These 2 should watch the other debate that happened between Libertarians on marijuana legalization in Arizona
I did watch part of that. I was hoping this debate wouldn't end up like that.
Actually your debate was far more insightful tbh
That is what I was going for. I didn't want to have a purely libertarian argument. If there's one thing this debate has taught me its that I need to make sure I have an agreement with peeps over what decriminalization means.
@matt_callert25 lol I was just about to share the link to @vanngutier debate here
My definition is the legal definition, and by that definition there are different degrees, from nonpenalization, the system we now have, to plain decriminalization where the user is no longer considered criminal, to nonenforcement. Which is the system we both want for the most part, but define differently.
I hope you mean that you learned more about the issue from a legal standpoint.
Awesome debate guys
I'm the clear victor here. My opponent was confused. He did not refute a single point.
I feel like @loganfleckenstein more effectively argued for his position because he didn't limit himself to just the strict definitions relevant to the topic. He brought up legitimizing marijuana from a social and moral perspective which is a huge point in this debate. That's not something that comes up when you talk about this only from a legal and market standpoint.
If you are not talking from a legal standpoint you do not understand the issue, because there is no legitimization. It's illegal no matter what. When you say you want "legal" marijuana you are only redefining nonpenalization, you're actually signing away rights. I hope you, Logan, and the audience will now understand the difference. This isn't about ideological preferences, it's about real solutions that work as a win win for all parties under the laws and system we have now.
Yea but that is just one point in a very complex issue and you can't ignore the facts here. @julian_cennamo addressed exactly how this would play out in a very real sense and he also successfully refuted @loganfleckenstein's main point about taxes which basically unraveled his argument
@julian_cennamo I'm just curious, do you believe in decriminalization as a good step towards eventual legalization or do you want decriminalization as the final legislation in the foreseeable future when it comes to weed?Also, always calling your opponent "confused" and "not understanding the issue" is not a great debate tactic and may mean that you aren't effectively communicating your point.
Absolutely. Further decriminalization is the only step toward true legalization. Again, it's only depenalized. The further steps are pure decriminalization, whereby the user is not considered a criminal as they would be today and therefore could not be penalized(as Logan kept suggesting), although they supply side still could be. The next step is non-enforcement whereby it's still illegal on the books, but the law is not enforced. The Dutch model is a great example of this and the only that will work.My criticism of his confusion was not an attack of false equivalence. He was trying to redefine the same thing in a ideological and non legal way. That's the problem with this issue.
@julian_cennamo likes to talk loudly to make a point, but it's not effective at all. Logan had solid definitions and clear communication. So from a debater stand point, Logan won.Actual Debate though:Point 1 - Defining whether it's a state's rights issue or a federal issue doesn't make it less or more ethical to legalize/decriminalize. This has nothing to do with the debate.Point 2 - Again, this point has nothing to do with legalization/decriminalization. Point 3 - I don't really understand where Julian is going, on one hand he wants broad protection, on another hand he fails to recognize how you do that. The point of legalization vs monopolization (which I guess he failed to understand fundamentally) was that monopolization through state overregulation occurs on many levels of the private sector. Therefore you should remove government from this conversation in order to remove bias in allowing a private org to operate. This point also has nothing to do with the debate.Point 4 - Again, this point doesn't go against legalization of marijuana. We don't care about international law. They have no sovereignty over us like that. If the UN had authority over us we wouldn't be invading the Middle East.So Julian's main argument is that he doesn't want a company to profit off of weed. That's literally it. I guess he's a communist or doesn't understand capitalism or how wealth is generated, or even how limiting and flawed decriminalization is. Legalization is better for everyone.Logan brings up good points about Legalization and corporations. Logan understand capitalism.I also don't understand why Julian thinks it can't be legal. Yes it can. That's a fact. Legal status isn't a static state of existence, it's a perception. Perception changes.By the way Logan wasn't confused, your arguments were incoherent and easily debunk-able, which Logan did.
Eric, stop being a sore loser. You're loaded question argument was boring and doomed for failure. 1. If you understood the law you would know that the federal and international ban overrides states rights. Logan didn't understand that either.2. Moving the schedule class has everything to do with either viewpoint and Logan did not refute that. This is the only way for many people to get medicine without loosing their job, also the doctors can't write the prescription because it's illegal for them to do so. What an ignorant statement!3. What's more free market than nonenforcement?4. That's kind of half the point of my saying that you can already order the same pot from magazines online actually. But that doesn't mean it's legal. And if it were "legal", you still couldn't do that legally. It's a false protection.The UN may not give a shit about the Middle East, and it created the problems. But the UN has gone into many countries to fight drugs including marijuana. A false equivalence and another extremely ignorant statement.The capitalism that Logan argued for where taxes are awesome is crony capitalism. It's not based on free trade. And it's not legalization. It's a depenalized system where the laws are redefined to support one group or person over another.Logan brought nothing to the table but more nonproactive talk that will continue to get is knowwhere from a very real and legal perspective. The only way his argument could have been worse is if you presented it!You've got a lot to learn before you beat me kiddo!
