• 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?

mrbassline

Banned
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
16
Reaction score
1
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because I don't think it is. We already have too many stoners getting away with it and all of them are seriously tarnishing our society. All legalizing would do is make more people use it and rates of lung cancer and pot-related accidents would skyrocket. No wonder only stoners support legalization.
 
All legalizing would do is make more people use it
Someday, hopefully, people will stop believing in that myth.

Decriminalization is said to increase availability, encourage use, and provide disincentives to quit. Thus, we expected longer careers and fewer quitters in Amsterdam, but our findings did not support these expectations. (snip) With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found
strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.

http://www.mapinc.org/lib/limited.pdf

(American Journal of Public Health)
In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."

Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base

(National Academy of Sciences - Institute of Medicine)
Generally, decriminalization is not found to significantly impact drug use. An implication is that the demand for drugs is highly inelastic with respect to incremental changes in the legal sanctions for possession of small amounts of marijuana.

There is no strong evidence that decriminalization effects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (alcohol) or illegal (marijuana and cocaine).

http://www.icjia.state.il.us/GoTo20...N OF MARIJUANA AND THE DEMAND FOR ALCOHOL.doc

(Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority)
The available evidence indicates that the "decriminalization" of marijuana possession had little or no impact on rates of use. Although rates of marijuana use increased in those U.S. states which reduced maximum penalties for possession to a fine, the prevalence of use increased at similar or higher rates in those states which retained more severe penalties. There were also no discernable impacts on the health care systems. On the other hand, the so-called "decriminalization" measures did result in substantial savings in the criminal justice system.

The impact of marijuana decriminalization: an upda...[J Public Health Policy. 1989] - PubMed Result

(National Center for Biotechnology Information)
The preponderance of the evidence gathered and examined for this study points to the conclusion that decriminalization had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people in this age group. The degree of disapproval young people hold for marijuana use, the extent to which they believe such use is harmful, and the degree to which they perceive the drug to be available to them were also unaffected by the law change.

NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

(National Criminal Justice Reference Service)
Several lines of evidence on the deterrent effects of marijuana laws [3], and on decriminalization experiences in the United States, the Netherlands, and Australia suggest that eliminating (or significantly reducing) criminal penalties for first-time possession of small quantities of marijuana has either no effect or a very small effect on the prevalence of marijuana use.

Major publications from the RAND Drug Policy Research Center's

(University of California, Berkely)
The available evidence indicates that depenalisation of the possession of small quantities of cannabis does not increase cannabis prevalence. The Dutch experience suggests that commercial promotion and sales may significantly increase cannabis prevalence.

Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes (and follow-up comments)

(The British Journal of Psychiatry)
Fear of apprehension, fear of being imprisoned, the cost of cannabis or the difficulty in obtaining cannabis do not appear to exert a strong influence on decisions about cannabis consumption, at least amongst the vast majority of 18-29 year olds. Those factors may limit cannabis use among frequent cannabis users but there is no evidence, as yet, to support this conjecture.

Lawlink NSW: B58 - Does prohibition deter cannabis use?

(Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Germany)
The available data indicate that these decriminalisation measures had little or no impact on rates of use.

http://dassa.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/MONOGRAPH6.pdf

(Drug and Alcohol Services Council, South Australia)
There is no evidence to date that the CEN system in South Australia has increased levels of regular cannabis use, or rates of experimentation among young adults.

http://www.aodgp.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/332B63EE0E0E0C39CA25703700041DAC/$File/mono37.pdf

(National Drug Strategy Household Surveys, South Austrailia)
In Australia the evidence is accumulating -- from public attitude surveys coming down on the side of liberalising cannabis laws, from criminal justice system data indicating a vast, expensive and relatively punitive net being cast over youthful cannabis users, and from evidence that liberalisation does not increase cannabis use -- that the total prohibition approach is costly, ineffective as a general deterrent, and does not fit with the National Drug Strategy's goal of harm minimisation.

Australian Institute of Criminology - Error

(Austrailian Institute of Criminology)
Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in nation level rates of illegal drug use.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050141

(Public Library of Science, World Health Organization)
 
Because I don't think it is. We already have too many stoners getting away with it and all of them are seriously tarnishing our society. All legalizing would do is make more people use it and rates of lung cancer and pot-related accidents would skyrocket. No wonder only stoners support legalization.

You have all opinion, without a single grounded premise.

Accidents are caused by people not paying attention. Should legislation be created that prosecutes people for not constantly focusing, because it has been shown to cause accidents?

How do you enforce it? Cannabis is a victimless crime, and the enforcement of such a law has unintended consequences that far outweigh the benefits. From an opportunity cost standpoint, busting cannabis users and sellers costs the time needed to do so, when there are many serious crimes being committed daily.
 
You have all opinion, without a single grounded premise.

Accidents are caused by people not paying attention. Should legislation be created that prosecutes people for not constantly focusing, because it has been shown to cause accidents?

How do you enforce it? Cannabis is a victimless crime, and the enforcement of such a law has unintended consequences that far outweigh the benefits. From an opportunity cost standpoint, busting cannabis users and sellers costs the time needed to do so, when there are many serious crimes being committed daily.

Yet more typical pro-weed garbage from a pot smoker. :bs
 
Could you try to post some information about weed that will convince me to support legalization?

Oh, that's right, you can't because all of it is a bunch of lies to make law-abiding non-smokers look bad.
 
I do NOT smoke weed, I do not want to smoke weed (or anything, including cigs- gross!), I have not ever smoked weed (spare trying it a few times, years ago), and no one in my family smokes weed.

I still believe it should be legalized, largely due to the reasons Goldenboy stated.
 
Could you try to post some information about weed that will convince me to support legalization?

Oh, that's right, you can't because all of it is a bunch of lies to make law-abiding non-smokers look bad.

You have already been debunked by binary digit.
 
Yet more typical pro-weed garbage from a pot smoker. :bs

Compared to the the ignorance spewed from the anti-weed crowd, my garbage is worth its weight in premium cannabis (which is sold for as much as $2000/oz). Or platinum, although that is selling my garbage short.

You did not come here to debate you came her to express your anger; probably because a close friend or relative smokes weed, and it just infuriates you. Come back when you have to proper ammunition to debate the externalities of cannabis legislation.
 
I think locking up pot smokers on the tax payers dime certainly isn't good for society.
 
Because I don't think it is. We already have too many stoners getting away with it and all of them are seriously tarnishing our society. All legalizing would do is make more people use it and rates of lung cancer and pot-related accidents would skyrocket. No wonder only stoners support legalization.


I'm an ex-cop, and a conservative Christian who doesn't do drugs or even drink alcohol.

I reluctantly support the legalization of most drugs (with a few possible exceptions for the really toxic stuff), in order to cut the market out from under the drug-distribution organizations and street gangs, and to free up prison space for real criminals who actually harm others. (Weed smokers are among the most harmless drug users imaginable...even the heavy users mostly just get lethargic.)

It might arguably reduce drug-use-related theft and robbery, since the drugs would be cheaper.

There is no evidence that weed is any worse than booze. As long as booze is legal, weed being a crime doesn't make sense.

Again: I don't use drugs; I don't even drink alcohol and my coffee is decaf. I don't support drug use; if I had my preference people would not use substances that impair their judgement at all.

But they do, and they will. I was a "footsoldier" in the "war on drugs", and in my opinion the only way we'll ever 'win' it is to enlighten people and end the demand... we lack the means to enforce it out of existence.


G.
 
No, it isn't good for society.
Drugs are bad. :yes:
 
No, it isn't good for society.
Drugs are bad. :yes:
Totally agree that drugs are bad. But since prohibition actually causes more problems than it solves, legalization would be good for society in the same way removing a knife from your back would be good for your health. :yes:
 
I support Legalization for the right reasons.

I also don't support arguments for legalization that are not based in fact.

There is no need to lie to gain support for its legalization.
 
The war on drugs serves no governing objective. And marijuana is only illegal because an alliance of right-leaning grassroots organizations who speculated it was a driving force behind the counter-culture and cigarette companies who were worried about increasing competition from another smokable substance lobbied Congress intensively to outlaw it.
 
Totally agree that drugs are bad. But since prohibition actually causes more problems than it solves, legalization would be good for society in the same way removing a knife from your back would be good for your health. :yes:
Do you also agree with me that by legalizing drugs you increase its usage among the people in the society?

Think about it carefully before answering.
 
Do you also agree with me that by legalizing drugs you increase its usage among the people in the society?
No, absolutely not. Didn't you read post #2? The number 1 most important fact surrounding this issue is that there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. The world's foremost experts on the subject all say that the legal status of a drug is not a predictor of the use of that drug. In countries all across the world, they see the same trend over and over again: harsher penalties do not deter use and lighter penalties do not encourage use. When people choose not to use drugs, it's not because of the laws, it's because of health hazards and social stigmas. The laws only determine where drugs are used, not whether they are used.
 
The laws only determine where drugs are used, not whether they are used.
So you're basically saying that there is no such person that would not take drugs just because it's illegal?
You're saying that forbidding drugs by the law will not effect anyone, and that if drugs won't mean jail the number of people who use it would not increase at all?
Forgive me but I find this claim to be against every kind of logic and common sense.
Please elaborate further as to why you believe that people don't take drugs' illegality as a reason not to use drugs.
 
Last edited:
So you're basically saying that there is no such person that would not take drugs just because it's illegal?
You're saying that forbidding drugs by the law will not effect anyone, and that if drugs won't mean jail the number of people who use it would not increase at all?
Forgive me but I find this claim to be against every kind of logic and common sense.
Please elaborate further as to why you believe that people don't take drugs' illegality as a reason not to use drugs.

There are certainly people who don't do something simply because its illegal, and would be likely to "try" it, but they are unlikely to become addicts. There are also many non-conformist posers who will find that they feel less cool doing something that is now condoned by society; and would quit.

Yes there will be new users, I happen to believe the net effect or total % of the population who admit to being users (rather than having tried it) will barely change.
 
I just bought a 1/4 oz of pot. Should I go to jail? Is any one going to report me?
 
There are certainly people who don't do something simply because its illegal, and would be likely to "try" it, but they are unlikely to become addicts. There are also many non-conformist posers who will find that they feel less cool doing something that is now condoned by society; and would quit.
What leads you to claim that people that do not use drugs, out of the reason of illegality, are people who just 'try' drugs, and aren't going to use it commonly and become addicts?
I've seen no study that suggests such a thing.
 
What leads you to claim that people that do not use drugs, out of the reason of illegality, are people who just 'try' drugs, and aren't going to use it commonly and become addicts?
I've seen no study that suggests such a thing.
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.

So you're basically saying that there is no such person that would not take drugs just because it's illegal?
You're saying that forbidding drugs by the law will not effect anyone, and that if drugs won't mean jail the number of people who use it would not increase at all?
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.

Would you try meth if it were legalized? No? Then what makes you think everyone else would?

Please elaborate further as to why you believe that people don't take drugs' illegality as a reason not to use drugs.
I gave you 12 different studies to support that. See post #2.
 
Back
Top Bottom