Aix.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,954
In this life the only thing a person really has are their thoughts and their ability to think... Taking drugs impairs and destroys that one thing that is truly yours... I don't understand the attraction of drugs.

The other thing is that I have heard it said that marijuana and alcohol are the same. In effect this may be true but in reality, if you want to make marijuana illegal then all you have to do is ban any plant that produces THC. On the other hand since almost any food can be made into alcohol the only way to make it illegal is to ban all foods... Not very practical. So with alcohol the best you can do is legalize it and manage it. Simply put, even though alcohol is a narcotic it is not the same as any other drug.

Lol, cannabis does not rob you of your ability to think. This is some Just Say No-era nonsense and your "I have heard it said that marijuana and alcohol are the same" reveals you speak from ignorance. Relaxing with some weed once in a while does not put you on the fast track to the Betty Ford Clinic, and the similarity to alcohol is that, if you choose to consume responsibly then it's just another way to enjoy your evening. OTOH, drinking to excess puts you at risk of alcohol poisoning and making various other decisions that may result in harm/death; consuming too much cannabis generally means the munchies or bed time.
 

{NG}Fidel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
6,286
Lol, cannabis does not rob you of your ability to think. This is some Just Say No-era nonsense and your "I have heard it said that marijuana and alcohol are the same" reveals you speak from ignorance. Relaxing with some weed once in a while does not put you on the fast track to the Betty Ford Clinic, and the similarity to alcohol is that, if you choose to consume responsibly then it's just another way to enjoy your evening. OTOH, drinking to excess puts you at risk of alcohol poisoning and making various other decisions that may result in harm/death; consuming too much cannabis generally means the munchies or bed time.
Moderation with anything is important and we've proven overseas and here in the states that nothing terrible comes of it. In fact revenue and jobs are the main things that come from it.
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
10,961
You are trying to rationalize away breaking the law to make a quick buck.

I never denied that them selling Marijuana was illegal when they did it, only that them selling Marijuana did not put them in the same league as someone who sold crack, meth, etc. You seem to want to pretend that there is no difference because it suits your argument. Some crimes are more serious than others. I willingly break the speed limit by 5-10mph all the time when I drive, for example, but I don't feel that puts me in the same category as someone who blows through red lights at every intersection. If I had a stick up my butt about speeders and wanted to demonize them, then maybe I would pretend there was no difference between those two things also? Some things in life just aren't that big of a deal.
 
Last edited:

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,934
I never denied that them selling Marijuana was illegal when they did it, only that them selling Marijuana did not put them in the same league as someone who sold crack, meth, etc. You seem to want to pretend that there is no difference because it suits your argument. Some crimes are more serious than others. I willingly break the speed limit by 5-10mph all the time when I drive, for example, but I don't feel that puts me in the same category as someone who blows through red lights at every intersection. If I had a stick up my ass about speeders and wanted to demonize them, then maybe I would pretend there was no difference between those two things also? Some things in life just aren't that big of a deal.

I'm going to have to take a hard disagree with this, justice is blind, or justice doesn't work. When it was illegal, these people where drug dealers, regardless of what they dealt in. Also if you have ever had experience with a drug dealer they don't just deal in one thing, they usually deal in many things with one specific thing they always have.

Crime is crime, the severity of which is determined by the type of crime, these people where drug dealers and need to be treated as such, regardless of some of their products new and current legality.
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,884
Lol, cannabis does not rob you of your ability to think. This is some Just Say No-era nonsense and your "I have heard it said that marijuana and alcohol are the same" reveals you speak from ignorance. Relaxing with some weed once in a while does not put you on the fast track to the Betty Ford Clinic, and the similarity to alcohol is that, if you choose to consume responsibly then it's just another way to enjoy your evening. OTOH, drinking to excess puts you at risk of alcohol poisoning and making various other decisions that may result in harm/death; consuming too much cannabis generally means the munchies or bed time.

LOL this is so true!
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,884
I'm going to have to take a hard disagree with this, justice is blind, or justice doesn't work. When it was illegal, these people where drug dealers, regardless of what they dealt in. Also if you have ever had experience with a drug dealer they don't just deal in one thing, they usually deal in many things with one specific thing they always have.

Crime is crime, the severity of which is determined by the type of crime, these people where drug dealers and need to be treated as such, regardless of some of their products new and current legality.

You disagree with justice is blind and then you turn a blind eye to a difference in drugs. Common! The problem is you do not know the details about these cases. So you are blindly judging them. lol.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,934
You disagree with justice is blind and then you turn a blind eye to a difference in drugs. Common! The problem is you do not know the details about these cases. So you are blindly judging them. lol.

Read it again and remake your argument. Either justice is blind, or justice does not work. The Criminal code makes no exceptions for different illegal drugs, if you sell them, you are a drug dealer. Everything else is just feels.

If you want to change the status of a drug, then so be it, but prior convictions for dealing still stand, these are people that tried to profit doing illegal activities. Notice how drug user does not equal drug dealer?

I am pro-legalization, but if I started selling weed where it is illegal... I don't know why you think people should get a free pass for that?
 

ssnyder28

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
3,705
Please use same algorithm for the rest of the country. Too many people locked up blowing tax payer money and overcrowding prisons.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
Please use same algorithm for the rest of the country. Too many people locked up blowing tax payer money and overcrowding prisons.

100% agree but won't happen, to many states running for profit private prisons which will throw millions to make sure this never happens because low level drug users are their bread and butter for money.

Read it again and remake your argument. Either justice is blind, or justice does not work. The Criminal code makes no exceptions for different illegal drugs, if you sell them, you are a drug dealer. Everything else is just feels.

If you want to change the status of a drug, then so be it, but prior convictions for dealing still stand, these are people that tried to profit doing illegal activities. Notice how drug user does not equal drug dealer?

I am pro-legalization, but if I started selling weed where it is illegal... I don't know why you think people should get a free pass for that?

your mistake is assuming that this is purely for dealers, in California it was a misdemeanor just to have any amount of weed on you while in most other states it was a fine unless you were caught with more than an oz or it was pre-packaged to be sold.
 
Last edited:

ssnyder28

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
3,705
100% agree but won't happen, to many states running for profit private prisons which will throw millions to make sure this never happens because low level drug users are their bread and butter for money.

Very sad state(s) of affairs. No pun intended.
 

Nunu

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
257
LoL. You are unreal. It's clear you refuse to think logically and for you it's drug dealer or not. You seem to be one of those guys who believes anything your uncle sam tells you. Marijuana is evil ruuuuun. Anyone with a half brain knows marijuana is not even in the same league as other drugs. It's just that you chose to believe what you were told. These are minor convictions and since weed is legal in California why the fuck would you want to waste tax payer money keeping these people in jail. When doctor provides you pain killers say no, they are worst than weed lol .

So if my personal opinion does not meet your excellent standard of hair splitting rationality that makes me a half a brain uncle sam brainwashed type of guy? Did I get that right? You know, explaining rather than hurling slurs might help you convince someone else.

As it stands, you still fail to understand my point. That's fine. A minor conviction does not mean they were innocently sent to prison. It literally means they were proven guilty. Federal Law can still send people to jail for selling weed illegally, even in California. And finally, people using it personally is one thing. People selling it illegally to others for profit is still a crime. However, if everyone wants to save the taxpayers money and begin to address criminal justice reform, don't jail minor offenders from the start and make that a Federal Law. Good luck getting that passed.
 
Last edited:

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,884
Read it again and remake your argument. Either justice is blind, or justice does not work. The Criminal code makes no exceptions for different illegal drugs, if you sell them, you are a drug dealer. Everything else is just feels.

