Convo with a cop.

[daihashi]

What's the point of discussion if you're only doing it with people who agree with you?

Did I say I only discussed it with people who agree with me?

In politics the key is to win undecided voters. The coined term swing-vote is fairly accurate because these are the people that you can sway either way. They are literally on the fence and should be our primary target when trying to advocate for cannabis. You don't want to go in directly into the enemies camp (in this case people who strongly oppose cannabis) to try to win them over. There is a 99% chance you won't succeed among that group/demographic.

The swing deciders are unsure and probably only believe it's bad because of decades of propaganda.

You are more likely to win these people over than you would be able to sway over a conservative. If you don't believe me then you just need to look at polling data. There is nothing wrong with choosing your fights.. and I choose to fights where I know I will be successful in battle. If I can convert 10 people who were on the fence.. as opposed to debating with 1 person who, historically that demographic has proven to be against us, then I've just made myself and the message I'm trying to represent 10 times stronger. Not only that but I've saved time and aggravation.

And again if you re-read that statement it says "I rarely discuss cannabis with people who are staunchly conservative.". The keyword here being rarely.

Until cannabis is more widely accepted you will look like a crazy person to most conservatives. Or they will think you just want to get high. There is the exception and you have to kind of feel them out. I've talked to some very conservative people about it, but for the most part during my "feeling out" process I determine it's a waste of time to discuss anything in detail with these people.

[TurnyBright]

I always go straight for the ones who disagree with me the most, in any discussion. I try to ascertain where our beliefs differ and why, and expose the weaknesses and assumptions of their stance and the strengths and truths of my own.

When it comes to the issue of drug prohibition, I have spoken to countless people who vehemently believe that marijuana should be illegal, but when I push the argument and search deeply for the logical and moral grounds upon which they build their argument, I unfailingly force them to concede the argument.

Usually they won't admit that they've lost and change the subject or fall back onto pure opinion or religion, but I know that I've won, and if I want to really push the envelope (if i don't care if I look like an asshole, or don't care if this person respects me) I'll just rip apart their attempt to disguise their loss.

I never get into an argument I'm not certain I can win, and I don't argue my case to people who don't hold views contrary to my own.

[daihashi]

I always go straight for the ones who disagree with me the most, in any discussion. I try to ascertain where our beliefs differ and why, and expose the weaknesses and assumptions of their stance and the strengths and truths of my own.

When it comes to the issue of drug prohibition, I have spoken to countless people who vehemently believe that marijuana should be illegal, but when I push the argument and search deeply for the logical and moral grounds upon which they build their argument, I unfailingly force them to concede the argument.

Usually they won't admit that they've lost and change the subject or fall back onto pure opinion or religion, but I know that I've won, and if I want to really push the envelope (if i don't care if I look like an asshole, or don't care if this person respects me) I'll just rip apart their attempt to disguise their loss.

I never get into an argument I'm not certain I can win, and I don't argue my case to people who don't hold views contrary to my own.

Maybe you don't understand... the point isn't to win an argument. The point is to win a person.

I don't care about winning or losing arguments so much as I care about converting people over to being sympathetic for the cannabis cause.

If all you're trying to do is win arguments then I'm afraid you're being counter productive. No one likes to feel like something is being forced onto them.

Have you ever opened the door after it's been knocked on? You go to open the door only to find a door to door salesman. You have no interest in his product or what he has to say. You initiate the conversation with this thought preformed in your mind. You keep telling him you're not interested but he keeps talking about his product because he genuinely believes it's the best product in the world. But you have no interest and you really hate his product.

Finally to get him to shut up you concede but tell him you don't have any money. He's happy that you at least think his product is good.. you on the other hand just lied to him and probably will be even more wary of the next door to door salesman that comes around.

Going into an 'arguement' against someone who doesn't want to hear it is very much the same way. All you're doing is strengthening their belief that cannabis is bad... without even saying anything. Go into it as an open debate to people who are curious or you know are on the fence. That's where we'll make the most progress.

