• 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!

Do you support federal marijuana legalization?

Should marijuana be legalized at the federal level?

  • No, but we should decriminalize it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    65
Of course legalize it, don't even try to tax it; its too easy to grow.

Anyone in favor of locking up their countryman for one vice but not another is a bigot legislating taste. Anyone in favor of prohibition is a ****ing moron, with no understanding of history, who are enabling drug cartels and gang violence.

Actually, since he says he'd do it to spend the money on the War on Drugs and for government provided rehab...it would seem he's wanting to keep it illegal, but change the penalty to one that helps support the financial burdens of keeping it legal while removing the incarceration chance for violation of said laws.

A war on drugs to pay for a war on drugs? I can think of an easy way to save that money... skip the war.
 
I think it should remain illegal because it is bad for public health and we don't need another substance like that as an OTC substance.

What I am saying though is that using marijuana shouldn't get someone thrown in jail, instead they should be fined.

What makes you think you should have a say what others put in there own body?
 
Actually, you could make the argument that all criminal laws are the states acting as a "nanny".

Not all of them. Only those useless, leftist laws that are designed to protect the people from themselves would qualify. The useful ones (the ones that protect people from others) would be more like a "bodyguard". Nannies don't protect from others.
 
And my whole point was that laws that do not prevent others from harming others(which drunk driving laws do) should not be considered a function of a "nanny state", but things like making weed illegal, laws against SSM, where there is no harm to another persons rights would be considered a function of a "nanny state".

How about outlawing Happy Meals and drinks over 16oz (in restaurants)?
 
Legalize it and DO NOT tax it. Federal and state governments have enough money that they don't know how to spend wisely, they don't need any more until they start acting like grown-ups.

While I don't use it, simply because I don't like it, and especially because it's illegal, marijuana really is harmless.
 
Last edited:
How about outlawing Happy Meals and drinks over 16oz (in restaurants)?

Thankfully, the federal government hasn't done those things. They leave it entirely up to state and local governments to nanny if they wish to. Unlike the federal drug laws that the left wing socialists like Navy Pride support.
 
Legalize it and DO NOT tax it. Federal and state governments have enough money that they don't know how to spend wisely, they don't need any more until they start acting like grown-ups.

While I don't use it, simply because I don't like it, and especially because it's illegal, marijuana really is harmless.

and if it weren't harmless, should it be illegal?
large sugary soft drinks aren't harmless.
3,000 calorie meals aren't harmless.
cigarettes most certainly aren't harmless.

Should the nanny state protect us from ourselves by outlawing things that are not harmless?
 
Thankfully, the federal government hasn't done those things. They leave it entirely up to state and local governments to nanny if they wish to. Unlike the federal drug laws that the left wing socialists like Navy Pride support.

Left wing socialists support strict drug laws?
 
Figures in the last 6 months have ranged from 47% to 56% of Americans in favor of marijuana legalization, and roughly 81% support legalization for medicinal purposes. 60% say that the matter should be decided by the states. Let's see how the DP community feels about this. Should marijuana be legalized (for medicinal and/or recreational use), decriminalized, or prohibited?
I agree with Tosh.0: we should legalize pot so hippies have nothing to talk about.
 
Of course. They abhor a free market.

1) No such thing as a free market;

2) how is it the people who blame the Bush economic collapse on Barney Frank NOT putting more regulations on FM and FM AND Bill Clinton signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall are accusing OTHERS of "abhoring a free market"?
 
1) No such thing as a free market;

Because of all of the government interference and regulation.

2) how is it the people who blame the Bush economic collapse on Barney Frank NOT putting more regulations on FM and FM AND Bill Clinton signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall are accusing OTHERS of "abhoring a free market"?

Who is doing that? Do you have an imaginary friend nearby whispering these things into your ears?
 
Because of all of the government interference and regulation.



Who is doing that? Do you have an imaginary friend nearby whispering these things into your ears?

you haven't heard conservatives and REpublican blame Frank for not quashing regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as being responsible for the 2008 economic collapse???? Wow. What planet are you on?

You haven't heard Republicans blame Clinton for signing the (Republican) bill repealing Glass-Steagall?????

again, wow, what planet are you on? Good lord, come out from your bubble!

Lemme guess: you also have never heard anyone call Obama a Socialist.

Sheesh. Really pathetic.
 
you haven't heard conservatives and REpublican blame Frank for not quashing regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as being responsible for the 2008 economic collapse???? Wow. What planet are you on?

You haven't heard Republicans blame Clinton for signing the (Republican) bill repealing Glass-Steagall?????

again, wow, what planet are you on? Good lord, come out from your bubble!

Lemme guess: you also have never heard anyone call Obama a Socialist.

Sheesh. Really pathetic.

I haven't heard that either. How about instead of being a dick to Tucker, you provide sources to back up your claims, like intelligent people do.

And by the way, nobody here cares about the tangent you're going off on. We're talking about federal marijuana legalization. If you want to talk about other things, get your own thread.
 
you haven't heard conservatives and REpublican blame Frank for not quashing regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as being responsible for the 2008 economic collapse????

I haven't heard anyone do what you said that they do, not the above. The above is, of course, something different from what you said before. Do you not know how sentences work?


You haven't heard Republicans blame Clinton for signing the (Republican) bill repealing Glass-Steagall?????

Again, this is only half of what you described. Surely you understand that when you describe people as doing TWO things simultaneously, and someone questions the claim, you cannot simply provide evidence of one part of the equation and pretend that it counts.



Lemme guess: you also have never heard anyone call Obama a Socialist.

Of course I have.

Now let me guess. You don't really understand what I'm doing here, do you? Protip: Don't create strawman arguments toward people based on your own deeply flawed and asinine assumptions about them.
 
I haven't heard that either. How about instead of being a dick to Tucker, you provide sources to back up your claims, like intelligent people do.

And by the way, nobody here cares about the tangent you're going off on. We're talking about federal marijuana legalization. If you want to talk about other things, get your own thread.


All these conservatives who have NEVER heard Conservatives blame Barney Frank over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the 2008 housing/economic collapse! Who haven't heard Clinton blamed for signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall! Have not heard Obama called a Socialist!

Why, it's a MIRACLE! OR, a convenient amnesia! OR, that fab-yoo Repub bubble (Jon Stewart really got that right, didn't he?).

Please, PLEASE accept my apology for responding to someone on this thread saying "liberals abhor a free market."
 
I haven't heard anyone do what you said that they do, not the above. The above is, of course, something different from what you said before. Do you not know how sentences work?




Again, this is only half of what you described. Surely you understand that when you describe people as doing TWO things simultaneously, and someone questions the claim, you cannot simply provide evidence of one part of the equation and pretend that it counts.





Of course I have.

Now let me guess. You don't really understand what I'm doing here, do you? Protip: Don't create strawman arguments toward people based on your own deeply flawed and asinine assumptions about them.


Meh. The worst liars are those who lie to themselves.

Sorry, it is utterly lacking in credibility to say one has not heard conservatives and Republicans blame Frank/Clinton on those things. But I'm sure you believe it, IN THIS MOMENT. The next time the issue is the housing collapse, I'm sure the song will make yet another 180 turn.
 
Meh. The worst liars are those who lie to themselves.

What, exactly, has your imagination decided to pretend I am lying about. :lol:

Sorry, it is utterly lacking in credibility to say one has not heard conservatives and Republicans blame Frank/Clinton on those things.

We're not talking about a person doing X behavior, we're talking about a single person doing X AND Y behaviors. They have to do BOTH for your claim to have any merit.

you made a claim that the people who do X also do Y.

I asked you who does that.

You respond by talking about people doing X. Not a thing about Y, though.

Showing that X exists does not prove that X exists along with Y. Thus it does nothing to support your claim that X exists along with Y.



But I'm sure you believe it, IN THIS MOMENT.

Which goes to show that either your reading comprehension skills are profoundly delayed, or you like to battle the windmills with the assistance of your trusty sidekick, Sancho.

The next time the issue is the housing collapse, I'm sure the song will make yet another 180 turn.

Which goes to show that you gleefully lie to yourself, making you one of the "worst liars" according to your own standards of behavior as described earlier.
 
Meh. The worst liars are those who lie to themselves.

Sorry, it is utterly lacking in credibility to say one has not heard conservatives and Republicans blame Frank/Clinton on those things. But I'm sure you believe it, IN THIS MOMENT. The next time the issue is the housing collapse, I'm sure the song will make yet another 180 turn.

All these conservatives who have NEVER heard Conservatives blame Barney Frank over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the 2008 housing/economic collapse! Who haven't heard Clinton blamed for signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall! Have not heard Obama called a Socialist!

Why, it's a MIRACLE! OR, a convenient amnesia! OR, that fab-yoo Repub bubble (Jon Stewart really got that right, didn't he?).

Please, PLEASE accept my apology for responding to someone on this thread saying "liberals abhor a free market."
So you really won't be addressing the actual topic of the thread? Gotcha. Proceed.
 
What, exactly, has your imagination decided to pretend I am lying about. :lol:

that you've never heard anyone say that Barney Frank is to blame for rejecting putting more stringent regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that you've never heard anyone blame Bill Clinton for signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

One would have to be either on another planet or actually living in a bubble to not have heard that, esp. a right winger since that was the mantra all over right-wing, conservative media.

Sorry, but I just do not believe you when you say that.
 
So you really won't be addressing the actual topic of the thread? Gotcha. Proceed.

The true irony here is that due to his ignorance, he has completely missed the fact that I am calling one of the most rabidly partisan "right wingers" at DP a socialist by using his own standards of that term against him when it applies, and therefore, is completely oblivious the point I am making.

But, thankfully, I'm perfectly content to **** with the rabid partisans on both sides of the coin for the mindless idiocy they present. It is such a pleasing way to pass away the time.
 
Back
Top Bottom