Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Cannabis should be legalized in Ireland To pull Our country out of ression
Options
Comments
-
ordinarywoman wrote: »if you were to stop using strawman arguements,
Which strawman arguments?
Care to list them?and backing yourself up with articles where the conclusion is not visable on the search,
Care to list say three examples? You know sometimes it helps to actually read the publication to confirm it deals with the subject in the title in the way suggested and not just supply an inaccurate or incomplete reference to something which does not support the contention of any argument made. Which is why I quote from the article and give a reference to the original research from which I base the points made.stop advising me and making insulting insinuations then maybe i would welcome you back.:)
If I personally insulted you it was certainly not my intention. I don't resort to ad hominem. Can you supply any examples where you maintain I used personal insult as argument and I will be happy to withdraw or clarify the unintended insult?mickscahill wrote: »i completely agree. whereas i don't care about recession, getting stoned is the only good part of my life.
Well this only back up the points I have been making. Thank you.
Now some people like abusing others or stealing from them or whatever other illegal activity one might care to mention. But how do you suggest that others be convinced that something should be made legal based on the fact that some people like doing it?
I mean we don't legalise prostution, child abuse, bank robbery, hooliganism etc. on the basis that some people think it is a good part of their life so why legalise a drug just because some people like getting high?cancercowboy wrote: »I think we should legalise Cannabis.
Fair enough that is your opinion. What support how yo for it ? any evidence?It is harmless
No it isn't! Plenty of medical evidence has been posted as to psychotic effect. Your believe it is harmless is based on what evidence?and it could potentially be a huge earner for the exchequer.
How? and is tobacco not controlled?It would mean hundreds of jobs. Also, the marketing does itself really.
If gambling or prostitution meant hundreds of jobs is that reason enough to have it? So how is cannabis any different?There is a short time to capitalise on this, the U.S. is getting closer every day to leaglisation and once that happens our ability to bring in Cannabis tourists will be much harder.
So you maintain Amsterdam and Copenhagen have jobs and tourism because of cannabis and they is good for them? How come then the Dutch or Danish state never seem to promote it as a tourist or job creation activity?0 -
Oh the Irony in a single post.
Thank you.Which strawman arguments?
Care to list them?
I mean we don't legalise prostution, child abuse, bank robbery, hooliganism etc. on the basis that some people think it is a good part of their life so why legalise a drug just because some people like getting high?
If gambling or prostitution meant hundreds of jobs is that reason enough to have it? So how is cannabis any different?
From the wiki entry on strawman arguments
Please pay close attention to the first example.Wiki wrote:Reasoning
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
Example:
Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants".[1] This example is also a slippery slope fallacy.
Another example:
Person A: Our society should spend more money helping the poor.
Person B: Studies show that handouts don't work; they just create more poverty and humiliate the recipients. That money could be better spent.
In this case, Person B has specified Person A's position (more funding) into "more handouts", which is easier for Person B to defeat.
While I'm here, you never answered my question without resorting to strawman arguments;Well I accept pure heroin is less physically harmful than alcohol.
I also think heroin causes less social and economic damage.
I don't think either of these is a reason to make heroine freely available for social use.
By the way alcohol and tobacco are controlled and regulated by law and not freely available.
So again, do you accept that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco?0 -
Oh the Irony in a single post.
Thank you.
From the wiki entry on strawman arguments
Please pay close attention to the first example.
Argument A: Cannabis should be legalised because a person enjoys it
Argument B: Prostitution should be legalised because a person enjoys it
Argument C: Child abuse should be legalised because a person enjoys it
What do these have in common?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70093075&postcount=874
clearly the general case is that for hedonism i.e. because someone enjoys something it should be legal. One can argue that the particular case is true based on the general case being true. One can not argue that because a particular case is true then the general case always applies. I think this is the problem you may be having - distinguishing a "straw man" argument from an argument from general to particular.
As for " Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted"
the opponents position was based on cannabis being legalised because that person enjoys it. Pointing out that the basis of legalising anything because a person enjoys it is not a straw man argument!
From the first line of the reference you usuppliedTo "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition
Now let me put it this way either
1. Only cannabis should be legalised on the basis that people enjoy it.
One cant take an isolated example and say that it applies only in the case of cannabis and not in the case of any other drug or criminal activity. that is the point of laws that they apply equally across the board.
OR
2. Anything should be legalised on the basis that some people like it and cannabis is one of these things
In which case I point out some of the other things we don't legalise just because some people like them.
