What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Think Choosing a Gift For A Teen Girl Is Impossible? view!
bestbuy.com - Hello-o-o! No WAY! Email, IM, chat, social networking & streaming audio/video are all on Netbooks.
130 Comments
- CopsSayLegalize, on 11/09/2009, -2/+72Just reading debates isn't going to change these bad laws, so do something about it: http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com/censorship
- MidnightReign, on 11/09/2009, -2/+71Let me guess:
(re)Legalizer: compassion, sanity, well-reasoned thinking, and a genuine desire to see humanity reach its potential.
Temperance Advocate: discredited arguments, emotional appeals, ad hominem attacks, red herrings, appeals to authority, and circular logic.
Do I win? - Orochiyagami, on 11/09/2009, -3/+53I took action!
I am a supporter of Drug Decriminalization and regulation.
The major point of this article I agree with is (I don't think many people take into mind) that Making these Drugs Illegal glorifies them.
The public see's this with drug after drug, every time a drug is made Illegal popularity seems to increase, the most recent of was Salvia Divornium, there was slight interest for this herb, for medicinal and psychoactive reasons before, then suddenly this herb was made illegal (due to media coverage Falsely comparing it to LSD, which itself gained much popularity due to the start of the Drug War) in several states prompting everyone and brother to consider trying this substance.
Human beings as a whole naturally seem to want to alter their perception of the world and experiment with substances that help alter this for them, from Alcohol to LSD and everywhere in between, there is not one tribe or group of people who has not seen this.
Currently we are looking at certain Herbal Blends (like Spice Gold and Diamond) being made Illegal in the UK because of the CB1 and CB2 Agonist effects in some of the Research Chemicals (RC names withheld to keep further exposure from occurring and prompting more bad policies from being made) found in them (Laymen's terms: research chemicals that effect your cannibinoid receptors in your brain in the same fashion as THC).
This will only bring wider attention to these Herbals and Prompt many more home grown operations to start up and do the same thing.
I support LEAP, NORML, and SAFER and believe that The government should have no say in what a person consumes in the privacy of their own home. - DeadliestSnatch, on 11/09/2009, -3/+43I am going to guess that Judge Gray won because his picture is in full color and so friendly looking, while Evans is in black and white casting a sinister gaze toward some children he is thinking about touching inappropriately.
- GarretJax, on 11/09/2009, -2/+38I can't believe anybody with any logic could possibly believe that you could make the US drug free. Just take a look at the prisons. These are the most controlled population centers in the US and you can't keep drugs out of prisons.
- SpazAttack5000, on 11/09/2009, -2/+32Yes you win. The circular logic was essentially marijuana should be illegal because it is illegal.
- sevenvt, on 11/09/2009, -0/+23David Evans and his Reefer Madness talking points. His entire image on this site is one of pre 1920's prohibitionist right down to the black and white photo. You want to stay in the past? Buy an island. Otherwise people who are on the front line of this drug war are going to learn more and more that control over a thing like drug abuse doesn't include prohibiting it. Education, taxation and counseling, just like what is offered for tobacco and liquor.
- DifferentAngle, on 11/09/2009, -3/+24i read the article, gray won easily
evans didnt qualify anything he said because his style of argument is a little arrogant - ScottyAnimal, on 11/09/2009, -1/+22FTA
David Evans -"***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****. Ok James your turn." - DubYaSee, on 11/09/2009, -1/+22... just like if you showed up drunk for work. Freedom carries with it individual responsibility. There is a time and place for everything, except intrusive, unjust governments.
- enantiodromia, on 11/09/2009, -3/+22The same people who whine about their freedoms being taken away don't actually care about other peoples' freedoms.
- stoned420247, on 11/09/2009, -1/+20They call themselves Drug Free America. On what planet are they operating from? The organization has failed dramatically every single year they've been in existence.
Legalize, regulate and tax it.
Marijuana is incredibly cheap to grow, and the profit margins are through the roof. A regulated market would drive the prices down, even with a tax on it. It will undercut the black market dealers and force them to run with there tails between there legs exactly like the mobsters during alcohol prohibition. - sevenvt, on 11/09/2009, -3/+21Theres no winning this one. Its continued on Tuesday. Don't mistake agreeing with truthful statements as a weakness. Grey tends to speak in truths instead of what are quite obviously by Evans the same recycled material spouted since the early 1900s about drugs coined only by the irrational yet vocal minority. The same people who would have you believe video games cause more war than religion, are the people who believe prohibiting something makes everyone safer.
