Legalized Marijuana and the Crime Question

[Jack T. Cross]

Shouldn't you ask BB to explain his question to you?  You said you didn't understand it.

Maybe he can clarify, sure. Sounds good.

[Dos Equis]

Wouldn't you say that any instance of children using marijuana is a problem?

On what basis did you conclude that eight year olds smoking pot has been a problem in the U.S. for the last 200+ years?

[Dos Equis]

Yet you can't seem to answer it.  All you do is answer a question with a question.

True.  lol

[Jack T. Cross]

On what basis did you conclude that eight year olds smoking pot has been a problem in the U.S. for the last 200+ years?

The conclusion is that children have been smoking marijuana, and that means a problem.

(can't wait to see where any disagreement could possibly arise from)

[Dos Equis]

The conclusion is that children have been smoking marijuana, and that means a problem.

(can't wait to see where any disagreement could possibly arise from)

That doesn't really answer the question.  You said this:

Very sorry to say, but nothing new with this one. It's been happening as long as people have been around.

On what basis did you conclude that 8 year old kids have been smoking pot "as long as people have been around"? 

[Jack T. Cross]

That doesn't really answer the question.  You said this:


On what basis did you conclude that 8 year old kids have been smoking pot "as long as people have been around"? 

Yes, Beach, it answers the question: "On what basis did you conclude that eight year olds smoking pot has been a problem in the U.S. for the last 200+ years"

If you'd like to deny that children have smoked pot anywhere it exists (including in America in the past 200+ years), or that children smoking pot is a problem, please do. Otherwise, we are left with a single possibility.

[Dos Equis]

Yes, Beach, it answers the question: "On what basis did you conclude that eight year olds smoking pot has been a problem in the U.S. for the last 200+ years"

If you'd like to deny that children have smoked pot anywhere it exists (including in America in the past 200+ years), or that children smoking pot is a problem, please do. Otherwise, we are left with a single possibility.

No, it doesn't.  On what facts do you base your opinion that eight year olds have been smoking pot for the past 200 years?

[Jack T. Cross]

No, it doesn't.  On what facts do you base your opinion that eight year olds have been smoking pot for the past 200 years?

Facts say that people cannot be separated from the seeking of pleasure, and facts say that marijuana may be perceived as a way to deliver that to oneself. (btw, consumed may be a more accurate description, as smoking is only part of the story)

So no matter how sheltered a person may have lived his own life, it should become impossible to believe that every child in history has been successfully steered away from finding cannabis as a tool to deliver pleasure.

People, including children, were regularly treated with marijuana tinctures, as well, which was not an uncommon household item. Surely you wouldn't stake a claim to say that every child in history was successfully minded to the point where consumption was limited only at the direction of the parent. Right?

The unavoidable conclusion is that people, including children, have sought pleasure by consuming marijuana in the past.

[Dos Equis]

Facts say that people cannot be separated from the seeking of pleasure, and facts say that marijuana may be perceived as a way to deliver that to oneself. (btw, consumed may be a more accurate description, as smoking is only part of the story)

So no matter how sheltered a person may have lived his own life, it should become impossible to believe that every child in history has been successfully steered away from finding cannabis as a tool to deliver pleasure.

People, including children, were regularly treated with marijuana tinctures, as well, which was not an uncommon household item. Surely you wouldn't stake a claim to say that every child in history was successfully minded to the point where consumption was limited only at the direction of the parent. Right?

The unavoidable conclusion is that people, including children, have sought pleasure by consuming marijuana in the past.

I see.  So pure conjecture on your part that we have had a chronic problem with eight year olds smoking pot for the past 200 yards.  Got it. 

[OzmO]

So basically:

A:  People seek pleasure, its our nature
B:  200 years ago, Children were exposed to Weed when used a treatment aliments

Therefore A + B proves C

C:  There was a chronic problem with 8 year olds smoking pot.


Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Classic CT'er logic.  Perfect for the politics board too because we do this crap all the time.  lol

[Dos Equis]

So basically:

A:  People seek pleasure, its our nature
B:  200 years ago, Children were exposed to Weed when used a treatment aliments

Therefore A + B proves C

C:  There was a chronic problem with 8 year olds smoking pot.


Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Classic CT'er logic.  Perfect for the politics board too because we do this crap all the time.  lol

^^^ Wurd.   

[RRKore]

I see.  So pure conjecture on your part that we have had a chronic problem with eight year olds smoking pot for the past 200 yards.  Got it. 

LOL.  Pretty punny to use the word "chronic" in your attempt to put words in Jack T's mouth, imo.  Bravo.

I also think it's funny how this whole "discussion" between you and Jack T. started by you implying that the problem (of youngsters smoking pot) was prevalent (prevalent, btw, means widespread) when you tried to suggest that it would likely become "more prevalent" with your question. 

(As an aside, I pondered whether using "more prevalent" does in fact change the meaning of the sentence instead of just "prevalent" in your sentence "Would this become more prevalent with legalization?" and have to conclude that it does.)

Then, when Jack T. seems to agree with you that it's a problem of some sort, you come out and say something like, "I don't know that it IS widespread." 

And now you come out and criticize him for "conjecture"?  Coming from you, that's a complete and total laugh.

[RRKore]

So basically:

A:  People seek pleasure, its our nature
B:  200 years ago, Children were exposed to Weed when used a treatment aliments

Therefore A + B proves C

C:  There was a chronic problem with 8 year olds smoking pot.


Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Classic CT'er logic.  Perfect for the politics board too because we do this crap all the time.  lol

OzmO, I respect the way you think/write but please tell me where Jack T. wrote or even implied (strongly or otherwise) that it (young kids smoking weed) was a "chronic" problem?

Seemed to me he was just saying that this issue has occurred before without comment on how widespread or common it is.  I could be wrong, though.

[Jack T. Cross]

So basically:

A:  People seek pleasure, its our nature
B:  200 years ago, Children were exposed to Weed when used a treatment aliments

Therefore A + B proves C

C:  There was a chronic problem with 8 year olds smoking pot.


Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Classic CT'er logic.  Perfect for the politics board too because we do this crap all the time.  lol

Who said 'chronic', OzmO? And who questioned 'chronic'?

PLEASE read the thread if you're going to direct a comment at someone.

Hope you don't bitch out on this, either. Answer.

[Jack T. Cross]

OzmO, I respect the way you think/write but please tell me where Jack T. wrote or even implied (strongly or otherwise) that it (young kids smoking weed) was a "chronic" problem?

Seemed to me he was just saying that this issue has occurred before without comment on how widespread or common it is.  I could be wrong, though.

No, you're absolutely right.

Thank you, RRKore. I appreciate it.

It's all fun.

[Jack T. Cross]

I see.  So pure conjecture on your part that we have had a chronic problem with eight year olds smoking pot for the past 200 yards.  Got it. 

So will you suggest that we've had significant periods of time when these cases didn't occur?

Was everyone a proper parent, then, or what? Trying to figure where you're coming from.

[StreetSoldier4U]

OzmO, I respect the way you think/write but please tell me where Jack T. wrote or even implied (strongly or otherwise) that it (young kids smoking weed) was a "chronic" problem?

Seemed to me he was just saying that this issue has occurred before without comment on how widespread or common it is.  I could be wrong, though.

He heavily implies the problem is long standing, common and wide spread.

So will you suggest that we've had significant periods of time when these cases didn't occur?

Was everyone a proper parent, then, or what? Trying to figure where you're coming from.

Here he does it again. 

[StreetSoldier4U]

Yet you can't seem to answer it.  All you do is answer a question with a question.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_dodging


Question dodging is the intentional avoidance of answering a question.
This may happen when the person questioned either does not know the answer and wants to avoid embarrassment, or when the person is being interrogated or questioned in debate, and wants to avoid giving a direct response.

Overt question dodging can sometimes be employed humorously, in order to sidestep giving a public answer in a political discussion: when a reporter asked Mayor Richard J. Daley why Hubert Humphrey had lost the state of Illinois in the 1968 presidential election, Daley replied "He lost it because he didn't get enough votes."

A false accusation of question dodging can sometimes be made as a disingenuous tactic in debate, in the informal fallacy of the loaded question. A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. This can lead the person questioned to be accused of "dodging the question".

Often the aim of dodging a question is to make it seem as though the question was fulfilled. The person who asked the question feeling satisfied with the answer, unaware that the question was not properly answered.
The form of a dodged question, this example being "Why are you here?", could be:


Refusing to answer ("No comment.")
Changing the subject ("Your shoelace is undone.")
Explaining redundant things to distract one's focus ("Well I arrived here 10 minutes ago and I decided that...")
Creating an excuse not to answer ("I'm feeling sick, I can't answer now.")
Repeating the question ("Why are you here?")
Answering the question with another question ("Why do you think I'm here?")
Answering things that weren't asked ("I'm in the corridor.")
Questioning the question ("Are you sure that's relevant?")
Challenging the question ("You assume I am here for a reason.")
Giving an answer in the wrong context ("Because I was born.")

I'm bumping this again because he seems to be unable to stop himself from doing this.

[Jack T. Cross]

By the way, this story happened in California, where the pot laws have been in place for nearly 20 years.

[Jack T. Cross]

SS4U, I'm genuinely trying to figure out where Beach Bum is coming from. I hope to learn from it.

[Jack T. Cross]

...these issues are larger than all of us.

[StreetSoldier4U]

SS4U, I'm genuinely trying to figure out where Beach Bum is coming from. I hope to learn from it.

I don't think you are.  Your strategy is to ask a question every time you're asked one thus putting the questioner in the position of having to answer a question instead of you explaining yourself. 

[Jack T. Cross]

I don't think you are.  Your strategy is to ask a question every time you're asked one thus putting the questioner in the position of having to answer a question instead of you explaining yourself. 

Please fix your glasses and look at what you quoted above. What "question with a question" are you talking about?

[StreetSoldier4U]

Please fix your glasses and look at what you quoted above. What "question with a question" are you talking about?

You know what you're doing.  Your goal is to put someone on the defensive and never have to provide difinite  complex answers. 

[Jack T. Cross]

You know what you're doing.  Your goal is to put someone on the defensive and never have to provide difinite  complex answers.  

It shouldn't require much complexity, to say that certain people are going to seek pleasure through taking marijuana. That's about as basic as it gets.