• 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!

Legalisation of Marijuana

Should marijuana be legalised?

  • Total voters
    57
Jonsa said:
I have had direct experience with somebody going all reefer madness on me. Shocked the hell outta me since I have been exposed to a lot of pot smokers over the years. I liken it to the category of possible side effects of pharma drugs. You know those ads that say this or that drug is going to relieve whatever except ..<list side effects and exclusionary conditions in the last half of the commercial time by talking real fast>.

I am not surprised you have found it to be efficacious in treating ptsd. It has many therapeutic effects and should be prescribed regularly. However I get the feeling that because pot can be grown by just about anyone with a little knowledge and $50 worth of equipment, the big drug companies are not at all interested in seeing it legalized unless they can make a thc pill that costs .25 make and they can sell for $10 a pill. (and people think pot dealers are greedy scum.)
Click to expand...
I think that's exactly why it's still illegal. Any drug with actual potential to help people that can still grow on the ground is a massive threat to the drug industry.
 
Swagger Monster said:
I'm all for it, but I wonder how we'd regulate its use. I mean, how could we be sure people aren't operating a vehicle high or something?
Click to expand...

only way is to enact laws and develop some sort of effective roadside test. Like alcohol - you;ll never be sure to prevent stupid people doing stupid things.
 
Medusa said:
if you are that experienced ,you should stop defending it..........
Click to expand...

No. I should not stop defending the rights of individuals to do what they want, with their own bodies. Pot is a minor league drug in the field of drugs. If you want to see some addiction, start looking at the legal prescription abuse of Hydrocodone, Oxycodone, and MS Contin. Just because something is legal, does not make it non-addictive. Pot doesn't hold a candle, with addictive qualities, to most of the narcs that a huge portion of the population is getting from the local pharmacy every day.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Really? Where did I say: Until every single person in america is a responsible drinker, we should screw everybody.
Click to expand...

ThePlayDrive said:
I will support the legalization of marijuana when one of the two following conditions is reached:
1. DUI and DWI rates decrease to near non-existence..
Click to expand...
It's kind of sad when you can't recall what you said 5 minutes ago. Maybe you're high?
 
Medusa said:
but you dont get drunk :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Weill, it definitely induces a euphoric feeling. Being a male, it's short lived. But for women.... I hear things. :)

You seem to be under the impression that marijuana makes a person lose all control. That's just silly nonsense.
 
Juiposa said:
Recreational use should or should not be legalised?

My belief is that it should be, and two major parties here already advocate it. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I say legalize everything. We're headed in that direction, anyways, so why put off the inevitable?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
It's kind of sad when you can't recall what you said 5 minutes ago. Maybe you're high?
Click to expand...
But where did I say exactly (as you claim) : Until every single person in america is a responsible drinker, we should screw everybody.

I understand that that is your interpretation of post, but that's not exactly what I said - not even close. Why are you putting words in my mouth and do you think that by doing so, it's going to do more to advance your pro-legalization position? Why can't you just use MY words instead of attributing a comment to me that I never made?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
But where did I say exactly (as you claim) : Until every single person in america is a responsible drinker, we should screw everybody.

I understand that that is your interpretation of post, but that's not exactly what I said - not even close. Why are you putting words in my mouth and do you think that by doing so, it's going to do more to advance your pro-legalization position?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what you said. You will only support weed when there are virtually no DUI's, which means an america where every drinker says "no, i'm too drunk to drive, i'm going to be responsible tonight."

You presented a fantasy scenario that will never happen so that you can simply say "no".

Instead of dancing around the point, or arguing semantics, just say "no" in the future.
 
Medusa said:
please read my link
Click to expand...

No thanks. The background is horrible and after brief skimming I see no reference to anything published in a peer reviewed journal or to addictive qualities. It would not matter much anyway. MJ is clearly less addictive. I have seen alcoholics and what they can go through from withdrawals. I have seen mj smokers who will quit for long periods with no apparent side effects.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
That's exactly what you said. You will only support weed when there are virtually no DUI's, which means an america where every drinker says "no, i'm too drunk to drive, i'm going to be responsible tonight."

You presented a fantasy scenario that will never happen so that you can simply say "no".

Instead of dancing around the point, or arguing semantics, just say "no" in the future.
Click to expand...
Do you always become combative and distort the opposition's posts when they disagree with you? If so, you should stop because it does nothing for your cause. Instead of putting words in my mouth, you should have simply provided a counterargument which would have given me something to think about.

In fact, here are few arguments of merit you could have presented instead of going down the classless road you chose: legalizing marijuana might lower the crime rate; regulation of marijuana might decrease DUI/DWI; because the legalization of marijuana would have no net effect on DUI and DWI rates, there's no harm done and we can find other ways to reduce those rates in the meantime; and so on.

Instead of trying to engage someone who disagrees with you in a fruitful discussion, you put words in my mouth and insulted me. That's your loss because I still disagree with you and you've given me no reason to reconsider.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Do you always become combative and distort the opposition's posts when they disagree with you? If so, you should stop because it does nothing for your cause. Instead of putting words in my mouth, you should have simply provided a counterargument which would have given me something to think about.

In fact, here are few arguments of merit you could have presented instead of going down the classless road you chose: legalizing marijuana might lower the crime rate; regulation of marijuana might decrease DUI/DWI; because the legalization of marijuana would have no net effect on DUI and DWI rates, there's no harm done and we can find other ways to reduce those rates in the meantime; and so on.

