Should Obama Legalize weed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancel1
  • Start date Start date
Damocles said:
In Denver they voted to get rid of the City's laws dealing with MJ at all, so the Mayor just told the cops to enforce the state laws more strictly. It's worse after they legalized it.
Click to expand...

santa barbara ca voted to make mj policing the lowest priority for its police force
 
Damocles said:
Yes you did. You started off on how bad it was for people, therefore you can't let others sell it. It's a "for their own good" law.

You work to justify your inner liberal. Making laws to save people from their own selves by "limiting" access in a way that doesn't do what you intend, that in fact makes it worse. Yeah, that is the very definition of nannyism.

There is a time frame that we set in this society that we then allow people to make such choices, for alcohol and other items it is 21. You are pretending you are incapable of understanding this so you can continue to justify feeding your inner liberal with inane laws based on how much you know better than others.

"This is okay, so long as we don't let people sell it to them." It's just flat out idiocy and does nothing to limit it as you want. It simply ensures an even larger and more violent black market.
Click to expand...

Violent black market? For pot? Where?

Again Damo, for the third time, I have not advocated passing ANY LAW! So, how can I be advocating the passage of "for your own good" laws? This seems quite the impossibility. Not to say we don't already have a multitude of "for your own good" laws, we most certainly do, in fact, most of our laws are made under the premise it is "for your own good", when it comes right down to it, aren't they? I mean, isn't that why we decided to have LAWS to begin with? For our own good?

Yes, we do set an age limit on alcohol... (for our own good) at 21... but we also prohibit the sale of strychnine, opium, morphine, cocaine, heroin, and other things... (again, for your own good!) Some things, we don't sell over-the-counter, we require a doctor to prescribe it and a pharmacy to dispense it... (for our own good!) We restrict the sale of cigarettes to minors (for their own good) and mandate no smoking laws in restaurants (for our own good), we also regulate what tobacco companies can put in their cigarettes and how they can advertise (for our own good) and it has been this way for years.

Maybe it's the "libertarian" in you, or maybe it's the "conservative" in me, but it definitely has nothing to do with "nannyism" or "liberalism" and your continued insistence it does, means you are losing this debate. You incorrectly assume I want to "limit" pot smoking, and I don't care about who smokes pot! I had actually rather my kids smoke a joint than drink a beer! I don't wish to "limit" or "restrict" anyone from using marijuana, I just don't want our government to be an accomplice to the commercialization and taxation of it.
 
Last edited:
the goverment banned it out of racism and profit for other products. Maybe if you read up on it you'd change your stance Dixie.
Also it is childish to say buying mj is not dangerous.
 
Dixie said:
Violent black market? For pot? Where?

Again Damo, for the third time, I have not advocated passing ANY LAW! So, how can I be advocating the passage of "for your own good" laws? This seems quite the impossibility. Not to say we don't already have a multitude of "for your own good" laws, we most certainly do, in fact, most of our laws are made under the premise it is "for your own good", when it comes right down to it, aren't they? I mean, isn't that why we decided to have LAWS to begin with? For our own good?

Yes, we do set an age limit on alcohol... (for our own good) at 21... but we also prohibit the sale of strychnine, opium, morphine, cocaine, heroin, and other things... (again, for your own good!) Some things, we don't sell over-the-counter, we require a doctor to prescribe it and a pharmacy to dispense it... (for our own good!) We restrict the sale of cigarettes to minors (for their own good) and mandate no smoking laws in restaurants (for our own good), we also regulate what tobacco companies can put in their cigarettes and how they can advertise (for our own good) and it has been this way for years.

Maybe it's the "libertarian" in you, or maybe it's the "conservative" in me, but it definitely has nothing to do with "nannyism" or "liberalism" and your continued insistence it does, means you are losing this debate. You incorrectly assume I want to "limit" pot smoking, and I don't care about who smokes pot! I had actually rather my kids smoke a joint than drink a beer! I don't wish to "limit" or "restrict" anyone from using marijuana, I just don't want our government to be an accomplice to the commercialization and taxation of it.
Click to expand...
So, Ramos and Campean were jailed for shooting who? Why does his family say he brings guns while trafficking what isn't in a "violent black market"?

Come on... You used to be pretty good at making a point. But I think that was when you weren't justifying your inner liberal ideas of laws 'for their own good'...

Laws that stop the sale of this product from a store because it may be "dangerous" to you (the purchaser) are exactly what the term "nanny laws" was coined to describe. It's inane and serves no purpose other than to feed your own justify whatever I want spin machine.
 
Damocles said:
So, Ramos and Campean were jailed for shooting who? Why does his family say he brings guns while trafficking what isn't in a "violent black market"?

Come on... You used to be pretty good at making a point. But I think that was when you weren't justifying your inner liberal ideas of laws 'for their own good'...

Laws that stop the sale of this product from a store because it may be "dangerous" to you (the purchaser) are exactly what the term "nanny laws" was coined to describe. It's inane and serves no purpose other than to feed your own justify whatever I want spin machine.
Click to expand...

Ramos and Campean are operating in an environment where possession of pot is a felony. Decriminalization would alleviate that condition. So your point is irrelevant, the dynamics would not be the same.

As I said, almost EVERY law is "for our own good" when you get right down to it. That is the basic fundamental reason for establishing laws! To argue you want a society without laws that are "for your own good" is to argue for lawless anarchy. And again, I have not advocated ANY LAW! I have advocated DECRIMINALIZING possession and personal manufacturing of pot. It is currently not legal to sell pot in stores, and I would simply keep it that way... not changing the laws, not passing new laws. It is YOU who wants to pass a law here, so you can legally control the commercial enterprise and tax it. Perhaps it was a mistake to say you want to be the Nanny, you really want to be the Pimp!
 
Dixie said:
Ramos and Campean are operating in an environment where possession of pot is a felony. Decriminalization would alleviate that condition. So your point is irrelevant, the dynamics would not be the same.

As I said, almost EVERY law is "for our own good" when you get right down to it. That is the basic fundamental reason for establishing laws! To argue you want a society without laws that are "for your own good" is to argue for lawless anarchy. And again, I have not advocated ANY LAW! I have advocated DECRIMINALIZING possession and personal manufacturing of pot. It is currently not legal to sell pot in stores, and I would simply keep it that way... not changing the laws, not passing new laws. It is YOU who wants to pass a law here, so you can legally control the commercial enterprise and tax it. Perhaps it was a mistake to say you want to be the Nanny, you really want to be the Pimp!
Click to expand...
This is inane. It's that same felony across the nation, they operated under federal laws. It isn't just magically black market at the border and nowhere else.

And not every law is "for your own good" nor should any law made strictly "for your own good" be passed. Nannyism is for liberals and the uber-religious who want to do it for your soul, it isn't freedom by any means. (Now put your seat belt on and shut up and start turning in guys who ski without helmets or you aren't doing your civic duty.)

A speed limit law isn't for YOUR good, it is to keep you from damaging others with your stupidity, for instance. Laws against murder aren't to keep YOUR soul safe, they are made to protect the victims it again isn't a "for your own good" law. So forth.

The fact is, you support nannyism when it suits you, then reject it as "liberal" when you dislike it. I reject it in every circumstance. Even when it isn't convenient to my own personal belief.
 
Damocles said:
This is inane. It's that same felony across the nation, they operated under federal laws. It isn't just magically black market at the border and nowhere else.

And not every law is "for your own good" nor should any law made strictly "for your own good" be passed. Nannyism is for liberals and the uber-religious who want to do it for your soul, it isn't freedom by any means. Now put your seat belt on and shut up.

A speed limit law isn't for YOUR good, it is to keep you from damaging others with your stupidity, for instance. Laws against murder aren't to keep YOUR soul safe, they are made to protect the victims it again isn't a "for your own good" law. So forth.

