• 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

How should Marijuana be dealt with?

  • Stricter federal laws must be made, and more money put to enforcing them

    Votes: 7 7.2%

  • Give individual states the right to decide how to go about it

    Votes: 32 33.0%

  • Legalize it through a federal law

    Votes: 42 43.3%

  • Give states the right to decide about it as long as they abide by certain Federal guidelines

    Votes: 16 16.5%
  • Total voters
    97
Re: Marijuna

Your Star said:
Again false, it has been accepted in many places, all over the world.
Click to expand...
Give us some traditional instances where it was considered completely legitimate, excepting temple prostitutes who are a different kettle of fish.



It does not create social chaos, it creates freedom, social morality is for the people do decide, not for government to enforce. Limiting the ability of people who would want to tell people things like who I can have sex with, what I can put in my body, does not limit freedom as you would suggest, but increase it.
Click to expand...
What you are suggesting is basically atomism. You are suggesting that society doesn't really mean much. That the individual is a self-reliant, complete atom. If society can survive individuals having complete divergence over the most basic moral values and beliefs, then society doesn't mean much. I do not think this is the case. I think common sense shows us that man is a social animal and that your position destroys this.
And what does "fully human" mean? And I doubt you will be able to give a concrete answer that is a fact, it is again another opinion, what makes you feel "fully human" may make someone else feel unfulfilled.
Click to expand...
Fully human means developing all your social, cultural, creative, moral, intellectual and spiritual potential. You always come back to simply what people feel. As Plato said some men like deformity. This is no reason to indulge them. I'm willing to argue about what is right and wrong, what is fully human, you are always trying to reduce everything to personal feelings and opinions. But you have to argue for this. You can't just always claim everything is based on these alone.

Again, this is only your opinion, not a fact, you can't treat it like a fact because it is not. We can't have a decent debate when you treat opinion like facts. The government should keep people safe, and make sure their basic needs are met, that is it. And keeping prostitution illegal puts people in danger, so it should not be law.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I argue for my positions. They are fact to the degree I do a good job. The government is an important social player these days, therefore it has certain social obligations. I'd like to lessen how much of an active role it has in society, but still it will have some important roles.

Legalising prostitution will send signals of legitimacy about it. It is therefore socially baleful, both in terms of the direct relations of prostitutes and those who use them, as well as the more general social, cultural and imaginative effects.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

Ockham said:
Are you kidding?
Click to expand...

I am going to have to take issue with you on this as well. They are only "criminal" in the same way that those who drank alcohol during Prohibition were "criminal", only to be then "not criminal" the day after its repeal, yet while exhibiting the same behavior. I understand the simplest argument that if it is "against the law, its criminal", but also do not think we should be so harsh in such social choices. It clearly is not as though we assaulted someone by smoking a joint.

BTW, I detest drugs.

I believe that if we were to embrace it rather as a sickness, we would be so very much better off in every measurable way.
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
What I'm saying is harm isn't always direct. Harm can be based on the social, cultural and imaginative effects of legitimising such an activity.

Prostitution even more personally prostitution effects those engaged in it and through them their relations, associations and communities.
Click to expand...

you insist there is indirect harm to others resulting from the exercise of victimless crimes and yet you are unable to point to any examples

which indicates you have no point
 
Re: Marijuna

justabubba said:
you insist there is indirect harm to others resulting from the exercise of victimless crimes and yet you are unable to point to any examples

which indicates you have no point
Click to expand...
Actually I gave you a rational argument, which you completely ignored. This indicates you both have no point and cannot think well.

Example are obvious. Alcohol drinking is a 'victimless crime' in the narrow and silly sense you are using, but its legality not only directly hurts relations, associations and communities of some of those who drink, but it also has a general social effect of creating more drinkers and causes a lot of the problems associated with drinking. I'm not sure I'd ban it, but it is an obvious example that such things can have social, cultural and imaginative effects. Although only a moron should doubt this anyway.
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
Actually I gave you a rational argument, which you completely ignored. This indicates you both have no point and cannot think well.

Example are obvious. Alcohol drinking is a 'victimless crime' in the narrow and silly sense you are using, but its legality not only directly hurts relations, associations and communities of some of those who drink, but it also has a general social effect of creating more drinkers and causes a lot of the problems associated with drinking. I'm not sure I'd ban it, but it is an obvious example that such things can have social, cultural and imaginative effects. Although only a moron should doubt this anyway.
Click to expand...

Actually, I thought only a moron would enbrace the abstract and make it the foundation of their argument.

You should have quit while you were only a bit behind. Your post is absurd.
 
Re: Marijuna

Eighty Deuce said:
I am going to have to take issue with you on this as well. They are only "criminal" in the same way that those who drank alcohol during Prohibition were "criminal", only to be then "not criminal" the day after its repeal, yet while exhibiting the same behavior. I understand the simplest argument that if it is "against the law, its criminal", but also do not think we should be so harsh in such social choices. It clearly is not as though we assaulted someone by smoking a joint.

BTW, I detest drugs.

I believe that if we were to embrace it rather as a sickness, we would be so very much better off in every measurable way.
Click to expand...
Can I ask why you label yourself conservative.? You appear to have a completely socially and culturally liberal, indeed atomistic, approach to such questions. Surely a conservative should recognise man is a social animal. Or has conservative sunk so low that all you have to do today to call yourself one is parrot free market slogans and claim to wish to slash the deficit.

I'm not saying a conservative has to be for prohibition, but I'd expect them to understand socially conservative arguments for prohibition and put up a proper conservative counter argument.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

Eighty Deuce said:
Actually, I thought only a moron would enbrace the abstract and make it the foundation of their argument.
Click to expand...
So you think thought is abstract? I have given only a brief, and largely unanswered overview of the issue. The practical and concrete is important, but we must have our initial thoughts right first. The arguments against me have been the usual knee-jerk, atomistic, social liberal nonsense. If accepted the premises of this stuff under the pretense we didn't want to start with the abstract then we'd be fools.

Also if we cannot make sense of obvious, rational relationships between aspects of society, culture and behaviour then we can hardly do it by trying to focus only on the practical and statistical, which is what you foolishly seem to be implying. If one cannot understand the basic issues involved in drug and alcohol use and prostitution and their relationship to society then no amount of 'practical' thinking and statistical analysis will help you.

[
You should have quit while you were only a bit behind. Your post is absurd.
Click to expand...
Oh you wound me. It seems you spend as little time thinking up witty retorts as you decent arguments.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
Can I ask why you label yourself conservative.? You appear to have a completely socially and culturally liberal, indeed atomistic, approach to such questions. Surely a conservative should recognise man is a social animal. Who has conservative sunk so low that all you have to do today to call yourself one is parrot free market slogans and claim to wish to slash the deficit.

I'm not saying a conservative has to be for prohibition, but I'd expect them to understand socially conservative arguments for prohibition and put up a proper conservative counter argument.
Click to expand...

LOL .. check around. I am not only Conservative, but I am soon to stand trial for exceeding my bag limit for killing liberals. I plead self-defense, btw.

I argue common sense. And liberty. Its really pretty simple.

Ozzie. Your discombobulated arguments, aka pretzel logic, just plain suck. Maybe you need to take a break from the tall weeds. Its big dog turf.
 
Re: Marijuna

Eighty Deuce said:
LOL .. check around. I am not only Conservative, but I am soon to stand trial for exceeding my bag limit for killing liberals. I plead self-defense, btw.

I argue common sense. And liberty. Its really pretty simple.

Ozzie. Your discombobulated arguments, aka pretzel logic, just plain suck. Maybe you need to take a break from the tall weeds. Its big dog turf.
Click to expand...
Is this supposed to make some kind of sense? Or be some kind of argument or refutation?

Your approach seems to be to ignore arguments and then make barely comprehensible, terribly unfunny little whining insults and other miscellaneous crap posing as sentences. Maybe it is time you start to 'embrace the abstract', or what everyone else knows as think.

When it comes to liberty I think Burke put the traditional conservative position best, as is often the case;

“But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths.”
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
Actually I gave you a rational argument, which you completely ignored. This indicates you both have no point and cannot think well.
Click to expand...
apologies
i missed anything resembling rational in your post
so, let's take a look at the balance of this one

Example are obvious.
Click to expand...
it are. will let's have it

Alcohol drinking is a 'victimless crime' in the narrow and silly sense you are using,
Click to expand...
it are?
someone needs to let you know that it is not illegal to drink. guess i just did that
this is your comparable example? notice why i detect a void in your responses when it comes to finding them rational

... but its legality not only directly hurts relations, associations and communities of some of those who drink, but it also has a general social effect of creating more drinkers and causes a lot of the problems associated with drinking.
Click to expand...
houston, we have a problem
it now seems you knew that drinking was legal but used it as an illustration of a victimless crime. it is clear you have no knowledge about what you are posting

I'm not sure I'd ban it,
Click to expand...
hold on
you just went thru this diatribe about why drinking inflicts all of these assorted ills on society and then you say it is not awful enough to make illegal ... but you use this as an example to keep marijuana consumption illegal
notice any rationality there? me either

but it is an obvious example that such things can have social, cultural and imaginative effects. Although only a moron should doubt this anyway.
Click to expand...
so, you trot out drinking as being a victimless crime which has awful consequences but is something you would continue to keep legal as an example why marijuana deserves to remain an illegal substance
if that is what one must believe to be identified as not a moron, then i will want to be thrown in with the morons ... in your world they are apparently the folks who can think rationally
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
Can I ask why you label yourself conservative.? You appear to have a completely socially and culturally liberal, indeed atomistic, approach to such questions. Surely a conservative should recognise man is a social animal. Or has conservative sunk so low that all you have to do today to call yourself one is parrot free market slogans and claim to wish to slash the deficit.
Click to expand...

Nothing entertains me more than than conservatives accusing other conservatives of not being conservative.

*sits back in recliner with a bag of popcorn to watch the show*
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
Can I ask why you label yourself conservative.? You appear to have a completely socially and culturally liberal, indeed atomistic, approach to such questions. Surely a conservative should recognise man is a social animal. Or has conservative sunk so low that all you have to do today to call yourself one is parrot free market slogans and claim to wish to slash the deficit.

I'm not saying a conservative has to be for prohibition, but I'd expect them to understand socially conservative arguments for prohibition and put up a proper conservative counter argument.
Click to expand...

Trying to put a political classification into a box is ridiculous. The parties have changed and realigned themselves continuously throughout history. There are many aspects of modern "conservatism" and those who cling desperately to such a limited piece of it as an example of why they're the best type of conservative are part of the reason we have such a problem staying on message, and part of the reason I no longer classify myself.

I don't have to meet your ideal of conservatism to qualify for the classification. Nor do you have to meet mine. But failing to understand that yours isn't the only (and probably not even the best) division of conservatism is paramount to moving forward as a collective group.

Then again, some of us realize that archaic and outdated rules designed to restrict society to fit into our own self righteous definition of acceptable go against the very rights and ideals that conservatives have historically (and hypocritically) held in such high regard.
 
Re: Marijuna

tessaesque said:
Then again, some of us realize that archaic and outdated rules designed to restrict society to fit into our own self righteous definition of acceptable go against the very rights and ideals that conservatives have historically (and hypocritically) held in such high regard.
Click to expand...

That makes you a card-carrying, Marx-reading, Rosenberg-defending, nuclear-spying, Cold-War-loving COMMIE!!!!!!
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
But it was rarely accepted.

Well now you are simply trying to replace restrictive, personal morality with some sort of collective morality based on standards of living. This is just as much legislating morality as any other attempt to do so. It also ignores the importance of personal morality, of self-control, prudence and temperance and such virtues. These are surely very important, even to the health of society. To think that you can make a healthy society just by encouraging a sentimental concern with collective standards of living seems terribly misguided. You need at least a basic amount of self-control and temperance among the individuals who make up society.

Prostitution is wrong because it encourages the worst in man, the cheapening of one of his most important relationships and aspects to a business exchange and to its most animal and least human aspects.
Click to expand...

You are putting far to much value in an act. Sex is as basic as breathing or eating. It's a bodily function. You're making the act of sex into something that it's not. Having sex with a random person for money or not doesn't have the effect you think it does. In societies where sexual liberation is tolerated, there is less violence. In violent societies, there is more repression. That is a fact.
 