[tomm01]

On that cop saying she just sees everything black and white....
I recently found out that you don't even have to pass year 12 to be a cop!
I was fucking appalled. I mean, how are we supposed to have good cops when they don't have to pass english? I suppose the people who made this rule are trying to decrease the risk of having officers who can think for themselves.
I sense a grave time for all of society.

[TurnyBright]

If I argue my case to those who hold opposite opinions, do you think I just let those who are on the fence tilt to the side away from me? By winning an argument against a lost soul, even if the one I was engaged with doesn't see the light, any "undecided" people who are witness to the exchange will be convinced far more thoroughly than if I ignored the adamantly anti-weed person and only spoke to them.

The undecided observer will have seen two sides of an issue, and watched one side triumph over the other. This leaves them with the power to decide for themselves which person was right, and chances are they'll choose the one who came off looking like the winner.

To turn your analogy back on you, when a salesman goes door to door, they're actively out there searching for people who are not presumptive that they don't want his product. They try to find people who are "on the fence" about the product and make the sale, and they certainly never show any of the arguments against their product. They're out there as propaganda-men to get whoever they can to believe what they're selling is 100% worth it, and what reputation do they have? Annoyances who most people will slam their doors on, because if you spend time listening to them, you'll probably get hooked by their claims and form an opinion without any balance.

The trick to legitimize a cause is to renege claims which are contrary to what is, in marijuana's case, the truth.

This thread was about talking to cops, anyway and most of them aren't on the fence when it comes to drug laws. I pride myself on my ability to get irrational people in a place where they have to run away to keep from admitting they've lost, and my ability to get rational (but misguided) people into a place where they must admit they have to rethink their position.

[8182KSKUSH]

Quote:
I rarely discuss cannabis with people who are staunchly conservative.

What's the point of discussion if you're only doing it with people who agree with you?

First of all, this is an excellent thread, and this conversation is outstanding!!

daihashi, I know you said you "rarely" discuss cannabis with cons, well I feel privileged, as I am super duper to the umpteenth degree conservative!
I do understand what you are saying though, but you would be shocked at how much sense decriminalization makes to "real" conservatives. It's a shame there really aren't any true conservative leaders to speak of, that are invovled in politics anyway.

[Reefer Rogue]

Woman or anyone who goes back to an abusive partner is stupid, they need to grow a pair. She's probably too scared to leave in case of retribution =/

We need more liberal, open minded, cops.

[GreenDestiny]

ironically, the law needs cops that can not think for themselves (for the most part).

If more cops had even half a soul, they'd be too lenient for offenses that they're supposed to crack down on. Working order must be maintained.

When a cop let's you go with a warning, that warning should be made official and documented with your signature verifying you received and understood the warning.

if the cops were more open minded and liberal, then how would they be able to enforce the laws that they're sworn to uphold? Either a law is broken or followed, and for a justice system to work right it must be viewed as "black and white" unless otherwise a court comes into play to more clearly define what ultimately must be followed or what stuff they can let slide on account of their biased personal feelings towards good citizens.

I'd never tell a cop about anything illegal I do, no matter how cool they are. They're trained to be mindless drones, and should be treated with the proper respect that a mindless drone deserves (which means you have to always be nice and cooperative, or else!). Never let your guard down and think for one second that they are human beings just like the rest of us: they voluntarily enforce oppressive laws upon us. Would you really trust a person like that with knowledge of your illegal habits? I wouldn't.

Their personal feelings do NOT supercede the law. remember that.

[SouthernGuerilla]

ironically, the law needs cops that can not think for themselves (for the most part).

They don't get paid to be open minded, think, or do anything other than what they're told and "enforce" the laws. Most of em anyway...

[psychocat]

They don't get paid to be open minded, think, or do anything other than what they're told and "enforce" the laws. Most of em anyway...

Just because they don't get paid to do it doesn't mean they don't do it anyway, when I worked as a spraypainter I didn't get paid to smoke joints and play darts at work, but I still did it.