The fact is, you support nannyism when it suits you, then reject it as "liberal" when you dislike it. I reject it in every circumstance. Even when it isn't convenient to my own personal belief.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the same felony because it hasn't been decriminalized. You presented it as some kind of proof that a "violent black market" would be the result of decriminalization. Surely you can see the irrelevance of your point!

All laws are for someones "own good" including speed limits and murder laws. I haven't 'rejected' anything except the concept that our government should rubber stamp commercialization of products which could be harmful to your health. That's not a "liberal" concept, that is a common fucking sense concept! I haven't advocated "banning" anything or removing products known to be harmful from the market, they are already there, and I'm fine with that. I just don't think it is prudent for us to "legalize" something we know to be harmful to your health, and then tax the hell out of it!

You're right, you aren't trying to be a Nanny at all, you are trying to be a Pimp!
 
Dixie said:
Yes, it's the same felony because it hasn't been decriminalized. You presented it as some kind of proof that a "violent black market" would be the result of decriminalization. Surely you can see the irrelevance of your point!
Click to expand...

Your inference was that this area it was a felony therefore the violent black market I mentioned before and you insisted "didn't exist" was magically stuck into this area. It was a foolish inference. You were the one that suggested that marijuana has no violent black market, I just produced a very known story that proves you were simply wrong. Flat wrong on that suggestion.

All laws are for someones "own good" including speed limits and murder laws. I haven't 'rejected' anything except the concept that our government should rubber stamp commercialization of products which could be harmful to your health. That's not a "liberal" concept, that is a common fucking sense concept! I haven't advocated "banning" anything or removing products known to be harmful from the market, they are already there, and I'm fine with that. I just don't think it is prudent for us to "legalize" something we know to be harmful to your health, and then tax the hell out of it!
Click to expand...

There is a difference between "for your own good we'll stop you from riding your bike without a helmet so you won't be taking on that risk" and "because you might cause somebody else to be a victim we want you to stop speeding". One is a nanny law, the second stops you from victimizing another directly. Amazingly you know the difference when you whine about seat belt laws, but can't see it when you want to force other people into your own box "for their own good".

You're right, you aren't trying to be a Nanny at all, you are trying to be a Pimp!
Click to expand...

Irrelevant inanity. I want people to take responsibility for their own choices, and I want government to take responsibility for creating the environment that produces the violent black market creating victims everywhere.
 
Damocles said:
Your inference was that this area it was a felony therefore the violent black market I mentioned before and you insisted "didn't exist" was magically stuck into this area. It was a foolish inference. You were the one that suggested that marijuana has no violent black market, I just produced a very known story that proves you were simply wrong. Flat wrong on that suggestion.
Click to expand...

I didn't "infer" anything! You gave an example of violence in the black market, as "proof" that decriminalization would result in a violent black market. It doesn't follow any concept of logic I am aware of. Apparently, a violent black market exists now! Perhaps, if it weren't a felony offense, this wouldn't be the case?

There is a difference between "for your own good we'll stop you from riding your bike without a helmet so you won't be taking on that risk" and "because you might cause somebody else to be a victim we want you to stop speeding". One is a nanny law, the second stops you from victimizing another directly. Amazingly you know the difference when you whine about seat belt laws, but can't see it when you want to force other people into your own box "for their own good".
Click to expand...

When have I ever whined about seat belt laws, or helmet laws? If it had been a law to wear seatbelts and helmets since 1932, and some bunch of nimrods came along and said, we think government should make it legal to not wear seatbelts and helmets, I would say the same thing! This is a fundamental principle in play, our government has a responsibility to protect the public.

Irrelevant inanity. I want people to take responsibility for their own choices, and I want government to take responsibility for creating the environment that produces the violent black market creating victims everywhere.
Click to expand...

Again, there either IS a violent black market, or there isn't! Decriminalization of pot has not been shown to result in any more of a violent black market than we currently have. You keep trying to make a point that has no basis in logic or relevance. It's like arguing that mandating seat belt usage will result in more violent deaths in car crashes! It just makes no sense whatsoever, Damo!