Instead of trying to engage someone who disagrees with you in a fruitful discussion, you put words in my mouth and insulted me. That's your loss because I still disagree with you and you've given me no reason to reconsider.
Click to expand...

If that's not what you meant then you need to learn to better express yourself.

Saying that you'll only support something if something that's impossible happens, is simply saying that you'll never support it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If that's not what you meant then you need to learn to better express yourself.

Saying that you'll only support something if something that's impossible happens, is simply saying that you'll never support it.
Click to expand...
Don't blame your interpretation of my words on me. I was very clear. What you did was interpret what I said based on the pro-legalization filter you read them through. If that's how you feel about my argument, then there is no problem with that. People feel how they feel. Where the problem lies is when instead of saying, "This is how I feel about your argument," you said, "these were your exact words." That dishonest and you know it - don't pin that on me. Just take responsibility, man, and learn how disagree with people without alienating them.
 
Juiposa said:
Recreational use should or should not be legalised?

My belief is that it should be, and two major parties here already advocate it. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

You were 2 minutes early in posting this thread.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Don't blame your interpretation of my words on me. I was very clear. What you did was interpret what I said based on the pro-legalization filter you read them through. If that's how you feel about my argument, then there is no problem with that. People feel how they feel. Where the problem lies is when instead of saying, "This is how I feel about your argument," you said, "these were your exact words." That dishonest and you know it - don't pin that on me. Just take responsibility, man, and learn how disagree with people without alienating them.
Click to expand...

Then by all means, explain to me how saying that you'll only support it when impossible conditions are fullfilled is not saying that you'll never support it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Then by all means, explain to me how saying that you'll only support it when impossible conditions are fullfilled is not saying that you'll never support it.
Click to expand...
Why is it impossible to enact stricter DUI and DWI laws?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Why is it impossible to enact stricter DUI and DWI laws?
Click to expand...
It's not. Enacting stricter laws will increase the number of infractions, not decrease it to zero.
ThePlayDrive said:
I will support the legalization of marijuana when one of the two following conditions is reached:
1. DUI and DWI rates decrease to near non-existence.
Click to expand...
Have you ever seen any crime, I mean absolutely any crime decrease from prevalence to near non-existence?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
It's not. Enacting stricter laws will increase the number of infractions, not decrease it to zero.

Have you ever seen any crime, I mean absolutely any crime decrease from prevalence to near non-existence?
Click to expand...
You only quoted one part of my position. My argument was two parts and neither part exists without the other. The second part of my argument was that I would support legalizing marijuana if DUI and DWI laws were made stricter. If you are going to continue to distort my argument by taking it out context and picking the parts that are convenient for you, then I'm going to stop giving you chances and exit the conversation.

Again, why are stricter DUI and DWI laws impossible? And if they aren't, then why do you think I would "never" support legalization since I gave attainable conditions under which I would support it? Do you take that lie back now?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
You only quoted one part of my position. My argument was two parts and neither part exists without the other. The second part of my argument was that I would support legalizing marijuana if DUI and DWI laws were made stricter. If you are going to continue to distort my argument by taking it out context and picking the parts that are convenient for you, then I'm going to stop giving you chances and exit the conversation.

Again, why are stricter DUI and DWI laws impossible? And if they aren't, then why do you think I would "never" support legalization since I gave attainable conditions under which I would support it? Do you take that lie back now?
Click to expand...
So you just added an impossible scenario to be cute?

I'll support legalization when:
1. Unicorns fly
2. Dolphins lay eggs
3. We enact stricter DUI laws.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
It's not. Enacting stricter laws will increase the number of infractions, not decrease it to zero.

Have you ever seen any crime, I mean absolutely any crime decrease from prevalence to near non-existence?
Click to expand...
Reading it over, I wasn't being fair to you because you did say "it's not." Do you have evidence that enacting stricter laws will increase DUIs and DWIs?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Reading it over, I wasn't being fair to you because you did say "it's not." Do you have evidence that enacting stricter laws will increase DUIs and DWIs?
Click to expand...
There are a lot of really f***ed up people out there, and a whole lot of them are alcoholics who are borderline sociopaths and will get into a car regardless of what the law is. When people are drunk they're not thinking about the consequences anyways. Enacting stricter laws such as lowering the legal limit would simply increase the number of DUI's.

If being held legally and personally responsible for the death of another human being isn't enough to stop someone from drinking and driving, nothing will be.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So you just added an impossible scenario to be cute?
Click to expand...
I don't see it as impossible as you do. I see it as attainable. /shrug

But the point remains that my argument had two parts to it and thus, is not as impossible as you distorted it be. Now I have a question: since I still believe what I do and you have put words in my mouth and insulted me instead of giving me any different arguments to consider, what have you done to advance your position?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
There are a lot of really f***ed up people out there, and a whole lot of them are alcoholics who are borderline sociopaths and will get into a car regardless of what the law is. When people are drunk they're not thinking about the consequences anyways. Enacting stricter laws such as lowering the legal limit would simply increase the number of DUI's.
Click to expand...
I asked you for evidence, not a repetition of the argument. Do you have any? If I recall, you asked me for evidence as soon as I stated my position. Why the double standard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom