- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Well, now you're now making a claim that is not the original one you made.
And your information is not correct. For something to be classified as "deadly", there must be a certain percentage of fatalities on a per-year basis, adding up to a substantial enough number of incidents that it actually becomes a legitimate issue.
Marijuana (in a chemical sense) is not deadly. It can be the catalyst for deadly things happening to you, if you choose to drive while high or engage in idiotic activities while inebriated.
If marijuana was deadly, it wouldn't be:
a) Legalized for medical purposes in 20 U.S. states
b) Legalized for recreational usage in 8 U.S. states
c) Used as a common treatment for multiple sclerosis, cancer, glaucoma, Hep C, Crohn's, Alzheimer's, Epilepsy, and a number of psychological disorders.
No doctor or hospital is prescribing or advocating medicinal cocaine. Additionally, no doctor or hospital is prescribing or advocating medicinal black tar heroin.
Those things are deadly. They have been known to statistically cause death or fatal health-related trauma.
Of all of the problems in the United States, people making a choice to chill out with a bowl isn't one that should be a hot button topic. The majority of individuals who say that marijuana should be legalized can't name a single thing about the state of the government, taxes, state and local elections, or current events that directly impact the state of the country.
ExCon kind of said it all, in this case. Those statistics are undisputed by legitimate statisticians.
Those who want to demonize marijuana usage have to take a very careful look at their own lives. Statistically, alcohol kills 88,000 people per year, which makes it far more dangerous than marijuana. If an individual wants to illegalize marijuana, they should be ready to concede that alcohol should be illegal, and be ready to put down that glass of wine, mug of beer, or shot of vodka.
Well, you kind of have to go at that in the right way.
In the chemical sense, you're absolutely correct; Marijuana does not have the chemical capacity to kill you on its own (nor does at have the ability to give you lung cancer).
However, it should be taken into account that Marijuana-related deaths are plentiful (driving while high, getting high and just doing general stupid things, etc.)
It's underrated due to it being impossible. If getting lung cancer from marijuana is possible, there hasn't been one recorded case of it happening in the estimated 2,700 years that people have been drying cannabis and smoking it (the purported oldest case of Marijuana consumption for the purpose of intoxication being in the Gobi Desert of China, where found about a pound of dried-out cannabis and various pieces that they believe were used for smoking it.)
Your argument is uneducated, childish, and invalid. The fact that you felt the need to respond out of emotion and with the use of expletives proves that you do not possess a mental capacity that is capable of critical or logical thinking, and must resort to a sort of tough-guy anger when you can't grasp a concept. Furthermore...
I don't think you understood my response at all. Charging someone more for being gay would be a good example of a Free Market system. The head of the bakery would say "We're gonna charge gays more since we don't agree with their lifestyle choices."
The gay couple would see this and say, "Well, we're being charged more because we're gay. Let's go to the bakery down the road where they don't charge us more based on our sexual preferences."
Business A is free to practice its religious/moral freedoms, and Business B picks up the profit that Business A missed out on due to practicing its religious/moral freedoms.
It should be universally known at this point that every action has a reaction. You choose to charge gays more or not to serve them? Cool. You're well within your legal right to do so. But you need to understand that the REACTION to your initial action will potentially result in loss of finances, loss of customers, and potentially a bad word-of-mouth reputation getting around about your business.
Please, for the sake of individuals: Try to really sound the words out and comprehend their meaning next time. You attempted to dispute me, but all you did was make a point that supported my initial point.
If the police can come to your home and arrest you for selling alcohol to teens at your own home, how far can they push their agenda?
-- I mean they should be able to push it however far they want. If you're over the age of 21, and you're selling alcohol to a minor, it's a felony. It's only relatively acceptable when you're doing it in your own home, mostly because they can't do anything about that.
What if the teen is your own child, should you be arrested for having your own child in a safe environment where they can experiment with alcohol?
You can keep an eye on the effects alcohol will have on your child.
-- This is where you lose me. What parent is selling their child alcohol? Giving, sure. I'm all for that. Teaching kids about alcohol and not acting like it's the blood of demons is important in them not acting like idiots when they go through their rebellious teenage phase later. There's a reason why European teens don't have as big of a problem with alcohol as American teens do. There's such an enormous taboo on the concept of alcohol in this country, that the first time a 14 year old is offered booze at a party, they take it because it's unexplored territory, and they think it will make them feel older and cooler. If you're taught when you're young that drinking is just a thing people do, and not something that legitimately makes you cooler, a large majority of those teens won't feel like it's their go-to option.
Or should the your teenager go with their friends to another place to get alcohol, get wasted, get into a car and then (God forbid) get into an accident? Or if your teen is a girl she gets, GHB'd?
--Honestly, it's much more important to teach your kid to have an honest and open relationship with you. Chances are, your kid is going to go to a party in high school, and will probably have a drink. They need to know that if they go to a party and fuck up, that you'll be disappointed in them, but won't come down on them in a crazy way. Otherwise, they'll never trust you with anything. It's more important to teach them:
~~"If you drove to the party, you better not get behind the wheel after drinking. Additionally, if someone else drove you, and they got wasted, they better not be driving you. If you're without a ride, call us, Uber home and leave the car, just whatever you do, don't drive.
~~"Never take a drink from someone unless you physically watched them make it with your own eyes, it's someone you trust and know wouldn't try to put some crazy shit into your drink, never leave your drink sitting alone, and if you do, go get another one."
~~"If you're going to choose to drink at a party, you need to understand the consequences that could happen to you if the police showed up to the party and you got busted. Additionally, you need to understand the consequences and legal implications if you were at a party where someone got into a vehicular accident, overdosed on drugs, or got alcohol poisoning.
It's absolutely imperative that kids don't view alcohol as a rebellion tool. Otherwise, if they kind of hate you when they're going through their shitty little phase, they'll use drinking to say "Fuck my parents. I'll do what I want!"
It's certainly possible. It's quite telling that Newt Gingrich was defending Franken on his show recently; Not because he believed that Franken was innocent, but because he didn't want the media to go after Trump the same way. And of course, after throwing Franken under the bus, the leftists immediately said, "Okay, well we threw Franken and Conyers out, how about you guys throw out Moore and Trump?"
Granted, I believe that the scenarios are vastly different, since there was actually tangible, photographic proof of being a sexual predator. Moore (even though I personally believe he's guilty) just got hit with several accusations (some of which have been debunked, no less), and the accusations that Trump got hit with pretty much disappeared after he became President. It's all a sketchy fucking mess. We should just throw all of the ballot candidates for senate seats out and have a write-in campaign.
No. What's ethical is a free-market system where businesses have the right to practice religious or personal moral freedoms, and lose income, and lose customers to other businesses. That's what drives the state of businesses: Competitive marketing.
Sidenote: If I owned a bakery, I would make a cake for a gay wedding. I don't have any qualms against doing something like that, because I don't care whether or not someone's gay. A customer is a dollar sign. But if there was another bakery down the road from mine that refused to do gay weddings, I would be grateful about that; Simply because it means that the gay couple would come and use my services instead.
Free market system.
If that makes sense, then why is it that on submission forms of various kind, you see one of these two things:
Sex: (circle one) M or F
Gender: (circle one) M or F
Notice the interchangeably used words.
Yes, this is also true for Doctors' Office and Hospital forms. So if you are going to claim that the majority of doctors are incorrect, please do so.
No, because that would fall under free speech.
However, if you legitimately believe that the holocaust didn't happen, I would question your intelligence level, or the existence of your intelligence at all.
No, it shouldn't be a crime, which is why it isn't. And fortunately for individuals that question the holocaust, stupidity isn't a crime either.