Dope: Should it be legalised.

[Ned]

I vote yes, but I don't use it.

I think people should be free to get high if they want -- but not on the job and not in public.

[Al B. Sure!]

Whaleboy:

A debate is not a recruitment drive, nor a conceptual war, it is merely a comparison of views

what is the point of debating then? All dialogue is an attempt to get others to have your point of view and do what you want them to do. that is the nature of human interaction especially one concerning political and social issues.

and views are constructed of logic, based on ones own emotional disposition

exactly and therefore, emotions are dominant over logic. Some people, in Aristotlean fashion, attempt to win a debate (convert someone to their view) by appealing to logic but most people are not creatures of logic; we are animals of passion, logic only existing to justify (via a more understandable medium as emotions are hard to convey to others) the will of our passions. therefore...

I am trained in critical analysis, and I can assure you, ad hominems and strawmen have no place in a debate of logic. Anything else is a slanging match, which is wholly unproductive, and I dare say you do not endear anyone to your view if you are only capable of using emotions and flames.

ad hominems and appeals/plays on one's emotions can be successful as, one's emotional aspect dominates one's logic. Emotional beliefs are also, frankly, often illogical and exposing the contradiction in one's emotional beliefs can be damning and cause a change. now i was more joking when I came at Sava but, supposing Sava had, in some other thread, shot down the bell curve as racist lies from decades ago, my response to the '37 AMA report might have been effective in exposing to Sava his contradiction and while the two issues are logically unrelated, Sava may be emotionally driven and, by the paradox where the source he calls upon to support drug legalization he must disprove for racial reasons, be forced to concede one issue.

[Al B. Sure!]

oh and by the way, if weed is legalized, I will get my hands on a ruger and make america america again...

[Whaleboy]

what is the point of debating then? All dialogue is an attempt to get others to have your point of view and do what you want them to do. that is the nature of human interaction especially one concerning political and social issues.

To compare views and strengthen your own under the fire of logical analysis. I concede there is an element of "advertisement", but that is very much secondary, and the devices used by most people, on forums such as this, are logical, the fallacies of ad hominem and strawman are very quickly looked down upon.

exactly and therefore, emotions are dominant over logic

No ones views are (ideally, especially in a debate) pure logic. Of course emotions do come into it, but that tends to weaken the logic and is attacked very quickly under a critical analysis. Emotions merely provide the motivation for forging logic. For example, I believe, emotionally, in peace and love, but in my arguments for that, I deliberately keep emotion out of that, and when showed to my critical thinking and philosophy teachers, they have a hard time critiquing them. If I try to bring others round to my view, it is only because of the strength they perceive in my logic.

Some people, in Aristotlean fashion, attempt to win a debate

No, that is the thing. There is no winning or losing in a debate. Even bringing ones round to your view does not invalidate the other.

by appealing to logic but most people are not creatures of logic; we are animals of passion

. On this forum, few would agree, particularly the more vigorous debaters and intellectuals among us. My views have been changed, modified and expanded by pure logic alone. I immediately disregard "emotional BS" in debates, as most do here.

ad hominems and appeals/plays on one's emotions can be successful as, one's emotional aspect dominates one's logic.

It does not dominate ones logic, it merely spawns the direction it takes, from that point on, ones view is an entirely separate, and logical, entity.

I agree I can convince more people by deriding the other person. I admit I can bring people round to my view by appealing to their emotions. However, that is not my aim. If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't debate, I would draw posters demonising the other person. My aim is to advance my view unto myself, and choose between others based on their logical virtues.

by the paradox where the source he calls upon to support drug legalization he must disprove for racial reasons, be forced to concede one issue.

That is for Sava to answer, but what you are talking about there is the credibility of the source, in other words, his ability to make an argument and the stability of the assumptions upon which he bases it. Now the fact that he is racist is unrelated to his views on marijuana, and it does not mean that supporting marijuana is a racist view. If, on the other hand, he can be shown to know little about the drug, then yes his credibility is flawed, but because he holds views that are not politically correct, the source has not lost any credibility in the argument regarding marijuana. It takes a simple minded idiot to actually consider such a matter in affecting the strength of the position in the debate.

You may be able to use emotions to convince emotional people, but you fail to address the issues in the debate and you fail to deal with those like myself motivated in a discussion by logic. Those with views that are able to back up with logic are inherently stronger and more influential, especially in terms of pragmatic interpration, than those who merely use emotion. You would do your view far more justice if you stuck to logic. That is my advice, which will get you taken far more seriously, and ironically, able to convince more of your view. No-one wants an emotional nut in a debate, for the above reasons.

[Whaleboy]

oh and by the way, if weed is legalized, I will get my hands on a ruger and make america america again...

Why do you want to keep weed illegal?

[Al B. Sure!]

whaleboy:

Why do you want to keep weed illegal?

now, if you think about my favouring of appeals of emotion in 'debates' what do you think my response would be to this?

Weed must be kept illegal for the sake of the children

[Whaleboy]

Can you provide a logical argument for that?

[Al B. Sure!]

I am not an intellectual, whaleboy and therefore, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree as I clearly have a completely different mind-set from you. to me, debating is not a comparison of views; it serves a clear purpose: win someone to your side and to do so, one can and must use all the tools at his disposal, including emotional appeals, which, again, I'll have to disagree with you, and say that emotional appeals are the strongest as calling upon one's emotions can bring about more dynamism and change than refuting the logical mind. You logically break my arguement and so what? The over-ruling passions upon which my logical arguement was based (the logical arguement which justified, to others, the passions) will remain intact. the point of debate, to me, is to blitz the logic and expose the passions directly.

For example, if drugs were legalized in america, my response would not be to write my congressman some eloquent, logical, mathematical proff-like dissertion to prove legalization wrong. Rather, I would go to the elementary school and get child after child to write down about how their mom didn't get them dinner last night because she was at the state-sponsored drug clinic. Debating is getting one to have your point of view and that is effective debating.

basically, you create a situation where logic can not exist and the target has no response and you have exposed his emotional contradictions.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by oedo

I occasionally post here. I think it´s for about one year now. no idea what was the first OT- thread I posted in. most probably something left-wing against right-wing.

skywalker: I also learned about drugs at school. probably everybody did. the school´s intention is keeping kids away from drugs, which is generally ok. later, however, I found out that my teachers and my schoolbooks were extremely overdoing when it came to the the medical risks and the addictivness of THC. this was my experience.
see, if a teacher wants, he can even say things about oxygen which make you want to stop breathing immediately. he doesn´t even have to lie. oxygen is a poison.

No, this isn't health class. This is neurobiology - it's a college level science course. We don't learn stuff about illegal drugs, just drugs in general - often from primary-source article (which are scary to read ). The health classes are stupid, I agree with you.

[Whaleboy]

I am not an intellectual, whaleboy and therefore, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree as I clearly have a completely different mind-set from you. to me, debating is not a comparison of views; it serves a clear purpose: win someone to your side and to do so, one can and must use all the tools at his disposal, including emotional appeals, which, again, I'll have to disagree with you, and say that emotional appeals are the strongest as calling upon one's emotions can bring about more dynamism and change than refuting the logical mind.

Well you debate like an intellectual, and being one does not mean a university type person with reams of standardised text. Don't put yourself down, I suspect you are shying away from logic because emotion is easier. You are clearly capable of logic, so why not?

Nonetheless, your current "all guns blazing" method, is not, as you are using easy weapons instead of the most effective one of logic. As IQ polls have shown, most of us are intelligent people and are not going to be taken in by propaganda, unlike simplistic folk that win elections. Nonetheless, because a view is popular does not make it correct, hence we have logical debates.

For example, if drugs were legalized in america, my response would not be to write my congressman some eloquent, logical, mathematical proff-like dissertion to prove legalization wrong. Rather, I would go to the elementary school and get child after child to write down about how their mom didn't get them dinner last night because she was at the state-sponsored drug clinic. Debating is getting one to have your point of view and that is effective debating.

You could certainly put in the sociological reasons for your particular view, though of course that particular example would generally only hold for more addictive drugs. Less people in rehab for weed. Nonetheless, while your emotional response may be better for bringing the simple minded on board, you have not made your point any more valid. That is, I assume, what you want to do? Nonetheless, a more powerful tool would be both, but only logic in a debate.

basically, you create a situation where logic can not exist and the target has no response and you have exposed his emotional contradictions.

His contraditions are logical, and even if he has emotional ones, they are best targetted with logical, within a logical framework. Using your example of the pro cannabis racist, that emotional contradiction does not wash, and will not wash with intelligent people. By flagging it up, you negate your own right to be taken seriously by showing a level of competance in debates that is most certainly below your true potential. I am willing to help you with tips via PM if you want?

[Berzerker]

oh and by the way, if weed is legalized, I will get my hands on a ruger and make america america again...

Make America, America, buy german.

[Sava]

oh and by the way, if weed is legalized, I will get my hands on a ruger and make america america again...

that's right... all the drug warriors know is insults and violence.

thanks for showing your true colors once again speer... go move to north korea where you oppression, violence, and intimidation is part of the political system.

[Whaleboy]

Sava: Don't you mean Holland

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
that's right... all the drug warriors know is insults and violence.

thanks for showing your true colors once again speer... go move to north korea where you oppression, violence, and intimidation is part of the political system.

[Traianvs]

In Belgium, you're allowed to have weed, just not more than 5 grams or sommething.

The funny thing is, as you're not allowed to have more than that amount, the dealers are still doing illegal business because they have bigger amounts (there are no dealers with just 5 grams I think ).

===> The whole thing is useless.

You're only allowed to smoke it in private areas, so not in public.
Naturally that's another stupid law because the cops don't know you're smoking pot anyway if you're doing it in private so what does it matter.

[Whaleboy]

Trajanus: A good reason why such limitations suck. In the UK, i want to see a situation with marijuana that is like that with tobacco today.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Trajanus
In Belgium, you're allowed to have weed, just not more than 5 grams or sommething.

The funny thing is, as you're not allowed to have more than that amount, the dealers are still doing illegal business because they have bigger amounts (there are no dealers with just 5 grams I think ).

===> The whole thing is useless.

You're only allowed to smoke it in private areas, so not in public.
Naturally that's another stupid law because the cops don't know you're smoking pot anyway if you're doing it in private so what does it matter.

Yeah, same thing in Canada. Its legal up to 30 grams (or maybe its 15, I forget), or about an ounce. But of course dealers have way way way more than that, so its still illegal to sell, just not to buy. Kind of a catch 22 type of thing.

Its just so we can pretend we're all liberal and hip, when for all practical purposes, we're not very much different than the US.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Are all pot smokers like this? No. Though I seem to see a lot more losers who smoke pot than scientists.

Or maybe the scientists are the losers.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Trajanus: A good reason why such limitations suck. In the UK, i want to see a situation with marijuana that is like that with tobacco today.

Where something like 75 or 90 percent of high schoolers have used it by their senior year?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Trajanus: A good reason why such limitations suck. In the UK, i want to see a situation with marijuana that is like that with tobacco today.

I want to see them the same too. Both legal to buy, sell, carry and smoke in private. Both illegal to smoke in public places. People should be allowed to smoke dope, but I should be allowed not to smoke dope.

Oh, and both should be taxed to the hilt. The average smoker spends far far more of the NHS's money than the average non-smoker. Add a high tax to smoking, and it both disuades those from doing it, and more importantly means smokers pay the full cost of their actions. Either that of force smokers to have private healthcare. I believe in basic healthcare for all, but it shouldn't be abused. If you choose to smoke, you should be choosing to pay the cost of it too. I shouldn't be able to decide if someone else smokes, but I shouldn't be forced to pay for their choice either.

[Flip McWho]

The over-ruling passions upon which my logical arguement was based (the logical arguement which justified, to others, the passions) will remain intact. the point of debate, to me, is to blitz the logic and expose the passions directly.

Sounds a bit like blind faith to me.

Make America, America, buy german.

I reckon just legalise it the same as cigarettes. Same rules apply.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Ummm, dude, I'm probably the most pro-cannabis person on this forum .

I dont know what its like in other countries, but here if you go to a dealer, he will likely introduce you to harder stuff, as is my experience. I used to get around that by growing my own, until I found the ignominious Eddy .

I'm not qualified to talk about cocaine or heroin, since I don't know much about them. I always assumed them to be more dangerous and addictive. Still, the libertarian argument would have them legalised, thus I think they should, but I'd never take heroin and cocaine is crappy.

Of course. What I meant is that there will always be the mainstream drug from which the dealer will introduce you to the others- which, by the way, are only called "harder" because of propaganda.

(exception: we may consider the purely chemical, highly "mysterious" rave drugs to be harder. But that would be out of non-disclosure of its contents.)

That's a funny situation really: we've got the weed lovers, who are afraid to try anything else because the brainwash they're put through in school has convinced them that drugs are hard, who end up discriminating the other drugs as a defensive tool to protect their own. And it works, because guess what? The fundamentalist anti-drugs are now running campaigns to tell us that weed is not a soft drug!

Gotta love the irony.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Nah. All 'drugs' should be legalized. In public, private, and at the workplace (if the employer allows it. of course its his perogative you authoritarian liberty-haters )

And don't tax it. Sales taxes are just taxes on the poor. I say eliminate sales tax completly and reduce income taxes.

[Zero]

I believe that all drugs should be legalized.

However, I can name quite a few people that will lose their part time jobs on campus if that were to happen. I dont really want harm on people I know... so legalization is a bad thing personally.

[Whaleboy]

Oh, and both should be taxed to the hilt. The average smoker spends far far more of the NHS's money than the average non-smoker. Add a high tax to smoking,

I concur, this would generate more revenue than forcing smokers into private healthcare. Nonetheless, I recall that taxes on tobacco in UK are more than sufficient to pay for the cost of smoking to the NHS, though I may well be mistaken, in which case, increase the taxes.

People should be allowed to smoke dope, but I should be allowed not to smoke dope.

Naturally, smokers in public are actively impeding non-smokers. I don't believe this extends to private property, like bars, as they are under private ownership, and the customers are "guests" of the owners. Thats a small detail of course.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I believe that all drugs should be legalized.

However, I can name quite a few people that will lose their part time jobs on campus if that were to happen. I dont really want harm on people I know... so legalization is a bad thing personally.

I too have a bunch of part timers on my campus, but they wouldnt lose their jobs if it was legalized. They would simply have to reduce prices, and quality would have to go up. A win win situation!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Naturally, smokers in public are actively impeding non-smokers. I don't believe this extends to private property, like bars, as they are under private ownership, and the customers are "guests" of the owners. Thats a small detail of course.

People smoke cigs in the street and cigs cause cancer while MJ doesnt.

[JohnT]

Naturally, smokers in public are actively impeding non-smokers. I don't believe this extends to private property, like bars, as they are under private ownership, and the customers are "guests" of the owners. Thats a small detail of course.

You can't ban smoking in bars in the UK for this reason?

Interesting, here in the US you can pretty much ban it everywhere except in homes.

[Whaleboy]

People smoke cigs in the street and cigs cause cancer while MJ doesnt.

Open to debate. While I am pro-cannabis, I have conceded that it is harmful to ones health. A good point nonetheless, though of course, I do not believe that smokers should be allowed to smoke in public.

You can't ban smoking in bars in the UK for this reason?

Well, its a private establishment, but I dont know where the law stands. I take issue with the totalitarian stance of the USA.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I recall that taxes on tobacco in UK are more than sufficient to pay for the cost of smoking to the NHS, though I may well be mistaken, in which case, increase the taxes.

It is very hard to measure. I think the taxes should be slightly higher, because the costs of treatment are huge, and most smokers will need some form of smoking related treatment at some point in the smoking lives.

Naturally, smokers in public are actively impeding non-smokers. I don't believe this extends to private property, like bars, as they are under private ownership, and the customers are "guests" of the owners. Thats a small detail of course.

Not in pubs. Pubs are "public houses", and thus are public areas. Also, you're definition could also extend to shops, restaurants and other public places. I would consider them public, and so would support a ban on smoking in them, however I can see the argument as for private property. It depends on the situation IMHO. There could be a situation where you need a license to allow smoking there, like we currently have with alcohol. Places open to the public need a license to allow drinking on-site.