Open friendly debate. (country, rap, American, members, quote)

sleepy jack · 02-23-2007, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheUsedToolguy

I think that def. implies what I was attempting to say. I'm pretty sure I hear people, when talking about this issue say, 'Well, we ought not legalize it, but it should be decriminalized' I could be completely wrong, but even if I am, that's fine I can admit I made a mistake.

That statement is completely contradictory, you are completely wrong.

swim · 02-23-2007, 09:39 PM

Criminals do illegal things. If it's legal they aren't criminals. If they aren't criminals then it isn't illegal.

~~TheUsedToolguy~~ · 02-23-2007, 09:40 PM

Oh c'mon. It clearly did not contradict itself. I said that I believe that more than likely what I said was right, but I also believe there was a possibility I was wrong, and if I am, then so be it.

~~[MERIT]~~ · 02-23-2007, 09:41 PM

1+2=3. If 2+1=3, then 3-1=2. w0rd.

~~TheUsedToolguy~~ · 02-23-2007, 09:47 PM

2 to the 5th power > 5 to the 2nd power, but
1 to the 5th power < 5 to the 1st power, weirdtastic

DontRunMeOver · 02-24-2007, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheUsedToolguy

The main reason marijuana will never be made legal is because if u say it's legal, then it's okay to smoke before you go to work, some jobs requiring lots of safety. You could smoke before school, and students would be giggling at something the teacher said a half hour ago, and u couldn't stop it, bcuz they're not breaking the law.

It could still be kept illegal to smoke underage and to be high while operating machines/vehicles. If there is a equivalent to the breathaliser we have for alcohol, with which you could test quickly and unobtrusively whether a person is high, then this it should be possible to test people for majijuana use in the situations where it's always inappropriate or dangerous. If there isn't such a method then you can't really put marijuana a par with alcohol, as it wouldn't have the same control measures available.

DontRunMeOver · 02-24-2007, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

I always thought decriminalizing meant to you know, un-criminalize it.

Oojay's right in that the verbs criminalize and decriminalize are suggested to be opposites by the de- prefix.

But if criminalize means "to make more illegal".

Then decriminalize means "to make less illegal".

If you take something that is legal and make it more illegal, you are making it illegal. If you take something that is illegal and make it less illegal, it can still be illegal.

By more legal and less legal here, I refer to the severity of punishment meted out for committing the act. More illegal = more severe punishment.

~~[MERIT]~~ · 02-24-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontRunMeOver

Oojay's right in that the verbs criminalize and decriminalize are suggested to be opposites by the de- prefix.

But if criminalize means "to make more illegal".

Then decriminalize means "to make less illegal".

If you take something that is legal and make it more illegal, you are making it illegal. If you take something that is illegal and make it less illegal, it can still be illegal.

By more legal and less legal here, I refer to the severity of punishment meted out for committing the act. More illegal = more severe punishment.

You make my head hurt

~~BlackBallBusta~~ · 02-24-2007, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oojay

I kind of do hope that Hilary Clinton wins in 2008, then the American people will realize how f*cked up most Democrats are and Republicans will win the next 4 presidentail elections

hah. hilary hardly represents the democratic party.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oojay

No, I'm serious. A Hliary Clinton win would be the best thing to happen to Republicans since sliced bread.

yeah, after all these homosexual-pedophillic sex scandals and fundamentalist christian Bush supporters being busted for buying meth and "other services" from *** male hookers, the republican party desperatly needs something good to happen right? I agree completely. They aren't a bunch of sleezy, good for nothing scumbags, they are just down on their luck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

At least she can pronounce nuclear and doesn't say things like THE INTERNETS.

Hilary>>>Cheney/Bush, though i'd prefer Gore over all them.

Or Arnold, he'd be legit.

I promise you, Hilary is no better than Bush. In fact, I'd take Bush over Hilary anyday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oojay

yeah, Hilary would just take our guns away, prematurely pull out of any war, and kill babies left and right. Good stuff.

Taking our guns away is a brilliant idea. I don't see how "pre-maturely" pulling out of this war is a problem, since it has been going on for 4 years and hasn't solved a thing. And blastulas, blastocysts, and fetus', are not babies. A blastula has less cells in it than the brain of a fly, significantly less actually, considering that a fly's brain has 100,000 cells, while a blastula has somewhere around 150. You should wince everytime you kill a fly mister morality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oojay

Taking our guns away would cause more crime because people would still get guns, and since it would now be illegal, the crime rate would go up (not to mention violating our 5th amendment rights). Abortion is murder. I wasn't talking about Iraq, I just meant war in general, I'm hoping that the Iraq war will be over by November 2008 myself.

No, taking out guns away would not cause more crime. I think that Great Britain is a great example of this.

America- Guns for all. Result: Around 100,000 handgun related deaths per yer.

Great Britain- Only certified members of target clubs can own them and they have to be locked up constantly. Result: Averaging about 12 handgun deaths per year.

COINCIDENCE? Funny thing is, you probably think it is just a fluke. Silly conservative.

~~TheUsedToolguy~~ · 02-24-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontRunMeOver

It could still be kept illegal to smoke underage and to be high while operating machines/vehicles. If there is a equivalent to the breathaliser we have for alcohol, with which you could test quickly and unobtrusively whether a person is high, then this it should be possible to test people for majijuana use in the situations where it's always inappropriate or dangerous. If there isn't such a method then you can't really put marijuana a par with alcohol, as it wouldn't have the same control measures available.

how about for anyone that worked in a factory period. Or anyone that worked in an office. Sure, MJ can help u think more creatively, but I wouldn't want the person preparing my taxes to be all 'now what again, u wanted to claim 0, I'm sorry man, I'm so stoned.' I don't mind potheads too much, but I don't think being stoned & professionalism go too well together, so we'd also hav to make it illegal for anyone in customer service. It would be hard for me to think of a job where it should be legal-outside any of the arts (music, movies, sports). Maybe we should just make it illegal for all jobs. You've still got people wanting to smoke 5 hours before their shift, they come in, 'oh man, I figured it would hav worn off by now' Or they smoked right before they left for their job, 'Oh boss, man, I'm sorry, I smoked 5 hours ago. I was sure it would hav worn off by now' Also hav u ever gone to bed high, and woke up just as high. I think the only solution would be to decriminalize it, or for the other people on this thread, 'make it not as bad of a thing when you get caught with it.'

02-23-2007, 09:39 PM	#172 (permalink)
swim dontcareaboutyou Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Carolina Posts: 5,188	Criminals do illegal things. If it's legal they aren't criminals. If they aren't criminals then it isn't illegal. __________________ http://nakednaps.bandcamp.com/

02-23-2007, 09:40 PM	#173 (permalink)
~~TheUsedToolguy~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Joplin, MO Posts: 468	Oh c'mon. It clearly did not contradict itself. I said that I believe that more than likely what I said was right, but I also believe there was a possibility I was wrong, and if I am, then so be it.

02-23-2007, 09:41 PM	#174 (permalink)
~~[MERIT]~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Missouri, USA Posts: 4,814	1+2=3. If 2+1=3, then 3-1=2. w0rd.

02-23-2007, 09:47 PM	#175 (permalink)
~~TheUsedToolguy~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Joplin, MO Posts: 468	2 to the 5th power > 5 to the 2nd power, but 1 to the 5th power < 5 to the 1st power, weirdtastic