California Prop 19, Legalize Marijuana? Vote Yes, or Vote No?

[Member243850]

My comment wasn't directed at anybody in particular. I don't know why you assumed it was. It is just general statement about how I feel about drugs and drug users.

I totally understand friend! I think we just got off on the wrong foot that's all and I jumped to conclusions.

I apologize... really didn't mean to offend you friend!

Keep well

Stinky :-D

 

[SamsungVibrant]

OMG, I feel bipolar. I actually ended up voting yes after convincing myself over the weekend I was going to vote no.

My ballot was turned in, it is over. I voted yes.

 

[tommy_ed]

HAHA that's pretty funny! I did the same thing when I went to vote during the last presidential election... I was decided until I was standing at the poll, and decided to write in Stephen Colbert

 

[If_Only_VZW_had_iPhones]

well, I was happy with how the Prop 19 vote turned out. The justification of needing this as an new source of income because they can't run their state budget is not a compelling enough reason for me to vote to make an illegal substance legal. I'm glad Northern California offsets the southern part.

 

[byteware]

I'm gonna focus on this argument. Since you can't seem to follow logic, and I get tired of trying to teach you.

it doesnt hurt the lives of others every time the "crime" is committed, and it doesn't hurt intentionally.

Neither does Criminal negligence. It's still a crime.

And I'm pretty sure not one of my arguments can be applied to murder..

You have put forward, as one of your arguments, that being convicted of possessing marijuana hurts a person's future (employment,etc...). The very same thing is true of Murder.

Your argument applies to EVERY crime. Man, deductive reasoning really isn't taught in school anymore?

as I said earlier (and you obviously ignored) my argument is that the costs of prohibition don't outweigh the benefits of legalizing it. This doesn't apply to murder.

You have presented MANY arguments.

Regardless, your statement would have been better worded "the BENEFITS of prohibition and the costs of legalization, don't outweigh the costs of prohibition, and the benefits of legalizing marijuana."



As far as the contradiction goes...
I've stated that marijuana infringes on the rights of others.

I've stated that to make marijuana legal, countermeasures will have to be established to prevent that infringement.

I've put forward a suggested countermeasure for that infringement as a requirement for legalization which, if applied, would make legalization acceptable.







I don't mean to be insulting, mean, or cruel. However, if you can't understand that the above is NOT a contradiction, then I'm guessing you have at best a 10th grade High School education. It is best not to get into arguments with adults who are much better at thinking things through.

 

[tommy_ed]

From your condescending little statement at the end of your last post, I can tell you're becoming frustrated. I hope you are aware that it's only making it obvious that you realize your argument is failing.

I'm gonna focus on this argument. Since you can't seem to follow logic, and I get tired of trying to teach you.



Neither does Criminal negligence. It's still a crime.

the cons of legalizing murder still don't outweigh the pros, so this argument STILL doesn't work.

You have put forward, as one of your arguments, that being convicted of possessing marijuana hurts a person's future (employment,etc...). The very same thing is true of Murder.

Your argument applies to EVERY crime. Man, deductive reasoning really isn't taught in school anymore?

IMO there is a HUGE difference between murder and smoking a joint. It's actually good for society that most places wouldn't hire a murderer, however smoking some pot now and then doesn't hurt anyone's work methods more than alcohol would (as long as you're not driving or smoking at or before work)

and deductive reasoning could be used to come up with a theoretic conclusion in this case, but it's not a solid wrong or right. You could never use deductive reasoning to decide whether or not a law should remain in effect. By that same logic you could say "murder kills people"...."cars kill people".... "cars should be illegal". See why it doesn't work? All you have said over and over is logic, logic, logic... it's not LOGICAL to create a law based on deductive reasoning.

You have presented MANY arguments.

Regardless, your statement would have been better worded "the BENEFITS of prohibition and the costs of legalization, don't outweigh the costs of prohibition, and the benefits of legalizing marijuana."

so the only argument you have left pertains to my grammar usage? pathetic...

As far as the contradiction goes...
I've stated that marijuana infringes on the rights of others.

I've stated that to make marijuana legal, countermeasures will have to be established to prevent that infringement.

I've put forward a suggested countermeasure for that infringement as a requirement for legalization which, if applied, would make legalization acceptable.

According to you, the countermeasures you've offered won't stop people's rights from being infringed. If someone fails a field sobriety test, your method won't be able to tell how long ago they used marijuana. Not to mention, what happens if they don't get pulled over? What if they hit someone head on and THEN we find they are guilty of smoking and driving? The point is regardless of what countermeasures we take if it is legalized, peoples rights will still be infringed. So your argument doesn't work.

I don't mean to be insulting, mean, or cruel. However, if you can't understand that the above is NOT a contradiction, then I'm guessing you have at best a 10th grade High School education. It is best not to get into arguments with adults who are much better at thinking things through.

It is a contradiction because you said you want it to be legal, as it doesn't infringe on others rights, but you yourself said it does infringe on the rights of others.

You also said a field sobriety test followed by a blood or urine sample would never work because the sample cant tell if you smoked five minutes or three weeks ago.. but then later you use that as your very argument for avoiding infringement on the rights of others.

You are directly opposing yourself, or contradicting yourself. Get a dictionary and look it up. Maybe you should realize that age doesn't make you smarter than someone. Neither does arrogance. Yes, you're MUCH better at thinking things through, that's why I've repeatedly thrown your own words back at you to disprove your own argument. Think THAT one through for a minute

 

[byteware]

By that same logic you could say "murder kills people"...."cars kill people".... "cars should be illegal". See why it doesn't work?

HA! I think we might finally be getting somewhere.

If your reason for making murder illegal is that murder kills people, then yes, your argument means that you believe CARS should be illegal.

That's deductive reasoning. That's logic.

Now, we both know there is ANOTHER, DIFFERENT reason that you want murder illegal, that doesn't apply to cars.

Intentional infringement on another person's right to life. That should be illegal. That doesn't apply to cars, and THAT is why murder is illegal and cars are not.

Murdering someone WITH your car is still illegal.

From your condescending little statement at the end of your last post, I can tell you're becoming frustrated. I hope you are aware that it's only making it obvious that you realize your argument is failing.

I'm sure that you would like to think that the only possible reason for me to be frustrated would be for me to think that my argument was failing.

Unfortunately, there are lots of reasons why I might be getting frustrated.

For instance, someone who doesn't understand how to present a logical persuasive argument, deciding that any argument that they present is persuasive and logical, regardless of whatever evidence and logic is pointed out to them.

That's extremely frustrating.

 

[tommy_ed]

HA! I think we might finally be getting somewhere.

If your reason for making murder illegal is that murder kills people, then yes, your argument means that you believe CARS should be illegal.

That's deductive reasoning. That's logic.

Now, we both know there is ANOTHER, DIFFERENT reason that you want murder illegal, that doesn't apply to cars.

Intentional infringement on another person's right to life. That should be illegal. That doesn't apply to cars, and THAT is why murder is illegal and cars are not.

Murdering someone WITH your car is still illegal.

as I have stated REPEATEDLY.... The reason your murder argument isn't LOGICAL is because there are simply not enough benefits of legalizing murder to cover the downfalls of legalizing it. With marijuana the pro-to-con ratio is FAR different.
There are other reasons for legalizing marijuana, thus one more reason this argument doesn't apply to murder. Murdering someone is intentional infringement on someone's right to life. That does not apply to smoking marijuana, and THAT is why murder is illegal and marijuana shouldn't be. (among many other reasons) Smoking pot in your own home does not infringe anyone's right to life. If you smoked and then went out and drove, and ended up killing someone, that should be (and is) illegal, just as it is with drunk driving. I'm not trying to make driving impaired legal, I'm wanting to make marijuana a legal, controlled (which means there would be laws concerning impaired driving, etc.) substance. Congratulations, you've disproved your own theory AGAIN. Uggh this is like arguing with a little girl. Am I going to have to draw up some type of pie chart or graph or something?

I'm sure that you would like to think that the only possible reason for me to be frustrated would be for me to think that my argument was failing.

Unfortunately, there are lots of reasons why I might be getting frustrated.

For instance, someone who doesn't understand how to present a logical persuasive argument, deciding that any argument that they present is persuasive and logical, regardless of whatever evidence and logic is pointed out to them.

That's extremely frustrating.

Your form of logic, or method of reasoning (as it is defined), is absurd. You reason that you want it to be legal, but only if no one's rights are being are being infringed. But at the same time you claim people's right's would be infringed. After I call you out on that, you propose a method of catching impaired drivers which you yourself stated earlier would not work, thus still infringing on peoples rights. That isn't logical. Maybe you should read over what you type before hitting the submit button. You've been throwing around the word logic like a god damn frisbee but are ignorant to the fact that your argument isn't logical. I've been here the whole time quoting you contradicting yourself and you continually try to work your way around it by changing your story up and insulting my intelligence.

Now THAT my friend, is frustrating.

 

[Member243850]

Hey tommy_ed and byteware dudes!

I think you guys (both of you) need to relax a bit here.

Try keep it friendly okay?

It's okay to not agree but keep it friendly

 

[byteware]

as I have stated REPEATEDLY.... The reason your murder argument isn't LOGICAL is because there are simply not enough benefits of legalizing murder to cover the downfalls of legalizing it. With marijuana the pro-to-con ratio is FAR different.

First off, you made far more arguments, than simply cost/benefit analysis.


You stated, as an argument for why marijuana should be legalized, that criminals are harmed by being convicted of the crime of possessing marijuana.

That applies to ALL crimes, including murder.

Your form of logic, or method of reasoning (as it is defined), is absurd. You reason that you want it to be legal, but only if no one's rights are being are being infringed. But at the same time you claim people's right's would be infringed. After I call you out on that, you propose a method of catching impaired drivers which you yourself stated earlier would not work, thus still infringing on peoples rights.

That would be an awesome case, my views on why it shouldn't be illegal and my views on how to prevent OWI's at just about the exact same time.

That isn't logical. Maybe you should read over what you type before hitting the submit button. You've been throwing around the word logic like a god damn frisbee but are ignorant to the fact that your argument isn't logical.

This would hold a lot more weight, if you would actually look at your arguments and apply them to more than just marijuana. Your inability to do that doesn't bode well for your understanding of persuasive logic.

I've been here the whole time quoting you contradicting yourself and you continually try to work your way around it by changing your story up and insulting my intelligence.

I've neither changed my story, nor insulted your intelligence.

You have presented what amounts to... I want to use marijuana and therefore it should be legal argument.

All of your arguments apply to more than marijuana, but you don't want to do that, because then your argument falls apart.

Which is probably (if I had to guess) why Prop 19 failed in California.

Now THAT my friend, is frustrating.

Now, wouldn't that mean that you've realized your argument is failing?

 

[byteware]

probably best if we both bow out... in order to not cross any forum lines on this... thanks stinky stinky.

 

[Member243850]

probably best if we both bow out... in order to not cross any forum lines on this... thanks stinky stinky.

Its all good dude!

Thanx for the thanx

I have lost my cool on these forums too!... it's very hard not to lose ur cool when you feel so strongly about something, I totally understand,

Hell we all do at times lose our cool... it's okay to get a bit upset

Keep well

By all means continue the debate but try be polite and friendly

Regards

Stinky!

 

[Kelmar]

Looks like things are getting heated.

Remember guys, debate the topic (not one another)!

 

[tommy_ed]

Looks like things are getting heated.

Remember guys, debate the topic (not one another)!

agreed!

basically my argument boils down to this:

I feel marijuana should be legalized on a federal and state level. These are my reasonings:

- I beleive we could see a sizeable amount of money from taxing marijuana, not to mention providing possible jobs from entrepreneurs of shops. This revenue, coupled with the massive amount of money saved by not prosecuting and incarcerating marijuana offenses could generate billions of dollars for the US.

- I beleive when marijuana is used responsibly it is a victimless crime, and the safest drug known to man. Of it's thousands of years of casual use, it's only been illegal for around 73 years. (less than 1%) The reason prohibition was started in 1937 is preposterous. I think everyone should read up on it.
Why is Marijuana Illegal? - Drug WarRant

- Prohibition has effectively made it much easier for minors to get their hands on. It has essentially created a "marijuana dealer" job. And I've never had one ask for my ID! Have you ever heard of a "beer dealer"? I also feel like kids are pressured into trying harder drugs when they buy from these "dealers".

- Marijuana is a non-violent drug.

- Marijuana can be used to treat common ailments such as headache, stomach ache, muscle and bone pain, etc. without filling your body with as many harmful man-made chemicals as over-the-counter and prescription medication.

I beleive these pros far outweigh the costs/cons of marijuana prohibition.


And to reiterate, alcohol IS much worse for you and people around you than marijuana. If you are drunk you are much more likely to commit a violent crime, and YES you ARE more impaired, especially visually. So yes, I feel like if someone can drink without fear of persecution, I should be able to smoke a joint.

Now I must add, I do feel there should be stipulations as mentioned earlier in this thread. We would need to have a field sobriety test designed specifically for marijuana. If someone fails this, they would take a hair follicle test which should be able to tell how long ago they last smoked. Smoking wouldn't be allowed in public places unless they were designated for this purpose - i.e. the coffee shops in amsterdam.

If you disagree with these, I would like to hear a list of logical and reasonable arguments as to why it should remain illegal. The fact that it is currently legal doesn't mean there shouldn't be a reason. Personal health risks would not apply, as these don't affect other people. Drugged driving would not apply because there would be the same and probably better laws restricting it. Not to mention we have the same problem with alcohol, and it's obviously not a good enough reason to ban it, or it would be banned.

 

[Gritwater]

I for one am glad it didn't pass

EDIT - there was a pretty good show on History Channel about it at 8 CST tonight though

 

[dark4181]

- I beleive when marijuana is used responsibly it is a victimless crime, and the safest drug known to man. Of it's thousands of years of casual use, it's only been illegal for around 73 years. (less than 1%) The reason prohibition was started in 1937 is preposterous. I think everyone should read up on it.
Why is Marijuana Illegal? - Drug WarRant

I'd just like to point out that this article mistakenly identifies cannabis and hemp as being one and the same. This is not true. While they are generally considered part of the same species, they are actually only generally related sub-species. Cannabis and hemp should not be grown together, as cross-pollination between the two renders a chemical balance unsuitable for a high. This is due to the primary chemicals in each. The psychoactive "THC" is high (no pun intended) in cannabis, and the anti-psychoactive "CBD" is more concentrated in hemp. Hemp is essentially "anti-marijuana".

 

[jamor]

I for one am glad it didn't pass

Unfortunately there is nothing to be glad about for the anti-Prop 19ers.

The winner in this situation are still pro-Prop 19 supporters.

This gained SO much publicity and showed that many people do support it.

Any publicity is good publicity.

Something similar will be passed in the near future. This was a GREAT first step.

I'll continue to use it anyways.

 

[Vihzel]

Unfortunately there is nothing to be glad about for the anti-Prop 19ers.

The winner in this situation are still pro-Prop 19 supporters.

This gained SO much publicity and showed that many people do support it.

Any publicity is good publicity.

Exactly the same situation but reversed for anti-Prop 8ers. It's only in due time.

 

[byteware]

Unfortunately there is nothing to be glad about for the anti-Prop 19ers.

The winner in this situation are still pro-Prop 19 supporters.

This gained SO much publicity and showed that many people do support it.

Any publicity is good publicity.

Something similar will be passed in the near future. This was a GREAT first step.

I'll continue to use it anyways.

Interesting... by that logic, the anti-Prop 19ers gained just as much (actually more) than the pro-Prop 19 suppoers.

they gained just as much publicity.

Just as the Pro Prop 19 crowd showed that people support it, they also showed that more people are against it.

 

[Gritwater]

Unfortunately there is nothing to be glad about for the anti-Prop 19ers.

The winner in this situation are still pro-Prop 19 supporters.

This gained SO much publicity and showed that many people do support it.

Any publicity is good publicity.

Something similar will be passed in the near future. This was a GREAT first step.

I'll continue to use it anyways.

but at least I don't have to deal with you using it in the park around me an my family. That's why it's still a win for me. Smokers are bad enough, and you want me to support more people smoking around me and my family, discarding butts wherever? Yeah, I'll pass on that.

 

[copestag]

it was interesting to look at the breakout of the demographics on Prop 19....

to be honest if it wasnt such a poorly written proposition and it would have been on the ballot in 2008 I think it would have passed

if you look at the fact that those most likely to vote in favor of passing had a lower turnout this year and historically always do in mid-terms... the results were still pretty close

I would have to agree that its just a matter of time before they get something passed..... of course someone other than the stoners will have to actually write it..... that didnt work out too well for them

 

[copestag]

but at least I don't have to deal with you using it in the park around me an my family. That's why it's still a win for me. Smokers are bad enough, and you want me to support more people smoking around me and my family, discarding butts wherever? Yeah, I'll pass on that.

I have to agree with your sentiment..... its hard to imagine with California being the masterminds of second hand smoke legislation when dealing with cigs would ever consider legalizing another product.....

however I have to ask.... since Im not a user..... do they actually have butts to discard? I dont think theres filtered joints yet LOL....... and isnt that what the craze was years ago with those little aligator clips with the feathers on em at carnivals? I just assumed what they couldnt smoke they saved to roll in the next joint...... shows what I know

 

[tommy_ed]

but at least I don't have to deal with you using it in the park around me an my family. That's why it's still a win for me. Smokers are bad enough, and you want me to support more people smoking around me and my family, discarding butts wherever? Yeah, I'll pass on that.

im pretty sure if you were outside in the park, there's NO way the smoke would affect you unless the person was standing there blowing it your face. Just sayin!

however I have to ask.... since Im not a user..... do they actually have butts to discard? I dont think theres filtered joints yet LOL....... and isnt that what the craze was years ago with those little aligator clips with the feathers on em at carnivals? I just assumed what they couldnt smoke they saved to roll in the next joint...... shows what I know

yes, most people would smoke out of pipes, if they did smoke joints there wouldn't be a filter. If they did throw it on the ground, it would be gone by the next rain.

I think the main reason it didn't pass was because of how poorly it was written. I know quite a few people who support it but voted no because of this reason.

 

[Gritwater]

no, it does bother me... I can smell it a mile away and despite your feelings on it, it's not pleasant to everyone. MJ gives me a headache. Worse than smokers and I don't like smokers either.

I play poker pretty regularly. People have to go outside to smoke. When they come back in, they reek of cig smoke. I stunk after sitting next to a girl for an hour who was taking smoke breaks every 10 minutes or so.

Later in the night, a guy came in and was standing by my table. And the unmistakeable odor or pot hit me like a fist. I asked the guy beside me "is that smell what I think it is?" he agreed. you don't think it's that noticeable, but it is, and not everyone likes it. And despite doing it outside, they bring it back into resturants, poker rooms, whereever.

So no, I don't have to be right beside someone to be annoyed by it.

 

[Gritwater]

I have to agree with your sentiment..... its hard to imagine with California being the masterminds of second hand smoke legislation when dealing with cigs would ever consider legalizing another product.....

however I have to ask.... since Im not a user..... do they actually have butts to discard? I dont think theres filtered joints yet LOL....... and isnt that what the craze was years ago with those little aligator clips with the feathers on em at carnivals? I just assumed what they couldnt smoke they saved to roll in the next joint...... shows what I know

no they don't, but probably for the same reason moonshine doesn't come in cans.... because it's privately made due to the legal status. Legalize it, and it won't take long for Big Tobacco to get ahold of it and filter those bastards up.

however, I don't have a lot of faith in a pot smoker to go out of their way to be considerate. If there's a way to be inconsiderate while smoking it, they will find a way.