Re: Marijuna

tessaesque said:
Trying to put a political classification into a box is ridiculous. The parties have changed and realigned themselves continuously throughout history. There are many aspects of modern "conservatism" and those who cling desperately to such a limited piece of it as an example of why they're the best type of conservative are part of the reason we have such a problem staying on message, and part of the reason I no longer classify myself.

I don't have to meet your ideal of conservatism to qualify for the classification. Nor do you have to meet mine. But failing to understand that yours isn't the only (and probably not even the best) division of conservatism is paramount to moving forward as a collective group.

Then again, some of us realize that archaic and outdated rules designed to restrict society to fit into our own self righteous definition of acceptable go against the very rights and ideals that conservatives have historically (and hypocritically) held in such high regard.
Click to expand...
I realise there are plenty of ways conservatism has changed. On the other hand it is hard for me to understand a conservatism that doesn't recognise man as a social, cultural and imaginative animal and simply views him as the same atomistic and antisocial way as any classical or modern liberal. I can understand you taking a different position on prohibition, though I didn't really have you in my Tessa, I do not believe in alcohol or marijuana prohibition, but I cannot understand you doing so for reasons that are very unconservative and seem identical to the staunchest social liberals on the board.
 
Re: Marijuna

justabubba said:
apologies
i missed anything resembling rational in your post
so, let's take a look at the balance of this one


it are. will let's have it


it are?
someone needs to let you know that it is not illegal to drink. guess i just did that
this is your comparable example? notice why i detect a void in your responses when it comes to finding them rational


houston, we have a problem
it now seems you knew that drinking was legal but used it as an illustration of a victimless crime. it is clear you have no knowledge about what you are posting


hold on
you just went thru this diatribe about why drinking inflicts all of these assorted ills on society and then you say it is not awful enough to make illegal ... but you use this as an example to keep marijuana consumption illegal
notice any rationality there? me either


so, you trot out drinking as being a victimless crime which has awful consequences but is something you would continue to keep legal as an example why marijuana deserves to remain an illegal substance
if that is what one must believe to be identified as not a moron, then i will want to be thrown in with the morons ... in your world they are apparently the folks who can think rationally
Click to expand...
I can't make heads nor tails of your mess of a post here. That fact I'd keep alcohol legal doesn't mean I do not recognise the problems with it. You see some of us can recognise complexities in situations and do not have to rely on the most simplistic analysis alone.
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
I realise there are plenty of ways conservatism has changed. On the other hand it is hard for me to understand a conservatism that doesn't recognise man as a social, cultural and imaginative animal and simply views him as the same atomistic and antisocial way as any classical or modern liberal. I can understand you taking a different position on prohibition, though I didn't really have you in my Tessa, I do not believe in alcohol or marijuana prohibition, but I cannot understand you doing so for reasons that are very unconservative and seem identical to the staunchest social liberals on the board.
Click to expand...

I support decriminalization because all instances of decriminalization in other countries has proven to benefit the whole far more than criminalization every has. That's a simple, logical, incredibly important reason. And I hardly think that the ideologies involved in that conclusion are either liberal or conservative...they're just practical.

If one action is more beneficial than another, perform the more beneficial one. Standing on principle is one thing; standing on principle to the very real detriment of society on the basis of arbitrary morals designed without any supporting evidence is another thing entirely.
 
Re: Marijuna

evanescence said:
You are putting far to much value in an act. Sex is as basic as breathing or eating. It's a bodily function. You're making the act of sex into something that it's not. Having sex with a random person for money or not doesn't have the effect you think it does. In societies where sexual liberation is tolerated, there is less violence. In violent societies, there is more repression. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Eating becomes a problem if we become gluttons and disengage it from our the rest of our humanity. The same goes at least as much for sex. There are legitimate, animal aspects to it, as there are animal aspects to a lot of the aspects of man. But man is a hierarchy, with his fully human, intellectual faculties at the top. If you start engaging in sexual activity which is mostly aimed at satisfy our lower, baser and more animal desires alone this is bound to create an imbalance in the internal hierarchy of the individual. Sex is an act and acts matter, particularly one so intimate and humanly important as sex. I have no doubt there are men who can have sex with a prostitute in relatively tender and intimate way, particularly if they do it rarely, but most of them do not. In our society this sort of thing is the last thing we should be encouraging.
 
Re: Marijuna

tessaesque said:
I support decriminalization because all instances of decriminalization in other countries has proven to benefit the whole far more than criminalization every has. That's a simple, logical, incredibly important reason. And I hardly think that the ideologies involved in that conclusion are either liberal or conservative...they're just practical.

If one action is more beneficial than another, perform the more beneficial one. Standing on principle is one thing; standing on principle to the very real detriment of society on the basis of arbitrary morals designed without any supporting evidence is another thing entirely.
Click to expand...
Yes, but for me as a traditional conservative I cannot help thinking about society, culture and imagination before I make a decision. For me these are not superficial and unimportant, but the very basic of most people's lives, regulating and even to a degree forming them and giving them meaning. We have to be careful with drugs in our society. We have done away with restraint and self-control and ways to get high using an artificial substance like MDMA or heroin are going to make matters worse. But marijuana, like alcohol, can be used in such a way that it is not the central or single part of an experience. One can hardly have an ecstasy pill over a working lunch, whereas one can have a glass of wine. For this and various other reasons I see no reason for it to be prohibited.

Prostitution is different though.
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
I disagree. Eating becomes a problem if we become gluttons and disengage it from our the rest of our humanity. The same goes at least as much for sex. There are legitimate, animal aspects to it, as there are animal aspects to a lot of the aspects of man. But man is a hierarchy, with his fully human, intellectual faculties at the top. If you start engaging in sexual activity which is mostly aimed at satisfy our lower, baser and more animal desires alone this is bound to create an imbalance in the internal hierarchy of the individual. Sex is an act and acts matter, particularly one so intimate and humanly important as sex. I have no doubt there are men who can have sex with a prostitute in relatively tender and intimate way, particularly if they do it rarely, but most of them do not. In our society this sort of thing is the last thing we should be encouraging.
Click to expand...

Why must people be inhibited sexually in order to have good character?
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
Yes, but for me as a traditional conservative I cannot help thinking about society, culture and imagination before I make a decision. For me these are not superficial and unimportant, but the very basic of most people's lives, regulating and even to a degree forming them and giving them meaning. We have to be careful with drugs in our society. We have done away with restraint and self-control and ways to get high using an artificial substance like MDMA or heroin are going to make matters worse. But marijuana, like alcohol, can be used in such a way that it is not the central or single part of an experience. One can hardly have an ecstasy pill over a working lunch, whereas one can have a glass of wine. For this and various other reasons I see no reason for it to be prohibited.

Prostitution is different though.
Click to expand...

Why is prostitution different? Decriminalizing it protects women who have chosen to make it their profession. In Nevada, crimes against women who elect to sell sex are drastically lower than crimes against women who prostitute illegally in any other area. Same for prostitutes in Amsterdam. Disease transmission/acquisition rates for women in legalized prostitution (and for customers) is significantly lower than for those who prostitute illegally. There has been no correlation between legalized prostitution and increased infidelity/divorce in the same areas. There has also been no correlation between legalized prostitution and increased single-parent situations, increased teen pregnancy, increased rape, or other crimes. So, again, you have a situation were decriminalization has shown to benefit the whole more than criminalizing the action ever has...so, I see no difference between decriminalizing drugs and decriminalizing the sale of sex.
 
Re: Marijuna

evanescence said:
Why must people be inhibited sexually in order to have good character?
Click to expand...
Who said anything about inhibited? It really depends on how you use the word inhibited. I think they should control their sexual desires and make the lower, more animal aspects parts of them accord with and be held in place by the higher more fully human aspects. In this sense I want people to be sexually inhibited. But I do think that the more physical and animal aspects can and often should be a part of healthy human sexuality, they simply shouldn't be pursued in isolation and allowed to usurp the place of the higher aspects of man. In this sense I do not support sexual inhibitions.

I think good character is about being more fully human. So it includes having self-control and restraint. Drinking to excess in any repetitive and sustained way is a mark of less perfect character as you are not controlling your desires for what is, on its own, a pleasure that is beneath the full social, cultural, creative, moral, intellectual and spiritual potential of man. The same goes for the over indulgence in the physical and lower aspects of sexuality in isolation from the rest of proper, human sexuality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom