• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?

The only thing apparent is your inability to recognize the definition of trolling. I am beginning to think it starts with an "e" and ends with a "b".

Did you mention one time in here that you are an educator? If so, it doesn't surprise me the state our schools are in failing to truly educate our youth.
I am not an educator. You would know that if you actually read any posts before responding to them with attacks.
 
Last edited:
In the county next to mine they have a ban on alcohol for sale on sundays, but do they restrict people to drive to my county to buy alcohol?

No.

This is the beauty of living in country of seperated states, we can hold different laws and still function properly. Face it, you have a straw man arguement, how many people will drive many many miles out of there way to buy legal marijuana when they can get it cheaper on the street corner near their house.

Majority of smokers will not drive out of there way to obtain Marijuana, you need to realize this, and come up with a real arguement why you are skeptical of this legislation.

You're right, why drive when you can get it FedEx :lol:

I just watched a documentary on California's marijuana cultivaters, impressive to say the least. I'm betting pot will be legalized out there within the next two years, and within 15 years we'll see it in the majority of states.

I live in Florida, definitely a drug haven, and FedEx is busy down here:

Messed up FedEx numbers lead to big Florida pot bust | 10connects.com | Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater
 
Look, another bonus to the economy....tourism

Exactly. Many people travel to Holland, and Asia due to relaxed laws in prostitution.

Selling is legal, ****ing is legal, so why isn't selling ****ing legal?
~George Carlin~
 
Exactly. Many people travel to Holland, and Asia due to relaxed laws in prostitution.

Yeah, I always found it laughable that sex is legal when two willing participants engage in it, yet as soon as money is exchanged, it becomes a crime.
 
You're right, why drive when you can get it FedEx :lol:

I just watched a documentary on California's marijuana cultivaters, impressive to say the least. I'm betting pot will be legalized out there within the next two years, and within 15 years we'll see it in the majority of states.

I live in Florida, definitely a drug haven, and FedEx is busy down here:

Messed up FedEx numbers lead to big Florida pot bust | 10connects.com | Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater

IF AB 390 goes through it will be a lot quicker than 2 years. The bill has been referred to the committee of public safety and health, hearing scheduled for 3/31.

Bill List
 
IF AB 390 goes through it will be a lot quicker than 2 years. The bill has been referred to the committee of public safety and health, hearing scheduled for 3/31.

Bill List


Hopefully it goes through, and the path will be set to open up other states to follow suit.

Like I stated in a previous post, I don't think it'll save California's economy, but it'll definitely generate tax revenue, and save untold amounts in manpower and money, in regard to law enforcement, court and incarceration.
 
Sorry you mistook my very reasonable question as a logic fallacy.

If I were to argue that murder is wrong because nearly every culture has laws against it... that would be an appeal to majority, a logic fallacy.

On the other hand, if I were to ask you if the people who support murder laws around the world are all deluded, that would be a reasonable question which I'd reasonably expect you to answer.

So tell me... if the logic for legalization of marijuana is so common-sensical, so obvious, so plain to see... why do you believe people around the globe don't see that logic in the same common sense way you do?

Have they all been duped?

:confused:

Well, your question is based upon a logical fallacy, despite your insistence to the contrary. You are making a direct appeal to the majority and this is immaterial to the validity of drug laws, especially when one considers the context of our argument e.g., US law. However, I will address your premise for the sake of argument.

First of all, murder laws are not comparable to marijuana laws, neither in frequency or magnitude. I think it's safe to assume that every country on the planet outlaws murder in some way, but the same cannot be said of marijuana.

Secondly, neither of us can speak intelligently about foreign perceptions and legal history. I don't know why other countries decided to criminalize marijuana but neither do you, thus it is not relevant to our discussion. You cannot ask me to address the varied and unique legal circumstances of numerous countries in a comprehensive manner; each must be addressed separately within the appropriate context.

Having said that, I CAN tell you why it is criminalized in the US and I CAN tell you why it makes no sense legally, logically, morally, or philosophically, therefore, I will not deign to discuss irrelevant scenarios and contexts.

