• 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!

Marijuana legalization hearing tomorrow in California!

Marijuana was not made illegal due to coughing or other minor - temporary health symptoms. For the record, only some people experience these anyways. The fact that you even raise that claim proves you have already been defeated in this debate. :)
 
Marijuana was not made illegal due to coughing or other minor - temporary health symptoms. For the record, only some people experience these anyways. The fact that you even raise that claim proves you have already been defeated in this debate. :)

Bullous disease isn't temporary or minor, it's permanent and it's serious.
 
Last edited:
None of the above is a injurious to our society as marijuana......except for maybe the pet rocks.
It's obvious that you are heavily biased and either willfully ignorant or simply misinformed. Either way, I suggest you re-assess your arguments if you wish to be taken seriously.
 
You're kidding, right? How exactly does it limit anything? Tons of people smoke pot and the numbers certainly aren't decreasing. You can get it pretty much anywhere if you know the right people (which isn't hard at all). Plus, it really only gets expensive if you are doing tons of it. There are plenty of benefits to making it legal and taxing it because then we get the money instead of drug dealers. It would completely destroy their market, which I think is a good thing.

Even heavily taxed cigarettes cost much less than marijuana. Legalizing it will increase the amount available and lower it's cost. This is just exactly what you're are arguing for. You are aware of that aren't you? :confused:
 
Last edited:
It's obvious that you are heavily biased and either willfully ignorant or simply misinformed. Either way, I suggest you re-assess your arguments if you wish to be taken seriously.

I am biased. I oppose the legalization of marijuana. I would have thought that was obvious. I am also quite well informed. If you choose to ignore the research in this area, fine. Why deny me my opinion? Am I not allowed an opinion if it doesn't agree with yours? Why are you so intolerant?
 
Even heavily taxed cigarettes cost much less than marijuana. Legalizing it will increase the amount available and lower it's cost. This is just exactly what your are arguing for. You are aware of that aren't you? :confused:
And it would be regulated and distributed to adults, people with the mental capacity to decide what is or is not good for their body. I'll assume you do not know that legalization does not lead to increased usage?
 
I am biased. I oppose the legalization of marijuana. I would have thought that was obvious. I am also quite well informed. If you choose to ignore the research in this area, fine. Why deny me my opinion? Am I not allowed an opinion if it doesn't agree with yours? Why are you so intolerant?
You are more than welcome to have your own opinion. Just as I am allowed to have an opinion of you.
 
Even heavily taxed cigarettes cost much less than marijuana. Legalizing it will increase the amount available and lower it's cost. This is just exactly what your are arguing for. You are aware of that aren't you? :confused:

Absolutely. I know a lot of people like to pigeonhole people who support legalization as pot smokers. I personally don't smoke pot and haven't done so since I was in high school. Even though people say it's not addictive, my late uncle (who had an addictive personality) was addicted to marijuana for years and years. It obviously affected him more because of he was more prone to addiction. Regardless of all of that, I still see no reason to not legalize it. The difference between you and I is that I actually like people to have a choice regardless of my personal opinion on marijuana. I don't blame marijuana abuse on marijuana, but the person abusing it. It's the same exact kind of argument on gun control. Often when there is a shooting, the issue gets brought up. Anti-gun people place the blame on a gun rather than placing the blame on the person pulling the trigger. It's stupid to place the blame on an inanimate object.
 
Even heavily taxed cigarettes cost much less than marijuana. Legalizing it will increase the amount available and lower it's cost. This is just exactly what your are arguing for. You are aware of that aren't you? :confused:

What ever the price it will not affect my consumption.
 
And it would be regulated and distributed to adults, people with the mental capacity to decide what is or is not good for their body. I'll assume you do not know that legalization does not lead to increased usage?

You mean like tobacco?


source
•Cancer is the second leading cause of death and was among the first diseases causally linked to smoking.
•Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, and cigarette smoking causes most cases.
•Compared to nonsmokers, men who smoke are about 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer and women who smoke are about 13 times more likely. Smoking causes about 90% of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80% in women.
•In 2003, an estimated 171,900 new cases of lung cancer occurred and approximately 157,200 people died from lung cancer.
•The 2004 Surgeon General's report adds more evidence to previous conclusions that smoking causes cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, lung and bladder.
•Cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) in tobacco smoke damage important genes that control the growth of cells, causing them to grow abnormally or to reproduce too rapidly.
•Cigarette smoking is a major cause of esophageal cancer in the United States. Reductions in smoking and smokeless tobacco use could prevent many of the approximately 12,300 new cases and 12,100 deaths from esophgeal cancer that occur annually.
•The combination of smoking and alcohol consumption causes most laryngeal cancer cases. In 2003, an estimated 3800 deaths occurred from laryngeal cancer.
•In 2003, an estimated 57,400 new cases of bladder cancer were diagnosed and an estimated 12,500 died from the disease.
•For smoking-attributable cancers, the risk generally increases with the number of cigarettes smoked and the number of years of smoking, and generally decreases after quitting completely.
•Smoking cigarettes that have a lower yield of tar does not substantially reduce the risk for lung cancer.
•Cigarette smoking increases the risk of developing mouth cancers. This risk also increases among people who smoke pipes and cigars.
•Reductions in the number of people who smoke cigarettes, pipes, cigars, and other tobacco products or use smokeless tobacco could prevent most of the estimated 30,200 new cases and 7,800 deaths from oral cavity and pharynx cancers annually in the United States.
 
What ever the price it will not affect my consumption.

I don't doubt that. I have kids at my school coming to school today with flip flops, shorts, and t-shirts on in 55 deg. weather and I know damn well their parents have marijuana/dope. There is damn little you can tell me about dope in general or marijuana in particular that would surprise me.
 
You mean like tobacco?


source

Exactly. I am a smoker. I understand the danger. I am still free to make a choice, and I have chosen to smoke. Let's also consider that Cannabis is much less dangerous than a cigarette ever will be.
 
Absolutely. I know a lot of people like to pigeonhole people who support legalization as pot smokers. I personally don't smoke pot and haven't done so since I was in high school. Even though people say it's not addictive, my late uncle (who had an addictive personality) was addicted to marijuana for years and years. It obviously affected him more because of he was more prone to addiction. Regardless of all of that, I still see no reason to not legalize it. The difference between you and I is that I actually like people to have a choice regardless of my personal opinion on marijuana. I don't blame marijuana abuse on marijuana, but the person abusing it. It's the same exact kind of argument on gun control. Often when there is a shooting, the issue gets brought up. Anti-gun people place the blame on a gun rather than placing the blame on the person pulling the trigger. It's stupid to place the blame on an inanimate object.

Used as directed a firearm won't hurt anyone. Use marijuana as diredted and you will experience lung disease. I believe that's the difference.
 
I don't doubt that. I have kids at my school coming to school today with flip flops, shorts, and t-shirts on in 55 deg. weather and I know damn well their parents have marijuana/dope. There is damn little you can tell me about dope in general or marijuana in particular that would surprise me.

You know for sure these parents are stoned? Do you 24/7 mean Reefer Madness style.

BTW my kiddo wears a uniform to school
 
Last edited:
Exactly. I am a smoker. I understand the danger. I am still free to make a choice,

Doesn't that depend on the state you're in? :mrgreen:



and I have chosen to smoke. Let's also consider that Cannabis is much less dangerous than a cigarette ever will be.

.....and will still damage your lungs.
 
Used as directed a firearm won't hurt anyone. Use marijuana as diredted and you will experience lung disease. I believe that's the difference.
What about those who prefer to eat Cannabis? Lung Disease for them, too?
 
Used as directed a firearm won't hurt anyone. Use marijuana as diredted and you will experience lung disease. I believe that's the difference.

Come on. Don't be obtuse. I'm not comparing guns to marijuana. I'm comparing the issue of gun control with legalization of marijuana, because the arguments from the opposition are similarly structured. In both cases people place blame on an inanimate object instead of blaming the person responsible. I also find it rather amusing that you've shifted your argument to lung disease. If that really was your concern, you would have come right out of the gate with that, but you didn't. You resorted to that because you've run out of arguments.
 
Doesn't that depend on the state you're in? :mrgreen:
.....and will still damage your lungs.
Yes, I understand it still damages my lungs. The point I am making is that it is the individual's choice. It is their body. Their body does not belong to the government, or you, or me.
 
You know for sure these parents are stoned? Do you 24/7 Reefer Madness style.

BTW my kiddo wears a uniform to school

When they show up for parent teachers conferences reeking of the stuff.......you know. It's not rocket science. Meth is the worst. Those guys look 20 years older than they should. You are aware dopers rarely fool anyone aren't you?
 
Yes, I understand it still damages my lungs. The point I am making is that it is the individual's choice. It is their body. Their body does not belong to the government, or you, or me.

At least you've learned something today. :mrgreen:
 
Come on. Don't be obtuse. I'm not comparing guns to marijuana. I'm comparing the issue of gun control with legalization of marijuana, because the arguments from the opposition are similarly structured. In both cases people place blame on an inanimate object instead of blaming the person responsible. I also find it rather amusing that you've shifted your argument to lung disease. If that really was your concern, you would have come right out of the gate with that, but you didn't. You resorted to that because you've run out of arguments.

I'm not being obtuse. It's a lousy analogy. The tobacco/marijuana analogy is a much better one.
 
At least you've learned something today. :mrgreen:
No, I was completely aware that the lungs were meant for breathing, not inhaling smoke, before I ventured into this thread. This is not news to me.
 
No, I was completely aware that the lungs were meant for breathing, not inhaling smoke, before I ventured into this thread. This is not news to me.

....and yet you still choose to smoke. Tell me, why do you smoke it then?
 
I'm not being obtuse. It's a lousy analogy. The tobacco/marijuana analogy is a much better one.

It's not a lousy analogy because the arguments from people opposing guns and people opposing legalization of marijuana are similarly structured because in both cases they blame inanimate objects rather than the person using these things. The only reason you think the tobacco/marijuana analogy works better is because it goes along with your new desperate argument.
 
You mean like tobacco?


source

Why are you so against people making their own choices?

The warnings for smoking, drinking, driving, eating fastfood, and even using a hair dryer in the shower are stated plainly.

Why do you feel compelled to legislate what people can and can't do when it doesn't violate your rights directly or indirectly?
 
Back
Top Bottom