What's your take on the War on Drugs?

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You can't commit extortion without a victim. A lone drug user harms no one but himself. These are not comparable crimes.

Here's what you wrote about violence and victims: "By contrast, unlicensed cocaine purveyors frequently use violence against their competitors, because there is no license at risk, and further there is no legal means of promoting their business" (emphasis added). As such, the example you used referred to victims who are engaged in the illicit drug trade, not the users. I'm trying to keep up with your argument, Bill; you should too.

Joe, the "illicit" drug trade could legally do business without a victim, or injured party. Extortion, Blackmail, Murder, etc. all require a victim to take place. Your comparison argument is therefore fatally flawed. Example: I could purchase every drug known to man and neither the seller nor I would necessarily hurt anyone but myself (maybe not even myself, but that is another issue). On the other hand; no one could commit Extortion, Blackmail, Murder, etc. without hurting someone else. Get it?

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Sure, you could argue that but it isn't true. You are using guesses at availability, when surveys do exist. If you ever decide you do want to read statistics on the subject, you will learn that. Until you do, it is pointless for me to debate it with you further.

You're defending your deductive proof by saying that your empirical evidence is better? Make up your mind, Bill.

Look, I'll make it easy for you: (1)my deductive proof is just as valid as yours; (2)I don't care what empirical evidence you have about the availability of drugs to minors, because that's a non-issue in the debate over legalization of drugs.

(1) No Joe, it is not see below. (2) Availability of drugs to minors may be a non-issue for you, but I doubt I am alone in considering it the most important factor in considering the effects of drug laws. I tend to believe protecting our children is paramount in the eyes of the majority of citizens, regardless of their opinions on how best to accomplish it.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
My evidence is this: in a democratic society, where the majority is presumed to rule, laws reflect the will of the majority. In the case of the U.S., drug laws are still in effect. Thus, drug laws represent the will of the majority. QED.
That is kind of a funny statement. Do you honestly believe that every one of ours laws is representative of the will of the majority? The consensus of opinion changes much faster than laws. Example; Until recently, in Waynesboro, VA it was illegal for a woman to drive a car up Main Street unless her husband is walking in front of the car waving a red flag. Do you suppose that law represents "the will of the majority"? :wink:

Apparently you believe that a cursory survey of your friends and acquaintances gives a better indication of the national mood than does the operation of the democratic process. But why do you trust the former more than the latter? Are you suggesting that you and your friends are somehow better or smarter than the majority of Americans? Do you really think that you have a better grasp of the national will than the constitutionally and legally sanctioned representatives that the people have chosen? Are you saying that you and your friends are a more accurate barometer of the national will than the democratic institutions that have governed our country for over 200 years? Can you really be suggesting that representative democracy doesn't work? If that's the case, Bill, then I have just one more question for you: why do you hate America so much?

LMAO

. Nice try at obscuring the issue at hand Rolling Eyes

. You're killing me Joe! I love America and I am saddened by the state of its demise. Are you going to tell me that you don't believe the "majority of Americans" want Campaign Reforms? Shocked

Stop it man! I could easily list a dozen laws that, even you would have no choice but to admit; don't reflect the will of the people. Recent polls are certainly a better indication of our collective conscience than our old, sometimes forgotten laws. If you can't concede this obvious point; then it truly is pointless to debate with you further. Idea

0 Replies

Dear Drugs

After the revolution when you take over, please remember I was one of the first to surrender and think of me kindly.

Your Pal,
Steve

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL first wrote:

If you ever decide you do want to read statistics on the subject, you will learn that. Until you do, it is pointless for me to debate it with you further.

Then, undeterred, OCCOM BILL wrote:

If you can't concede this obvious point; then it truly is pointless to debate with you further.

You have sufficiently established your reasons for exiting this thread. I hereby absolve you from making further excuses.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Joe, the "illicit" drug trade could legally do business without a victim, or injured party. Extortion, Blackmail, Murder, etc. all require a victim to take place. Your comparison argument is therefore fatally flawed. Example: I could purchase every drug known to man and neither the seller nor I would necessarily hurt anyone but myself (maybe not even myself, but that is another issue). On the other hand; no one could commit Extortion, Blackmail, Murder, etc. without hurting someone else. Get it?

I'll go over this very slowly, Bill: the violence that you initially mentioned (cocaine dealer vs. cocaine dealer) had nothing to do with whether or not prohibitions on narcotics were "victimless crimes." As such, the violence associated with the drug trade (as opposed to individual drug use) is little different from the violence associated with any illicit activity -- with or without "victims." We fully expect that those involved in smuggling, loan-sharking, prostitution, illegal gambling, extortion, arson-for-hire, cable TV theft, and other forms of criminal activities will resort to self-help rather than call on the aid of the authorities. Consequently, the fact that those involved in a criminal trade engage in violence is no excuse for decriminalizing the activity in which they are engaged, since the violence is the anticipated result of the criminalization of that activity. That was the point that you raised, and that was the point that I addressed. Your attempt to interject the notion of "victimless crimes" is, therefore, irrelevant to the issue of violence. Get it?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Look, I'll make it easy for you: (1)my deductive proof is just as valid as yours; (2)I don't care what empirical evidence you have about the availability of drugs to minors, because that's a non-issue in the debate over legalization of drugs.

(1) No Joe, it is not see below. (2) Availability of drugs to minors may be a non-issue for you, but I doubt I am alone in considering it the most important factor in considering the effects of drug laws. I tend to believe protecting our children is paramount in the eyes of the majority of citizens, regardless of their opinions on how best to accomplish it.

(1) I looked below, yet I saw nothing; (2) You may be concerned for the kiddies, but I'm concerned for everyone.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

LMAO Nice try at obscuring the issue at hand . You're killing me Joe! .

Calm down, Bill: the excess of mirth evidenced by your overuse of smilies indicates that you are on the verge of wetting yourself.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I love America and I am saddened by the state of its demise. Are you going to tell me that you don't believe the "majority of Americans" want Campaign Reforms? Stop it man! I could easily list a dozen laws that, even you would have no choice but to admit; don't reflect the will of the people. Recent polls are certainly a better indication of our collective conscience than our old, sometimes forgotten laws.

I see now: when the majority (in this case, the majority of your friends and acquaintances) agrees with you, the majority's opinion is representative and important. On the other hand, when the majority (in this case, the majority of legislators and, by extension, the majority of those citizens represented by those legislators) disagrees with you, then that majority's opinion is unrepresentative and trivial.

Well, if that's how you think, then all I can say is that it's truly pointless for you to debate with me further.

0 Replies

Come now Joe, you both are guilty of the "ad populum".

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL first wrote:
Joe, the "illicit" drug trade could legally do business without a victim, or injured party. Extortion, Blackmail, Murder, etc. all require a victim to take place. Your comparison argument is therefore fatally flawed. Example: I could purchase every drug known to man and neither the seller nor I would necessarily hurt anyone but myself (maybe not even myself, but that is another issue). On the other hand; no one could commit Extortion, Blackmail, Murder, etc. without hurting someone else. Get it?

I'll go over this very slowly, Bill: the violence that you initially mentioned (cocaine dealer vs. cocaine dealer) had nothing to do with whether or not prohibitions on narcotics were "victimless crimes." As such, the violence associated with the drug trade (as opposed to individual drug use) is little different from the violence associated with any illicit activity -- with or without "victims." We fully expect that those involved in smuggling, loan-sharking, prostitution, illegal gambling, extortion, arson-for-hire, cable TV theft, and other forms of criminal activities will resort to self-help rather than call on the aid of the authorities. Consequently, the fact that those involved in a criminal trade engage in violence is no excuse for decriminalizing the activity in which they are engaged, since the violence is the anticipated result of the criminalization of that activity. That was the point that you raised, and that was the point that I addressed. Your attempt to interject the notion of "victimless crimes" is, therefore, irrelevant to the issue of violence. Get it?

Joe, I can't believe you are still rejecting the obvious difference in these crimes. We are talking about the pros and cons of legalizing drugs. If they are legalized; there is no longer a need for a victim. If you legalized extortion, blackmail or murder there would still be a need for a victim for the act to take place. Therefore, legalization could never be considered a remedy for those other situations. Why would you consider that irrelevant to the issue of violence? It was considered one of the biggest factors in the repeal of prohibition of alcohol. After the end of prohibition, sellers of alcohol resorted to legal means to promote their products over those of their competition. Idea

Under the influence of any drug, be it cocaine, alcohol or caffeine; I pose no threat to anyone but myself. If I were committing extortion, blackmail or murder; I could not do so without injuring someone else. Therefore; your examples and your justification are flawed. When I clarified my point, you attempted to circumvent it by arguing your inference of my words was not MY POINT. Trust me Joe; I know what my point is. Just in case there is still confusion:
POINT: Legalizing drugs and regulating them similar to alcohol would reduce (if not eliminate) the violence associated with distribution. END POINT.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL first wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Look, I'll make it easy for you: (1)my deductive proof is just as valid as yours; (2)I don't care what empirical evidence you have about the availability of drugs to minors, because that's a non-issue in the debate over legalization of drugs.

(1) No Joe, it is not see below. (2) Availability of drugs to minors may be a non-issue for you, but I doubt I am alone in considering it the most important factor in considering the effects of drug laws. I tend to believe protecting our children is paramount in the eyes of the majority of citizens, regardless of their opinions on how best to accomplish it.

(1) I looked below, yet I saw nothing; (2) You may be concerned for the kiddies, but I'm concerned for everyone.

OCCOM BILL first wrote:
LMAO Nice try at obscuring the issue at hand . You're killing me Joe! .

Calm down, Bill: the excess of mirth evidenced by your overuse of smilies indicates that you are on the verge of wetting yourself.

Further obscuring the issue with meaningless insults will do nothing to strengthen your case. (I'll continue to use as many Emoticons as I please; and I assure you; I won't wet myself :wink: ).

Polls of children, that show availability of various substances under current laws, are very relevant in a discussion about drug laws. Your pre-dismissal and unwillingness to consider such surveys are indicative of a preference to remain ignorant of the facts in order to support false conclusions. Rolling Eyes

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL first wrote:
I love America and I am saddened by the state of its demise. Are you going to tell me that you don't believe the "majority of Americans" want Campaign Reforms? Stop it man! I could easily list a dozen laws that, even you would have no choice but to admit; don't reflect the will of the people. Recent polls are certainly a better indication of our collective conscience than our old, sometimes forgotten laws.

I see now: when the majority (in this case, the majority of your friends and acquaintances) agrees with you, the majority's opinion is representative and important. On the other hand, when the majority (in this case, the majority of legislators and, by extension, the majority of those citizens represented by those legislators) disagrees with you, then that majority's opinion is unrepresentative and trivial.

Well, if that's how you think, then all I can say is that it's truly pointless for you to debate with me further.

Craven and I have both provided you with adequate, almost undeniable, proof that the existence of a law is not necessarily synonymous with the will, or the majority opinion, of the people. Just to refresh your memory;

joefromchicago wrote:

My evidence is this: in a democratic society, where the majority is presumed to rule, laws reflect the will of the majority. In the case of the U.S., drug laws are still in effect. Thus, drug laws represent the will of the majority. QED.

Your premise presupposes that the "majority" of Americans believe:
1) We don't need campaign restrictions to stop foreign interests from unjustly swaying the decisions of lawmakers. Shocked

2) The "business as usual" practice of adding unrelated issues to bills in congress is fine and just. Shocked

3) Don't believe a balanced budget amendment should be implemented. Shocked

4) Every law on the books reflects "the will of the majority". Shocked

(If any of the above statements are false; your premise is fatally flawed.)
Your premise further presupposes that any polling of the constituents would be irrelevant because the law itself is "evidence" that the majority of people support it. Shocked

You could be right in your assessment of national opinion Joe, but your so-called "evidence" does nothing to support your conclusion. :wink:

Your frequent conclusions that I am so naive as to consider "a cursory survey of my friends and acquaintances" as accurate, comprehensive evidence that my opinions regarding national averages are correct; are completely unfounded, and constitute meaningless insults. My original statement was: "It fascinates me that the consensus of everyone I know, is in direct contrast to the policies of our land". This statement is true regardless of national opinion. Further, you have provided no "evidence" of national opinion whatsoever. The above examples thoroughly debunk your assertion to the contrary. Confused

Ps Do you realize it is possible to retreat from a debunked side point without abandoning your primary conclusions? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Come now Joe, you both are guilty of the "ad populum".

C'mon, Craven, I was pretty sure that Bill would't get it, but I would have thought you'd understand a bit of wry sarcasm.

0 Replies

You can pull "'twas mirth" on me Joe because I wasn't talking about getting it, I just want to see you guys get down to the core.

You and I have been here and done this before. So I know how long this can take to get to the essence of the debate.

Bill, the shortcut is that the real discussion is really only about the validity of the decision to criminalize.

The debate will always boil down to what societal harm drugs pose. Rhetoric about what the government should and shouldn't regulate is a powerful argument but only rhetorically.

"The government shouldn't be in the business of preventing individual stupidity" is a srong sounding argument untill one notes that in many ways the government is taked to do precisely that.

Many of the arguments you used Joe is correctly refuting because you haven't made the connection to the core.

e.g. Joe is correct to say that the fact that criminalization has as an inherent quality the creation of crime.

Such is its nature.

Criminalization also has the implicit understanding that in the efforts to enforce said criminalization it's entirely possible, and in some cases likely, that criminalization will result in an activity being associated with violence.

It will, after all, be a proscribed activity and enforcing proscription is ultimately done by force if necessary.

So arguing that legalization will take the crime out of drugs has a really powerful retort, that legalization of anything will take the crime out of it.

So when making the argument that criminalization of drugs causes violence and brings people into the underworld you can circumvent the arguments that it's a predictable consequence of criminalization by tying it directly to the core of the debate: whether the criminalization itself is justified.

The decision of whether criminalization is justified really boils down to the cost/benefit analysis.

If the societal boon outweighs the societal cost then it will successfully be argued as justified.

I happen to side largely with you on legalization, and would re-use some of your arguments like this:

Underworld - Criminalization of drugs bring a substantial portion of society in contact with a criminal underworld. While this is a predictable result of most criminalization it is a cost that together with the other costs of criminalization do not outweigh the societal cost of legalization.

The "it makes criminals" and "through legalization they are drawn to profit" arguments need to be tied to the other side, which is the cost of drugs being legalized in society.

And here it helps to pick out a specific drug. Because otherwise the comparison is complex.

Marijuana is, of course, the easiest to use. Demonstrating that marijuana use causes significant societal harm is where the pro-criminalization argument is weakest.

Joe has compared marijuana use to both alcohol and tobacco use for two main reasons.

One is that both alcohol and tobacco have a demonstratably detrimental effect on society. The other is that marijuana combines some of said effects, for example the intoxication and lung healt issues.

But where this comparison is really weak is that both said activities are legal, and that you will have the ability to cite countless studies that show that the detriment of marijuana is in many ways lesser than the detriment of alcohol. And certainly lesser than the detriment of alcohol and cigarettes combined.

Legalizing drugs does have societal detriments. The most clear is that widespread use can be argued to cause societal health concerns.

And because we do not live in a society that does not leave the individual completely to his/her own misfortune widepread health problems are a national concern. Think of AIDS.

Now think of the difference. AIDS is contagious.

Marijuana is strong here, second hand smoke is all that's comparable.

Crack, or smack have a harder case to make. think crack babies and infected needle sharing.

Anywho, like I said, I've done this dance with Joe. If you really want to discuss the core issue before you both tire of the thrust and parry I recommend arguing that specific drugs do not have a societal cost that justifies the cost of criminalization.

In the case of marijuana you will have a decided advantage as the societal cost is very low. Joe will be relegated to arguing that the costs are not completely known.

Hope it works, I don't think Joe and I ever reached the core of the argument, or if we did we were bored already.

0 Replies

I am 67 years old.

If I want to have a drink, I should be able to do so without worrying that the government will punish me for doing so.

If they want to restrict where I have the drink -- or what I can do while under the influence of the booze -- that makes sense. But to prohibit me under penalty of law from possessing alcohol and having a drink surely is beyond the pale.

If I want to blow a bone, I should be able to do so without worrying that the government will punish me for doing so.

If they want to restrict where I smoke the joint -- or what I can do while under the influence of the marijuana -- that makes sense.

But to prohibit me under penalty of law from possessing the bone and smoking it surely is beyond the pale.

0 Replies

Frank- Agree. And I am not QUITE as old as you!

0 Replies

If I could, I'd just like to pull this bit off of Craven's screed and let it stand on its own.

Quote:

If the societal boon outweighs the societal cost then it will successfully be argued as justified.

That's a question about which honest people can disagree. But that really is the question.

(And, for what it's worth, I had access to a myriad of illegal drugs -- from pot to acid to that stuff they squeeze out of South American toad warts that can really freak you out and inerfere with your ability to breathe -- before I'd been drunk half-a-dozen times, and was smoking pot daily by sixteen -- and was in daily contact with people who'd been in and out of prison. Say what you will, folks, but to me that is an indictment of prohibition.)

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Joe, I can't believe you are still rejecting the obvious difference in these crimes. We are talking about the pros and cons of legalizing drugs.

I recommend that you read Craven's latest post for an explanation of why your distinction is simply irrelevant. However, as you seem completely hung up on this point, I won't debate it further.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

POINT: Legalizing drugs and regulating them similar to alcohol would reduce (if not eliminate) the violence associated with distribution. END POINT.

Quite right. Quite irrelevant, but quite right.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Further obscuring the issue with meaningless insults will do nothing to strengthen your case. (I'll continue to use as many Emoticons as I please; and I assure you; I won't wet myself :wink: ).

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Polls of children, that show availability of various substances under current laws, are very relevant in a discussion about drug laws. Your pre-dismissal and unwillingness to consider such surveys are indicative of a preference to remain ignorant of the facts in order to support false conclusions.

OK, Bill, since you seem so hung up about this point, I will concede, for the purposes of discussion, that minors have more access to drugs than to tobacco and alcohol. Now why should that change my mind about legalizing drugs?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Craven and I have both provided you with adequate, almost undeniable, proof that the existence of a law is not necessarily synonymous with the will, or the majority opinion, of the people.

Bill, you are the one who first brought up the whole business about majority opinions. Frankly, I put no faith in them, and you can search all of my previous posts in vain for any reliance on majorities or polls or public opinion surveys. Honestly, I have seen enough evidence to satisfy me that most people are, to a greater or lesser degree, idiots. If the majority favored legalization of all narcotics, I would expect that a majority of that majority was composed of idiots. Moreover, if the majority favored criminalization of all narcotics, I would likewise expect that a majority of that majority was composed of idiots.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

My original statement was: "It fascinates me that the consensus of everyone I know, is in direct contrast to the policies of our land". This statement is true regardless of national opinion. Further, you have provided no "evidence" of national opinion whatsoever. The above examples thoroughly debunk your assertion to the contrary.

If you were merely offering the contrast between the survey of your friends' opinions and national drug policy as a point of fascination for you, then I certainly would not dream of raising an objection. After all, I cannot begin to comprehend the range of subjects that you might consider fascinating, just as I am constantly bemused by my cat's fascination with shoelaces. If, on the other hand, you were actually trying to make a point, then I suppose you'll just have to explain it better.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Ps Do you realize it is possible to retreat from a debunked side point without abandoning your primary conclusions?

Never having had one of my "side points" debunked, I'll just have to trust to your greater experience in this respect and accept that your statement, in fact, is correct.

0 Replies

Craven, you are completely correct about your prediction; I am indeed getting bored with this debate. Rolling Eyes

Let me state for the record that I understand, and agree completely that legalizing any crime would take some of the violence out. However, that does not put all crimes on a parallel scale and certainly does not render the distinctions irrelevant. It is unrealistic to compare crimes that can take place without a victim to those that absolutely require a victim to take place. If you compare drug prohibition to Alcohol Prohibition, Gambling or prostitution you have a much more reasonable comparison. Personally, I think these activities should all be decriminalized. Idea

Suggesting that the societal burden of legalization justifies the interference with personal preference; again, has some merit, but falls short of being realistic as well. 4-wheeled ATVs, motorcycles, wave runners, etc. are crazy dangerous. Use of these vehicles; cripple many who don't have means to pay their own bills but I doubt there are too many people suggesting prohibition. The Wright brothers could have been protected from hurting themselves under that mentality. Idea

As for the "marijuana issue"; I would waste very little time debating with someone who was too stubborn to concede this obvious hypocrisy in short order. Rolling Eyes

I can simplify my position very easily: I don't believe it is the government's job to protect me from me. Seat belt and helmet laws for adults, Drugs, Gambling, Prostitution, are all laws that can be violated without putting bystanders at additional risks. The latter 3 have never, and will never be prohibited successfully anywhere but in a "police state".
Last year in this country we arrested 1.5 million people (half for marijuana) for drugs. There are a quarter of a million people behind bars right now for drugs. 40 Billion dollars spent on a campaign that is a complete and utter failure. I doubt anyone reading this is more than 3 people removed from virtually every drug there is. Even if you think these activities should be prohibited on a philosophical level, aren't you still compelled to admit they can't be? Rolling Eyes

I further think the majority decision rationale is being overplayed in this theatre. The majority of citizens do not skydive, ride motorcycles or play football. Does that majority have the right to prohibit their peers from these dangerous activities? The answer is a resounding NO! The potential side effects from drug use can overlap personal freedoms of others, yes. However; drugs, like alcohol, constitute no excuse for committing other crimes in the eyes of the courts already. These are the criminals that need to be dealt with. Imagine spending a fraction of the 40 billion we currently spend with our army of law enforcement focusing in on the criminals that harm bystanders. I wouldn't even be all that opposed to an enhancement statute that magnified the penalty for crime involving drugs, providing the crime was not simply drugs. Wouldn't that be more just? Idea

For the record; I tried a wide range of drugs in college. I never harmed anyone. Locking me up for my indiscretions would have protected no one. Everyone here knows someone who smokes pot everyday and is otherwise a law abiding citizen (if you don't think you do; you must open your eyes). I don't do any illegal drugs today. Not because of any law; the law never really concerned me. It is simply because I don't care for them. I have seen people ruin their lives with drug and alcohol use. I do feel sorry for them, but do not feel it is my duty to protect them. I suspect the vast majority of these people will find their poison regardless of legislation. If one of them were to commit a crime against another person, I'd be the first one to report them, but you won't see me dropping dimes on users. Potential for harm is poor justification for this type of regulation. Who ever read Fyodor Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" without identifying with characters like Raskolnikov? Should the book be prohibited because it could "potentially" convince someone to commit a crime? I sincerely hope the answer is another resounding NO! Idea

Ps Love the new emoticon, thanks! Drunk

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

If I want to blow a bone, I should be able to do so without worrying that the government will punish me for doing so.

Have I somehow missed a bit of weed-related argot here, Frank, or are you suggesting that the feds don't want you to play the trombone?

0 Replies

Happy New Year, Joe.

Happy New Year to everyone in this thread.

I've had an outstanding 2003 -- and I am looking forward to an even better 2004.

My very best wishes for all of you in the coming year.

0 Replies

Right back at you Frank, and I second those wishes for everyone!

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

As for the "marijuana issue"; I would waste very little time debating with someone who was too stubborn to concede this obvious hypocrisy in short order.

I suppose most discussions would be a lot easier if one of the participants could require the other participants to concede his position beforehand as a condition for further discussion. On the other hand, I have never taken this route, prefering to rely upon the persuasiveness of my arguments rather than the threat of my petulance as a means of reaching agreement. But I suppose if I were less skilled as a debater or less conversant with logic, I might adopt the approach that Bill suggests.

0 Replies

Interesting approach Joe, considering you did concede that obvious point and we've both since argued quite a bit about the less obvious ones. Also interesting; that you used your considerable skill to attack the one tiny paragraph that is unrelated to the topic, while ignoring the 5 that were related. Rolling Eyes

If you would really like to debate that one tiny point, I'll be happy to make an exception, and thoroughly prove you wrong. :wink:

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Interesting approach Joe, considering you did concede that obvious point and we've both since argued quite a bit about the less obvious ones.

You'll have to refresh my recollection. When did I concede the "hypocrisy" of the marijuana policy?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Also interesting; that you used your considerable skill to attack the one tiny paragraph that is unrelated to the topic, while ignoring the 5 that were related.

Then perhaps if you would confine your remarks to relevant points, we wouldn't get sidetracked on unrelated matters.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

If you would really like to debate that one tiny point, I'll be happy to make an exception, and thoroughly prove you wrong. :wink:

I wait with breathless anticipation.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Interesting approach Joe, considering you did concede that obvious point and we've both since argued quite a bit about the less obvious ones.

You'll have to refresh my recollection. When did I concede the "hypocrisy" of the marijuana policy?

How about when you said:

joefromchicago wrote:

I am perfectly willing to concede, for the purposes of discussion, that marijuana is as harmful as tobacco and/or alcohol.

It seems to me you felt you were ill-prepared to argue this point at that time. No?

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
If you would really like to debate that one tiny point, I'll be happy to make an exception, and thoroughly prove you wrong. :wink:

I wait with breathless anticipation.

Do you really think you can mount an argument to demonstrate Marijuana being illegal while Alcohol is not; doesn't constitute hypocrisy? You are very skilled at the art of debate, Joe, but that task would likely prove impossible for the best debaters on earth. Before answering, consider:
A) Over 100 thousand deaths annually are directly linked to acute alcohol poisoning In 4,000 years of recorded history, no one has ever died from a pot overdose.
B) Alcohol has been proven physically addictive. Marijuana is only habit forming.

There is no shame in admitting you are wrong. Idea

If you really think you can prove I'm wrong; start by demonstrating these first two points don't constitute proof of hypocrisy. I'll make a much longer list if you like. :wink:

0 Replies

60 minutes is doing a story on this subject right now if anyone's interested.

0 Replies

What's your take on the War on Drugs?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know