Marijuana's criminalization in America can be directly linked to racism and blatantly dishonest propaganda. Although the racism inherent in anti-drug laws has somewhat dissipated, the misinformation campaign has remained quite potent, thus Americans are less predisposed towards having an honest dialouge about marijuana and drugs in general. Furthermore, there is a very strong socially conservative influence in America, and, given their religious and moral inclinations, it's no wonder why legalization faces such uphill battles. I could go on but I'd like to see how this has informed your perspective thus far.
 
I would be more than happy to accept but for the fact that no one in this forum ever seems able to set up a "true debate" and I have already one outstanding challenge from MakeoutHobo for one.

It appears there is insufficient manpower on the forum to oversee "true debates" for the present time. So let's just have a "true" debate right here in the general forums.

Fair enough.

What would you like to "true" debate? How Marijuana can rescue California's economy?

No, I have not claimed as much. Although I feel California's economy would derive a benefit from legalization and taxation I do not feel it would be nearly enough to overcome the massive burden incurred by their panoply of entitlements.

What I am arguing is this: there is no valid argument against legalization. There is no legal, moral, logical, or philosophical argument against it. The liberty we Americans enjoy is the liberty of negative rights, at least, that's what the Founding Fathers intended. Practices that do not engender an inherent violation of the rights of others should not be subject to criminalization.
 
Well, your question is based upon a logical fallacy, despite your insistence to the contrary. You are making a direct appeal to the majority and this is immaterial to the validity of drug laws, especially when one considers the context of our argument e.g., US law. However, I will address your premise for the sake of argument.

First of all, murder laws are not comparable to marijuana laws, neither in frequency or magnitude. I think it's safe to assume that every country on the planet outlaws murder in some way, but the same cannot be said of marijuana.

It seems as if you're trying to convince me that the example of a logic fallacy I gave is, indeed, a logic fallacy. Rather odd.

That does not mean discussion of 'majority opinion' is necessarily a logic fallacy. In fact, understanding majority and minority opinions is usually crucial to understanding the issue under debate. So no, I've not appealed to the majority. I've simply asked you to explain it. Which you attempt to do later, because, I suspect, you understand it's not a logic fallacy at all, but extremely relevant to the issue.

Secondly, neither of us can speak intelligently about foreign perceptions and legal history. I don't know why other countries decided to criminalize marijuana but neither do you, thus it is not relevant to our discussion. You cannot ask me to address the varied and unique legal circumstances of numerous countries in a comprehensive manner; each must be addressed separately within the appropriate context.

I don't know why not. I suspect neither of us were around in the early 1900's when marijuana laws were first put in place in the U.S. So we must rely on research. I expect you're bright enough to research the history of Dutch laws, or British laws, or Turkish laws, no?

Having said that, I CAN tell you why it is criminalized in the US and I CAN tell you why it makes no sense legally, logically, morally, or philosophically, therefore, I will not deign to discuss irrelevant scenarios and contexts.

The problem some of us are having is that relevance or irrelevance seems to change from post to post. For instance, some supporters of legalization deny that 'drug tourism' will take place if pot is legalized in California. Others acknowledge that it will take place, but suggest that it will be a good thing by helping out California's economy. So even among advocates, there doesn't seem to be a coherent position as to what may or may not happen if marijuana is legalized. And I suspect that lack of a coherent position is one of the primary reasons Americans don't support legalization.

Marijuana's criminalization in America can be directly linked to racism and blatantly dishonest propaganda. Although the racism inherent in anti-drug laws has somewhat dissipated, the misinformation campaign has remained quite potent, thus Americans are less predisposed towards having an honest dialouge about marijuana and drugs in general.

As I demonstrated in a previous post, most Americans NOW understand the relative dangers of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. So this idea that Americans are still having the wool pulled over their eyes, or aren't willing to accept basic facts about marijuana due to some ongoing misinformation campaign just isn't supported by the evidence.

