act.

Well thank you Mr. Bloomberg, I didn't realize Mr. Soda Ban was posting on the Debate Politics forum under the screen name of Fenton
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

the ? is... does anyone give your post even a moniker of credence..I sure dont..

Good thing I don't care what you think then, isn't it? Bet I'm not alone either.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Which says so much more about you than he. ROFL.

coming from someone like you.. Im quite happy you dont like me...because I can see right through you
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Good thing I don't care what you think then, isn't it? Bet I'm not alone either.

nah.. your group of bigots adores you...and there are many on this site sadly..
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Moderator's Warning:
Both of you take the basement slap fight downstairs where it belongs. The trail of posts that don't deal with the topic at all and just complain about each other need to end
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Because the right YOU'RE asking for is forcing other people to act in a certain way to accomodate YOUR desires.

The right THEY'RE asking for is the ability for HTEMSELVES to act in a certian way to accomodate THEIR desires.

YOU don't have hte right to demand how other people act if it does not DIRECTLY impact you. What you're basically saying is that as long as that impact can be manufactured through loose jumps of logic and multiple steps of seperation, then it's reasonable for the government to act.

Well thank you Mr. Bloomberg, I didn't realize Mr. Soda Ban was posting on the Debate Politics forum under the screen name of Fenton


so if a stoned out fool , all wasted and jolly crashes their car into someone and hurts or kills them or their family.. it does not "infringe on the victims rights"....


yea that makes sense.. so should they infringe on their rights and get a blood sample on the spot?... wait.. what if they say they werent stoned should we still take blood samples.. so whos rights again are preserved here...?? If its made "legal" trust me your rights will be taken..

nice try
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

so if a stoned out fool , all wasted and jolly crashes their car into someone and hurts or kills them or their family.. it does not "infringe on the victims rights"....


yea that makes sense.. so should they infringe on their rights and get a blood sample on the spot?... wait.. what if they say they werent stoned should we still take blood samples.. so whos rights again are preserved here...?? If its made "legal" trust me your rights will be taken..

nice try
How is this different from any of the other legal intoxicants and pharmaceuticals that interfere with a person's ability to drive? From steroids that can increase road rage to sleeping pills that will let you drive without even knowing you've left your bed.... Seems the only way to assure safe roads is to ban driving altogether.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

so if a stoned out fool , all wasted and jolly crashes their car into someone and hurts or kills them or their family.. it does not "infringe on the victims rights"....

The car crashing into you infringes on your right...not the being stoned.

Just like a guy talking on the phone while driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you...not by talking on a cell phone.

Just like a guy drinking and then driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you...not by drinking.

Just like a guy trying to eat while driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you....not by eating.

Just like a guy whose on 2 hours of sleep and crashes a car into you infringines upon your rights by crashing into you...not be being deprived of sleep.

It's hillarious watching a group of people normally on the side decrying "Guns don't kill people, People kill people" and suggesting people should blame the PERSON, not the OBJECT, basically turn around and blame the thing.

If someone crashes their car into you, THAT'S the action infringing upon your right. Not the texting, the smoking, the eating, the drinking, or anything else...it's the CRASHING INTO YOU that is the infringement.

If someone crashes into you, that is not justification to make weed illegal anymore than it is to make less than 8 hours of sleep a night illegal or making texting illegal. There's justification for perhaps making those actions WHILE driving illegal, but again...that's different than the item/action by itself.

Now, I agree that there's significant things that would need to happen to make legalization happen in a repsonsable manner. I'm not a rose colored glasses type of guy. For example, I'm absolutely someone that believes driving while intoxicated, whether it's weed or alcohol, is something that should be illegal. And I absolutely believe we'd need to find a test for that. And guess what, I'm a fan of this crazy "free market" thing and believe that some sort of quick response test would likely be able to be discovered if there was a viable market for it...say, if suddenly marijuana was legal and so every police station in the country would need said testing unit. Are there hurdles to get over? Absolutley. "Wahhh, it'd be difficult" however isn't a reason to NOT do something to me however.

Neither are poor analogies that are ridiculous on their very surface.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

The car crashing into you infringes on your right...not the being stoned.

Just like a guy talking on the phone while driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you...not by talking on a cell phone.

Just like a guy drinking and then driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you...not by drinking.

Just like a guy trying to eat while driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you....not by eating.

Just like a guy whose on 2 hours of sleep and crashes a car into you infringines upon your rights by crashing into you...not be being deprived of sleep.

It's hillarious watching a group of people normally on the side decrying "Guns don't kill people, People kill people" and suggesting people should blame the PERSON, not the OBJECT, basically turn around and blame the thing.

If someone crashes their car into you, THAT'S the action infringing upon your right. Not the texting, the smoking, the eating, the drinking, or anything else...it's the CRASHING INTO YOU that is the infringement.

If someone crashes into you, that is not justification to make weed illegal anymore than it is to make less than 8 hours of sleep a night illegal or making texting illegal. There's justification for perhaps making those actions WHILE driving illegal, but again...that's different than the item/action by itself.

Now, I agree that there's significant things that would need to happen to make legalization happen in a repsonsable manner. I'm not a rose colored glasses type of guy. For example, I'm absolutely someone that believes driving while intoxicated, whether it's weed or alcohol, is something that should be illegal. And I absolutely believe we'd need to find a test for that. And guess what, I'm a fan of this crazy "free market" thing and believe that some sort of quick response test would likely be able to be discovered if there was a viable market for it...say, if suddenly marijuana was legal and so every police station in the country would need said testing unit. Are there hurdles to get over? Absolutley. "Wahhh, it'd be difficult" however isn't a reason to NOT do something to me however.

Neither are poor analogies that are ridiculous on their very surface.


your wordy response actually proves me correct.. that weed will end up harming those who oppose it and will infringe on their rights at some point.. a very simple point that you seem to be not understanding and spinning to back your false erroneous point of view..

if its legal , like a bar or bartender , who can the victim go after for "serving the mega dose of THC" to the person that killed or crippled someone else ..and trust me your rights will be stepped all over by the goverment that will be now involved now that they conrtol it and 'made it legal"....

its best to keep it illegal and available as it has always been..good debate though
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

he and most supporters think legalized pot is less harmful than alcohol, when it fact it is probably much worse. My uncle died at 47 from lung cancer and pot was all he smoked.

All lung cancer isn't caused by smoking. His might have been but might also not have been. Marijuana does have tar just like tobacco. But you don't have to smoke it to get high.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

your wordy response actually proves me correct.. that weed will end up harming those who oppose it and will infringe on their rights at some point..

Except I didn't say that at all.

Weed will "end up harming" people an "infringing on their rights" as much as a Gun will "end up harming" people and "infringing on their rights".

Is it POSSIBLE that someone may smoke, drive, and crash into someone? Yes.

Is it POSSIBLE that someone may take a gun and shoot someone? Yes.

What is responsible in both those instances? The Person.

What is the infringement happening in both of those instances? The actual ACTION that impacts another person (crashing into someone, shooting someone) and NOT the item that they possess/use (gun, weed)

Is your argument that HYPOTHETICALLy peoples right MIGHT get infringed in some fashion, and that's your justification for actual, factual, tangable infringment of rights going on currently? Sorry, but that's a horribly weak argument in my book.

So lets get you on the record travis. What's responsible when someone kills someone else...the items that are present and contribute to the situation, or the individual and the action taken BY said individual?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

so if a stoned out fool , all wasted and jolly crashes their car into someone and hurts or kills them or their family.. it does not "infringe on the victims rights"....


yea that makes sense.. so should they infringe on their rights and get a blood sample on the spot?... wait.. what if they say they werent stoned should we still take blood samples.. so whos rights again are preserved here...?? If its made "legal" trust me your rights will be taken..

nice try

So you want alcohol banned to then right? You are talking about someone doing an ILLEGAL activity such as driving a car on weed. What rights are being taken from you by some guy minding his own business at home smoking weed?

Seems YOU want to be the one to infringe on someone's rights.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Except I didn't say that at all.

Weed will "end up harming" people an "infringing on their rights" as much as a Gun will "end up harming" people and "infringing on their rights".

Is it POSSIBLE that someone may smoke, drive, and crash into someone? Yes.

Is it POSSIBLE that someone may take a gun and shoot someone? Yes.

What is responsible in both those instances? The Person.

What is the infringement happening in both of those instances? The actual ACTION that impacts another person (crashing into someone, shooting someone) and NOT the item that they possess/use (gun, weed)

Is your argument that HYPOTHETICALLy peoples right MIGHT get infringed in some fashion, and that's your justification for actual, factual, tangable infringment of rights going on currently? Sorry, but that's a horribly weak argument in my book.

So lets get you on the record travis. What's responsible when someone kills someone else...the items that are present and contribute to the situation, or the individual and the action taken BY said individual?

I understand your point of view.. I think you are missing my biggest point.. " if the gov is involved everyones rights will be trampled, history proves that to be true"..much like Holder and gun control now.. and I want to be clear, the Libs will be the ones looking to infringe on rights the fastest as they are all about CONTROL...dont be fooled by them making it legal, what LEGAL means is WE OWN YOU"
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

So you want alcohol banned to then right? You are talking about someone doing an ILLEGAL activity such as driving a car on weed. What rights are being taken from you by some guy minding his own business at home smoking weed?

Seems YOU want to be the one to infringe on someone's rights.

wrong.. alcohol is a substance that leaves the body as far as testing very quickly.. weed does not. so when you have an accident they may want to do a blood test to test for this LEGAL pot.. as that will be the trade off.. much like the LEGAL liquer.. so again whos rights are being preserved?
 
Back
Top Bottom