If you want to change the status of a drug, then so be it, but prior convictions for dealing still stand, these are people that tried to profit doing illegal activities. Notice how drug user does not equal drug dealer?

I am pro-legalization, but if I started selling weed where it is illegal... I don't know why you think people should get a free pass for that?

I get your point but What I am saying is you don’t know if everyone was selling drugs. You could have shit on your record for having weed on you even if you weren’t selling that’s how it was in California.
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
10,961
Also if you have ever had experience with a drug dealer they don't just deal in one thing, they usually deal in many things with one specific thing they always have

Not sure how many "drug dealers" you have experience with but where I live in Northern California I know literally hundreds who grow marijuana and sell each year, including dozens just within a several mile radius of my house, and for 99% of them, that is the only drug they sell. Maybe that's the problem here is you just have experience with a different type of dealer and are trying to apply that label onto everyone. Again, not everyone fits the gangster-pride crack/meth/heroin dealer stereotype, as much as you might want them to.

Crime is crime, the severity of which is determined by the type of crime, these people where drug dealers and need to be treated as such, regardless of some of their products new and current legality.

The vagueness of your terminology here is almost laughable. If you really don't see any difference between Marijuana and something like Crack/Heroin/Meth then that really says more about you having an axe to grind than anything else. You might as well claim that illegal transfer of MP3 files and Child Porn online should be subject to the same punishment as well as i'm sure there are some umbrella laws which they both violate as well.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon has teamed up with nonprofit Code For America to use a computer algorithm based on its "Clear My Record" technology to overturn 9,362 marijuana convictions dating back to 1975. The algorithm automated the scanning of many thousands of court records to find cases that were eligible for expungement. California legalized recreational marijuana in 2016 and Proposition 64 allowed for old cases to be overturned. But individuals had to petition the court and the process was confusing, costly and time-consuming. Only 23 cases had been processed in the court system before the computer algorithm was able to perform the task in just minutes. "The cleared records will help people gain employment and be approved for housing and other opportunities they might have been denied because of their criminal records." Code For America says it is hopeful that it can bring the technology to other cities and counties.

"If you are the mom or dad who wants to participate in the kids' school activities and they're being told you can't go to that field trip because you have a felony conviction because you sold a nickel bag in the Tenderloin 10 years ago, that's the people that we care about," said Gascon.

"Contact with the criminal justice system should not be a life sentence, so we've been working to reimagine the record clearance process," Jennifer Pahlka, Code for America founder and executive director, said in a statement."This new approach, which is both innovative and common sense, changes the scale and speed of justice and has the potential to ignite change across the country."


A computer algorithm huh?

We used to call them Excel Macros :facepalm:
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
meh it's their choice, not my place to tell people what they should and shouldn't put in their body.

Wait up, why isn't it your place?

If what they are doing has no effect on you than sure, I feel ya.

But if what they are doing does impact you, your neighborhoods and society, their kids, etc. Then you don't just have a right to say something, you have an obligation to do so.

Long long ago I was 20 and worked at Red Lobster trying to work my way through college. This little Asian chick took me home with her, she had a guy she lived with and her daughter. Dude they were always lit. This 4 or 5 year old kid was like permanently high from their drug use.

Now at 20 I can't say I was a truly responsible adult, but looking back today, what do you think my place should have been all those years ago?
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,934
Not sure how many "drug dealers" you have experience with but where I live in Northern California I know literally hundreds who grow marijuana and sell each year, including dozens just within a several mile radius of my house, and for 99% of them, that is the only drug they sell. Maybe that's the problem here is you just have experience with a different type of dealer and are trying to apply that label onto everyone. Again, not everyone fits the gangster-pride crack/meth/heroin dealer stereotype, as much as you might want them to.



The vagueness of your terminology here is almost laughable. If you really don't see any difference between Marijuana and something like Crack/Heroin/Meth then that really says more about you having an axe to grind than anything else. You might as well claim that illegal transfer of MP3 files and Child Porn online should be subject to the same punishment as well as i'm sure there are some umbrella laws which they both violate as well.

No the problem is your feels are trumping reality.

*Judges are the 'feels' of the courtroom, it is there job to take into account the specific circumstances when a law has been broken and apply the appropriate punishment. You already have a mechanism in place to account for the difference of crack v. Marijuana.

I am not arguing what is better or what is worse, criminal law is not subjective, its objective. Dealing drugs is a crime, regardless of what those drugs are. YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT other than marijuana isn't as harmful as crack. The law does not care that one is less harmful, it cares that the law has been broken.

Good for you being from California, explains the mental gymnastics.

Legal v. Illegal, in criminal law its quite cut and dry. Don't like it, change the laws, until then its a crime.

Also I really don't think you can find much for blanket criminal laws that conflate MP3's (copyright violation) with Child porn (statutory rape and related offenses), but nice straw man.

I get your point but What I am saying is you don’t know if everyone was selling drugs. You could have shit on your record for having weed on you even if you weren’t selling that’s how it was in California.

I agree with expunging the records of those convicted of possession, but to expunge convicted drug dealers with little more than an algorithm to double check that their conviction was honest??
 
Last edited:

Aix.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,954
A computer algorithm huh?

We used to call them Excel Macros :facepalm:

giphy.gif
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
100% agree but won't happen, to many states running for profit private prisons which will throw millions to make sure this never happens because low level drug users are their bread and butter for money.

Yet here in California they are getting rid of for profit private prisons, even though they are much cheaper to run than the state prisons.
Have to support that prison guard union as they send lots of brib.. I mean campaign donations to the politicians.
 

bugleyman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,227
Crime is crime, the severity of which is determined by the type of crime, these people where drug dealers and need to be treated as such, regardless of some of their products new and current legality.

So...five over on the freeway is the same as fifty over in a school zone? They're both speeding, and since (you believe that) severity is determined solely by the type of the crime...
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,934
So...five over on the freeway is the same as 50 over in a school zone? They're both speeding, after all...

I don't think you actually understand the definitions of types of crime, speeding is a petty offense punishable by fine only. Certain speeds increase this to a misdemeanor, but you'd have to be doing something pretty dumb to make it more than a class a misdemeanor.

*In context, yes, 5 or 50 over both are a crime, however greater than 30mph over the posted limit is a misdemeanor, under that is just fine-able offense.

** I don't know why it is so hard for people to accept that : The law is the law, regardless of your personal agreement with it. Break the law and it is a crime, punishable by the applicable criminal codes, again regardless of your agreement.
 
Last edited:

Riouken

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
210
I would be all for making all drugs legal if drug users would stipulate to these concessions:

-Drugs could only be used in your own home, no public use.

- Selling drugs outside of what ever is regulated from the government his a large prison sentence starting at 25 years.

- Any Crime committed on drugs or because of drugs has a huge prison sentence modifier.
For instance if you broke into someones house to steal so you could by drugs, you would get standard sentence for burglary and an extra 10-20 years for drug modifier.
 

Xpl1c1t

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
478
In an ideal society, all laws would be just.

In reality, unjust laws exist which can demonstratably contribute to a less civil society.
All should agree that some laws are unjust and that it is the duty of a civil society to strike down injustice.

Misdemeanor possession of marijuana... are you really convinced that those convictions were made to uphold a JUST law?
 

Nunu

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
257
No one is forcing anyone to buy marijuana illegally. There would be no misdemeanor if they didn't buy it. So the vast majority of folks that don't do it, have to abide by that "unjust" law. The rest that don't , need to have it rewritten? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 

BloodyIron

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
3,439
No, the majority is, in fact, possession. You have a joint? Possession with mandatory minimum. You have a small bag with a gram? Possession with mandatory minimum.

Go look it up.

I suspect they plead down to possession. I predict there will be a rise in problems due to this policy.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
2,003
It may not eliminate it completely, but the level could be reduced to such a small number that most people would never see it.
It also depends on how tough you are on the specific crime. However, as a civilized people, we would never be willing to go that far.

Again, wrong, going back to "an eye for an eye".

Case in point: most states that still have a death penalty have HIGHER rates of violent crime on average then those that don't. Coincidentally, those states are also poorer on average.

Crime is driven by the ability to make income, first and foremost. Want to reduce crime? Then put more money in peoples pockets.

With "tough on crime" laws, you put people away for decades at a time, then end up shocked they can't find decent jobs and go back to crime, given crime pays more.
 

bugleyman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,227
I don't think you actually understand the definitions of types of crime, speeding is a petty offense punishable by fine only. Certain speeds increase this to a misdemeanor, but you'd have to be doing something pretty dumb to make it more than a class a misdemeanor.

*In context, yes, 5 or 50 over both are a crime, however greater than 30mph over the posted limit is a misdemeanor, under that is just fine-able offense.

** I don't know why it is so hard for people to accept that : The law is the law, regardless of your personal agreement with it. Break the law and it is a crime, punishable by the applicable criminal codes, again regardless of your agreement.

And I don't know why it is so hard for some people to accept that illegal in not a synonym for immoral.

Also, you very clearly stated that the severity of a crime is determined solely by type (and therefore not by degree). I then provided an example which demonstrated that you were mistaken...two paragraphs of equivocations and qualifications notwithstanding. :D
 
Last edited:

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
Again, wrong, going back to "an eye for an eye".

Case in point: most states that still have a death penalty have HIGHER rates of violent crime on average then those that don't. Coincidentally, those states are also poorer on average.

Crime is driven by the ability to make income, first and foremost. Want to reduce crime? Then put more money in peoples pockets.

With "tough on crime" laws, you put people away for decades at a time, then end up shocked they can't find decent jobs and go back to crime, given crime pays more.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Tough penalties are worthless if the chances of getting arrested are slim, or if it takes 20+ years to go through the courts.

Here in California, death row inmates are more likely to die of old age, then to ever be executed. Kind of defeats the purpose on having a death penalty.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Jeez, I think the wheels came off of this thread.


And here I was thinking how it is unfair to say you made all this super progress 'becuase algorithms' when in reality the process became efficient becuase they basically did away with it altogether. I mean before each person has to apply, and go with all these hoops, then they said, well screw it, no hoops, no application process... Well no shit its more efficient.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
2,003
Justice delayed is justice denied.

Tough penalties are worthless if the chances of getting arrested are slim, or if it takes 20+ years to go through the courts.

Here in California, death row inmates are more likely to die of old age, then to ever be executed. Kind of defeats the purpose on having a death penalty.

I note you didn't refute my points.

Let's be clear: If the purpose of a death penalty is to reduce crime, then the statistics are clear: The death penalty has failed in it's primary purpose.
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
6,504
100% agree but won't happen, to many states running for profit private prisons which will throw millions to make sure this never happens because low level drug users are their bread and butter for money.



your mistake is assuming that this is purely for dealers, in California it was a misdemeanor just to have any amount of weed on you while in most other states it was a fine unless you were caught with more than an oz or it was pre-packaged to be sold.
Since 1975 anything under one ounce has been a fine.

It’s called the moscone act.

I think you’ve got California confused. I’ve been caught with weed at least a dozen times. Most of the time even pre 2016 I kept my weed and my pipe. I think one time they took a gram from me.

Only time we’ve had a problem with someone going to jail we had pounds— I wasn’t in that car that day luckily.
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
6,504
Wait up, why isn't it your place?

If what they are doing has no effect on you than sure, I feel ya.

But if what they are doing does impact you, your neighborhoods and society, their kids, etc. Then you don't just have a right to say something, you have an obligation to do so.

Long long ago I was 20 and worked at Red Lobster trying to work my way through college. This little Asian chick took me home with her, she had a guy she lived with and her daughter. Dude they were always lit. This 4 or 5 year old kid was like permanently high from their drug use.

Now at 20 I can't say I was a truly responsible adult, but looking back today, what do you think my place should have been all those years ago?
Contact high is most likely a myth per the research. I mean unless they were chain smoking joints in a small totally enclosed area. 16 joints an hour is what was tested.

Maybe the kid was just retarded?

Links in articles to studies.
https://www.businessinsider.com/randi-kaye-contact-high-2014-1

Most pot use, like alcohol use is responsible.

Working in restaurants though— alcohol was a much bigger issue than the stoners. The pot heads never got drunk during shift and tried to fight the owner. Drunks did twice though lol.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,934
And I don't know why it is so hard for some people to accept that illegal in not a synonym for immoral.

Also, you very clearly stated that the severity of a crime is determined solely by type (and therefore not by degree). I then provided an example which demonstrated that you were mistaken...two paragraphs of equivocations and qualifications notwithstanding. :D

Because it's illegal, morality has nothing to do with it.

You have not proved that drug dealing is dependent on the type of drug being dealt. You setup a pseudo straw man around speeding. You folks are off your rockers.
 
Last edited:

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
I note you didn't refute my points.

Let's be clear: If the purpose of a death penalty is to reduce crime, then the statistics are clear: The death penalty has failed in it's primary purpose.

I refute your conclusion based on the fact that we really have no death penalty here in California. As implemented it's noting more than a theoretical piece of paper.
The purpose of the death penalty is not just to punish, but also to stop the person from committing any more crimes (even in prison)

When the punishment is delayed by 20-30 years or the criminal ends up dying in prison of old age, then you can't say the death penalty is a failure.
What has failed is the justice system, because they are not actually carrying out the intent of the law.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,702
Every vote counts. Did they attach an absentee ballot for these expungements?
 

>GSXR<mrbusa

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
121
Most likely many of the people this affects have way more on their record that what is being expunged so this means nothing.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
2,003
I refute your conclusion based on the fact that we really have no death penalty here in California. As implemented it's noting more than a theoretical piece of paper.
The purpose of the death penalty is not just to punish, but also to stop the person from committing any more crimes (even in prison)

When the punishment is delayed by 20-30 years or the criminal ends up dying in prison of old age, then you can't say the death penalty is a failure.
What has failed is the justice system, because they are not actually carrying out the intent of the law.

Notice you're limiting your discussion to just one state, in current times. I'm applying it to history. Getting tough on crime NEVER works. Without exception.

Secondly, you refute your own argument. And I quote "but also to stop the person from committing any more crimes (even in prison)". I am not aware of any modern case where someone on death row has committed a criminal act. Therefore, you undermine your own death penalty argument, as life imprisonment is sufficient to prevent the prisoner from committing any more crimes.

Thirdly, the role of prisons should not be to punish, but to reform. It's that think that is a leading factor in prison re-admittance rates. If we spent money on teaching skills necessary to hold a steady job, rather then punishment, we'd reduce both crime and expenses in one go.
 

bugleyman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,227
Because it's illegal, morality has nothing to do with it.

You have not proved that drug dealing is dependent on the type of drug being dealt. You setup a pseudo straw man around speeding. You folks are off your rockers.

That's a negative...there is no straw man. When you make sweeping statements including works like "only" and "always," your argument is very easy to disprove. A single counter-point suffices, because you have implicitly made a host of other arguments. For example, if you were argue that ALL animals are white, you are implicitly arguing that black cats don't exist...no "straw man" required (though you did get one thing right, albeit by accident: It was a pseudo strawman).

Of course, you have yourself resorted to an ad-hominem by claiming that those with whom you disagree are "off our rockers."

TLDR: If you don't want your arguments to be easily refuted, make better arguments.
 
Last edited:
Top