• 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!

Legalisation of Marijuana

Should marijuana be legalised?


  • Total voters
    57
I don't see it as impossible as you do. I see it as attainable. /shrug

But the point remains that my argument had two parts to it and thus, is not as impossible as you distorted it be. Now I have a question: since I still believe what I do and you have put words in my mouth and insulted me instead of giving me any different arguments to consider, what have you done to advance your position?
Considering most of my posts have been wasted trying to argue semantics with you or facts with Medusa, the latter of whom wouldn't know the difference between marijuana and a cat's scrotum, I guess I really have been wasting my time.
I asked you for evidence, not a repetition of the argument. Do you have any? If I recall, you asked me for evidence as soon as I stated my position. Why the double standard?

So I'm required to prove my position, which was doubting your unproven position? I don't recall you citing any sources that enacting stricter DUI laws will decrease DUI's.
 
Legalize it. If society gets wrecked even more, then LOL.
 
Considering most of my posts have been wasted trying to argue semantics with you or facts with Medusa, the latter of whom wouldn't know the difference between marijuana and a cat's scrotum, I guess I really have been wasting my time.
Blame yourself. I was prepared for a substantial discussion. You would have gotten that had you presented counterarguments instead of putting words in my mouth.

Pro-tip: Taking responsibility for your behavior makes you a better debater. Blaming other people for your decision to distort their arguments will not.

So I'm required to prove my position, which was doubting your unproven position? I don't recall you citing any sources that enacting stricter DUI laws will decrease DUI's.
So, you're not going to provide evidence and instead deflect? Why is that?
 
Legalize it. If society gets wrecked even more, then LOL.
Maybe you'll be one of the people who gets killed by a high driver when it gets "wrecked." LOLz, can't wait.
 
So, you're not going to provide evidence and instead deflect? Why is that?

Because the burden of proof lies on the person that makes a claim. Out of left field you made a claim that enacting stricter DUI laws will decrease DUI's. I'm not responsible for something you pull out of your a**.
 
Maybe you'll be one of the people who gets killed by a high driver when it gets "wrecked." LOLz, can't wait.
Marijuana use is already hugely common, nationwide. High drivers are already on the road. What makes you so sure that legalizing it will increase the incidents of high driving accidents? I live in California where it's been decriminalized for years now, and I work in public safety, and I'm not aware of any increase in baked drivers causing TC's.
 
Marijuana use is already hugely common, nationwide. High drivers are already on the road. What makes you so sure that legalizing it will increase the incidents of high driving accidents? I live in California where it's been decriminalized for years now, and I work in public safety, and I'm not aware of any increase in baked drivers causing TC's.
I don't know that they would. I was responding to Wake's statement that society might get "wrecked".
 
I was imitating you. Take your own advice. :lol:

No, you weren't. You got personal in response to my comment about marijuana possibly wrecking our society further.
 
Because the burden of proof lies on the person that makes a claim. Out of left field you made a claim that enacting stricter DUI laws will decrease DUI's. I'm not responsible for something you pull out of your a**.
No, you made a claim and I asked you to substantiate it. Instead of doing so, you repeated your unsubstantiated argument and then asked me a question. And no, I did not make a claim "out of left field that stricter DUI laws will decrease DUI's." In fact, I never made that claim out right. Instead, that claim was implicit in the first post I made in the thread - the one which you first responded to. Why you insist on mischaracterizing everything? There's no up side from what I can tell.
 
If anything, legalizing it will only lead to the tightening of restrictions and more regulation over people driving while high. And the development of better field tests to determine when someone is currently high as opposed to just having residual levels in their system from recreational use. IOW, we'd start to learn about, and educate people about, when they are too high to drive, and when they have come down enough to be safe. Just like we did with booze.
 
No, you weren't. You got personal in response to my comment about marijuana possibly wrecking our society further.
Actually, yes, I was imitating you by making a dumb comment coupled with inappropriate laughter. :)
 
Ugh, why are we still discussing this? OF COURSE it should be legal. It's wasteful and just plain stupid to try to prevent people from using it. I'm so proud of my state for having this issue on the ballot this year. I sincerely hope this passes.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/user/colomjinitiative2012?feature=results_main[/video]
 
I don't know that they would. I was responding to Wake's statement that society might get "wrecked".
Yeah, but you implied that one of the consequences of it getting "wrecked" would be people being hit by high drivers.
 
Actually, yes, I was imitating you by making a dumb comment coupled with inappropriate laughter. :)

Oh, well, stay classy. :lol:

If you want to make snarky comments in response to a general political statement, that's on you and your own credibility. You're the one who took it to a personal level, TPD.
 
If anything, legalizing it will only lead to the tightening of restrictions and more regulation over people driving while high. And the development of better field tests to determine when someone is currently high as opposed to just having residual levels in their system from recreational use. IOW, we'd start to learn about, and educate people about, when they are too high to drive, and when they have come down enough to be safe. Just like we did with booze.
If legalization would lead to more regulation and education, then I would support it, but I'm not just going to take anybody's word for it. I want that to become a part of the pro-legalization campaign. If that happened, then I would support it and I suspect a lot of other weary people would too.
 
Oh, well, stay classy. :lol:

If you want to make snarky comments in response to a general political statement, that's on you and your own credibility.
You have no ground to determine class or credibility since your initial post was classless and made no actual arguments. It was just snark.
 
No, you made a claim and I asked you to substantiate it. Instead of doing so, you repeated your unsubstantiated argument and then asked me a question. And no, I did not make a claim "out of left field that stricter DUI laws will decrease DUI's." In fact, I never made that claim out right. Instead, that claim was implicit in the first post I made in the thread - the one which you first responded to. Why you insist on mischaracterizing everything? There's no up side from what I can tell.

I can see this is going nowhere. Let's just call it a night. I wouldn't want to have to source things I make up either.
 
I can see this is going nowhere. Let's just call it a night. I wouldn't want to have to source things I make up either.
Like I said before, I was prepared to have a substantial discussion and even gave you multiple chances after you put words in my mouth to do so - more than a lot of other peope would. Don't pin your failures on me. Learn to take responsibility for your behavior. /shrug
 
You have no ground to determine class or credibility since your initial post was classless and made no actual arguments. It was just snark.

Incorrect. My statement implied my willingness to allow marijuana to be legalized, but if it wrecks society further, as in affecting more people adversely, I'd find that both sad yet hilarious. That had nothing to do with you. You took issue with it, decided to make it personal, and made a snarky drive-by comment. Perhaps instead you could have avoided making it personal, TPD?
 
Incorrect. My statement implied my willingness to allow marijuana to be legalized, but if it wrecks society further, as in affecting more people adversely, I'd find that both sad yet hilarious. That had nothing to do with you. You took issue with it, decided to make it personal, and made a snarky drive-by comment. Perhaps instead you could have avoided making it personal, TPD?
No, your comment was snarky and classless and now, instead of taking responsibility for it, you're pretending as if it was not. Just be honest about it. And yes, I did make it personal because, as I seemingly figured correctly, the apparent hilarity of drugs "wrecking" people might not seem so funny when it becomes personal. So would you be laughing if you were killed by someone who was driving high in this "wrecked" society? Is it funny then?
 
If legalization would lead to more regulation and education, then I would support it, but I'm not just going to take anybody's word for it. I want that to become a part of the pro-legalization campaign. If that happened, then I would support it and I suspect a lot of other weary people would too.
Well good. You're not really against it then.

Personally, I'm not too bothered by the fact that it's not currently a huge part of the debate on the issue, because I see it as an inevitable result. I know that in CA, there has already been a huge push by law enforcement for the development of better field tests. This is not because of increased numbers of high driving accidents or high driving in general, but simply because they want to be able to cite people who use it (to hit their citation quotas and so the state can make that money from fines and fees), and simply having it in their system is no longer a citable, criminal offense. So already, naturally, there is a big push to develop new testing methods, and guidelines for limitation of when people can safely and legally drive and when they can't.
 
No, your comment was snarky and classless and now, instead of taking responsibility for it, you're pretending as if it was not. Just be honest about it. And yes, I did make it personal because, as I seemingly figured correctly, the apparent hilarity of drugs "wrecking" people might not seem so funny when it becomes personal. So would you be laughing if you were killed by someone who was driving high in this "wrecked" society? Is it funny then?

No, my comment was not snarky and classless, but yours was, because it was snarky, personal, and classless. Instead of taking responsibility for personally insulting someone else with a snarky comment, you're trying to avoid it. You are the one who decided to get personal but instead of acknowledgeing that fact you're pretending you can make snarky comments and get away with it. When I meant if society would be wrecked by marijuana being legalized, and how I found it both funny and sad how people keep pining for it, I factored in every single possible side-effect, from people losing IQ points and failing classes, to all manner of foolish behavior resulting from being stoned. It's a bit sad, and it's a bit funny, because people want to get their hands on a drug that damages brain cells, lowers IQ, and obscures their senses. So no, instead of trying to get personal and uncredible, how about you discuss the issue with me like an adult instead of resorting to classless, personal insults?
 
Well good. You're not really against it then.

Personally, I'm not too bothered by the fact that it's not currently a huge part of the debate on the issue, because I see it as an inevitable result. I know that in CA, there has already been a huge push by law enforcement for the development of better field tests. This is not because of increased numbers of high driving accidents or high driving in general, but simply because they want to be able to cite people who use it (to hit their citation quotas and so the state can make that money from fines and fees), and simply having it in their system is no longer a citable, criminal offense. So already, naturally, there is a big push to develop new testing methods, and guidelines for limitation of when people can safely and legally drive and when they can't.
That makes sense. CA is obviously a good case study for nationwide legalization since it's already got the ball rolling and if they're regulating and getting stricter organically, that's good news (even though I consider citation quotas to be an incredibly bad way of managing the police - but that's another thread). I would still like to see regulation become a part of the pro-legalization movement, but hearing about the regulation and stricter attention to drivers in CA gives me something to research more and use to potentially reconsider my position.
 
Back
Top Bottom