You are a libertarian, I understand that... but the reason libertarianism fails, is because you assume people can act responsibly, and they often can't! That is just a fact of human nature! It's great that you would be responsible and use pot responsibly if it were legal, but not everyone would! Some people would stay stoned out of their gourd 24/7 and lose their jobs, some would move on to stronger drugs, some would forget they aren't supposed to drive the car while stoned, some would forget little Junior is on top of the car in his car seat! Our government has a responsibility to protect us from ourselves, because we are wholly incapable of always making sound judgments about our safety, and the safety of others around us.

My position is clear, in spite of your attempts to muddy the water, I have not advocated making new laws "for our own good" or passing law to restrict or prohibit anything, only a move to decriminalize possession and personal manufacturing of marijuana. My suggestion gives us MORE freedom than we currently have, not LESS! My suggestion does not allow government to participate in a commercial venture which could be a danger to health and public safety. Finally, my suggestion is realistic and pragmatic, and your idea is not realistic and won't happen.
 
Dixie said:
I didn't "infer" anything! You gave an example of violence in the black market, as "proof" that decriminalization would result in a violent black market. It doesn't follow any concept of logic I am aware of. Apparently, a violent black market exists now! Perhaps, if it weren't a felony offense, this wouldn't be the case?



When have I ever whined about seat belt laws, or helmet laws? If it had been a law to wear seatbelts and helmets since 1932, and some bunch of nimrods came along and said, we think government should make it legal to not wear seatbelts and helmets, I would say the same thing! This is a fundamental principle in play, our government has a responsibility to protect the public.



Again, there either IS a violent black market, or there isn't! Decriminalization of pot has not been shown to result in any more of a violent black market than we currently have. You keep trying to make a point that has no basis in logic or relevance. It's like arguing that mandating seat belt usage will result in more violent deaths in car crashes! It just makes no sense whatsoever, Damo!

You are a libertarian, I understand that... but the reason libertarianism fails, is because you assume people can act responsibly, and they often can't! That is just a fact of human nature! It's great that you would be responsible and use pot responsibly if it were legal, but not everyone would! Some people would stay stoned out of their gourd 24/7 and lose their jobs, some would move on to stronger drugs, some would forget they aren't supposed to drive the car while stoned, some would forget little Junior is on top of the car in his car seat! Our government has a responsibility to protect us from ourselves, because we are wholly incapable of always making sound judgments about our safety, and the safety of others around us.

My position is clear, in spite of your attempts to muddy the water, I have not advocated making new laws "for our own good" or passing law to restrict or prohibit anything, only a move to decriminalize possession and personal manufacturing of marijuana. My suggestion gives us MORE freedom than we currently have, not LESS! My suggestion does not allow government to participate in a commercial venture which could be a danger to health and public safety. Finally, my suggestion is realistic and pragmatic, and your idea is not realistic and won't happen.
Click to expand...
When saying "I" the word would be "imply"...

Here a little thing to memorize so you can get it correct.

You "infer"

I "imply"...

See?

Anyway, you did infer. First you said there was no violent black market for MJ and tried to joke it away with a guffaw, when evidence is produced you were wrong you tried to shuffle it to the side saying, "under that one it is a felony" which attempts to infer that in other areas such a violent black market didn't exist. Yet that same thing is in effect everywhere as it would be if you attempted to make it just illegal to sell it but not possess or smoke it. It is profit that drives a black market, one that would be even more driven to gain the customer when the customer no longer need to fear, only the seller...

I am not "muddying the water" I am direct.

Your nannyism is not welcome any more than liberal nannyism is. It sickens me to watch a "conservative" attempt to save people from themselves, just so long as they do it "my way"...

It is wrong in one circumstance, it is wrong in the second.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's funny watching you two battle it out for second place. :cool:
Click to expand...
Yeah, third was settled into by yourself long ago. I think it was probably the first time you verified your status as virginal by describing "man-meat" in a way that can only suggest you read too much silly porn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top