So let me ask you. Are you arguing that things shou d be legalised just because we like them or only cannabis and nothing else ( which you seemingly deem a straw man) should be legalised on the basis of someone liking it?While I'm here, you never answered my question without resorting to strawman arguments;
I did! It seems you have a problem in determining what a straw man is! Yo seem to think any counter example drawing on generalisation and not using the particular context of a particular act is a straw man. For example
P: Begging on the streets should be allowed because it might help feed children
Mugging people also relieves them of money which could be used to feed children and we don't allow mugging because it might help feed children.
So
Q :Mugging on the streets should be allowed because it might help feed children
That isn't a straw man because it deals with the premise which was advanced!
Q :Mugging on the streets should be allowed because it might keep down other crime
or
Q :Mugging on the streets should be allowed because it might keep down population
are straw men in the context of P
Mind you they are bad straw men. straw men are usually easy to agree to argument which have nothing to do with the original premise for example if I suggested
Q: Cannabis causes psychosis so there fore it should not be legalises, this might well be true but it is a straw man with respect to a counter to legalisation based on people enjoying cannabis since it has nothing to do with whether people enjoy it.
So again, do you accept that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco?
What do you mean by "harmful"? It has several connitations.
I clearly stated:Well I accept pure heroin is less physically harmful than alcohol.
I also think heroin causes less social and economic damage.
I don't think either of these is a reason to make heroine freely available for social use.
By the way alcohol and tobacco are controlled and regulated by law and not freely available.
Allow me to join up the dots for you and show how it is not a straw man argument
The key words are not the agent itself ( e.g. heroin; alcohol;cannabis) but the locus (e.g.
social and economic damage).
When you say "harmful" one has to question what is meant. Does it mean for society, for the biological entity taking the drug or for their direct family and friends.
Gambling for example may cause little or no biological damage but may ruin families.
Now cannabis may have a social effect. People who take it may become withdrawn or psychotic and that may affect their immediate surrounding social circle. Tobacco would not have such extreme effects in this sphere. Cannabis may put one into contact with criminal circles. I won't supply an exhaustive list. On the biological end, other drugs though of as more "serious" e.g. heroin if taken in pure form can be stopped without any biological damage. cannabis may if taken long term cause biological changes to brain chemistry ( I have supplied the links to support this).
Personally I would regard Alcohol in Ireland as causing much more damage than heroin if you judge "harm" in how much it costs in emotional and societal damage.
So in a simplistic analysis I would say ( my rough opinion) less harmful than alcohol but probably more so then tobacco. But as I pointed out both alcohol and tobacco are regulated by law so the argument that another drug should not be regulated by law is in fact a context change along the lines of a straw man!
Happy now?0 -
-
cancercowboy wrote: »I think we should legalise Cannabis. It is harmless
No it isn't!and it could potentially be a huge earner for the exchequer. It would mean hundreds of jobs.
how?
Also, the marketing does itself really.
[/quote]
There is a short time to capitalise on this, the U.S. is getting closer every day to leaglisation and once that happens our ability to bring in Cannabis tourists will be much harder.[/QUOTE]
so if we don't legalise cannabis people will go on holidays to the US instead? Do you think cannabis is a positive tourism image?0 -
Advertisement
-
Therefore I always find it ironic when people say there are no negative health effects of cannabis ...
Another ironic thing is the finding that THC can actually have anti-tumour forming properties so as its been shown to increase risk of lung cancer on one hand, it might also be preventing it on the other!!. Therefore I think that simply not enough money or time has been poured into unbiased research... Its a total waste of police and prison time and I think everyone should have the right to grow a plant of their own at home. But it should not be promoted by users or those that want it decriminalized as being "harmless" or having no negative effects on the body at all because science says that it does do harm, the levels of which are not quite certain but the facts are there-sadly your lungs just weren't ever supposed to have smoke in them.
The costs to the public health system for looking after all the stoners of today in 30-50 years time may turn out to be quite significant. It will pale in comparison to that of looking after the dying tobacco users but its something still worth thinking about.
Vaporising may be the "safest" way we know of right now to smoke it but i'm not totally convinced of its merits. Maybe we should just stick to eating it, that way nothing gets harmed and you can still enjoy the best effects of THC with some Hendrix on in the background or a good book in your hand.
Eventually someone with a bit of sense.
But the stoners wont be happy with eating it as they won't get a "rush".0 -
Argument A: Cannabis should be legalised because a person enjoys it
Argument B: Prostitution should be legalised because a person enjoys it
Argument C: Child abuse should be legalised because a person enjoys it
What do these have in common?
I don't believe you are stupid enough to really believe that.
Argument C compared to Argument A:
No one is harmed in A but the person who chooses to take cannabis.
In C a child is molested. The paedo might enjoy it but no child likes being abused.
Unless you retract that ridiculous argument you can't expect to be taken seriously in anything else you say on the topic. Furthermore I'd imagine that argument is pretty offensive to victims of child abuse.0 -
Actually ISAW I see that was your point
My apologies!0 -
I can see it being legalised in some years time. Right now the over 60's have a big say as they vote all the time, while those 18-30's don't.0
-
No it isn't! Plenty of medical evidence has been posted as to psychotic effect. Your believe it is harmless is based on what evidence?
havnt read the entire thread but the only evidence that exists is that marijuana use can make a preexisting psychiatric condition worse.
also if marijuana was legalised it would obviously have to be controlled in the same way as tobacco or alcohol, thats a non-issue0 -
Advertisement
-
ISAW; I was responding to your post, but frankly, it's too long and you don't understand the argument that we should legalise Cannabis. I do not mention other drugs, I do not mention child abuse. I talk about cannabis. What this thread is about.
This thread is not about legalising prostitution/child abuse/Heroin/Any other drugs or whatever other "arguments" you refuse to see as strawmen.
Your posts are too long and hard to respond to as by the time I get halfway through your posts, I get bored and switch off.
I'll be still popping in, but will not be refuting you point by point.
Life is too short and I'm far too slow at typing :pac:0 -
PeakOutput wrote: »havnt read the entire thread
so you are arguing from ignorance then?but the only evidence that exists is that marijuana use can make a preexisting psychiatric condition worse.
Well it isn't the only evidence it isn't even the only medical evidence.
The evidence presented also suggests cannabis can cause psychotic breaks as well as arrest tumor growth and assist in treating the symtoms of myalin sheath illnessess.also if marijuana was legalised it would obviously have to be controlled in the same way as tobacco or alcohol, thats a non-issue
But that isn't what was suggested so it isn't a non issue.0 -
ISAW; I was responding to your post, but frankly, it's too long
Run away from the issue of you wish but claiming it was too long is lame. If you are going to post evidence to support your case post it. don't try to claim you must be right in the absence of evidence.and you don't understand the argument that we should legalise Cannabis.
I understand it quite well I would think. I just haven't seen you produce any convincing evidence which supports it! Your unsupported opinion and belief that I must be wrong and you must be right aren't any objective basis for legalising cannabis.I do not mention other drugs, I do not mention child abuse. I talk about cannabis. What this thread is about.
Cannabis solving all our economic woes hasen't been shown. Nor has the idea that it is harmless. Nor is saying it is enjoyable for some people is a basis for legalising it or anything else.This thread is not about legalising prostitution/child abuse/Heroin/Any other drugs or whatever other "arguments" you refuse to see as strawmen.
They are clearly not straw men! the premise being advanced is
P X is enjoyable
Based on P the conclusion is that
C: X should be legalised
If P then C
From the point of view of logic it makes no difference what X is. That is not a straw man argument!Your posts are too long and hard to respond to as by the time I get halfway through your posts, I get bored and switch off.
So what? "I'm bored" or "I don't understand" or "I can't be bothered" are not supporting any claims you made are they?I'll be still popping in, but will not be refuting you point by point.
Sorry but who is indulging in fallacy now?
Look up "shifting the burden"
If You make the claim it is for you to support it!
It isn't for me to prove the negative or provide a counter argument although I may if I wish.
Also you are contradicting yourself. above you say my statements are to complicated to deal with whole posts. Now it seems you can't even deal with single points. Which is it?Life is too short and I'm far too slow at typing :pac:
Sorry but not my problem. Run away from the issue if you wish but that won't make your claims true if they remain unsupported . especially if counter argument is presented and supported.0 -
the premise being advanced is
P X is enjoyable
Based on P the conclusion is that
C: X should be legalised
If P then C
From the point of view of logic it makes no difference what X is. That is not a straw man argument!
You just won't listen!
A: I think cannabis should be legalised
B: I do not think all other drugs should be legalised
C: I do not think prostitution should be legalised.
YOU are in fact the only person who keep bringing these up! It is an incredibly weak argument that if "x is legalised as people enjoy it, so should y"
They have nothing to do with each other!
I really wish I had a million pounds so I could help poor people DOES NOT equal I really wish I could rob a million pounds so I could help poor people.
Can you seriously not get that?
Your point of view regarding the above is wrong.0 -
-
You just won't listen!
A: I think cannabis should be legalised
B: I do not think all other drugs should be legalised
C: I do not think prostitution should be legalised.
Please pay attention. the point made was not about you opinion on this issue!
the point was that a poster stated that cannabis should be legalised because he enjoyed it
As to you unsupported opinion A that you believe cannabis should be legalised:
Why should it?
What evidence can you produce to support you opinion that it should be legalised?YOU are in fact the only person who keep bringing these up! It is an incredibly weak argument that if "x is legalised as people enjoy it, so should y"
Exactly! Other people brought up the "legalise because it is enjoyable" hedonistic argument. I was only exposing how weak such an argument was.They have nothing to do with each other!
Oh but they have and I have shown exactly they logically are identical!
They have because some people enjoy it in common.I really wish I had a million pounds so I could help poor people DOES NOT equal I really wish I could rob a million pounds so I could help poor people.
Can you seriously not get that?
You are making another logical error.
Having a million pounds is the premise above. You are adding moral standards to this and suggesting that it is having properly earned or decently acquired a million pounds.
In the cannabis example that is tantamount to saying not enjoying myself but enjoying myself in a way which caused no harm to anyone else
Which is getting into the non simplistic argument. In other words, you have to add justification to this enjoyment
i.e. unlike crime or abuse you have to show it isn't doing any harm and it may in fact be assisting the society or economy.
This is what a lot of the discussion has alluded to but not really supported
for example:
How is it shown cannabis is of social or moral benefit to society ( especially to the degree that it should either be freely available or taxed) ?
How can someone buying cannabis know they are not funding paramilitarists or criminals?Your point of view regarding the above is wrong.
Just saying something does not make it true!
If one has to add in that a millionaire must justify from their money came why does it not apply to cannabis takers to prove that their enjoyment has not come on the suffering or neglect of others?0 -
PeakOutput wrote: »1. compared to you, i doubt that very much
My point about "argument from ignorance" was one of logical fallacy and not ad hominem
for "you argue from ignorance" take that to mean that your argument is argument from ignorance. for "argument" i refer to the logicl construct you advance.
Please see here:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
Please dont indulge in ad hominem yourself
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html2. harmfull side affects
Which in another context might be positive effects?
that above ad ignorandum link again:3. there is no good reason for its illegal status
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
There is no evidence against p.
Therefore, p.
An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it.
If you want to change the legal status please supply some reasons.0 -
:rolleyes:0
-
-
LOL BAN EVERYTHING!
You seem to have a problem with logic.
there is a difference between suggesting that something which is banned requires a reason to remove the ban and suggesting everything be banned.
In practice where bans don't exist or are not enforced de facto then enforcement de jure is difficult or impossible. If anything that is an argument against liberalisation and not one for it!0 -
Advertisement
-
something which is banned requires a reason to remove the ban !
leaving aside recreational use for a second i think the most compelling reason for lifting the outright ban is that there are people who are in chronic pain that could benefit massively from at least a medical supply of marijuana. there are also countless other medical conditions besides pain that it can help with.
it is unfair on those people to have an outright ban
that is the most urgent thing that needs to be addressed and id be happy with getting that far even if recreational use was never brought in0 -
PeakOutput wrote: »leaving aside recreational use for a second i think the most compelling reason for lifting the outright ban is that there are people who are in chronic pain that could benefit massively from at least a medical supply of marijuana. there are also countless other medical conditions besides pain that it can help with.
it is unfair on those people to have an outright ban
that is the most urgent thing that needs to be addressed and id be happy with getting that far even if recreational use was never brought in
This will happen very soon I believe, already being trialed in the uk
Sativex for example, check it out.0 -
there is a difference between suggesting that something which is banned requires a reason to remove the ban and suggesting everything be banned.
True. I'd also suggest that something which is banned should have a just reason to be banned in the first place. Otherwise, trivial informal fallacies such as argument ad ignorandum could be effectively used as an excuse by the prohibitionist to circumvent any effective discourse on the apperceptive basis for reasons to ban substances.
Observe:
1:"Cannabis should be legal"
2:"Well cannabis is illegal, so why should it be legal?"
1:"Well, there seems to be no reason why it should be legal..."
2:"Argument ad ignorandum"
In practice where bans don't exist or are not enforced de facto then enforcement de jure is difficult or impossible. If anything that is an argument against liberalisation and not one for it!
And in this case the de facto determinant is what?0 -
meditraitor wrote: »This will happen very soon I believe, already being trialed in the uk
Sativex for example, check it out.
i wouldnt be in favour of it being a pharmaceutical manufactured derivative as i feel it is unnecessary
but its good to see the idea being tested anyway
id be more in favour of something like the california system although im fine if it is stricter then that0 -
If one has to add in that a millionaire must justify from their money came why does it not apply to cannabis takers to prove that their enjoyment has not come on the suffering or neglect of others?
Agree wholeheartedly there. Not too versed in the effects of cannabis on society myself, so I'll defer comment on that. I have to say though, if a millionaire must justify from where their money came, and cannabis users must prove that their enjoyment has not come on the suffering and neglect of others, then would a legislator not also have to justify upon what basis their law came from?0 -
If one has to add in that a millionaire must justify from their money came why does it not apply to cannabis takers to prove that their enjoyment has not come on the suffering or neglect of others?
oh come on thats a simple one
suffering is as a result of a law it is not as a result of anything inherent in marijuana.
remove the illegality of it and supply licences to growers, distributors and users, tax it to the hilt whilst ensuring that it is still better value then black market supply and POOF, that was any suffering as a result of the drugs trade vanishing.0 -
pagancornflake wrote: »True. I'd also suggest that something which is banned should have a just reason to be banned in the first place.
That is changing the burden of proof!
the fact is cannabis is illegal. prostution is illegal and child molestation and rape are illegal. Thee are probably plenty of reasons but that is the case - they are illegal. It isn't up to me to show why they are illegal. It is up to the people making the case for making themn legal to show their arguments
Look up "shifting the burden2 and "proving a negative"Otherwise, trivial informal fallacies such as argument ad ignorandum could be effectively used as an excuse by the prohibitionist to circumvent any effective discourse on the apperceptive basis for reasons to ban substances.
Agaion this is reversine the burden. Prohibitionists are not campaigning for making something illegal. It already is illegal! They dont have to show why the law was made.
and How? could argument from ignorance be used to say we shoudl ban something which is already banned?Observe:
1:"Cannabis should be legal"
2:"Well cannabis is illegal, so why should it be legal?"
1:"Well, there seems to be no reason why it should be legal..."
2:"Argument ad ignorandum"
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html
e.g. cannabis/child abuse is for the good of societyIV Non-fallacious uses of the ad ignorantiam: in science, the law courts, and some specific other situations, one must, for practical reasons, assume that something is false unless it is proved true and vice-versa.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.htmlSometimes it is reasonable to argue from a lack of evidence for a proposition to the falsity of that proposition, when there is a presumption that the proposition is false. For instance, in American criminal law there is a presumption of innocence, which means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and if the prosecution fails to provide evidence of guilt then the jury must conclude that the defendant is innocent.
Similarly, the burden of proof is usually on a person making a new or improbable claim, and the presumption may be that such a claim is false. For instance, suppose that someone claims that the president was taken by flying saucer to another planet, but when challenged can supply no evidence of this unusual trip. It would not be an Appeal to Ignorance for you to reason that, since there is no evidence that the president visited another planet, therefore he probably didn't do so.
If you claim cannabis should be legalised it isn't for me to show why it is illegal in the first place it is for you to provide your evidence supporting your claims it shoud be legal!And in this case the de facto determinant is what?
drugs and prostitution are de facto tolerated in Amsterdam and Copenhagen. It isn't for me to show how that came about.PeakOutput wrote: »oh come on thats a simple one
suffering is as a result of a law it is not as a result of anything inherent in marijuana.
No. suffering is a result of direct violence by criminals in some cases. They don't do this because some law tells them to!
Also suffering is because some people get negative psychotic and biological effects from cannabis which is directly inherent to cannabis.remove the illegality of it and supply licences to growers, distributors and users, tax it to the hilt whilst ensuring that it is still better value then black market supply and POOF, that was any suffering as a result of the drugs trade vanishing.