UN can't do anything to us. The reason all 4 of your points were moot was because the same arguments could be made for legalization. You didn't substantiate anything properly, mostly because you didn't have good arguments. Legalization means that you can have a ready market where everyone participates at the lowest possible risk, meaning no jail and fines (your system doesn't do that), it also means people can invest properly (your system doesn't do that), it also decreases squandered tax dollars (your system doesn't do that effectively), and it also stops infringing on human rights (your system doesn't do that either).Legalization, as Logan points out, is more effective for the means and cause.
You couldn't argue any issue but abortion and it was the same old tired loaded argument fallacy nonsense. I honestly wonder if you ever substantiated any argument in your life.Offering another false equivalence by insulting me without substantiating isn't making you look any better!I on other hand do understand the legality and issue, as I fully illustrated. My opponent did not. 75% of the time I couldn't even understand him with all the tech problems.We set the model for the UN and that's why marijuana continues to be illegal and enforced on a federal level in the Californias and Colorados. But you're actually suppiorting my argument, because I said by moving in as a states right we can influence a policy change. Yes, but remember it's about who will stop me. And the FBI. DEA, Obama and Trump Administration all will stop you. Because someone will let you doesnt change that. That's the law, not an ideology.How many times must I explain that there are three levels of noncriminalization? First you have nonpenalisation, which is the system we have now and you don't realize both yourself and Logan arguing for indirectly, and don't realize I'm arguing to move past, where it's still a crime but the pensilty is less. The next step is pure decriminalization, AT THIS POINT ITS NO LONGER A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, NO FINE COULD BE IMPOSED! However, the supply side could still be punished and held criminally liable. The third and final step, which is the only one we can get to under the current system is non-enforcement. Which has had great success in Amsterdam with taxes and all of your other favorite stuff. Al Capone went to prison for not paying taxes on his bootlegging. Why do you think in Amsterdam it's called a coffee shop, not a marijuana bar? Do you think if they refused to pay taxes the community would continue to look the other way?A false "legal" system, like the one that failed in Ohio would Infringe on many people's rights because it's only renegotiating the terms of nonpenaluzation. You have to buy the property rights, and pay a huge fee for a lincense. Not only did Lew Rockwell retweet my commentary on that, but Ron Paul used and supported the same argument on myth busters that weak.That does not present the most access to rights at all. It favors the few over the many. It fools the patient into believing they can use medical marijuana and not be fired for it, as played out in both Michigan and Colorado courts. Doctors can't write prescriptions. It's just a fork in the road. This is best defined as nonenforcement. Or nonintervention. We refuse to let government make the decision, NOT let this person, but not that one, and pretend it isn't in the shadow of a bully waiting with a big stick to stop them.I'm saying wedefine legalization as nonenforcement decriminalization, toward a path to legalization. It's the only way will ever get there if the cronies don't stop us.You've got a lot to learn before you beat me kiddo!
So you're saying we are on a path towards legalization... which means ultimately you're okay with legalization... so then let's just go for legalization.I think you chose a losing fight here. Decriminalization sounds like another stringent regulation on our lives. Legalization is the opposite. You're insisting on swinging the pendulum on the other side, I'm insisting on removing the pendulum.
I'm saying we can't go for legalization under the system we now. It's impossible. I'm defining the best solution from an educated, ethical, and most impotartly legal standpoint. It's not a pointless and subjective debate about what ideology sounds better. It's a proactive illustration of a solution, This is the only system demonstrated to work where knowone is fined or goes to jail. The worst case scenario is being dry to outside tourist. Non-enforcement means just illegal on the books. Because in Holland they have a famous non-enforcement system where you just call it a coffee shop and even get to pay taxes and everything.The system you and you're opponent advocate uses the term legalization, but the "legalization" is really only a way redefining the terms of the level decrimalized system we have now called depenalisation. So there is fines, there is jail. As I've explained over and over and again already. So let's go over depenalized and what that means and why yourself and my opponent don't realize that's what you're arguing for. It means the user is still considered a criminal but the offense is petty. IE a fine. That's not what I believe in or what I'm arguing for at all. Because Decriminalization in a pure form means that the substance is illegal but the user cannot be held liable as a criminal. There is no arrest or fine. The communities that were upset and holland only prevented tourist from entering coffee shops in areas that didn't like the crowd it brought in. Not prison or a fine. When you say "I want to remove the pengalum" or "it should be like tomatoes", that is 3rd level non enforcement decriminalization. Not provisions that add "legal" as language to a low level decrimalized system of nonpenalisation. You think government will solve this when they want to be more than clear and sure that never happens. You're confused. Try again Kiddo. You've got a lot to learn before you beat me.
You must not understand what legalization means. If weed were as easily accessible as soda, you could make money on it. There would be no fines or penalization if it were legalized. That's the point.The kiddo line is cute because I told you that first by the way.
