AstroProdigy

You're !@#$%^&*uming Turkey can stay stable for it to benefit the EU economically. What if the military deposes the President again? What if there's a Muslim revival that takes over the country? Not only that but there are very real and very important problems of Turkey's forced secularization and forced ethnic !@#$%^&*imilation and the fact that they continue to occupy the northern part of an EU member that they refuse to recognize. That sets an example that the EU will support only the most powerful countries and smaller countries don't matter. Not only that, but they continue to occupy a large part of Kurdistan and oppress it's people when there's no legitimate reason that Turkey should legally occupy the area.

Russia would be more justifiably allowed in the EU and they don't even have any prospect of joining in the near future. Why should Turkey get things so easy? As a beacon to the Muslim world? More likely Turkey would be the downfall of the EU.

Do you see Muslim minorities in European countries !@#$%^&*imilating? No? All it does is create a bigger disenfranchised minority and a large country supporting them in the European Union and there's a big mess right there.

No because 1) Turkey has an oppressive nature towards its minorities especially the Kurds and it continues to oppress them and occupy a people that have no place being divided among various middle eastern nations. 2) Turkey continues to occupy the northern part of an EU member, Cyprus, which they've acted clearly illegally against the Geneva Convention in forcing out the rightful inhabitants and then transferring some of its own population there to make favorable demographics for occupation. 3) Turkey has a GDP per capita well below even the poorest current members of the European Union with a high population that would take down the wealth of the EU significantly. 4) Turkey has to worry about an Islamic revival and as we know the current Islamic revivals are very contradictory to everything the EU stands for. 5) Turkey is honestly not culturally European in any way and considering they're much more problematic than any other EU member when they joined I don't see how the EU can allow Turkey in and not be called hypocrits.

No. What do you think?

Congrats on the uhhhh accomplishment?

I come from a nerd high school which is the place with the most people who wouldn't drink underage. It's not more than I think unless we're talking about the Bible Belt.

The fact is that very few people take the drinking law seriously. They won't drink in front of a cop, but they'll only find it more of a rush to drink in private or at a party because people think doing something illegal is cool. People who are terrified enough not to touch the stuff until they're 21 are a small minority.

NBV your brother is a strange little man if he was terrified of drinking before he was 21. The very vast majority of people think drinking is nothing and think the 21 age law is bullcrap. In fact it makes it more fun to drink when it's illegal. People enjoy breaking the law when it's stupid.

You go back and only look at 1 point and then say that only that point isn't enough justification. Then you say you're not oversimplifying what I said and then restate only one point I made and saying it's not enough. Wow. I'm making that as PART of the argument. Please read the full length of my posts. Arresting drug dealers takes jail space. Is that a fact or is that up to debate too? The government has enough money? Umm no actually we're running on growing deficits. Incase you haven't noticed they cut taxes for the rich and then tried to ruin social security because they needed the money to pay for things. If you know something about drug dealing then you'll know that sometimes stronger drugs are added to the lighter drug to make it more addictive. Government regulations on marijuana stops this. Marijuana is very different from drugs like cocaine. It's not addictive. My friend was a chronic marijuana smoker and then he moved to Georgia and he just stopped cold turkey and never smokes at all. Putting drugs up on a pedestal and calling it the forbidden fruit isn't going to stop people from using drugs though. Isn't that what the Bible says with the story of Adam and Eve? Making something forbidden just makes people want it more.

If it was because it was a religious item then it's wrong, but if it's about not wearing jewelry, well this is standard practice in many businesses. At Starbucks where I worked you can't wear jewelry and they go as far as to ban tongue studs. If it's just about the dress code then there's no case to get angry about this. Even in high school you're not allowed to wear a cap even though it has no bearing on your learning. It's just one of those things that makes things look more professional. What's with the overcomplicated reorganizing of the forums?

Sorry I mean minister confess is probably protestant from my experience with him. Nevertheless he has no credible argument and had to have been using blind sources like the ABC "historical film" or what politicians or politicians in holy clothing (all those conservative ministers with an agenda) tell him.

!@#$%^&*ociating someone debating on my "side" who I don't correlate points with proves nothing of my posts just avoids it. You've been making the !@#$%^&*umption that my opinion is that marijuana is good because that makes your argument easy. I've made more points other than how it's not worse than cigarrettes and alcohol. Please look at those points before you oversimplify my argument to a manageable level.

I was referring to the lies Confess was buying because it was shown on a film and probably repeated by his priest.

Well ok then there's no debate about this. To do that you'd need to make college free, however, because if you get into college then you have worked hard enough to get there. You agree that they should be given the chance, but you disagree about what's actually needed for them to go. Your grades aren't necessarily a sign of how hard you work. The rich get tutors and SAT Kaplans classes and go to schools that are very easy on them gradewise. I know a girl who is less intelligent than most of my friends, but she went to a rich people's school and took all easy regents classes and then got curves in her grade and got a 100. However the valedictorian in that school got a 115. This girl goes to Harvard now even though she hasn't worked hard and she's not smart. That's why things aren't always that simple.

I don't know how you can dispute people getting arrested for marijuana posession and going to jail and how if marijuana was legal they would not get arrested and go to jail. I don't see how this obvious fact is conceivably even up to debate. Enough people go to jail for dealing marijuana that it'll free up some jail cells. A small percentage of the public is in jail right now. If you put all marijuana users in jail you'd be cramming huge numbers of people into a very lacking number of jail cells. The other 2 are logical conclusions. Nothing is 100% certain and acting under the idea that everything has to be 100% certain is counter productive. I gave you a fact and you said "Well how do you know? I mean anything can be wrong so you're just speculating." Am I breathing or is that just speculation? Comparing marijuana smoking to murder is a simple analogy...right. I never said the actual smoking of marijuana is good for your health (except maybe medical marijuana). I don't know what straw man you're building up to take down, but this isn't what I'm saying. There is very conclusive evidence that you can never overdose on marijuana. There is no real debate on this. You'd have to smoke such ridiculous quan!@#$%^&*ies of marijuana that even hundreds of people can't sit there and smoke it all. You can overdrink and die of alcohol poisoning. This is not speculation. It's fact. It's also fact that cigarrettes are much more addictive than marijuana can be. I mean gees it's common knowledge. It's not that there isn't evidence that it's not worse than nicotine or alcohol, it's that people have managed to create the illusion of a debate. The same thing happened with the "debate" about whether nicotine was bad for you or the "debate" that goes on now about whether global warming is real.

Their parents aren't providing a positive influence which is required for a developing person. It won't solve the problem to provide free college, but it will at least show that if you can work hard and get into college you won't be rejected because you don't have enough money.

I've stated quite a few reasons. 1. It would save room in our jail cells for real crimes. 2. It would provide revenue for the government. 3. It can be held up to government standards and be safer to smoke. The fact that pot is no worse than alcohol or nicotine is just another point. Alcohol is mind altering by the way. If you've ever been drunk you'll know it is. Nicotine is also mind altering. Growing pot isn't as easy as you think and people would much rather buy pot from a company that's help up to government regulations. The reason alcohol was made legal again was that having it illegal didn't stop it's use and it was still widely used just like marijuana is today. People don't want to buy drugs or alcohol for a small dealer they want it from a company that can be held up to federal standards. The fact that they do this with pot is simply because there is no company selling pot. Have you ever grown pot?

Of course there is corruption in both parties, but Republicans are taking it to extremes. I would think that when it's a fabrication then the public would havea backlash on what's said. It's not digging up dirt when your making up bull!@#$%^&*. True Aileron put Clinton's predicament well, but don't forget Confess's comment which was very obviously just spewing out a forged ABC "historical film".

Sounds exactly like the speeches they make. The fact is the facts were there and every day it was getting louder and louder, but Bush chose to ignore it. Granted, it was hard to believe something like that could actually be done, but to blame it on Clinton is just pre-election partisanship. This kind of stuff does stick and it affects election as with the attack on McCain's prisoner of war time and Kerry's swift boat attacks. Rove knows how to get things done and then Bush can deny involvement. That's how Republicans manage to eek out their slim majorities despite their corruption.

No to blame that on society is to understand how society teaches these kids to fail and expects them to do so. If you know anything about psychology if you keep telling someone they're going to fail they'll eventually start failing.

Why would you pay taxes on alcohol when you can get it from a dealer? Obviously that's not how it works when the government regulates things. Drinking a grain and water mix is not a natural bodily function. Are you high? Of course you can compare the effects of alcohol and pot. It's just easier t defend your argument if people don't. Again you ignore the fact that alcohol is not beneficial to society. It is taxed, which can be done to pot. Pot is a source of crime because it's illegal. It's like making freedom of press illegal and calling it a crime. It's something that should not be illegal and simply taxes our already overburdened jail system which takes money from tax payers. Drugs don't turn ur cities into slums. Poor planning and corruption and a federal government policy of suburban support turns our cities into slums. Drugs isn't the only center of crime. There's also guns, which hypocritically Republicans fully support. Wow...a bit more of a stretch? Drugs didn't cause the immigration problem. That's a huge stretch with no basis whatsoever. I'm sorry, but that was ridiculous. The point is that pot is not like other drugs. Putting them all in a lump only fools people into thinking a fallacy. Legalized pot would cause no smuggling business just like legalized alcohol doesn't cause a smuggling business. The fact that pot's illegal is why it causes "a LOT of problems".

If the government regulates it then they can make money. Pot and alcohol ruin lives ONLY if the person doing them is very irresponsible.

People can make it !@#$%^&* easy to lose hope and statistically even if only some lose hope that's still too much for millions.

My point is not that it would be positive for our society, although making alcohol illegal was negative for our society because it created crime, I'm saying it makes no more negative effect than alcohol or nicotine. The sex analogy wasn't me seriously saying to make sex illegal. It's to show that pot being illegal is ridiculous. Ok let me rephrase the analogy. Make sex before marriage illegal. It's well proven that you can't overdose on marijuana. There's no debate about this. The amount needed to overdose is so ridiculous it's not even possible. That's why it's safer than drinking. It's safer than smoking cigarrettes because that's probably the most addictive drug available. Does alcohol have any benefit for the country? If marijuana was legal you could tax it and it'd be legal and there would be farmers who grow it for profit. It'll also be regulated so things can't be mixed into it and that it's safer for people's health.