Thread: Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy

Originally Posted by wiggidy

Umm... Smoke some?

I'm not sure what your point is.

The point is this - when someone is presenting a silly or fallacious or pointless line of reasoning, one of the most effective methods of demonstrating that to them and anyone else interested is to mimic them and turn their methodology around on them.

In this case, reality likes to smoke pot and feels that it should be legal. But, he doesn't see the benefit in legalizing drugs that he doesn't like - they're just not 'good' and someone needs to make him think that they are 'good' before he'll vote for ending their prohibition. So, I'm showing him the problem with his line of argument in this thread adopting the stance on pot that, "well, I dunno, it's just not good, and someone needs to change my mind for me to vote for it".

I'm not an advocate of any drug prohibition of any sort and, furthermore, I have no shortage of experience in that department from my younger days.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

You're just resorting to personal attacks because you can't change my mind. Maybe if you'd be a little nicer, you could change my mind. Pot is bad. Change my mind. Or can't you?!?

Seriously trips if you weren't a mod i'd have you on ignore over this.

I'm asking you a simple question that should have a few simple answers: What are your specific objections?

If you answer that one simple question I'm more than willing to discuss it in further detail. Until you do i'm going to just ignore anything you post, that isn't an official mod post.

Quite frankly youre being rather unprofessional about the whole thing.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

The point is this - when someone is presenting a silly or fallacious or pointless line of reasoning, one of the most effective methods of demonstrating that to them and anyone else interested is to mimic them and turn their methodology around on them.

In this case, reality likes to smoke pot and feels that it should be legal. But, he doesn't see the benefit in legalizing drugs that he doesn't like - they're just not 'good' and someone needs to make him think that they are 'good' before he'll vote for ending their prohibition. So, I'm showing him the problem with his line of argument in this thread adopting the stance on pot that, "well, I dunno, it's just not good, and someone needs to change my mind for me to vote for it".

I'm not an advocate of any drug prohibition of any sort and, furthermore, I have no shortage of experience in that department from my younger days.

and again ive provided specific examples of why. that you haven't rebutted. Rebutt them, answer my question and lets get on with the argument. Otherwise youre just acting like a child.

Originally Posted by reality

Seriously trips if you weren't a mod i'd have you on ignore over this.

I'm asking you a simple question that should have a few simple answers: What are your specific objections?

If you answer that one simple question I'm more than willing to discuss it in further detail. Until you do i'm going to just ignore anything you post, that isn't an official mod post.

Quite frankly youre being rather unprofessional about the whole thing.

More personal attacks because you can't change my mind. My specific objection is that pot isn't good!

And frankly, I think it's ridiculous that you demand some specific objection. It's like, my vote, dude!

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

The point is this - when someone is presenting a silly or fallacious or pointless line of reasoning, one of the most effective methods of demonstrating that to them and anyone else interested is to mimic them and turn their methodology around on them.

In this case, reality likes to smoke pot and feels that it should be legal. But, he doesn't see the benefit in legalizing drugs that he doesn't like - they're just not 'good' and someone needs to make him think that they are 'good' before he'll vote for ending their prohibition. So, I'm showing him the problem with his line of argument in this thread adopting the stance on pot that, "well, I dunno, it's just not good, and someone needs to change my mind for me to vote for it".

I'm not an advocate of any drug prohibition of any sort and, furthermore, I have no shortage of experience in that department from my younger days.

Got you, makes sense.


edit: I also agree with you, no reason to criminalize someone because they like heroin, cocaine or meth (or whatever).

Originally Posted by reality

and again ive provided specific examples of why. that you haven't rebutted. Rebutt them, answer my question and lets get on with the argument. Otherwise youre just acting like a child.

Yet more personal attacks. What I'm asking is simple. Convince me that pot is good. Why are you doing anything you can - attacking me, calling me a child, dodging questions, etc - just to get out of making an argument?

Sheesh. You must not have a very convincing argument.

I don't think pot is good. Change my mind, or I'll assume you have no argument.

Originally Posted by reality

and again ive provided specific examples of why. that you haven't rebutted. Rebutt them, answer my question and lets get on with the argument. Otherwise youre just acting like a child.

Wow... all's he's doing is using your own argument against you. You can't see that? I'd say you're the one who is acting like a child here.

How about this one?

Originally Posted by reality

i don't see value in meth. I just don't see a reason to vote it in, so i won't. again, if you'd like to make an arguement for why i should instead of attacking me you might get a more positive result. you may have heard this : you catch more flies with honey. buzz buzz dude.

Let me borrow from it:

i don't see value in pot. I just don't see a reason to vote it in, so i won't. again, if you'd like to make an arguement for why i should instead of attacking me you might get a more positive result. you may have heard this : you catch more flies with honey. buzz buzz dude.

Yeah, dude. Like buzz, buzz!

Originally Posted by Jefe

[hand wringing anti-pot advocate]
Pot is bad for your lungs.
It's the gateway to harder drugs.
It slows mental development in teens.
It causes laziness.
[/hand wringing anti-pot advocate]

That's just a few of the arguments I've heard over the years. Good luck convincing the nanny-staters that pot is "harmless".

Smoking is bad for your lungs and thats legal.
More kids try alcohol first than pot. alcohol is the true "gateway" drug (if there is such a thing). Yet alcohol is legal and was even illegalized and made legal again. fancy that.
furthermore were pot legal and out of the hands of drug dealers who sell pot, meth, crack, shrooms, and x, these kids wouldn't be exposed to these other "harder" drugs as often.
Why would you allow teens to smoke pot when you don't allow them to smoke tobacco or drink? this is a fallacious argument.
It has been shown to cause whats known as "a-motivational" syndrome in some users, yes. But people are lazy already, theyve never needed an excuse for such behavior.



There, see trips? this sort of thing is all i'm looking for from you so we can have a nice discussion instead of you parroting me like some oversized jungle bird with opposable thumbs and higher brain functions.

Milk is the real gateway drug. Every person that ever turned out to be a drug addict started out on milk.

Originally Posted by reality

'pot'
uhhhh money, coupled with harmlessness, coupled with 50% of prison pops are in for pot offenses. i see two positives and a neutral. no negatives. sounds like a good idea.


'heroin'
money, extreme physical and psychological addiction, intravenous drug use done not by trained professionals who know how to dispose of medical waste but by joe addict whos shaky cause he didn't get his fix fast enough, increase in amount of medical waste, OD deaths, increase in disease, lots of junkies running around.

i see ooo lets count them 1..2..3..4..5..6.. 6 negatives ah ah ah and count them 1............. 1 positive ah ah ah. sounds like a shitty idea.
add a clean needle program see if we can't take some of these down.
with clean needles im willing to part with the increase in disease and even willing to not be worried about joe shmoe and his needle. youve still got a large increase in medical waste, more od deaths (because face it if its legal and easily obtained more people ARE going to try it. more people try it the more will die.), more junkies running around, and the extreme addiction.
so thats 4 negatives and still only one positive. no thanks yet again.

thats my thinking about it. you can call it hypocritical or whatever you feel like, but until you balance that equation im' not gonna vote for it. its MY vote, it counts to ME.
i don't see pot and heroin in the same weight class at all man. i don't see a comparison other than that theyre both drugs. though in pots case i'd call it a "drug".

here you go trips, one more time before i just ignore you.

see the bolded section? those are my objections. if you could answer them like i just answered jefes hypothetical pot objections we could have a discussion.

thats what i mean by trying to persuade me, answering my objections. Again the bolded section is my specific objections to heroin.

Originally Posted by Jefe

Wow... all's he's doing is using your own argument against you. You can't see that? I'd say you're the one who is acting like a child here.

dude i provided specific examples. no one has tried to field an answer, not even a cursory one like i did to yours.

Originally Posted by reality

There, see trips? this sort of thing is all i'm looking for from you so we can have a nice discussion instead of you parroting me like some oversized jungle bird with opposable thumbs and higher brain functions.

You're looking for me to convince you that shooting smack and tweaking are good ideas? Of course they're not good ideas.

You've framed the debate with what I quoted you as saying above - you demanded that people convince you of the benefits of heroin. That's a fool's errand for two reasons: (1) there aren't a lot, if any, benefit to shooting heroin and (2) you're creating a discussion where you're the ultimate arbiter of the arguments by virtue of the fact the whole discussion then must revolve around your personal, subjective opinions.

Of course, when I turn the tables and frame the debate in terms of my personal, subjective opinions (read: doing exactly what you were doing), you have a temper tantrum, telling me I should be ignored, questioning the function of my brain, saying that I'm 'unprofessional', etc.

So, what are we discussing here? You went out of your way to make the debate about your personal vote, opinions, and declarations of "good" and "bad". Are you now saying you want an objective discussion about drug policies and specific drugs? If that is what you want, I'll happily oblige. But, that does mean that you can't go back to framing things in terms of "it's my vote, and I don't agree with you, so you're wrong!"