The Big Cat Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 It's not an argument of that crime is worse, so it has no bearing on this crime. The point is, that no law enforcement prevents actions. Law enforcement only works after the crime. It's a bogus argument to say the law fails when that's not what it's supposed to do. Laws don't make you do the right things. They let you know what the wrong things to do are. The laws in this country set standards of behavior for the society. Law enforcement punishes those who fail to live up to those standards. What part of that equation makes people live up to those standards? The question is, that if we don't want people using those drugs as a standard in our society then what do we do to stop it? How about instead of lowering our standards (making drugs legal), we work on getting people to live up to those standards? You're too broad here, IMO. I'd be curious to see where being drunk falls under your standards for behavior and why permitting people to be stoned would be lowering them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 It's not an argument of that crime is worse, so it has no bearing on this crime. The point is, that no law enforcement prevents actions. Law enforcement only works after the crime. It's a bogus argument to say the law fails when that's not what it's supposed to do. Laws don't make you do the right things. They let you know what the wrong things to do are. The laws in this country set standards of behavior for the society. Law enforcement punishes those who fail to live up to those standards. What part of that equation makes people live up to those standards? The question is, that if we don't want people using those drugs as a standard in our society then what do we do to stop it? How about instead of lowering our standards (making drugs legal), we work on getting people to live up to those standards? because it will NEVER happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazed and Amuzed Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 How about instead of lowering our standards (making drugs legal), we work on getting people to live up to those standards? That doesn't work as prohibition has proved. If we let the government keep lifting standards and we don't fight for what we believe is right then we are inevitably going to end up in a dictatorship. Part of being an American is going against the grain. Those who just "accept" will become drones with no purpose other then gaining wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Let's see smartass. So far in this thread, you're saying: The war on drugs doesn't work It's costing the country billions and increasing the size of government Some drugs should be legal Instead of legalizing all drugs, we should only go after the supplier, not the small time user I'm saying that if the intent of the people of this country is to stop drug use, how would you suggest doing it. We are already going after the suppliers, and as you've so intelligently pointed out, that's not working. So what's your amazing answer to this problem? If the war on drugs is a failure, then how is anything you've said so far gonna make things better? But instead of answering that, just use another impressively witty comment that deflects the fact that you have no idea how to actually make things better. Hint: Bolded statement is one that I would argue is futile. lol @ reading comprehension I didn't say it wasn't a worthy goal. I said it would do nothing to pull this country out of bankruptcy in the long run. You're pretty good at setting up strawmen and knocking then down. I mean dang, you really tore into that one. lol @ you building a strawman by trying to claim what I said was a strawman. lol @ you not realizing we need budget cuts all around the board to even have some semblance of a balanced budget lol @ you not realizing these budget cuts need to come from everywhere, and will add up to the total amount that we need lol @ you not realizing that 6-9 billion dollars a year will help lol @ you not realizing this was what I meant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 It's not an argument of that crime is worse, so it has no bearing on this crime. The point is, that no law enforcement prevents actions. Law enforcement only works after the crime. It's a bogus argument to say the law fails when that's not what it's supposed to do. Laws don't make you do the right things. They let you know what the wrong things to do are. The laws in this country set standards of behavior for the society. Law enforcement punishes those who fail to live up to those standards. What part of that equation makes people live up to those standards? The question is, that if we don't want people using those drugs as a standard in our society then what do we do to stop it? How about instead of lowering our standards (making drugs legal), we work on getting people to live up to those standards? And here's where we get to the real issue, your belief that drug users are somehow less moral than other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 That doesn't work as prohibition has proved. If we let the government keep lifting standards and we don't fight for what we believe is right then we are inevitably going to end up in a dictatorship. Part of being an American is going against the grain. Those who just "accept" will become drones with no purpose other then gaining wealth. How about stop voting for the people making the laws you disagree with? Start voting for people that think like you? When there are enough people that think like you that vote for a candidate that thinks like you, I'm betting the laws will change. Then we can avoid the whole dictatorship dilemma. But so far, I've not heard anyone with a very convincing argument that legalizing certain/all drugs would be a good thing. As I said earlier, arguing that this is a major fiscal liability is a joke. There is so many more large government programs that waste money, that in the big picture, this is a tiny drop in the bucket. Here are the common arguments I've heard for legalizing it: 1) Saves/makes money for the government if we tax it. 2) It's not as bad as other stuff that's legal 3) I like it, and it doesn't hurt anyone. IMO, those are 3 pretty losing arguments. Is there an argument that I've forgotten? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 And here's where we get to the real issue, your belief that drug users are somehow less moral than other people. Wow, you are bad at reading. Perhaps the person that reads your tests to you at school can come over and read the posts on here to you so that you understand them better? Then maybe they can cross out your first 2 replies so that you have a 50/50 chance of choosing one that is correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Is there an argument that I've forgotten? If you werent stoned, maybe you'd remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 If you werent stoned, maybe you'd remember. Remember what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Wow, you are bad at reading. Perhaps the person that reads your tests to you at school can come over and read the posts on here to you so that you understand them better? Then maybe they can cross out your first 2 replies so that you have a 50/50 chance of choosing one that is correct? Nope, you said it yourself right here: How about instead of lowering our standards (making drugs legal) Making drugs legal = "lowering our standards"; ergo, someone who is a drug user is morally below people that are not drug users, as they hold themselves to less of a standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I love the whole "this isn't as impactful as other issues, so lets just continue with screwed up policies" argument. As if it not being as big of a waste as the Iraq war somehow makes it okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Making drugs legal = "lowering our standards"; ergo, someone who is a drug user is morally below people that are not drug users, as they hold themselves to less of a standard. Nope, try again. Actually don't, you might hurt yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Nope, try again. Actually don't, you might hurt yourself. I'm shocked that you couldn't actually refute it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 How about stop voting for the people making the laws you disagree with? Start voting for people that think like you? When there are enough people that think like you that vote for a candidate that thinks like you, I'm betting the laws will change. Then we can avoid the whole dictatorship dilemma. But so far, I've not heard anyone with a very convincing argument that legalizing certain/all drugs would be a good thing. As I said earlier, arguing that this is a major fiscal liability is a joke. There is so many more large government programs that waste money, that in the big picture, this is a tiny drop in the bucket. Here are the common arguments I've heard for legalizing it: 1) Saves/makes money for the government if we tax it. 2) It's not as bad as other stuff that's legal 3) I like it, and it doesn't hurt anyone. IMO, those are 3 pretty losing arguments. Is there an argument that I've forgotten? So senseless encarceration which leads to overcrowded prisons and financial hemorraging isn't a good argument? Wasting law enforcement resources when they could be focussed elsewhere (murder, rape, ANTI-TERRORISM) isn't a good argument? Preventing giving an otherwise good/upstanding guy a criminal record because he was stoned and playing Halo isn't a good argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I love the whole "this isn't as impactful as other issues, so lets just continue with screwed up policies" argument. As if it not being as big of a waste as the Iraq war somehow makes it okay. I love the whole "Marijuana isn't as bad as other drugs, so let's just continue with screwed up policies" argument. As if not being as bad somehow makes it ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Remember what? Um. I dont know. Quit Bogarting, Dude!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I love the whole "Marijuana isn't as bad as other drugs, so let's just continue with screwed up policies" argument. As if not being as bad somehow makes it ok. You have yet to prove that marijuana use is somehow morally wrong, which is a prerequisite for that comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazed and Amuzed Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 How about stop voting for the people making the laws you disagree with? Start voting for people that think like you? When there are enough people that think like you that vote for a candidate that thinks like you, I'm betting the laws will change. Then we can avoid the whole dictatorship dilemma. But so far, I've not heard anyone with a very convincing argument that legalizing certain/all drugs would be a good thing. As I said earlier, arguing that this is a major fiscal liability is a joke. There is so many more large government programs that waste money, that in the big picture, this is a tiny drop in the bucket. Here are the common arguments I've heard for legalizing it: 1) Saves/makes money for the government if we tax it. 2) It's not as bad as other stuff that's legal 3) I like it, and it doesn't hurt anyone. IMO, those are 3 pretty losing arguments. Is there an argument that I've forgotten? 1) I could give a rats ass if the government saves money or not. 2) Losing argument or not, it's true. 3) That's just a lame argument. I agree with you there. I'll give you a reason you didn't list -Here is a list of ailments MJ is known to benefit when used to treat: Diseases / Conditions AIDS (HIV) & AIDS Wasting Alzheimer's Disease Appetite / Nausea Arthritis Asthma / Breathing Disorders Chemotherapy Crohn's / Gastrointestinal Disorders Epilepsy / Seizures Glaucoma Hepatitis C Migraines Multiple Sclerosis / Muscle Spasms Pain / Analgesia Psychological Conditions Tourette's Syndrome Terminally Ill Is that a losing argument as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 You have yet to prove that marijuana use is somehow morally wrong, which is a prerequisite for that comment. Listen genius, you're the only one bringing morals into this. For whatever reasons the people of this country have deemed marijuana to be bad, and thus made it illegal. We've (as in society as a whole) set a standard we (society as a whole) don't want people using marijuana. Here are things you can do about it. Work to convince people that you are right so that the laws are changed. Follow the current laws or face the consequences. It has nothing to do with morals. As I said earlier, if you want the laws to change, I hope you can come up with something better than the 3 common arguments that I've already listed. They already been used for decades, and not gotten you very far. If I was you, I'd come up with something better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 1) I could give a rats ass if the government saves money or not. 2) Losing argument or not, it's true. 3) That's just a lame argument. I agree with you there. I'll give you a reason you didn't list -Here is a list of ailments MJ is known to benefit when used to treat: Diseases / Conditions AIDS (HIV) & AIDS Wasting Alzheimer's Disease Appetite / Nausea Arthritis Asthma / Breathing Disorders Chemotherapy Crohn's / Gastrointestinal Disorders Epilepsy / Seizures Glaucoma Hepatitis C Migraines Multiple Sclerosis / Muscle Spasms Pain / Analgesia Psychological Conditions Tourette's Syndrome Terminally Ill Is that a losing argument as well? Seeing the joke of a system that California has on prescribing MJ for any medical uses, I'd say they're kind of shooting your cause in the foot. If CA had come up with a real prescription program that wasn't basically a free pass for those that want it to get high, then the medical argument would hold a lot more water. I have no problem with narcotics and other drugs that are used in hospitals, but would otherwise be illegal on the streets. I would have no problem for MJ if used in a similar manner. But that's not really the way it turned out in CA now is it? Other states really don't want that kind of system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts