Marijuana stupid commercial... I am tired of blatant errors in reasoning.

[Kadarin]

One of my problems with circular reasoning in this regard is when people justify criminalizing marijuana by pointing out all the bad effects which are caused soley by the fact that marijuana is illegal.

 

[thomsbrain]

you forgot to mention that they are using ambigious language. they are only saying that 33% of the drivers who took drugs were taking marijuana. they don't say that those drivers were taking only marijuana. those drivers could have been taking GHB or LSD or speed or alcohol or any other drug in addition to the marijuana.

 

[Hector13]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

So basically, using another error in reasoning against their original argument, I will say that anyone against marijuana that has never smoked it is insufficiently educated to form an opinion based on the bias of those that have never smoked it before them. And, to expand upon the errors in reasoning, I will say that all people that believe marijuana should be illegal in the US, a free country, are ignorant of the ideas of freedom.

wow, a commercial using misleading statistics and/or arguments to try to "sell" something to people.

Who would'a thunk it?

 

[Gnurb]

You had me at Marijuana!

 

[Growltiger]

Fine - legalize the stuff, but tax the hell out of it.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
There is always somebody trying to justify getting high on their favorite drug.

The drugs control them. It's only when you can realize that the downside of drug use makes you a victim does it all ring clear.

Ain't nobody got put in jail for being clean.

I just hope I can stop one dude from doing the prison thing.

I don't argue for the legalization of drugs for my own benefit. I have my vices, namely tobacco, alcohol, and caffiene, and personally find drugs repulsive. I think it's sad that there are some people who can't enjoy life without the effects of mind-altering substances.

But then, I drink, smoke, and drink, so who am I to judge?

My argument stems from a personal liberty standpoint. If you go to the corner store, buy a rock of crack, go to your house, and smoke it, are you harming anyone but yourself? Nope. And you have every right in the world to destroy your own life.

The argument from the opposition then takes the form of, "Well, drug users are more likely to abuse family members, kill people in vehicular accidents, and commit crime."

The counter to that, of course, is the fact that alcoholics can abuse family members, kill people in vehicular accidents, and commit crimes. In fact, sober people can and do abuse family members, kill people in vehicular accidents, and commit crimes.

The thing to remember is that each of those acts is in itself a crime, and can therefore be prosecuted. The act of doing drugs, which may or may not be causally related to those acts, shouldn't be the crime. If you use that standard, then alcohol would certainly be illegal, but I don't see any anti-drug oppoents pressing for its criminilization.

so, Nicotine, caffeine and Alchohol are NOT mind altering drugs??

Just because something is LEGAL doesn't mean it isn't mind altering.

Alchohol impairs peoples judgement JUST as much if not more than Marijuanna.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Dope is for dopes.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
First of all, one in 3 drivers that were tested positive for drugs... So marijuana is the drug that's abused 90% of the time and it's only responsibe for 33% of the drug-based reckless car wrecks. Sounds like an argument in support of marijuana to me.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

New tv ad: "Keep your kids off crack, give them pot!"

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

Anybody have a copy of this commercial?

 

[virusag11]

Marijuana stays in your blood for up to 3 to 4 weeks. So whether or not you had marijuana in your system does not prove you had consumed it prior to driving. It's this reason that your body cannot be considered a container for drugs, and you wouldn't be able to be busted on account of having DONE the drug. You can of course get a DUI *IF* you show outward signs of intoxication - But as previously stated, a majority of those who have weed in their systems also show levels of alcohol - Levels which would only be present if recently consumed.

Exactly. The bong hit you took a week ago could show up as testing positive a week later when you were in the accident, which is total BS. You shouldn't drive stoned anyways because it is more difficult (I know). You have legs, walk, or use the mass transit system.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Sluggo
I just wonder if they people who want it legalized spent half as much time trying to get it legalized as they do bitching about the fact that it isnt, it would be legal.

Or perhaps, if they collectively stopped doing all 3, they could actually do something productive with their lives instead of living in the clouds.


I see more ads against smoking cigarettes as I do smoking pot. Both need to be gotten rid of, they're both poisonous habits. Us non-smokers already have the problem of having to deal with smokers messing up our breathing space, I would prefer not to have the whiners win the argument "well if they can do it legally, why can't we, wah wah wah".

But in defense of alcohol, in moderation it is actually quite beneficial to the body (specifically wines and beers). The difference between a beer and a cigarette is that unless I urinate on you, I'm not invading your space. Plus I don't see any offices where they have a designated "drinking" room because employees are so addicted they can't go without a drink every hour. Overconsumption of alcohol is equivilent to overconsumption of food - you just have to know when to quit or it negatively impacts.

 

[propellerhead]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

so, Nicotine, caffeine and Alchohol are NOT mind altering drugs??

Just because something is LEGAL doesn't mean it isn't mind altering.

Alchohol impairs peoples judgement JUST as much if not more than Marijuanna.

That's the oldest and funniest argument in the pot vs no pot debate. It's like a little kid saying "Well, she did it too!"

 

[StageLeft]

Glad I'm not the only one who hates those commercials ("...than we all thought" I find very condescending for one thing). That statistic they give is utterly meaningless without others to back it up. I'm sure more people drive drunk than under weed and then considering how freaking popular marijuana is anyway to say that only 1/3 people tested for drugs had it well those are pretty good numbers for weed aren't they! I hate those fuggin commercials.

 

[Amused]

It all comes down to this: Does the government have any place in mothering it's citizens? Should there be laws to protect individuals from themselves?

I say no.

I find it funny how a person is instantly deemed a "druggie" if they support legalization of pot. It's like being deemed a lovely human if you protest the way homosexuals are treated. I can support legalization of drugs, and still oppose their use personally. Why is this? Because the banning of drugs has harmed more innocent people than the drugs ever have. Not only that, but the efforts by law enforcement to fight the drug problem has cost us all a considerable portion of our civil rights. The banning of drugs has had NO direct effect on the rate of use or abuse. Drug use and abuse rise and fall on popularity and fads, not law enforcement efforts.

Drug use and prostitution have existed in EVERY culture throughout history, no matter how oppressive. To think it can be minimized, much less stopped by government action is a pipe dream... a very dangerous pipe dream that ends up sacrificing everyone's freedoms in the process.

That the abject failure of Prohibition taught us nothing is depressing. Not only did we learn nothing from it, but we are expanding that mentality beyond drugs to tobacco and next will be food. Yet, we do nothing about alcohol. Why? Because we learned alcohol bans fail. WTF can we not draw the connection between that, and this?

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Amused
It all comes down to this: Does the government have any place in mothering it's citizens? Should there be laws to protect individuals from themselves?

I say no.

I find it funny how a person is instantly deemed a "druggie" if they support legalization of pot. It's like being deemed a lovely human if you protest the way homosexuals are treated. I can support legalization of drugs, and still oppose their use personally. Why is this? Because the banning of drugs has harmed more innocent people than the drugs ever have. Not only that, but the efforts by law enforcement to fight the drug problem has cost us all a considerable portion of our civil rights. The banning of drugs has had NO direct effect on the rate of use or abuse. Drug use and abuse rise and fall on popularity and fads, not law enforcement efforts.

Drug use and prostitution have existed in EVERY culture throughout history, no matter how oppressive. To think it can be minimized, much less stopped by government action is a pipe dream... a very dangerous pipe dream that ends up sacrificing everyone's freedoms in the process.

That the abject failure of Prohibition taught us nothing is depressing. Not only did we learn nothing from it, but we are expanding that mentality beyond drugs to tobacco and next will be food. Yet, we do nothing about alcohol. Why? Because we learned alcohol bans fail. WTF can we not draw the connection between that, and this?

So if somethings hard, then you say we should just give up?

No one calls people who support the legalization of drugs druggies (cept for you sorta in this case 🙂 )
And considering it has been proven that it does impair a person, it should stay illegal. God knows the drivers in this country are half retarded as it is.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Amused
It all comes down to this: Does the government have any place in mothering it's citizens? Should there be laws to protect individuals from themselves?

I say no.

I find it funny how a person is instantly deemed a "druggie" if they support legalization of pot. It's like being deemed a lovely human if you protest the way homosexuals are treated. I can support legalization of drugs, and still oppose their use personally. Why is this? Because the banning of drugs has harmed more innocent people than the drugs ever have. Not only that, but the efforts by law enforcement to fight the drug problem has cost us all a considerable portion of our civil rights. The banning of drugs has had NO direct effect on the rate of use or abuse. Drug use and abuse rise and fall on popularity and fads, not law enforcement efforts.