Eric. Ideologically is not practically. It's the legal definition of the word "legal" and how it's being applied. It cannot be legal, therefore it can only be decrimalized. If it were "legal" by true definition it would apply to more than state law or federal law. And those bodies of law enforcement are active in Colorado and California. It isn't even I higher level of decrinalization, because people are being procecuted, but thier also losing good jobs for using medical marijuana and doctors can't help the patients. It's just a play on words.And it can be bad. If someone says "legal pot sign here" they are working toward further decrimilization because that is the only achievable short term goal. But who is it legal for? Who will supply it? Who will enforce it? In Colorado a man was fired from his job for using medical marijuana. He sued. He lost. He appealed. He won. They appealed. They won. What was unique this time was that man was granted a first appeal over a 1970s law, decrimalizing marijuana. He was able to argue he was not a criminsl could not be held liable to lose his job. But the state supreme didn't care. They said they were bound by federal law. So it was a crime anyway.The same thing already happened in Michigan as well. That's hardly legal. The idea that it should be illegal to be profitable is a contributing factor to the status, however, the reasons are terrible, because that's government profit in search in seizure. So much for no pengalum. It will be illegal no matter what. So we're on a path to decriminalization, because this is the true definition of such a system. The Dutch model is an example of this system of full decrinalization, where the user is not considered a criminal, but you can call it a coffee shop and still pay taxes. I hear tourist love it and come from all over, although they don't like in a few places. So I can't go there just to buy pot. Buts that okay, because I heard from a friend he knows someone who orders from there online all of the time.I know you said it first. I thought it was funny not only for being a loaded question, but an actual quote and screen from the game I parodied. The original street fighter from 1987. So try again. You've got a lot to learn before you beat me kiddo.
I don't think you understand what legal or illegal means.
No. Eric you don't understand what legal means. It's hardly legal if someone can still kick down your door and arrest you , you can loose your job for medical use, and a doctor can't help you. That's just language someone is using. Decriminalization is what means a person cannot be procecuted in the example of marijuana because of the threat posed by federal and international regulations. Decriminalize is a term that protects the user universally from prosecution because they are not considered a criminal abd as I've also explained many times it can also include the supply side in a nonenforcement model. Using the verbiage legal may possibly only grant protections to side but not others. That's depenslisation. So it could be false and counterproductive to use the term legal rather than noncriminal. It just sounds better.I think you are using another loaded question fallacy and assuming the audience will not understand the difference as well as being upset about loosing our contest and have an axe to grind. But just in case it is a reading comprehension, not Troll problem, here is a video that will explain what I've illustrated in detail already ten times: https://youtu.be/9NKhpujqOXc
Dude in what universe are people being penalized or fined for legal substances like soda, or cheese? If it's legal then there is no problem. I genuinely don't understand why this is so difficult to accept.
No. You're confused. There is very real and huge problem because people are still being procecuted in federal courts, even when they are protected under state law. They also can loose employment and a doctor cannot help them. It's a play on words and verbiage. By saying "legal" you're granting an exception by letting some but not all. Decriminalization is a broader definition that protects from procecution because it would recognize it as a non crime for all, which it will be no matter what. It's much more than an exception.Youve asked the same loaded question how many times now? It will never work. You lost our debate. Get over it!
That's actually a great simple explainer video
Great analysis @ericguillermoguzman
I just went through the entire thread between @ericguillermoguzman and @julian_cennamo and I have to say this is a very informative debate and clearly unresolved, with interesting points being made on both sides (not withstanding the personal insults which should be toned down!) this is not an attempt to add fuel to the fire, but I think it would be quite informative to watch another head2head on the same subtopics raised in this comments thread .. I for one have learned quite a lot!
What is unresolved? I nailed and killed it all the way. Logan and I agree at the beginning the debate is about solutions and he and Eric offered none. Eric's attempt at crossfire statements are the most unfounded and ridiculous BS I've heard in a long time. And I've heard a lot, so imagine that's why he ran from them and tried to falsify my statements instead. It's was all which word sounds better. This is a legal, not an ideological matter, thats why I wanted to use it. Going head to head would probably be more boring and repetitive than last time!
Because reloading the same "I don't understand the question" fallacy is hardly a point or worth entertaining. Logan and I will recap after I win the tournament.
What's great about it?
Watch the United Nations destroy the marijuana crop here:http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=drYqL6ezhSsRead about how a medical marijuana patient in Colorado still lost their job after the initiative passed, won an appeal based on a 1970s bill that prevented them from being held crimally liable, but then lost again in a 3rd appeal because he was definded as criminal in federal law here: http://www.denverpost.com/2015/06/15/colorado-supreme-court-employers-can-fire-for-off-duty-pot-use/Read about how in 2010 the state California so was so afraid of what the federal and international government would do if marijuana were defined as legal under state law they almost completely decriminalized it the day before imploring voters to understand the judicial reality the day before the election:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010)Read about how without changing the schedule class patients can't access medicine for the above reason and doctors can't write it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_ActSee where the Feds raid the state despensary here:https://www.greenrushdaily.com/2016/02/24/dispensary-raids-rise-obama-regime/Watch me explain that Ohio issue three is a monopoly in under a minute here:https://youtu.be/qcj_1ZDWnR8
I have apologized to Logan since the debate for getting so wound up and still feel bad about it. Thanks for the debate and for listening Logan.