• 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!

Is legalizing marijuana good for society?

Binary_Digit said:
He said they are "unlikely" to become addicted. Implicitly, that acknowledges the possibility that there might be occasional exceptions that don't fit the greater trend.
Click to expand...
Refusing to do drugs because they're illegal has nothing to do with the rate of addiction.
A person isn't more or less likely to become an addict just because he will only be doing drugs if they were legal.
You are not making any sense.
No, I'm not saying there is "no such person" because I realize there will be exceptions. What I'm saying is that those people are the exceptions. Out of all the countries and states that have decriminalized certain drugs, none of them experienced an increase in drug use as a result. Clearly, even in the face of a few exceptions here and there, the obvious and overwhelming trends remain unchanged: drug laws have no known effect on whether drugs are used.
Click to expand...
Exceptions?
There are craploads of people who don't do drugs because they know it means jail, that's not 'exceptions'.
Would you try meth if it were legalized? No? Then what makes you think everyone else would?
Click to expand...
Please quote where did I say that everyone would try meth if it was legalized.
Either do that or apologize for putting words in my mouth.
I gave you 12 different studies to support that. See post #2.
Click to expand...
But I'm asking you, not them.
I'm sure you're capable of explaining your own opinion.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
It also works wonders for my girlfriend's PMS
Click to expand...
You do realize that drugs for medical use and drugs for personal use are two different subjects, right?
I wish you and your girlfriend just well, but it has nothing to do with what I'm arguing about.
 
Apocalypse said:
You do realize that drugs for medical use and drugs for personal use are two different subjects, right?
I wish you and your girlfriend just well, but it has nothing to do with what I'm arguing about.
Click to expand...

Gettin' stoned just for the heck of it also has therapeutic values IMHO.

Addiction is the bitch, monkey on the back letting lose is not.
 
Apocalypse said:
Yes, I have read this post.
Click to expand...

Then why do you persist on ignoring it? The experts have conducted numerous studies which strongly indicate drug laws have a negligible affect on drug use.
 
Ethereal said:
Then why do you persist on ignoring it? The experts have conducted numerous studies which strongly indicate drug laws have a negligible affect on drug use.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to suggest that simulation-studies are always correct?
 
Apocalypse said:
Drug Watch International's position on the legalization of Drugs:
Against Legalization of Drugs
Click to expand...

From your link:
Drug legalization or decriminalization is opposed by a vast majority of Americans and people around the world.
Click to expand...

And the vast majority use to believe the world was flat.:roll:

Leaders in drug prevention, education, treatment, and law enforcement adamantly oppose it, as do many political leaders.
Click to expand...

So just who are these people?

Drug laws deter people from using drugs. Surveys indicate that the fear of getting in trouble with the law constitutes a major reason not to use drugs.
Click to expand...

Exactly what survey is this?


I think I'll go pop a beer now. BTW alcohol is a drug.
 
winston53660 said:
I think I'll go pop a beer now. BTW alcohol is a drug.
Click to expand...
So are caffeine and cigarettes, what's your point?
I am obviously speaking about the drugs that take you out after using a small dose of them.
 
Apocalypse said:
So are caffeine and cigarettes, what's your point?
I am obviously speaking about the drugs that take you out after using a small dose of them.
Click to expand...

*winston passes apocalypse a shot of everclear*

everclear.jpg


There how ya feel now?
 
winston53660 said:
*winston passes apocalypse a shot of everclear*

everclear.jpg


There how ya feel now?
Click to expand...
Nice.
Well, I'd say alcohol is also legalized against.
One cannot drink and drive, one cannot drink below a specific age.
 
Apocalypse said:
Yes, I have read this post.
Click to expand...
Then you are not understanding the full ramifications of those studies. Please bear with me while I attempt to explain this again.

The overall premise that is supported by those studies in post #2 is this: There is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use.

That means this statement by the OP is wrong:

"All legalizing would do is make more people use it"

And it means this statement by you is wrong:

"Do you also agree with me that by legalizing drugs you increase its usage among the people in the society?"

It also means that the following typical prohibitionist arguments are all wrong:

  • Drugs are bad, therefore drugs should remain illegal.
  • Drugs are hazardous to the health, therefore drugs should remain illegal.
  • Drugs are addictive, therefore drugs should remain illegal.
  • Repealing the drug laws would encourage more people to start using drugs, therefore drugs should remain illegal.
  • Drug use is typically associated with crime, therefore drugs should remain illegal.
  • More drug users and addicts would be bad for society, therefore drugs should remain illegal.
  • More intoxicated drivers on the road would be bad, therefore drugs should remain illegal.
All of these arguments are wrong for the same exact reason: They all rely on the same false premise, which assumes that drug use would increase if the prohibition of drugs was repealed. And I think I've proven beyond doubt that that premise is fallacious. Contrary to "conventional wisdom" or "common sense," drug prohibition does not discourage drug use in any measurable way.

