|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Jan 25, 2014 12:04:57 GMT -5
There's a certain level of familiarity and trust that comes with being good friends with somebody for twenty or thirty years. How do YOU know that the people I refer to are necessarily bad? Oh right, the pot. :rolleyes: I never said they were bad. You still can't possibly know what happens with them behind closed doors when you're not around... You're making the assumption that what happens behind closed doors is inherently bad, and you're basing that conclusion on the fact that one of the parents smokes pot. Again, I'm not at all interested in marijuana and even I find that silly. |
|
|
|
Post by WSS? on Jan 25, 2014 12:05:38 GMT -5
We're all judgmental, whether we acknowledge it or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Jan 25, 2014 12:06:27 GMT -5
If I had my way, prohibition would be a thing again. As far as I see, alcohol and drugs cause nothing but bad things. I would ban alcohol much, MUCH faster than I'd ban pot. |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 25, 2014 12:08:13 GMT -5
I never said they were bad. You still can't possibly know what happens with them behind closed doors when you're not around... You're making the assumption that what happens behind closed doors is inherently bad, and you're basing that conclusion on the fact that one of the parents smokes pot. Again, I'm not at all interested in marijuana and even I find that silly. I'm doing neither. In fact this argument is only vaguely connected to the marijuana argument because that is where it stemmed from in this particular case. My argument is that there is no definite way that you can conclude that their family life is great when you don't know what happens behind closed doors. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2014 12:09:22 GMT -5
Speaking of anecdotal, you could turn around and question your point replacing "good" with "bad" Yes, but no one is claiming that anyone has an inherently "bad" family in this case, so I would ask "what's your point?" Nobody is arguing that smoking pot will always destroy every element of your life. The point is that it has serious negative repercussions that, for cultural reasons, we don't talk about and in fact, frequently outright lie about. The argument that "because some people use it and still have a decent life" is a non-starter. There are people who use heroine for years and maintain decent families, have successful careers, etc. Very few people are out there trying to argue that heroine isn't a destructive influence. The primary reason we're debating marijuana is that it was the drug of choice for the baby boomer generation, and one of their primary legacies to the two generations that followed is widespread use and abuse of marijuana in youth culture. I find this argument particularly odd as tied to the notion of pot being a "gateway drug" which has somehow become a running gag in pro-marijuana circles, even though all of the evidence suggests that the one area where marijuana is significantly more harmful than alcohol is the fact that amongst those who start using them in their teen years, marijuana use is significantly more likely to lead to the use of other drugs. *shrugs* Ultimately, what I MOST take issue with is the lack of honesty involved. I do absolutely agree that Adults who want to partake in the recreational use of marijuana should plead their case as such. And not under the guise of medication for a non afflicting ailment |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 25, 2014 12:10:08 GMT -5
If I had my way, prohibition would be a thing again. As far as I see, alcohol and drugs cause nothing but bad things. I would ban alcohol much, MUCH faster than I'd ban pot. Why? I'm not at all an advocate of alcohol but pot is significantly worse in the long term.(Although both are bad, no question) Anyway alcohol was banned long before pot was banned technically. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2014 12:12:06 GMT -5
I also attend live events for the delicious stadium food  |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 25, 2014 12:13:04 GMT -5
I also attend live events for the delicious stadium food I absolutely hate hot dogs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2014 12:14:17 GMT -5
I also attend live events for the delicious stadium food I absolutely hate hot dogs. LMFAO |
|
|
|
Post by WSS? on Jan 25, 2014 12:14:22 GMT -5
I like hot dogs. Last time I got a hot dog at a stadium, I spent the next hour on the toilet.
|
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Jan 25, 2014 12:19:51 GMT -5
You're making the assumption that what happens behind closed doors is inherently bad, and you're basing that conclusion on the fact that one of the parents smokes pot. Again, I'm not at all interested in marijuana and even I find that silly. there is no definite way that you can conclude that their family life is great when you don't know what happens behind closed doors. I would ban alcohol much, MUCH faster than I'd ban pot. pot is significantly worse in the long term If you say so. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 25, 2014 12:38:58 GMT -5
Being judgmental means sitting atop a high horse and passing...you know, judgment on other people who you deign to be lesser human beings in your eyes because of their own personal choices. You're better than that. And pointing out that you're passing broad judgments on a multitude of people that you don't even know somehow means that, in your eyes, I'm now a PC pussy? Man, you're on a roll this morning. I'm not better than that, actually. I believe in accountability. Adults make choices, and when they make stupid choices, they prove that they lack sound judgment. It doesn't make them bad people per se, but it does call into question whether I would want to be around them. Frankly, if we were discussing ANY OTHER mumbling 40-something pot head whose use of the drug had significantly harmed his promising career and led to the physical abuse of his spouse, I don't think that you would be remotely so forgiving as you want to be right now. I've certainly never seen you defend Austin when we talk about his alcoholism. The fact that it's "a multitude" is irrelevant to me. Large numbers of people engage in all kinds of stupid behavior. (Also of note; I didn't say that you were a pussy... I said that you were using a term that the PC crowd use to shame people into silence, and luckily, I am not a pussy, and therefore will not be silent.) Orwell said it best; "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." IMO, that is where we're at with marijuana. |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 25, 2014 12:41:00 GMT -5
Being judgmental means sitting atop a high horse and passing...you know, judgment on other people who you deign to be lesser human beings in your eyes because of their own personal choices. You're better than that. And pointing out that you're passing broad judgments on a multitude of people that you don't even know somehow means that, in your eyes, I'm now a PC pussy? Man, you're on a roll this morning. Orwell said it best; "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." IMO, that is where we're at with marijuana. Something tells me he was referring to capitalism in that quote... |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 25, 2014 12:42:32 GMT -5
If I had my way, prohibition would be a thing again. As far as I see, alcohol and drugs cause nothing but bad things. I would ban alcohol much, MUCH faster than I'd ban pot. That makes no sense. Pot is worse in virtually every possible way, except for accessibility. Personally, I'm not for prohibition of alcohol OR pot, but the current system is in place for a reason, and that reason is because the preponderance of evidence collected over the last 40 years is very clear; marijuana's effects are both wider ranging and more profound than those of alcohol. Again, I would point out; in practical terms, there is almost no such thing as a casual pot user. There are millions of casual drinkers. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 25, 2014 12:43:27 GMT -5
Something tells me he was referring to capitalism in that quote... He wrote it in 1984 (the book, not the year), which is before he embraced Utopian Socialism. |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 25, 2014 12:45:34 GMT -5
Something tells me he was referring to capitalism in that quote... He wrote it in 1984 (the book, not the year), which is before he embraced Utopian Socialism. Alright, that was my second guess. But didn't he make at least a few arguments against capitalism(during the time Orwell lived) in 1984, via Winston's view of history? |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 25, 2014 12:50:59 GMT -5
He wrote it in 1984 (the book, not the year), which is before he embraced Utopian Socialism. Alright, that was my second guess. But didn't he make at least a few arguments against capitalism(during the time Orwell lived) in 1984, via Winston's view of history? Probably. It's been quite a while since I've read the book. Orwell was never a fan of capitalism, so it would stand to reason. The quote in question, however, was related to the flow of information and how easily manipulated the public consciousness is. The vast majority of humanity takes what it is given at face value, which is why the only thing more dangerous than the inherent bias of sources like MSNBC and Fox News is the "information" people glean from supposedly non-news sources like The Simpsons and The Daily Show. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2014 12:51:51 GMT -5
I would ban alcohol much, MUCH faster than I'd ban pot. That makes no sense. Pot is worse in virtually every possible way, except for accessibility. Personally, I'm not for prohibition of alcohol OR pot, but the current system is in place for a reason, and that reason is because the preponderance of evidence collected over the last 40 years is very clear; marijuana's effects are both wider ranging and more profound than those of alcohol. Again, I would point out; in practical terms, there is almost no such thing as a casual pot user. There are millions of casual drinkers. There are also skewed statistics due to the fact that alcohol leaves your system over a 24 hour period, while marijuana is traceable in one's system for up to 30 days. For example one can commit a crime or cause an accident, test positive for marijuana while no longer under its influence and= suspect in car accident tested positive for marijuana. A hit and run involving a drunk driver, suspect is not apprehended until days later= no drugs or alcohol are thought to be involved |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Jan 25, 2014 12:53:09 GMT -5
One argument I noticed that people have against 1984 is that the people are way too easily manipulated in the book, and that it's unrealistic. Of course as a WWE fan I beg to differ that point..
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Jan 25, 2014 13:01:29 GMT -5
There are also skewed statistics due to the fact that alcohol leaves your system over a 24 hour period, while marijuana is traceable in one's system for up to 30 days. For example one can commit a crime or cause an accident, test positive for marijuana while no longer under its influence and= suspect in car accident tested positive for marijuana. A hit and run involving a drunk driver, suspect is not apprehended until days later= no drugs or alcohol are thought to be involved ... except that most jurisdictions don't collect stats on crimes that involve someone who has used marijuana. I already mentioned that in one of my posts. Your supposed skewed statistics don't even exist, because there is no one tracking how many crimes involve someone under the influence of marijuana in most places. There are very few jurisdictions where committing a crime, having a car accident, etc. is a worse crime if you are under the influence of marijuana, because marijuana use is in itself already illegal, whereas almost every jurisdiction makes a crime more severe if you happen to be drunk at the time of the crime, because alcohol is legal but our system requires responsible use on the part of the individual. Furthermore, yes, marijuana can be detected up to 30 days out (longer with newer tests, actually...), they can also detect the level of marijuana in your system, and thereby detect how much "under the effect" you happened to be at the time. For most employment tests, this level of knowledge isn't important; they're not interested in whether you smoked pot on your way to work, they don't want employees that smoke pot at all, but if the statistics were tracked for legal purposes, and in the few places where they are, they're not using simple piss tests, they're using more advanced tests to determine to what degree marijuana might have influenced behavior. Added to that fact; after long time use, marijuana has been shown to impair judgment even in those not currently under the influence. Marijuana's effects on the human brain aren't fully understood yet, but they're starting to see correlations between the short-term to long-term memory transfer and general judgment issues. It currently appears as if, shockingly, your behavior is actually influenced by what you experience. Remember; there was a time when medical professionals argued that cocaine was non-addictive and beneficial. Doctors used to prescribe women heroine to deal with their "hysteria." It often takes a long time for the real effects of drug use to be known, particularly when there is a strong cultural trend toward defending the behavior. |
|
