• 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

I wouldn't say never. Tomorrow's technological advances could shatter that notion of "never."

Though, who knows. Just because you may not be able to stop it 100% doesn't mean I don't think it's wrong. Same with murder/theft/whatever.

What are you talking about technological advances? Controlling when people can or can't have sex?

And this isn't about right or wrong, it's about practicality and safety. If you really cared about these women you would want them to be able to work in a safe environment for legit business where they can make a fair wage, instead of letting criminals run it and have them work for pimps who don't care about them, take most of their money, and make them have unprotected sex and put them at risk for all sorts of STD's. If you find it immoral don't go to a prostitute, it's that simple.
 
Re: Marijuna

We should keep it illegal and enforce drug laws more intensely.

Yeah because we can all afford to piss even more money down the drain. And because it has historically worked so well and all.
 
Re: Marijuna

If society has no problem with cigarettes and alcohol, this should seriously be a no brainer. Legalize the stuff, everyone is going to smoke it anyways.

I hate the stuff myself. But I am all for legalization, regulation and taxation.
 
Re: Marijuna

I never said there was a connection. I do understand, though, that if people wish to decriminalize things like drugs and prostitution, other things are bound to be decriminalized in the future. Out of curiousity, do you think that after drugs and prostitution are decriminalized, that will be the end of decriminalization?

If you believe that simply because drugs are decriminalized other things are to follow, it follows that you see a connection.

Yeah because we can all afford to piss even more money down the drain. And because it has historically worked so well and all.

The anti Pot group seems blissfully unaware of prohibition and the creation of the mofia and gangs currently plaguing society. Never mind the fact that when drug laws are relaxed, the price of drugs fall, and crime also falls. I guess facts like that need to be ignored to justify such backward thinking.
 
Re: Marijuna

Legalize it all and put in place laws laterally to alcohol use. Must be 18, don't operate a car, public use limited, etc.

Allow the private sector to act accordingly - businesses can exclude employment over its use, insurance companies can refuse to cover you over its use, etc. If you want to do drugs and fully understand what it entails, more power to you.

However, if you snort a line of coke and your heart stops, you'd be better off left for dead.

Agreed. The sooner the better as well.

The War on Drugs has worked out about as well as the War on Poverty. Enough money thrown down those rabbit holes.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

What are you talking about technological advances? Controlling when people can or can't have sex?

And this isn't about right or wrong, it's about practicality and safety. If you really cared about these women you would want them to be able to work in a safe environment for legit business where they can make a fair wage, instead of letting criminals run it and have them work for pimps who don't care about them, take most of their money, and make them have unprotected sex and put them at risk for all sorts of STD's. If you find it immoral don't go to a prostitute, it's that simple.
Surely morality is also a social and cultural issue as well? Legalising and supervising prostitution in such a way surely sends certain signals out about how it should be viewed?
 
Re: Marijuna

If you believe that simply because drugs are decriminalized other things are to follow, it follows that you see a connection.

I think there may be, and that thought is valid.

You see, when an idea springs into existence, it's only logical to continue with that idea. You have a cascade of thoughts stemming from one, initial thought, over a spanse of years. The thought is this: "decriminalize in order to save money." With this idea, we decriminalize in order tosave money. As you can see, there is a connection between both the prostitution example, and the illegal drugs example, regarding this concept. It is only logical to think that there may be at least one more instance of decriminalizing in order to save money in the future.

If you and I walk one century into the past, we'll see how just one initial idea can cause a raining cascade of beliefs and movements. Take the simple notion of equality, for example. That idea has been around for millenia, yet for the sake of simplicity let's focus on the last 200 years of America. With the thought of equality, many, many beliefs and motions have sprung from it.

So yes, from just one idea, there can be a cascade, connections, of thoughts and motions.
 
Re: Marijuna

I think prostitution does cost dignity. Whether you like the thrill, sex, or money I find it wrong. What can I say? It's what I honestly believe. Some people sell drugs for thrill, and others for money, yet I still think it's wrong and undignified to sell drugs illegally. :shrug:

As for the "innocent" context, I still find it creepy, at least.

Men do it as well, but to a lesser extent. From a Christian perspective, you are to respect your body, your "temple" for the soul. I find it wrong to sell your body for carnal lusts and money.

People use sex as a bargaining tool all the time. Legislating on the basis of your morality disregards the morality of all others....which is why it's a faulty premise for law.
 
Re: Marijuna

People use sex as a bargaining tool all the time. Legislating on the basis of your morality disregards the morality of all others....which is why it's a faulty premise for law.

So basically the majority is right?

I guess if it's not power that makes something right, it's numbers.
 
Re: Marijuna

I think prostitution does cost dignity. Whether you like the thrill, sex, or money I find it wrong. What can I say? It's what I honestly believe. Some people sell drugs for thrill, and others for money, yet I still think it's wrong and undignified to sell drugs illegally. :shrug:

As for the "innocent" context, I still find it creepy, at least.

Men do it as well, but to a lesser extent. From a Christian perspective, you are to respect your body, your "temple" for the soul. I find it wrong to sell your body for carnal lusts and money.

OK, I agree that it may be a poor career choice, and morally inferior to other choices. But, it is not for me to decide whether or not you can give someone a blow job for free, much less charge for it. Is a free blow job permissable ? Or only OK if one gets a dinner out of it ?
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

Yeah because we can all afford to piss even more money down the drain. And because it has historically worked so well and all.
There is an argument, amongst particularly some traditional conservatives like Peter Hitchens, that the so called 'war on drugs' was always half-hearted. I'm not sure if this is right, but we can't just assume the 'war on drugs' failed, in the sense it was ever carried out properly and didn't succeed.
 
Re: Marijuna

OK, I agree that it may be a poor career choice, and morally inferior to other choices. But, it is not for me to decide whether or not you can give someone a blow job for free, much less charge for it. Is a free blow job permissable ? Or only OK if one gets a dinner out of it ?

Hm, interesting points.

I just think it's despicable and wrong to sell one's body out to others for sex void of love. So hollow, I think.

I don't know what to think from a legal standpoint, but that doesn't change my opinion that it's wrong.
 
Re: Marijuna

So basically the majority is right?

I guess if it's not power that makes something right, it's numbers.

Yeah, essentially it's majority rule....except when the majority would rule in a manner that infringes upon the rights of a minority. Legalizing prostitution infringes upon the rights of nobody. Legalizing or decriminalizing drugs infringes upon the rights of nobody. Criminalizing gay marriage infringes upon the rights of a group of people.

Do you get it? Law should not be based on a moral code which is dynamic (and has always been dynamic). Law should be based on whether or not that law would infringe upon "natural" rights. We can do more for people who are addicted to drugs if we aren't constantly working to throw them in jail. All existing evidence suggests that decriminalizing drug use will actually decrease the number of addicts, death from drugs, and the prison population (and we all know prisons are drastically over crowded in most states). Decriminalizing prostitution provides protections for those who choose to make it their profession.

So really, you have a choice: You can stand on an arbitrary morality soap box and refuse to decriminalize, but in doing so you must also accept that your stance will lead to more harm, pain, illness, and death for those you're classifying as criminals. Or, you can accept that decriminalization allows for safety, rehabilitation, and protection for the so called "victims" of drug use and prostitution and realize that, as a Christian, it is better to do what helps the most people than it is to stand on arbitrary rules from an archaic mindset dictated by men no more equipped to create those guidelines than you are.
 
Re: Marijuna

There is an argument, amongst particularly some traditional conservatives like Peter Hitchens, that the so called 'war on drugs' was always half-hearted. I'm not sure if this is right, but we can't just assume the 'war on drugs' failed, in the sense it was ever carried out properly and didn't succeed.

Of course, it is possible to believe that the first front in an effective War on Drugs is best started by legalizing drugs.
 
Re: Marijuna

Surely morality is also a social and cultural issue as well? Legalising and supervising prostitution in such a way surely sends certain signals out about how it should be viewed?

Not really, cigarettes are legal, and they are not viewed as a good thing to do. In my view morality is up to the people to practice for themselves, not for the government to force on the people. Laws should be practical, keep the people safe, and improve their lives, not force people to be moral.
 
Re: Marijuna

People use sex as a bargaining tool all the time. Legislating on the basis of your morality disregards the morality of all others....which is why it's a faulty premise for law.
All law is based on morality. No one but a few intellectuals ever made laws simply on some sort of calculations of social utility. You cannot make most men understand or respect such laws. Most people cannot help but thinking of right and wrong as the basis of law.

Prostitution is a particularly glaring instance of selling sex. I don't think you need to make all bargaining with sex illegal to be able to ban prostitution.
 
Re: Marijuna

Yeah, essentially it's majority rule....except when the majority would rule in a manner that infringes upon the rights of a minority. Legalizing prostitution infringes upon the rights of nobody. Legalizing or decriminalizing drugs infringes upon the rights of nobody. Criminalizing gay marriage infringes upon the rights of a group of people.

Do you get it? Law should not be based on a moral code which is dynamic (and has always been dynamic). Law should be based on whether or not that law would infringe upon "natural" rights. We can do more for people who are addicted to drugs if we aren't constantly working to throw them in jail. All existing evidence suggests that decriminalizing drug use will actually decrease the number of addicts, death from drugs, and the prison population (and we all know prisons are drastically over crowded in most states). Decriminalizing prostitution provides protections for those who choose to make it their profession.

So really, you have a choice: You can stand on an arbitrary morality soap box and refuse to decriminalize, but in doing so you must also accept that your stance will lead to more harm, pain, illness, and death for those you're classifying as criminals. Or, you can accept that decriminalization allows for safety, rehabilitation, and protection for the so called "victims" of drug use and prostitution and realize that, as a Christian, it is better to do what helps the most people than it is to stand on arbitrary rules from an archaic mindset dictated by men no more equipped to create those guidelines than you are.

That is something to think about, to be sure. Legalizing prostitution does not, in the slightest, infringe the rights of others. Same can be said for drugs.

The problem, though, is that we're ignorant of the side-effects. As a nation gives in to such moral decay, how does it affect the nation as a whole?
 
Re: Marijuna

Hm, interesting points.

I just think it's despicable and wrong to sell one's body out to others for sex void of love. So hollow, I think.

I don't know what to think from a legal standpoint, but that doesn't change my opinion that it's wrong.

And I agree, except that I replace "wrong" with "a usually poor choice".

I have had the experience of spending time in countries where it was legal. And I have spent time becoming familiar with those luxuries.

LOL .... before you assume that I shelled out $20, let me say that I have interviewed legal prostitutes. I have examined their "medical" books. Their licensing and/or permit requirements. Interviewed those who ran establishments where the girls plied their wares, and what their concerns were. And interviewed several levels of customers.

Legal prostitution is so much better for the prostitutes, and their customers, and their communities, than what we have here in the US.
 
Re: Marijuna

That is something to think about, to be sure. Legalizing prostitution does not, in the slightest, infringe the rights of others. Same can be said for drugs.

The problem, though, is that we're ignorant of the side-effects. As a nation gives in to such moral decay, how does it affect the nation as a whole?

And if the end result is less "moral decay", then your argument has lost its merit ?
 
Re: Marijuna

That is something to think about, to be sure. Legalizing prostitution does not, in the slightest, infringe the rights of others. Same can be said for drugs.

The problem, though, is that we're ignorant of the side-effects. As a nation gives in to such moral decay, how does it affect the nation as a whole?

It would not be giving in to "moral decay" because people are already engaging in these activities, and legalizing it isn't going to dramatically increase the number of people engaging in these activities. Would you smoke weed, and go to prostitutes if it were legal? I think not.
 
Re: Marijuna

That is something to think about, to be sure. Legalizing prostitution does not, in the slightest, infringe the rights of others. Same can be said for drugs.

The problem, though, is that we're ignorant of the side-effects. As a nation gives in to such moral decay, how does it affect the nation as a whole?

Do you think we've decayed morally because women are now allowed to divorce their husbands?
Do you think we've decayed morally because men can now be charged with a crime for beating their wives?
Do you think we've decayed morally because many Christians eat food forbidden by the bible?
Do you think we've decayed morally because parents are not allowed to beat their children into submission without fear of legal consequences?

Morality is fluid.

Honestly, I think society is more threatened by narrow-mindedness and hatred than it is by any religious-based moral decay. Remember, it's the fundamental, radicalized, strict-adherence religious followers who lead the chargers for war...not the "loose acting" casual followers. That should speak volumes about the risk of narrow adherence to arbitrary moral codes.
 
Re: Marijuna

Not really, cigarettes are legal, and they are not viewed as a good thing to do. In my view morality is up to the people to practice for themselves, not for the government to force on the people. Laws should be practical, keep the people safe, and improve their lives, not force people to be moral.

I don't think prostitution will be the same as cigarettes. Cigarettes are despised by all the trendy groups and cultural viewpoints. Such people and groups, with the exception of the Germaine Greer's of the world, do not necessarily despise prostitution and their ideologies see little wrong with it.

I think morality has a social aspect. I do not think it is necessarily government's job to simply legislate this, but that doesn't mean that it can't have a role in maintaining social morality in certain areas.

It must be remembered there is a difference between forcing people to act morally and in certain areas stopping them acting immorally. You can help prevent the indulgence of certain temptations without simply forcing people to be moral.
 
Re: Marijuna

Do you think we've decayed morally because women are now allowed to divorce their husbands?
Do you think we've decayed morally because men can now be charged with a crime for beating their wives?
Do you think we've decayed morally because many Christians eat food forbidden by the bible?
Do you think we've decayed morally because parents are not allowed to beat their children into submission without fear of legal consequences?

Morality is fluid.

Honestly, I think society is more threatened by narrow-mindedness and hatred than it is by any religious-based moral decay. Remember, it's the fundamental, radicalized, strict-adherence religious followers who lead the chargers for war...not the "loose acting" casual followers. That should speak volumes about the risk of narrow adherence to arbitrary moral codes.

Damn you tess for explaining things better than me! It's probably a good think I start going back to school tomorrow :2razz:
 
Re: Marijuna

That is something to think about, to be sure. Legalizing prostitution does not, in the slightest, infringe the rights of others. Same can be said for drugs.

The problem, though, is that we're ignorant of the side-effects. As a nation gives in to such moral decay, how does it affect the nation as a whole?

some of us would argue that it is actually a sign of moral decay - make that rot - for a segment of society to impose on another - by law - a prohibition of actions, which actions, if taken, do no harm to any other

that is a nanny state, which tells us that the state knows better what is good behavior for us than we, who choose to engage in it
 
Back
Top Bottom