So, since we've established that there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use, what's the point of keeping drug prohibition in place? What purpose does it serve to continue throwing people in jail for drugs? If it's your claim that prohibition should remain in place, then please explain your reasoning. Bearing in mind the fact that prohibition is not keeping a lid on drug use, I think you'll see that the rationale for continued prohibition is not very easy to support after all.
 
Apocalypse said:
Nice.
Well, I'd say alcohol is also legalized against.
One cannot drink and drive, one cannot drink below a specific age.
Click to expand...

I don't have problem with those laws for the most part. I think MADD is nuts.

And I am speaking as a person who has been left by the road side for dead. It took Evil Knievel an entire career to break as many bones as to what happened to me in milliseconds.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
1. Yes.

2. Ignore it, my bad, use the word study instead.
Click to expand...

Then what is your argument? That because not ALL studies ALL the time can be one-hundred percent right we should just categorically dismiss scientific research?
 
Binary_Digit said:
Then you are not understanding the full ramifications of those studies. Please bear with me while I attempt to explain this again.

The overall premise that is supported by those studies in post #2 is this: There is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use.

That means this statement by the OP is wrong:

"All legalizing would do is make more people use it"

And it means this statement by you is wrong:

"Do you also agree with me that by legalizing drugs you increase its usage among the people in the society?"

It also means that the following typical prohibitionist arguments are all wrong:

  • Drugs are bad, therefore drugs should remain illegal.
  • Drugs are hazardous to the health, therefore drugs should remain illegal.
  • Drugs are addictive, therefore drugs should remain illegal.
  • Repealing the drug laws would encourage more people to start using drugs, therefore drugs should remain illegal.
  • Drug use is typically associated with crime, therefore drugs should remain illegal.
  • More drug users and addicts would be bad for society, therefore drugs should remain illegal.
  • More intoxicated drivers on the road would be bad, therefore drugs should remain illegal.
All of these arguments are wrong for the same exact reason: They all rely on the same false premise, which assumes that drug use would increase if the prohibition of drugs was repealed. And I think I've proven beyond doubt that that premise is fallacious. Contrary to "conventional wisdom" or "common sense," drug prohibition does not discourage drug use in any measurable way.

So, since we've established that there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use, what's the point of keeping drug prohibition in place? What purpose does it serve to continue throwing people in jail for drugs? If it's your claim that prohibition should remain in place, then please explain your reasoning. Bearing in mind the fact that prohibition is not keeping a lid on drug use, I think you'll see that the rationale for continued prohibition is not very easy to support after all.
Click to expand...
If this study is correct then it would also mean that the laws against drugs have zero deterrence.
It would mean that there is no person in the world that isn't using drugs but would use if they were legal.
Those studies are wrong in my opinion, and drugs should never be legalized.
That's simply allowing the people to kill themselves.
 
Ethereal said:
Then what is your argument? That because not ALL studies ALL the time can be one-hundred percent right we should just categorically dismiss scientific research?
Click to expand...
Dismiss?
No, one may take opinions as there are no clear-cutting evidence for either side.
 
Apocalypse said:
If this study is correct then it would also mean that the laws against drugs have zero deterrence.
It would mean that there is no person in the world that isn't using drugs but would use if they were legal.
Those studies are wrong in my opinion, and drugs should never be legalized.
That's simply allowing the people to kill themselves.
Click to expand...

Do you have any kind of academic peer reviewed study to support your opinion?
 
Apocalypse said:
If this study is correct then it would also mean that the laws against drugs have zero deterrence.
It would mean that there is no person in the world that isn't using drugs but would use if they were legal.
Click to expand...

NO! None of these studies are suggesting that no person in the world isn't deterred by drug laws. Obviously, when a trend is identified there will be exceptions to that trend. What these studies are suggesting is drug laws have a negligible effect on drug use.

Those studies are wrong in my opinion...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but scientific research is not rendered invalid by virtue of your opinion. Analysis sans logic is a terrible debate strategy.
 
Ethereal said:
Sorry, but scientific research is not rendered invalid by virtue of your opinion. Analysis sans logic is a terrible debate strategy.
Click to expand...
Studies are only a part of the research, I am allowed to challenge its results at any part until it is accepted as an evidence.
I am fully aware of the way the science world works, as I was a part of it once. :2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom