You are never going to change ZEB’s mind because his stance is a MORAL one…and you cannot change morals.
If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread…just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.
Give it up everybody…I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.
[/quote]
You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds. It’s not a moral issue for me. But I do feel that I’ve done enough research to be comfortable with my position. Unlike the many who have opposed me on this thread (it’s like um a plant maaaaaan) I actually bring facts to the table.[/quote]
Not what you said earlier.
I’m assuming you are for criminalizing tabacco, alcohol, and the excessive use of salt too. Cause I can give you a ton of research proving all that is unhealthy.[/quote]
Look at the damage sugar does , the cost to America is huge
[/quote]
The notion that unhealthy things should be criminalized because they are bad for you is pretty much both the dumbest and most ultra-big government belief there is.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the effectiveness of anything. It has only to do with who gets to make decisions.[/quote]
And that’s why you have no argument. You are no better than the less glib who say they want it just “because.”
Drugs need to be regulated. I made that point earlier you were not paying attention. Now ask yourself why they need to be regulated and you will come up with the answer you’re not a dumb guy. We cannot have people standing on the street corner hawking the latest snake oil. And that’s exactly what we had prior to the FDA. You can rationalize anything based on your weak argument. Substitute cocaine, or heroin for pot and you have the same arguemnt. Hence, you have no argument.
Brave talk for someone who has not brought one shred of evidence to the debate as to why pot should be legalized. The traffic light was on example I thought you would understand. Yet, you respond by implying that while running a traffic light can hurt others legalizing pot is harmless.
No one is that stupid—NO ONE! Shall we look at the 55,000 traffic fatalities per year and how many are related to drugs and alcohol? And the many health hazards as well? Now who pays for this risky behavior? Uh huh…
[quote]My gosh please come up with a cogent argument I am tired of this nonsense.
“Um…I want to smoke pot because it’s my right…I own me. Or, the other idiot who said…I believe in small government so pot should be legal maaaaaaan…”
I’m finding that those who argue in favor of legalization of marijuana are the best proof that it should NOT be legalized.
No wonder it’s not been legalized and probably never will be!
HAH! Pretty much everyone in this thread is laughing at your idiocy. But keep on keep’n on, my small government brotha.[/quote]
That’s not saying much, judging by the IQ of (some of) those who have attempted to argue for legalization one can only assume that a monkey jumping up and down would bring great laughter to them as well.
The notion that unhealthy things should be criminalized because they are bad for you is pretty much both the dumbest and most ultra-big government belief there is.[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the effectiveness of anything. It has only to do with who gets to make decisions.[/quote]
And that’s why you have no argument. You are no better than the less glib who say they want it just “because.”
Drugs need to be regulated. I made that point earlier you were not paying attention. Now ask yourself why they need to be regulated and you will come up with the answer you’re not a dumb guy. We cannot have people standing on the street corner hawking the latest snake oil. And that’s exactly what we had prior to the FDA. You can rationalize anything based on your weak argument. Substitute cocaine, or heroin for pot and you have the same arguemnt. Hence, you have no argument.
Brave talk for someone who has not brought one shred of evidence to the debate as to why pot should be legalized. The traffic light was on example I thought you would understand. Yet, you respond by implying that while running a traffic light can hurt others legalizing pot is harmless.
No one is that stupid—NO ONE! Shall we look at the 55,000 traffic fatalities per year and how many are related to drugs and alcohol? And the many health hazards as well? Now who pays for this risky behavior? Uh huh…
[quote]My gosh please come up with a cogent argument I am tired of this nonsense.
“Um…I want to smoke pot because it’s my right…I own me. Or, the other idiot who said…I believe in small government so pot should be legal maaaaaaan…”
I’m finding that those who argue in favor of legalization of marijuana are the best proof that it should NOT be legalized.
No wonder it’s not been legalized and probably never will be!
HAH! Pretty much everyone in this thread is laughing at your idiocy. But keep on keep’n on, my small government brotha.[/quote]
That’s not saying much, judging by the IQ of (some of) those who have attempted to argue for legalization one can only assume that a monkey jumping up and down would bring great laughter to them as well.[/quote]
You are never going to change ZEB’s mind because his stance is a MORAL one…and you cannot change morals.
If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread…just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.
Give it up everybody…I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.
[/quote]
You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds. It’s not a moral issue for me. But I do feel that I’ve done enough research to be comfortable with my position. Unlike the many who have opposed me on this thread (it’s like um a plant maaaaaan) I actually bring facts to the table.[/quote]
Not what you said earlier.
I’m assuming you are for criminalizing tabacco, alcohol, and the excessive use of salt too. Cause I can give you a ton of research proving all that is unhealthy.[/quote]
Look at the damage sugar does , the cost to America is huge
[/quote]
The notion that unhealthy things should be criminalized because they are bad for you is pretty much both the dumbest and most ultra-big government belief there is.[/quote]
I am suggesting we make these things illegal, I do find it interesting people try and dictate to me what is supposed to be best for me when they are obese or have other health issues that they created
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
If you like government controlling people, just say “I like big government, and wish it could get bigger.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
I like small government with good drug laws. And to say that you cannot have one without the other is one more argument that you will lose.[/quote]
And libs like small government with “good” spending and tax laws.[/quote]
If someone likes the national forrests and wants to preserve them by keeping a strong forrest rangers service are they automatically for big government?
Illogical.
But then you’ve not brought any logic to this debate from page one.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
Big Gov Zeb, your work here is just about done. Now tell us how we are all dumb twenty year olds and to get off your lawn. Hey the good news is, if you get your wish all of us would be locked in a cage, and you get can get back to advocating small government.[/quote]
You of all people have given me nothing in the order of any logical argument that pot should be legal.
Oh wait…you did have this gem “It’s just a plant maaaaaaan…”
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
If you like government controlling people, just say “I like big government, and wish it could get bigger.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
I like small government with good drug laws. And to say that you cannot have one without the other is one more argument that you will lose.[/quote]
And libs like small government with “good” spending and tax laws.[/quote]
If someone likes the national forrests and wants to preserve them by keeping a strong forrest rangers service are they automatically for big government?
[/quote]
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
If you like government controlling people, just say “I like big government, and wish it could get bigger.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
I like small government with good drug laws. And to say that you cannot have one without the other is one more argument that you will lose.[/quote]
And libs like small government with “good” spending and tax laws.[/quote]
If someone likes the national forrests and wants to preserve them by keeping a strong forrest rangers service are they automatically for big government?
Illogical.
But then you’ve not brought any logic to this debate from page one.[/quote]
So do you think it would be good for me to lose a good paying job (lost tax revenue) then you could support Mrs Pittbulll and ny 3 dogs while i serve a sentance at the cost of $23,876 per year. That make good sense to me
You are never going to change ZEB’s mind because his stance is a MORAL one…and you cannot change morals.
If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread…just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.
Give it up everybody…I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.
[/quote]
You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds. It’s not a moral issue for me. But I do feel that I’ve done enough research to be comfortable with my position. Unlike the many who have opposed me on this thread (it’s like um a plant maaaaaan) I actually bring facts to the table.[/quote]
Not what you said earlier.[/quote]
I have been consistent in my argument. And if you don’t think so you can produce the contradiction right now. I’ve always felt this way. How is smoking pot immoral? I don’t even understand that argument.
And there is no such action called legalization. There is only criminalization and not criminalized. The burden is on you to justify both your authority and correctness. You have, to this point, absolutely refused to do the first outside of the obscure claim that it’s “needed” and the alternative is “bad”.
You’re snake oil example is a case of fraud. I agree with fraud laws. The person is lying and deceiving the person in a way that they cannot make an informed decision.
However, if a guy were to stand on a corner and advertise “colored water with no good uses” and people wanted to buy it anyway, it should be perfectly legal. You are wanted to lock people up in prison for non-fraudulent transactions. There is no justification for it. If some guy selling weed did so under the pretense that it cured cancer or didn’t have bad effects, then go get’em tiger. But selling it with the claim of “it will get you high” is perfectly honest. You’re example sucks.
You are never going to change ZEB’s mind because his stance is a MORAL one…and you cannot change morals.
If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread…just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.
Give it up everybody…I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.
[/quote]
You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds. It’s not a moral issue for me. But I do feel that I’ve done enough research to be comfortable with my position. Unlike the many who have opposed me on this thread (it’s like um a plant maaaaaan) I actually bring facts to the table.[/quote]
Not what you said earlier.
I’m assuming you are for criminalizing tabacco, alcohol, and the excessive use of salt too. Cause I can give you a ton of research proving all that is unhealthy.[/quote]
Look at the damage sugar does , the cost to America is huge
[/quote]
The notion that unhealthy things should be criminalized because they are bad for you is pretty much both the dumbest and most ultra-big government belief there is.[/quote]
Then you can argue for the legalization of heroin and other hard drugs, right?
You are never going to change ZEB’s mind because his stance is a MORAL one…and you cannot change morals.
If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread…just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.
Give it up everybody…I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.
[/quote]
You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds. It’s not a moral issue for me. But I do feel that I’ve done enough research to be comfortable with my position. Unlike the many who have opposed me on this thread (it’s like um a plant maaaaaan) I actually bring facts to the table.[/quote]
Not what you said earlier.
I’m assuming you are for criminalizing tabacco, alcohol, and the excessive use of salt too. Cause I can give you a ton of research proving all that is unhealthy.[/quote]
Why did Zeb answer the beginning but, not the end?
Hey, if you like smoking pot just say “I like smoking pot, and wish it were legal.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
If you like government controlling people, just say “I like big government, and wish it could get bigger.”
Is that so hard?[/quote]
I like small government with good drug laws. And to say that you cannot have one without the other is one more argument that you will lose.[/quote]
And libs like small government with “good” spending and tax laws.[/quote]
If someone likes the national forrests and wants to preserve them by keeping a strong forrest rangers service are they automatically for big government?
Illogical.
But then you’ve not brought any logic to this debate from page one.[/quote]
They are for increasing the size of government in regard to national forests.
Increasing the size and sway of the federal government isn’t in favor of larger government.
Illogical.
But you’re showing yourself to be either dumb or a troll in this entire thread.
You are never going to change ZEB’s mind because his stance is a MORAL one…and you cannot change morals.
If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread…just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.
Give it up everybody…I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.
[/quote]
You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds. It’s not a moral issue for me. But I do feel that I’ve done enough research to be comfortable with my position. Unlike the many who have opposed me on this thread (it’s like um a plant maaaaaan) I actually bring facts to the table.[/quote]
Not what you said earlier.
I’m assuming you are for criminalizing tabacco, alcohol, and the excessive use of salt too. Cause I can give you a ton of research proving all that is unhealthy.[/quote]
Why did Zeb answer the beginning but, not the end?[/quote]
The Lee Atwater method “play dumb and keep moving”
Unlike the many who have opposed me on this thread (it’s like um a plant maaaaaan) I actually bring facts to the table.[/quote]
So it’s not a plant? have you been smoking weed fool? careful you’re gonna wind up in a cage![/quote]
I’ve never thought of you as being this stupid prior to this thread. So thanks for the wake up call.
[/quote]
Well sorry to inform you, but I thought you were ridiculous before this thread. You think it is worse for a society to allow a plant, than to lock people up for a plant. Crazy. Which one really causes more harm? Locking people in a cell, for smoking/selling dope, what a joke. Glad you think you’re the moral authority. Don’t use it if you don’t want to, I wouldn’t use it (don’t now) if it is legal, so what is your beef with it? You have posted nothing but dribble.
You are never going to change ZEB’s mind because his stance is a MORAL one…and you cannot change morals.
If pot were legal, you would not see ZEB in this thread…just as you would not see him in a thread discussing the candidates stance on drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.
Give it up everybody…I agree with ZEB 95% of the time, but you have a better chance of winning an argument with Professor X over toothpaste use.
[/quote]
You are actually wrong my friend. I oppose it on health grounds. It’s not a moral issue for me. But I do feel that I’ve done enough research to be comfortable with my position. Unlike the many who have opposed me on this thread (it’s like um a plant maaaaaan) I actually bring facts to the table.[/quote]
Not what you said earlier.[/quote]
I have been consistent in my argument. And if you don’t think so you can produce the contradiction right now. I’ve always felt this way. How is smoking pot immoral? I don’t even understand that argument.
[/quote]
Not what I was talking about. I was referring to where you related the criminalization of drugs to people’s desire for them and them being part of the drug trade, and implied that your reasoning was external to the health effects.