- ghouze, on 11/09/2009, -4/+21I wonder if 'Drug Free America Foundation' really believes they can make the US 'drug free'?
I've witnessed too many deaths and ruined lives due to every drug imaginable (legal and illegal) -- yet pot is the least of our worries (except when it's criminalized) - Rothbardosaurus, on 11/09/2009, -3/+20David Evans:
"We cannot legalize marijuana because its use has destructive health and social consequences."
So the purpose of the law is social engineering? Do you have any idea what else this opens the door for as permissible legislation?
Evans loses the whole debate in his first sentence, but it doesn't look like his opponent had the stones to jam his logic failure down his throat. James Gray starts off kind and conciliatory. ***** that. Just call Evans a Nazi and be done with it, because that's what he is. A coward and a fascist.
The only reason to keep drug prohibition in place is out of fear of what people will do with their freedom once they get it back. I say though the heavens fall, let justice be done. Set those captives free. Let EVERY recreational drug be above board. There's nothing worse than prohibitionist laws forcing it into the black market where it becomes a secret demon eating lives away in the dark. - MidnightReign, on 11/09/2009, -2/+17First paragraph: discredited argument (gateway theory, not your father's woodstock weed).
Third paragraph: may be an instance of confusing causation and correlation. More people enter treatment for cannabis because the justice system is increasingly focused on *forcing* them to do so.
Fourth paragraph: rehashing the discredited argument (gateway theory again).
Fifth paragraph: Bait and Switch. Preamble discusses the contention that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and other drugs, but then simply says "marijuana is not harmless but that it is toxic and addictive." Well, okay... but is it less so than the drugs first mentioned?
Part 2, Paragraph Two: Red Herring. The debate is on marijuana legalization, and the prohibitionist pulls all other drugs into the conversation almost as a reflex.
Part 2, Paragraphs Three & Four: Red Herring. Legalized drugs would not lead to legalized crime. Punishments would and should still exist for robbery, theft, and other crimes commonly associated with addictive drug use.
Part 2, Paragraph Three is also heavily dependent on a discredited line of reasoning, that being that reducing criminal penalties will increase use. In countries where de facto legalization or decriminalization is the rule of the day, use rates are far below the United States and other prohibitionist nations.
Part 2, Paragraph Seven repeats the error from Paragraph Three.
Part 2, Paragraph Eight is a perfect example of circular logic. If 43% of criminals reported high levels of use immediately prior to their incarceration, this should not be a surprise when one considers that drug use leads to incarceration in a prohibition-loving society. According to http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/f ... this report, 41.9% of all state prison inmates are in prison for drug law violations. 25% of federal inmates are drug criminals.
Part 3, Paragraph Ten is an exercise in paradigm manipulation. Put another way, 70% of all violent attackers were perceived as being sober. Perhaps we should outlaw sobriety.
The really interesting part is that my first post was done blind, with no foreknowledge of the debate. - superrandomguy, on 11/09/2009, -1/+16I also find it hilarious how David Evans has to resort to non-marijuana drug statistics/facts (or he uses the term "Drug use" rather than marijuana use) nearly every time he talks about dangers.
- superrandomguy, on 11/09/2009, -1/+14"The average amount of THC has now reached average levels of 9.6 percent (the highest level in one of the samples was 37.2 percent)"
Why is this a problem? It just means you don't have to smoke as much to get high....which means less carcinogen intake for those without a vaporizer or an oven. - insertAliasHere, on 11/09/2009, -1/+12Buried for being a pedantic dick about grammar when it in no way affected your ability to read and understand the person's point.
- sevenvt, on 11/09/2009, -0/+11Definitely, and you should see that most people on the "legalization" front would agree that drugs and alcohol should stay out of the workplace and out of the schools. Someone smoking marijuana shouldn't be anywhere near heavy machinery. Heck, people on sudafed shouldn't operate a school bus. I believe you may consider yourself a Goldwater republican, with beliefs that probably match what they were in the GOP's financial and rational hayday.
- sevenvt, on 11/09/2009, -1/+11Its honest, one guy who quite obviously dedicates his life to prohibition, the other dedicated himself to Law and its interpretation and enforcement. Who has a better understanding of how the prohibition effects the country? Well, thats for you to decide through reading the article... not the title...
- Wargala, on 11/09/2009, -0/+10I consider myself a Republican, in the sense that I want all possible government involvement out of my life. So, that means that if you want to smoke weed, great, go for it. I don't think you should go to jail for it. HOWEVER, if you are in a position where you deal with safety or security of others and it impairs your judgement, such as a school bus driver, or train engineer, I think your employer should have the right to fire you or ask you to quit.
- ayeroxor, on 11/09/2009, -2/+11You sound like a nun during prohibition. Congrats on being so forward-thinking.
- lennynumberone, on 11/09/2009, -2/+11Yeah! Because when they repealed prohibition on alcohol everyone made their own hooch, and wait, that didn't really happen now did it?
Of course you are still free to make your own Beer, Gin, Whiskey, or Wine... they even sell kits.
Also, you might not want to try and sell your home brew without a license. That's not good, and I'm sure most won't have a problem with that.
Not to mention how people with cancer will have their appetites back, and the chance that it will shrink their tumors.
Maybe your ***** is tainted if it makes you puke. In any case, that really doesn't make it wrong for others right? I can't stand whiskey, it makes me sick, but I wouldn't deprive anyone of the finest aged in oak, distilled by the masters.. - DeadliestSnatch, on 11/09/2009, -1/+10What about drinking when not on the job? There are plenty of school bus drivers, engineers, cops etc. who are allowed to have a few beers on their days off without loosing their job. Why should it not be the same with marijuana?
- smashTasker, on 11/09/2009, -6/+15Legalize all drugs for recreational use!
- PlasticHotDog, on 11/09/2009, -1/+10Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) is trying to ban talks about drug legalization in the senate? Is he trying to make it ***** obvious that he's a puppet on someone's payroll?
- anthropodeus, on 11/09/2009, -3/+11sticking to the facts? like repeatedly claiming marijuana is addictive when it's not?
- lennybird, on 11/09/2009, -2/+10I don't like generalizing and stereotyping, but has anyone else noticed that circular logic/"begging the question" is a primary technique used by conservatives for every argument?
- Atmandk, on 11/09/2009, -1/+8I took action by digging your comment! If only we all do that much, we can make real change.
- gotbannedagain, on 11/10/2009, -0/+7Never underestimate the power of the Free Market. Why would I go through the trouble (and believe me, it is trouble) of growing my own ***** when I could go to a store down the street, buy what I wanted, and go home and smoke it without having to be bothered with it? I won't deny that there will still be a FEW people making it - but it won't be near what it is today.
Also - I wanted to throw in a little tidbit of information where Judge Gray should have hit on (he didn't cite it with fact and could have EASILY won this point).
To domestically reduce the consumption of Cocaine by 1%, it would cost around $240 million dollars to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate drug dealers and their agents.
By comparison, it would cost around $34 million to reduce the exact same amount (1%) through treatment facilities and programs for users.
("Controlling Cocaine: Supply vs. Demand programs," C. Peter Rydell and Susan S. Everingham)
I think its quite obvious that without trying to enforce our ridiculous policy via the Drug War - it would make more sense to simply legalize it and then offer treatment to those who need/want it. - SmokeyTreats, on 11/09/2009, -1/+8You have to wonder where the black market would go without drugs. I would think it be a giant step towards rooting out the true criminals.
- Atmandk, on 11/10/2009, -1/+8Well, that's interesting because the Partnership for a Drug Free America (a different group, similar name and goals) was founded by pharmaceutical and advertising executives. So they really don't mean "drug free".
- sevenvt, on 11/09/2009, -4/+11Can't really agree with this. Opiates on a whole have a far more addictive nature than anything else, and I just cannot see a straight recreational legalization as a good solution. Decriminalized fine, legal taxed opiates and recreationally distributed, definitely not.
- omgwtflawl, on 11/09/2009, -1/+7That judge makes some good points I didn't even think of, especially the "beer vs bourbon" point. I've long been a supporter of total legalization for all drugs, as pretty much every argument you can make in favor of legalizing alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis can easily be made for the so-called "harder" drugs.
Anyway, the Judge should have simply appealed to morality a bit more. The whole "lets machine gun people into our way of thinking" is as immoral as it is ineffectual. In fact, it usually has the opposite effect of what you intend. - ajaxmil, on 11/10/2009, -1/+7read deeper. notice how Evans keeps on referring to "drug use" as opposed to "marijuana use". That's like if I was having an argument about making beer illegal, and I pull up stats about middle schoolers drinking rubbing alcohol.
- SSPink, on 11/09/2009, -1/+7Thank goodness we have responsible babysitters and nannies like David Evans around to keep us from doing things that might be dangerous if we're not careful.
It would be so much harder to be treated like an adult with the ability to make decisions about my own life. - MidnightReign, on 11/10/2009, -2/+7...and that, my friends, is exactly what the prohibitionist hopes for in his audience. A quick, summarizing read that takes his 'facts' at face value without taking the time and effort to really examine the words being used.
That said, I applaud your willingness to give it another, more critical read when presented with opposition. I wish more of our population would do the same. - inactive, on 11/09/2009, -4/+9SEND IT TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN:
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5663/t/5525/ca ... - bigwrestlerguy, on 11/10/2009, -2/+7Get ready to really ***** yourself...
I was wrong. I apologize for my uneducated statement... It was made without really looking into it. I read the article, but relatively quikcly - snafflepaffle, on 11/09/2009, -1/+6Refusing to acknowledge your opponent's valid points does not make you the winner of a debate. To me it's exactly the opposite. If you cannot respond to an argument because it's valid then you have conceded the point and you lose it. Gray lost a lot more points than he made.
- Rikushix, on 11/09/2009, -2/+7Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with anthro here, I thought Evans DID have some good facts but his repeated statements of marijuana being "addictive" is, frankly, ***** *****. Whether he knows those facts are ***** ***** or if he is merely misinformed, I have no idea, but it's total crap either way.
- diemunkiesdie, on 11/09/2009, -1/+6OMG:
"Your comment that increased pot use will not lead to more addiction is preposterous. The advocates of drug legalization claim that legalizing drugs would decrease addiction rates in two ways (1) People (particularly young people) use drugs because they are illegal and the users get a thrill from breaking a social taboo. Legalization will remove this incentive. (2) If drugs were legalized, civil society could spend the money that we presently spend on the criminal justice system on treatment of addicts and that would reduce addiction.
This argument does not work when we consider that drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and marijuana are dangerous and highly addictive. The scholarly opinion and historical evidence are clear that if these drugs are legalized, then the rates of drug use and addiction will climb. This will lead to misery, death, social disorder and massive spending."
__________________________________________________
I love how David Evans quickly forgets that the debate is, right now, about pot, not cocaine or heroin. Plus Evans just says that James Gray's statements are preposterous, without giving a reasonable coherent explanation why!
P.S. Who else was pissed off by that pursed-lip black and white picture? - Daerion, on 11/10/2009, -0/+4I never quite understood that argument either (yet I hear it in nigh every debate about legalization).
Right, so, it's stronger these days, meaning you'll need less of it to get high. So what? Does that make it more dangerous? Easier to overdose on (and we all know how much of a risk of an overdose there is with marijuana)?
What exactly is the actual problem with stronger weed? Cookie for the prohibitionist who can reasonably explain this to me. - atroxodisse, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4Obviously if you are intoxicated on the job or while operating a vehicle you should not be allowed to do that but that is true of any substance, illegal or otherwise.
- insertAliasHere, on 11/09/2009, -1/+5IMO, it should be legalized and treated like alcohol. Use it all you want at home, and your company can't touch you. Until you come to work high. Use it at home all you want, and the cops can't touch you. Until you drive around high.
DubYaSee said it best: "Freedom carries with it individual responsibility." - anthropodeus, on 11/09/2009, -0/+49.6% by mass
- Samohtneas, on 11/10/2009, -0/+4Buried for being an idiot who doesn't know what an acronym is.
- LtTilon, on 11/10/2009, -0/+4"So the purpose of the law is social engineering?"
Of course. One of the central planks of modern drug prohibition stems from a collectivist viewpoint: Namely, that your individual rights are not as important as your contributions to society, and so something that potentially cheapens the quality of your contributions should not be allowed, because your primary duty is to serve the whole.
These people believe that you should not be allowed to do something that a weak mind could get potentially dependent on, because you might contribute less to society in the form of diligent work.
Drug laws are just yet another example of Statism trumping individualism, of social servitude trumping personal liberty.
It also helps generate and perpetuate a caste system. Getting caught gives you a criminal record, and most jobs background check. This serves to create a social divide between statist types who blindly follow all the rules, and freethinking, rebellious types who ignore laws they deem to be unjust.
Basically, it's designed to reward the people loyal to the state, and punish/weed out dissenters who are willing to question their superiors. - planetidiot, on 11/10/2009, -0/+4Gray: [rational arguments supported by evidence for regulating the sale of marijuana]
Evans: Look at all the crimes people do on LSD, PCP, meth amphetamines and cocaine! Legalizers! Children killing their grandparents for crack!
Gray: WTF -
Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is