Drug use and prostitution have existed in EVERY culture throughout history, no matter how oppressive. To think it can be minimized, much less stopped by government action is a pipe dream... a very dangerous pipe dream that ends up sacrificing everyone's freedoms in the process.

That the abject failure of Prohibition taught us nothing is depressing. Not only did we learn nothing from it, but we are expanding that mentality beyond drugs to tobacco and next will be food. Yet, we do nothing about alcohol. Why? Because we learned alcohol bans fail. WTF can we not draw the connection between that, and this?

I'll smoke to that. Wanna split a bowl? 😀

- M4H

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Amused
It all comes down to this: Does the government have any place in mothering it's citizens? Should there be laws to protect individuals from themselves?

Yes.

The two sets of basic rights that we have, and that cannot be taken away: Human Rights, and the Bill of Rights.

Anything beyond that can be legislated. The government's job is to make laws based on morality. Democracy is founded on Majority Rule, and the majority vote represents the direction law should take. When the Majority decides that pot is okay, it will become okay. You guys get so riled up because you are still a minority. A disturbing trend in government is that Minority (of philosophy, not race) groups are pulling too much power just because they have loud mouths.

This Anarchist approach to government regulation is ignornant and idiotic. I agree that the government is getting too big and too controlling - but only in the situation of social and commerical programs. The Legislature is supposed to make laws, not bail companies out and give away money into programs. Their purpose WAS to legislate MORALITY. Just makes laws, that's it. If they had stuck to that, congress wouldn't have become so expensive to run.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Amused
It all comes down to this: Does the government have any place in mothering it's citizens? Should there be laws to protect individuals from themselves?

Yes.

The two sets of basic rights that we have, and that cannot be taken away: Human Rights, and the Bill of Rights.

Anything beyond that can be legislated. The government's job is to make laws based on morality. Democracy is founded on Majority Rule, and the majority vote represents the direction law should take. When the Majority decides that pot is okay, it will become okay. You guys get so riled up because you are still a minority. A disturbing trend in government is that Minority (of philosophy, not race) groups are pulling too much power just because they have loud mouths.

This Anarchist approach to government regulation is ignornant and idiotic. I agree that the government is getting too big and too controlling - but only in the situation of social and commerical programs. The Legislature is supposed to make laws, not bail companies out and give away money into programs. Their purpose WAS to legislate MORALITY. Just makes laws, that's it. If they had stuck to that, congress wouldn't have become so expensive to run.

Your rant is pointless, and throws up many strawmen.

Who said I was an anarchist? I'm far from it.

The purpose of Congress is to pass laws protecting individual rights. It's purpose is NOT to save individuals from themselves, but to save individuals from other individuals and government itself. I cannot violate my own rights and freedoms.

Please show me where in the Constitution the Congress is given the power to legislate morality, or to save people from themselves:

The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the Common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

*To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
*To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
*To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
*To Coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
*To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
*To provide Post Offices and post Roads;
*To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
*To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
*To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
*To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Capture on Land and Water;
*To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
*To provide and maintain a Navy;
*To make Rules for Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
*To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions;
*To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
*To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazine, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Amused
It all comes down to this: Does the government have any place in mothering it's citizens? Should there be laws to protect individuals from themselves?

I say no.

I find it funny how a person is instantly deemed a "druggie" if they support legalization of pot. It's like being deemed a lovely human if you protest the way homosexuals are treated. I can support legalization of drugs, and still oppose their use personally. Why is this? Because the banning of drugs has harmed more innocent people than the drugs ever have. Not only that, but the efforts by law enforcement to fight the drug problem has cost us all a considerable portion of our civil rights. The banning of drugs has had NO direct effect on the rate of use or abuse. Drug use and abuse rise and fall on popularity and fads, not law enforcement efforts.

Drug use and prostitution have existed in EVERY culture throughout history, no matter how oppressive. To think it can be minimized, much less stopped by government action is a pipe dream... a very dangerous pipe dream that ends up sacrificing everyone's freedoms in the process.

That the abject failure of Prohibition taught us nothing is depressing. Not only did we learn nothing from it, but we are expanding that mentality beyond drugs to tobacco and next will be food. Yet, we do nothing about alcohol. Why? Because we learned alcohol bans fail. WTF can we not draw the connection between that, and this?

So if somethings hard, then you say we should just give up?

No one calls people who support the legalization of drugs druggies (cept for you sorta in this case 🙂 )
And considering it has been proven that it does impair a person, it should stay illegal. God knows the drivers in this country are half retarded as it is.

It's not that it is hard, it's that it is impossible.

And impared driving is another case altogether. THAT violates the rights of others. At any rate, if the ban on drugs and it's enforcement is having little to no effect on the rates of abuse, WTF makes you think they have an effect on the rates of impaired driving?

The rate of drunk driving has been reduced NOT by banning alcohol, but by punishing drunk drivers and education campaigns.

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Amused
It all comes down to this: Does the government have any place in mothering it's citizens? Should there be laws to protect individuals from themselves?

Yes.

The two sets of basic rights that we have, and that cannot be taken away: Human Rights, and the Bill of Rights.

Anything beyond that can be legislated. The government's job is to make laws based on morality. Democracy is founded on Majority Rule, and the majority vote represents the direction law should take. When the Majority decides that pot is okay, it will become okay. You guys get so riled up because you are still a minority. A disturbing trend in government is that Minority (of philosophy, not race) groups are pulling too much power just because they have loud mouths.

This Anarchist approach to government regulation is ignornant and idiotic. I agree that the government is getting too big and too controlling - but only in the situation of social and commerical programs. The Legislature is supposed to make laws, not bail companies out and give away money into programs. Their purpose WAS to legislate MORALITY. Just makes laws, that's it. If they had stuck to that, congress wouldn't have become so expensive to run.

no it is not the govt's job to legislate laws based on morality. a majority of voters in california have legalized medical marijuana and yet the fed govt still shuts them down. but by this time i know your argument has already been torn apart about 3 times.

the sun gives you cancer.....its more harmful than we thought! are there going to be anti-sun ads on TV are we going to war with the sun?
the govt isnt doing a very good job of saving me from myself, i went outside and worked in the yard for the past 25 years, now i have skin cancer....oh i wish the govt. was there to stop me from being so foolish!!!

 

[Amused]

The two sets of basic rights that we have, and that cannot be taken away: Human Rights, and the Bill of Rights.

Oops, I forgot to address this...

No where in the Constitution is "human rights" discussed. "Human rights" is a morality question. The Bill of Rights can, and has been amended, so this entire line is moot.

However, if you want to tout the Bill of Rights, remember the Ninth:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Why was this line added? Because some of the Founding Fathers were scared of authoritarians like you.

 

[dabuddha]

Since when is it a "right" to smoke mj?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Amused
It all comes down to this: Does the government have any place in mothering it's citizens? Should there be laws to protect individuals from themselves?

Yes.

The two sets of basic rights that we have, and that cannot be taken away: Human Rights, and the Bill of Rights.

Anything beyond that can be legislated. The government's job is to make laws based on morality. Democracy is founded on Majority Rule, and the majority vote represents the direction law should take. When the Majority decides that pot is okay, it will become okay. You guys get so riled up because you are still a minority. A disturbing trend in government is that Minority (of philosophy, not race) groups are pulling too much power just because they have loud mouths.

This Anarchist approach to government regulation is ignornant and idiotic. I agree that the government is getting too big and too controlling - but only in the situation of social and commerical programs. The Legislature is supposed to make laws, not bail companies out and give away money into programs. Their purpose WAS to legislate MORALITY. Just makes laws, that's it. If they had stuck to that, congress wouldn't have become so expensive to run.

Your rant is pointless, and throws up many strawmen.

Who said I was an anarchist? I'm far from it.

Not you personally... just the general argument that I hear.

The purpose of Congress is to pass laws protecting individual rights. It's purpose is NOT to save individuals from themselves, but to save individuals from other individuals and government itself. I cannot violate my own rights and freedoms.

Please show me where in the Constitution the Congress is given the power to legislate morality, or to save people from themselves:

The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the Common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

*To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
*To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
*To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
*To Coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
*To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
*To provide Post Offices and post Roads;
*To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
*To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
*To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
*To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Capture on Land and Water;
*To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
*To provide and maintain a Navy;
*To make Rules for Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
*To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions;
*To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
*To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazine, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You have a valid point. 🙂

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
Since when is it a "right" to smoke mj?

It's a freedom the government has no place taking away from the people.

Since when does the Constitution give the government powers to ban mj? Banning Alcohol required a Constitutional amendment. But not for drugs?

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
Since when is it a "right" to smoke mj?

since it does not infringe on the "rights" of anyone else.
i think "rights" is becoming an outdated word, you have privileges.