We have been over this argument already. cigarettes are controlled taxed and licenced. Yet illegal tobacco still exists and "poof" your argument disappears in a puff of logic!PeakOutput wrote: »i wouldnt be in favour of it being a pharmaceutical manufactured derivative as i feel it is unnecessary
It already is! Hash is basically that!pagancornflake wrote: »Agree wholeheartedly there. Not too versed in the effects of cannabis on society myself, so I'll defer comment on that. I have to say though, if a millionaire must justify from where their money came, and cannabis users must prove that their enjoyment has not come on the suffering and neglect of others, then would a legislator not also have to justify upon what basis their law came from?
yes indeed. and it is justified by reasonable people getting elected and supplying reasoned debate and voting on such laws.0 -
snipped out all that irrelevant bull****, an honest debate on the legalisation or not of marijuana begins assuming no law has currently been made. that is the only way to, both parties have to make their case based on todays facts, opinions and values. the decision to make it illegal whenever it was put into law was based on the facts, opinions, values of the time it was made.No. suffering is a result of direct violence by criminals in some cases. They don't do this because some law tells them to!
the law creates the black market, everything that comes after is as a result of that law. this includes the benefits of the law but you dont get to pick and choose you have to take both the positives and the negatives into account.Also suffering is because some people get negative psychotic and biological effects from cannabis which is directly inherent to cannabis.
1. clearly thats not a legitimate basis for creating a law because i do plenty of things that are both legal and socially acceptable that have the potential to cause far more damage to either me or someone else, so lets leave that one aside
2. my choice to use cannabis or not has no effect on weather or not someone else who chooses to use it has a psychotic episode or not, or any negative biological effects.cigarettes are controlled taxed and licenced. Yet illegal tobacco still exists and "poof" your argument disappears in a puff of logic!
so your saying legalising marijuana and controling it, in anyway, would have no affect on the black market? none at all?It already is! Hash is basically that!
1. i didnt say that there should be no derivatives of marijuana, i said there shouldnt be pharma company manufactured derivatives or if there are they should be one particular option, not the only particular option. i believe that the same health and safety rules that govern the creation and sale of other crops would be sufficient to ensure the safety of any marijuana product, be it grass,hash, pot butter, brownies etc etc
2. do you know how hash is made? in your own words now anyone can google the how to make hash. it dosnt really involve anything remotely complicated that could be related to how pharma companies create their products
it is definitely going to be legalised eventually i just think its ridicolous that a vocal minority can force people to suffer because of their ridicolously loose straw man arguments and scare mongering about slippery slopes0 -
PeakOutput wrote: »snipped out all that irrelevant bull****,
More argument from ignorance. If you snipped something out how do we know it is what you claim?an honest debate
Are you saying I am dishonest?on the legalisation or not of marijuana begins assuming no law has currently been made.
How so? You are claiming that the burden of proof is on those people to prove something should be made illegal and justify why the laws are there. But that just isn't the case. If someone wants to legalise rape or prostitution they don't have any right to demand why rape law exist in the first place. clearly the laws were made to make rape illegal. clearly laws were made to make cannabis illegal. While exploring the history is justified it may be interesting and it isn't necessary to do so unless you want to say it is part of your case to claim that the making of such law was unjust in the first place. And that is for you to make . Stop shifting the burden onto others.that is the only way to, both parties have to make their case based on todays facts, opinions and values. the decision to make it illegal whenever it was put into law was based on the facts, opinions, values of the time it was made.
Indeed it was! some values are universal however. It is called "natural law". Child molesting for instance. It isn't necessary to go into why an adult having sex with a child is always wrong. The laws against it were made.the law creates the black market,
As does the law against prostitution create an illegal sex industry. But that isn't reason enough to legalise it or to tax sex is it?everything that comes after is as a result of that law. this includes the benefits of the law but you dont get to pick and choose you have to take both the positives and the negatives into account.
Let me see if i have this:
negatives of drugs and prostution - pimps abuse and beat up women, slavery, drug addiction, associated crime e.g. stealing, street dealers and hookers say they hate the profession.
positives- people using prostitutes and drugs say they feel better.
I think we can take the positives into account.1. clearly thats not a legitimate basis for creating a law because i do plenty of things that are both legal and socially acceptable that have the potential to cause far more damage to either me or someone else, so lets leave that one aside
Let me see...So you are claiming that legally driving a car can be compared to a pimp beating the crap out of a slave on the basis that the car could potentially kill someone and based on that you are claiming that prostitution laws are pointless or that rules of the road are pointless? Which?2. my choice to use cannabis or not has no effect on weather or not someone else who chooses to use it has a psychotic episode or not, or any negative biological effects.
So your choice to have laws allowing freely available guns and drugs and prostitution would have no effect on someone shooting someone else? Or should not such harmful substances be controlled? I am trained as a marksmanship coach. Just because I know how to use high velocity rifles and assault weapons and light artillery weapons does that mean I or anyone else should be allowed free use of them? Why then should a different principle apply to other potentially dangerous behaviour or substances? Im sorry but even if it is okay for me to handle guns I don't think it is wise to allow things on an "It is okay for me although others cant handle it" basis.so your saying legalising marijuana and controling it, in anyway, would have no affect on the black market? none at all?
No I am not! I am saying the claim the black market will disappear is a fallacy as i have shown. The claim that it will entirely dissappear and the claim of no effect at all are entirely different claims. By the way even iof it did disappear that still isn't sufficient reason . One has to count the negative possible effects as yo upoint out. for example detonating a nuclear weapon in Dublin would halt all black market trade there but it isn't a wise solution is it?1. i didnt say that there should be no derivatives of marijuana, i said there shouldnt be pharma company manufactured derivatives or if there are they should be one particular option, not the only particular option.
So it is okay for criminal business to do something but not evil "Big Business" ? LOL!i believe that the same health and safety rules that govern the creation and sale of other crops would be sufficient to ensure the safety of any marijuana product, be it grass,hash, pot butter, brownies etc etc
I have been over this before as well. But fair enough. When you deal with what level of doseage and the availability of what substances for manufacture then you are actually discussion [b[]regulation[/b] which is what you set out to contradict!2. do you know how hash is made?
Yes.in your own words now anyone can google the how to make hash. it dosnt really involve anything remotely complicated that could be related to how pharma companies create their products
Pharma companies don't necessarily have complicated products. they may require cleanrooms or exact measurements or standards which are at a level of accuracy that suffice to show regulation is being followed. Just as food companies do but to a greater tolerance. Now we dont allow people to make their own ice cream or cheese for public use without stringent regulation so your "big bad wolf" argument really does not suit here.
In fact peopel can make their own home made alcohol. In reality thought they either get it from a legit source or they buy it from a Poiteen maker. Now the traditional poiteen maker had much of this "Hippi" or "Im doing no harm and only fiddling a bit of tax" image. Much of that is true but more recently the gangsters moved in and started using bluestone to clear the liquid. As a result much poiteen is pure poison. It isnt regulated and you really don't know what you are drinking.
The same applies to hash . If a cottage industry of Hippi like people existed who all grew their own plants and who made their own hash and gave it away and you could trust them then forgetting the other arguments for a moment that idealist stoners' Ireland might exist.
But back in reality hash isnt made at home or given away. It is sold by gangsters who kill people who get in their way and cost them money. If you ever bought hash and you dont know the plant from which it came or the quality control mechanism then you probably supported these people.it is definitely going to be legalised eventually
so what? what has that got to do with the issue? Why and when is the issue.i just think its ridicolous that a vocal minority can force people to suffer
I think it is disingenuous to claim I force anyone to suffer. i am not an abuser!
I also think it is lying to say a minority are against legalisation. ~In fact most legislators it would seem are not for legalisation.
You might also note I never stated it should not be legalised or decriminalised. But we should have valid reasons for legalisation or regulation and we should think about the process in advance and not just rush into it because a minority of stoners want to get high.because of their ridicolously loose straw man arguments
Which arguments do you claim are straw men? Put up or shut up!and scare mongering about slippery slopes
To what do you refer?0 -
Advertisement
-
More argument from ignorance. If you snipped something out how do we know it is what you claim?
cause its still there in your own post for anyone who wants to seeAre you saying I am dishonest?
i dont know you and i dont care if you are or not. i am saying that for an honest debate to occur on the motion of 'should marijuana be legal' or any variation of that, the response of 'well its illegal so over to you' is not a sufficient and is a convenient way for people who hold a certain opinion to force the issue to never actually be debated.
the asking of, and the answer to, the question is not affected by and is completely independant to any law currently on the books or notHow so? You are claiming that the burden of proof is on those people to prove something should be made illegal and justify why the laws are there.
nope, im not your choosing to read what you want to read. if i make a statement the burden is on me to prove it. if you feel otherwise the burden is on you to prove it. in a debate the house makes a statement and the two sides make their arguments. now i understand that you have said that you havnt put your opinion on legalisation out there either way, thats fine, but you are implying that, in a discussion/debating forum, saying 'well the burden of proof is on you guys' is a sufficient retort to their arguments. it is patently clear that it is not.But
.......<more ****e snipped out>others.
i dont know why you keep bringing up prostitution and paedophilia, that is the very essence of a strawman argument. just because a statement is true for one thing, dosnt mean it is true for a similar thing.Indeed it was! some values are universal however. It is called "natural law". Child molesting for instance. It isn't necessary to go into why an adult having sex with a child is always wrong. The laws against it were made.
they were made after societies values changed, same as slave laws were made after societies values changed.As does the law against prostitution create an illegal sex industry. But that isn't reason enough to legalise it or to tax sex is it?
i would argue that a legalised, well regulated sex trade, is better then what we have now but thats a debate for a different day. again it is a strawmanning statement, you are making a statement about prostitution not about marijuana.Let me see if i have this:
negatives of drugs and prostution - pimps abuse and beat up women, slavery, drug addiction, associated crime e.g. stealing, street dealers and hookers say they hate the profession.
again why are you making arguments for/against both drugs and prostitution. this thread is about drugs only. if you want to start a debate on prostitution, have at it
also the only thing that you have listed that is a negative that is intrinsically linked with drugs is addiction, none of the other things are. they are side affects of this artificially created black market. also that one thing that is intrinsically linked with drugs is still irrelevant to this thread as this thread is not about drugs in general it is about marijuana. a drug which has been shown to not be physically addictive in anyway.positives- people using prostitutes and drugs say they feel better.
i am sure that is what recreational users would say. medicinal users would say it allows them to live there lives normallyLet me see...So you are claiming that legally driving a car can be compared to a pimp beating the crap out of a slave on the basis that the car could potentially kill someone and based on that you are claiming that prostitution laws are pointless or that rules of the road are pointless? Which?
i said nothing about cars or prostitutesNo I am not! I am saying the claim the black market will disappear is a fallacy as i have shown. The claim that it will entirely dissappear and the claim of no effect at all are entirely different claims. By the way even iof it did disappear that still isn't sufficient reason . One has to count the negative possible effects as yo upoint out. for example detonating a nuclear weapon in Dublin would halt all black market trade there but it isn't a wise solution is it?
1. you havnt shown anything you made a statement, an unequivelant one. more strawmanning
2. as long as you admit it will have an affect that is a great start. after that it is just a matter of the degree of the affect and how different regulations can increase or reduce that degree and finding a happy mediumSo it is okay for criminal business to do something but not evil "Big Business" ? LOL!
i didnt say anything about criminal business did i? i didnt call pharma's evil did i?I have been over this before as well. But fair enough. When you deal with what level of doseage and the availability of what substances for manufacture then you are actually discussion [b[]regulation[/b] which is what you set out to contradict!
when did i say i was against regulation? i am against prohibition. regulation is necessary in all areas of life to one degree or anotherNow we dont allow people to make their own ice cream or cheese for public use without stringent regulation so your "big bad wolf" argument really does not suit here.
again, if you are going to say that i said something please quote me. i said nothing about pharmas besides i dont feel they have a place in the solution and certainly not a place as a monopoly. i also specifically said food production regulation would be sufficient as far as health and safety goes.It isnt regulated and you really don't know what you are drinking.
The same applies to hash . If a cottage industry of Hippi like people existed who all grew their own plants and who made their own hash and gave it away and you could trust them then forgetting the other arguments for a moment that idealist stoners' Ireland might exist.
But back in reality hash isnt made at home or given away. It is sold by gangsters who kill people who get in their way and cost them money. If you ever bought hash and you dont know the plant from which it came or the quality control mechanism then you probably supported these people.
see above, i said nothing about any hippy cottage industries but you can keep your prejudices coming you only paint yourself in a bad light
i can tell you for a fact that i havn't but i accept that the average smoker in ireland probably has unless they got into it via their parents or whatever, i still dont see what that has to do with the legalisation argument
whats with the fixation with hash by the way? it is just one variation and while it is prevalant in dublin it is not the most widely available form.I think it is disingenuous to claim I force anyone to suffer. i am not an abuser!
i didnt say you, if you identify your position as similar to the people i did mention thats not my problem. people who are pro blanket prohibition are forcing people to suffer, people who have never smoked or done any drugs and otherwise would not even think about it but because they are sick and thats what could help but they are not allowed take it, they suffer.I also think it is lying to say a minority are against legalisation. ~In fact most legislators it would seem are not for legalisation.
do you equate the opinions of the legislators on individual issues to the opinions of the individuals of this country?Which arguments do you claim are straw men? Put up or shut up!
To what do you refer?
anything that brings paedophilia / prostitution / any law that is not a drug law / any drug that is not the one being debated, into the debate is, depending on the wording, either a strawman argument or a slippery slope argument0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement