Nope, you're not. I don't have much patience for those that would ruins people's lives because they're unwilling to consider why their views are backwards. Just check around a few threads, you'll see some ******* comments from him. The people of Haiti possibly deserving the earthquake because they didn't worship God was a golden one.
Legalizing Marijuana
- Thread starter azurepred
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Nope, you're not. I don't have much patience for those that would ruins people's lives because they're unwilling to consider why their views are backwards. Just check around a few threads, you'll see some ******* comments from him. The people of Haiti possibly deserving the earthquake because they didn't worship God was a golden one.
it only cuts down on crime because it ceases to be a crime itself.
that argument makes as much sense as legalizing child porn.
Ah, so you don't have a counter-argument to anything I posted. Good to know you can't back up your own views!
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
For someone worried about facts and statistics you throw around a lot of total bull____ without citing anything yourself.
All of my information has admittedly been theoretical. If you want to start talking about spouting off "fact this and fact that" then YOU need to cite it.
You don't have to believe my theory, but don't say its wrong because of the facts when you simply say "go look it up its a fact".
You don't even bother listing these countries that your model is based on.
This "propoganda" I've bought into is "common sense". I'll freely admit I've never read a bit of information in this topic's regard. My opinions are formulated based off my understanding of the American welfare system, personal experience with drugs and alcohol, and my understanding of American culture. If you disagree with the theory, by all means disprove it. But don't be a hypocrite and say I haven't supported my "propoganda" with facts and then you don't provide any yourself.
To me its clearly a logical mathematical formula. Lets simplify.
X=number of drivers
y=pot use
Z=number of drivers on pot
X * y=Z
If y is currently base level percentage, when you increase "y" then Z MUST INCREASE. Its a mathematical certainty.
Your argument can only be that "y" would not increase due to legalization, which would be absurd.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
close...but no cigar. if you're going to reference my personal views from completely irrelevant threads, do it right and pull the quotes.
And how would "limiting pot use" ruin people's lives?
-Super Hans-
Super Freak
Quote from a random rasta.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
and i'm completely willing to read over "facts" if you provide them about all the little utopias that legalized pot. can you provide a list?
devilof76
Super Freak
Why are you so sure use will rise?
Because the only thing that limits my use is money and time. Legality is irrelevant, and there is no injury to anyone when I smoke unless I get caught and punished because hypothetically, I could do something bad.
You think that's a good foundation for a law?
Because the only thing that limits my use is money and time. Legality is irrelevant, and there is no injury to anyone when I smoke unless I get caught and punished because hypothetically, I could do something bad.
You think that's a good foundation for a law?
BadMoon
Demi G0D Overseer
I don't smell weed. I smell some upcoming infractions.
https://sideshowcollectors.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74161
https://sideshowcollectors.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74161
Since you're admitting that you haven't read the info, or which countries marijuana is decriminalized in, I'll give you some help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis
The summary is that many countries have decriminalized it to some degree, including : Australia, Canada, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russia, and Spain.
Now, one would assume that if your theory were correct, the majority of those countries would have experienced a significant increase in crime after decriminalization, because far more people would be taking the drug. After all, those countries have a wide range of cultures, and almost every single one has greater public services, including more generous welfare (compared to living expenses), than America.
Since you now have the information at your hands, which of those countries have experienced a significant increase in crime?
I'll even help you out and link you to Canadian crime statistics.
https://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002-XIE/85-002-XIE2007005.pdf
They've been on a decline since 1991 and are the lowest they've been in the past 25 years.
close...but no cigar. if you're going to reference my personal views from completely irrelevant threads, do it right and pull the quotes.
And how would "limiting pot use" ruin people's lives?
If you think your quote was reasonable, feel free to list it yourself. As you no doubt recall, many members thought it was reprehensible.
Making it criminal is what ruins millions of people's lives. You knew what I meant, considering you responded to my point about the criminal stuff before.
at the "debate".
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
It seems pretty common sense to me that legalizing something would increase its accessibility which will increase its use. Increasing the accessibility assumes that increased production would be required which proven by capitalism (increased competition and such) will decrease the production cost which will decrease price...which will also lead to increased use.
You can use the decline of cigarrettes as a reverse example. As cigs get more expensive and less accessible, they are being used less.
Your second question is a lot tougher for me to answer. Somethings should be outlawed and somethings shouldn't. I'm not sure I can set it to a formula to be applied across all laws.
devilof76
Super Freak
Cigarettes have gone from $1.29 in price (when I started smoking) to $4.95 (Old Gold are cheap. -er.)
I have never smoked less than one pack a day.
And I've given you the formula: violations of rights should be illegal; if something isn't one, then it shouldn't be the other.
I have never smoked less than one pack a day.
And I've given you the formula: violations of rights should be illegal; if something isn't one, then it shouldn't be the other.
devilof76
Super Freak
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
"Many members" here aren't really what I use as a measuring stick of whether a belief I had was right or wrong...shrug. Sorry to anyone here, but honestly, this isn't exactly the circle of people I base my judgements on.
As for "ruining" peoples lives. Its currently against the law. As great as I think I am, I'm still a singular voter. How am I ruining their lives by throwing them in jail? Thats absurd. And its not like I'm out there narc-ing on people.
Seriously, I think your dislike for me (whatever reason its formulated) has escalated me above the stature I deserve. I don't have that much pull.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
Not trying to be cheeky here. I don't know if I know what that means.
Are you saying thats the philosophy lawmakers across the country are using to make laws or policy?
Until it is, its a stretch to say this decision should be based on that formula.
Like I said earlier in the thread, if as an American taxpayer I am expected to help fund welfare, social security, domestic services like police, etc then I will vote against things that I reasonably think will increase my taxes or create nuisance in my life.
If we ever go to a system that every penny I earn I can keep and strangers don't interfer in my beliefs then I won't interfer in theirs. But when will that happen?
Last edited:
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
In all seriousness, Dr Teng, you kinda freak me out. I have a feeling if given a chance you would force a lot of beliefs on me. As opinionated as I am, I still let other people believe what they want. I use my voting power, but little else. I don't claim any type of authority and while I vocally disagree, I leave living up to those people. I have a feeling if given the chance you would use the maximum power available to you to make people do what you want, because you think we're stupid or delusional.
As for "ruining" peoples lives. Its currently against the law. As great as I think I am, I'm still a singular voter. How am I ruining their lives by throwing them in jail? Thats absurd. And its not like I'm out there narc-ing on people.
Nah, I see you as I see anyone else that's bought into certain beliefs that have been pushed upon them that are contrary to the facts. I know that'll come off insulting, but it's meant as such. It's simply beyond bizarre to me that some people wade into a debate, post tons of times, and admit they haven't even researched the thing they're debating about in the slightest.
Wouldn't it make more sense to read the current information about the subject, at least brief summaries, before doing so?
Although yes, I do view people who vote in politicians and express certain viewpoints as being partially responsible for the situation that people are in. You're a voter in a democracy, you have a responsibility to educate yourself.
Edit : It's ok man, you kinda weird me out too. But so does anyone who believes an entire country deserves divine retribution for not believing in the same thing they do. Just remember, you're talking about me "forcing" viewpoints on you when you're the one who came into this thread and said most drug users were psychotics, and deserve to be in jail. I'm not sure why you expect empathy with your viewpoint when you don't give any to anyone else.
devilof76
Super Freak
I can agree that so long as welfare exists, drugs will enhance pre-existing problems. But I had also never noticed drug laws making the ghetto any safer. I've only seen it get worse.
ProgMatinee said:
No, that is definitely not the formula lawmakers in this country use. If they did, we wouldn't have welfare (or any similar monsters, the one from a Saturday night not so long ago included), and there would be zero reason whatsoever to claim that the legal use of a substance (like alcohol, caffeine, nicotine) harms anyone other than the user (if it does), and therefore should be made illegal.
ProgMatinee said:
Right around the same time that we're free to buy whatever lightbulb we choose.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
This thread is a mere amusement to me in a toy forum, not an academic discussion. It calls for personal opinion and I gave it based on the practical experience I've had living in America.
I didn't think to post that type of opinion I needed to read in dept on the subject. Guess I was wrong
I'll read your info when I have a chance, but honestly the list of nations you provided doesn't give me much hope. I tend to think places like Japan and the UK are the societies I'd rather live in than Mexico and Russia...
Seriously, from this list you provided there is maybe 3 that I would even consider living in over the US and I doubt legalizing pot was a major factor in making them what they are.
Australia, Canada, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russia, and Spain
I didn't think to post that type of opinion I needed to read in dept on the subject. Guess I was wrong
I'll read your info when I have a chance, but honestly the list of nations you provided doesn't give me much hope. I tend to think places like Japan and the UK are the societies I'd rather live in than Mexico and Russia...
Seriously, from this list you provided there is maybe 3 that I would even consider living in over the US and I doubt legalizing pot was a major factor in making them what they are.
Australia, Canada, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russia, and Spain
Similar threads