But here it is again, a fairly recent opinion poll of Americans from NORML, Zogby Poll:

Three Out Of Four Americans Say Booze, Tobacco Pose Greater Risk Than Marijuana

Washington, DC: Americans rank marijuana as far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, according to national poll of 1,109 likely voters by Zogby International and commissioned by The NORML Foundation.

Forty-seven percent of respondents said they believe that alcohol is the most dangerous recreational drug among the three choices. More than one-quarter of respondents (28 percent) believe tobacco to be the most dangerous. Only one-fifth (20 percent) of Americans say that marijuana is the most dangerous.


Furthermore, there is a very strong socially conservative influence in America, and, given their religious and moral inclinations, it's no wonder why legalization faces such uphill battles. I could go on but I'd like to see how this has informed your perspective thus far.

Well I'm curious why you believe politicians such as Obama, without doubt the most liberal president of our time, is inclined to oppose legalization. Do you believe he's appealing to a socially conservative base?

:confused:
 
Last edited:
It seems as if you're trying to convince me that the example of a logic fallacy I gave is, indeed, a logic fallacy. Rather odd.

That does not mean discussion of 'majority opinion' is necessarily a logic fallacy. In fact, understanding majority and minority opinions is usually crucial to understanding the issue under debate. So no, I've not appealed to the majority. I've simply asked you to explain it. Which you attempt to do later, because, I suspect, you understand it's not a logic fallacy at all, but extremely relevant to the issue.

Why are you asking me to explain it? Is it because you're incapable of figuring it out on your own or because you feel the answer will provide insight into the validity of drug laws? If it's the former, then I do not care to accommodate you, if it's the latter, then you are, in fact, making a direct appeal to the majority, in which case, you are engaging in logical fallacy.

Personally, I would rather move on to more substantive issues regarding drug policies in the US.

I don't know why not. I suspect neither of us were around in the early 1900's when marijuana laws were first put in place in the U.S. So we must rely on research. I expect you're bright enough to research the history of Dutch laws, or British laws, or Turkish laws, no?

So, you want to analyze the various unique and complex, legal and historical circumstances surrounding the respective drug policies of every nation in the world, and use this information to construct a comprehensive and generalized understanding of how humans perceive drugs? Why not, instead of worrying about what other countries do, we concentrate on the historical and legal circumstances surrounding American drug policy?

The problem some of us are having is that relevance or irrelevance seems to change from post to post. For instance, some supporters of legalization deny that 'drug tourism' will take place if pot is legalized in California. Others acknowledge that it will take place, but suggest that it will be a good thing by helping out California's economy. So even among advocates, there doesn't seem to be a coherent position as to what may or may not happen if marijuana is legalized. And I suspect that lack of a coherent position is one of the primary reasons Americans don't support legalization.

The only thing that is relevant to a practice's legality is the US Constitution. That is what I am interested in discussing.

As I demonstrated in a previous post, most Americans NOW understand the relative dangers of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. So this idea that Americans are still having the wool pulled over their eyes, or aren't willing to accept basic facts about marijuana due to some ongoing misinformation campaign just isn't supported by the evidence.

But here it is again, a fairly recent opinion poll of Americans from NORML, Zogby Poll:

A personal opinion does not necessarily translate into a willingness to be publicly vocal on an issue, nor is it indicative of a proper understanding of the issue. Just because a majority of Americans feel this way about marijuana does not mean they are willing to have an open and honest dialogue about it. I feel there is still a stigma attached to marijuana and that said stigma is largely institutionalized. How many Americans, for instance, would risk telling their coworkers or their relatives how they really feel about marijuana, or anything controversial for that matter?

Well I'm curious why you believe politicians such as Obama, without doubt the most liberal president of our time, is inclined to oppose legalization. Do you believe he's appealing to a socially conservative base?

In a way, yes. I don't think Obama is willing to sacrifice a measure of his political capital in order to legalize marijuana. More importantly, the US government has maintained a consistently negative view of marijuana and drugs in general, so the idea that a coward like Obama would reverse this institutional trend is absurd.
 
Why do we have to have to base it on a model of another country when we have a 75 straight years of experience and legislation controlling a much more debilitating and dangerous substance right here in our own country?

We can analyze data from the actions of other countries since we have none of our own to guide us in direct relation to marijuana itself, but we don't need to go reinventing the wheel based on what works for another country. We need to do what works for our country.
 
Grateful Heart said:
For instance, some supporters of legalization deny that 'drug tourism' will take place if pot is legalized in California.

I reread this thread from the point where you asked about drug tourism, I did not see any denials that this would occur. I did see someone say why drive to California to get pot when you can get it fed ex'd. A good parallel is people going to Napa Valley, that is Alcohol tourism, and a nice getaway. But why go there just to buy a bottle of wine when you can go right down the road to get it. Same with "drug tourism", it is to experience the atmosphere and have a good time while there. It is not to go "stock up"
 
The real question right now is what Arnold is willing to do with his political capitol, or lack thereof.

If the DEA/medical MJ raids are any indication I think the Obama's administrations stance of letting state law supersede without intervention will remain intact, or at least I hope. At least this is infinity more probable than it has been with prior administrations specifically in regards to MJ. Hopefully if that bridge gets built someone else won't come into office and tear it down.
 
Why are you asking me to explain it? Is it because you're incapable of figuring it out on your own or because you feel the answer will provide insight into the validity of drug laws? If it's the former, then I do not care to accommodate you, if it's the latter, then you are, in fact, making a direct appeal to the majority, in which case, you are engaging in logical fallacy.

Personally, I would rather move on to more substantive issues regarding drug policies in the US.

Which are?

;)
 
Wow... I've taken the liberty of breaking down your post into its component parts and I've highlighted every bit of it that is either ad hominem, or completely without basis in fact, or just plain illogical.

:shock:

Yeah.....let's see your 'analysis'.

But just for fun, I'll take them on anyway...

Uh, no. I'm asking tough questions and being met with ad hominems such as this, deflections, and poorly thought-out arguments.

Your 'tough' questions have all been answered. That you even think they were tough to begin with is laughable. Sorry. Your agenda is see through. Keep asking questions and avoid the actual issue and having to explain why marijuana should remain illegal.

The criminalization of marijuana in the U.S. had little or nothing to do with religion or conservatism:

Bio of Harry J. Anslinger

Really?

http://www.aarp.org/community/groups/displayTopic.bt?pageNum=1&groupId=44&topicId=1541551

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

Nothing to do with religion you say? :lol:

No, it remains illegal because even the most liberal politicians who study the issue realize it's a hornet's nest.

What an appeal to popularity. Even the most liberal of politicians? You mean more liberal the Nanci Pelosi?

Nancy Pelosi on Drugs

Pelosi co-sponsored the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act:

Title: To provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States. Summary: Transfers marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to schedule II of such Act. Declares that, in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed or recommended by a physician for medical use under applicable State law, no provision of the Controlled Substances Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict:

* the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use;

* an individual from obtaining and using marijuana from a physician's prescription or recommendation of marijuana for medical use; or

* a pharmacy from obtaining and holding marijuana for the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use under applicable State law.

* Prohibits any provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from prohibiting or restricting a State entity from producing or distributing marijuana for the purpose of its distribution for prescription or recommendation by a physician in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed by a physician for medical use.

See I can play your ridiculous little game too.

Simply not true. You haven't bothered to research your facts. According to polling, most Americans do understand that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than marijuana. At the same time, they don't want to legalize it.

NORML, Zogby Poll

Oooh a poll :

20051101b_1.gif


Since the late 1960s, Gallup has periodically asked Americans whether the use of marijuana should be made legal in the United States. Although a majority of Americans have consistently opposed the idea of legalizing marijuana, public support has slowly increased over the years. In 1969, just 12% of Americans supported making marijuana legal, but by 1977, roughly one in four endorsed it. Support edged up to 31% in 2000, and now, about a third of Americans say marijuana should be legal.

Well see? I can play a numbers game too!

Illogical.

If asking tough questions and pointing out errors in your facts or logic represents an 'agenda', then so be it. I simply won't what, btw?

What does my use of alcohol or any other legal substances have to do with legalization of marijuana?

:shock::shock:

I've already asked why marijuana should remain illegal. You've failed to provide an answer and have instead chosen to deflect by asking silly questions in ridiculous situational scenarios that YOU know how to answer. 'Should be allowed to drive while buzzed'. I'm not a rocket scientist but I'm pretty sure there's not a single drug or alcoholic substance under which if a cop stopped you you'd get away with anything other then DUI. You know this but yet you still want to pretend like marijuana is ANY different. Then you ask at what age it should be legal to purchase marijuana. This was again answered. Your agenda is see through. You have no argument as to why marijuana should remain illegal other then 'well uh gee we don't know what will happen!'. This doesn't escape anybody who reads your posts. Seriously. It doesn't.

But what we've established so far. Marijuana has been made illegal NOT because of it's qualities NOT because of scientific research NOT because of any actual logical process NOT for public safety. So why has it been made illegal? You still can't answer and must instead rely on silly appeals to popularity and everything BUT a response.
 
“Weed is illegal because it’s bad and it’s bad because it’s illegal and we can’t legalize it because then people would smoke it and you just want it legalized because you want to smoke it and that would be bad because weed is illegal because it’s bad.” [undertone]Smoking weed is a moral failing, I feel obligated to punish you for it and damn you for trying to disempower me from doing just that.[/undertone]

Why does anyone still bother “debating” these people? Their views are based on emotions incapable of being expressed rationally, so their only contribution is to tacitly deride the opposition with feigned discourse.
 
“Weed is illegal because it’s bad and it’s bad because it’s illegal and we can’t legalize it because then people would smoke it and you just want it legalized because you want to smoke it and that would be bad because weed is illegal because it’s bad.” [undertone]Smoking weed is a moral failing, I feel obligated to punish you for it and damn you for trying to disempower me from doing just that.[/undertone]

Why does anyone still bother “debating” these people? Their views are based on emotions incapable of being expressed rationally, so their only contribution is to tacitly deride the opposition with feigned discourse.




"Befuddled_Stoner"



:rofl:rofl:rofl
 
Forty-some-odd pages already. Think any progress has been made?

:2wave:

Perhaps, the lack of progress has been caused by the unwillingness of anti-legalization proponents to state anything of relevance. I'm simply waiting for someone to provide a logical explanation as to why marijuana should remain illegal. References to Constitutional law would be most welcome, as would some statistical analyses of drug policy efficacy.
 
Last edited:
“Weed is illegal because it’s bad and it’s bad because it’s illegal and we can’t legalize it because then people would smoke it and you just want it legalized because you want to smoke it and that would be bad because weed is illegal because it’s bad.” [undertone]Smoking weed is a moral failing, I feel obligated to punish you for it and damn you for trying to disempower me from doing just that.[/undertone]

Why does anyone still bother “debating” these people? Their views are based on emotions incapable of being expressed rationally, so their only contribution is to tacitly deride the opposition with feigned discourse.

Take it to the courts? the SCOTUS will just tell you that the govt has a right to restrict legal and illegal substances that it sees as dangerous, never mind the illogic of allowing other substances, like smokes and alchohol, to be sold to the public legally.
 
Perhaps, the lack of progress has been caused by the unwillingness of anti-legalization proponents to state anything of relevance. I'm simply waiting for someone to provide a logical explanation as to why marijuana should remain illegal. References to Constitutional law would be most welcome, as would some statistical analyses of drug policy efficacy.

The reason people who think Marijuana should remain illegal can't provide a logical reason is because marijuana was made illegal based on everything but logical reasons. How do you defend that when you start off wrong from the start? I mean Grateful Dead just established that marijuana wasn't made illegal because it was unhealthy or because it was somehow bad for the public. It was made illegal so some conservative could push up his career. Nobody who supports keeping marijuana illegal can logically reason why. They can only appeal to the popularity of it's demonization even though this popularity is due to public misinformation. All they can do is hope that if they compare it to crimes like murder then somehow it'll stick.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom