• 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!

Should Marijuana Be Legalized Nationwide?

Should marijuana be legalized nationwide?


  • Total voters
    86
The federal government should stay out of it entirely. Per the Tenth Amendment, it is none of their business.

When we, as a nation, wanted to ban alcohol on a national level, we correctly recognized that no legitimate authority existed to enact such a ban on the national level, and that the only way to do so legitimately was to amend the Constitution in order to establish this authority—hence the Eighteenth Amendment.

Having never similarly amended the Constitution to give the federal government any authority over marijuana or other harmful recreational drugs, it is acting illegally whenever it involves itself in this issue.

I do not favor legal status for marijuana, but I recognize this as an authority that rightfully belongs exclusively to the states and to lower levels of government.

Any state that wishes to legalize marijuana has the authority to do so, and the federal government has no authority to interfere. Similarly, any state that wants to completely outlaw it has that authority, and again, the federal government has no authority to interfere. Lower levels of government—counties, cities, towns, and such—may have their own laws, as long as they don't violate those of the state.

What about veterans through the (FEDERAL) VA? What about citizens who want to purchase a hunting rifle? What about people who want to obtain a concealed carry permit? What about people who want to apply for TSA Known Traveler IDs? The list goes on. If the law isn't changed at the federal level it still directly affects Americans at the state level even if marijuana is legalized medicinally and/or recreationally at the state level.
 
And isn't that the point? Folks have lost control of government closest to them because the big bad ass federal government is going to jump in an make the votes null and void.

So why even have elections to vote on policy if the big bad ass federal government can swoop in and overturn your vote?

Well, a lot of these laws passed by local and/or state electorates don't pass constitutional muster. That's what the judiciary is for.
 
And isn't that the point? Folks have lost control of government closest to them because the big bad ass federal government is going to jump in an make the votes null and void.

So why even have elections to vote on policy if the big bad ass federal government can swoop in and overturn your vote?

Don't get me wrong, I'm right there with ya. The feds should be narrowly restricted to their specific grant of power in the Constitution. The SCOTUS should be shamed into narrowing their interpretations of the Commerce Clause.

But here, on this issue as it stands now, the vote of the state is neutralized as long as the feds hold pot illegal. If the feds legalize, state's votes to legalize or continue to restrict can both be honored.
 
Well, a lot of these laws passed by local and/or state electorates don't pass constitutional muster. That's what the judiciary is for.
Oh really, seems to me there are a lot willing to allow a backdoor to political activist judges to pass legislation they can't get passed at the ballot box! It is despicable what is going on and very disheartening for so many to either be so ignorant of it or so devious they don't care.
 
Care to elaborate on why? I'm not aware of any valid reasons why it wouldn't be an improvement.

There are a lot of people whose shootings can't be justified if marijuana is legalized. Marijuana is a necessary evil boogieman for a lot of folks.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm right there with ya. The feds should be narrowly restricted to their specific grant of power in the Constitution. The SCOTUS should be shamed into narrowing their interpretations of the Commerce Clause.

But here, on this issue as it stands now, the vote of the state is neutralized as long as the feds hold pot illegal. If the feds legalize, state's votes to legalize or continue to restrict can both be honored.

And once again I ask for how long? Till the next political appointed justice won't allow a state's vote to stand? Do you see the dilemma we are in? How important it is to reining in the powers of every federal branch of government?

You see you don't have a fat chance in Hell of making what you deem right til the former is addressed.
 
Yes. Legalize it, handle it like alcohol, and lightly tax it. Look at it this way, Republicans can use all the money saved on prisons and the failed "War on Drugs" effort, for more useless wars with everyone they want to fight.

Win win!

We got some Dem lawmakers here on the Texas border who would definitely not want it legalized.
 
There are a lot of people whose shootings can't be supported if marijuana is legalized. Marijuana is the evil boogieman for a lot of folks.

I disagree, even though it seems rather tongue in cheek. Even if pot is legalized street sales will still be illegal and there will still be an illicit drug trade in pot.
 
I disagree, even though it seems rather tongue in cheek. Even if pot is legalized street sales will still be illegal and there will still be an illicit drug trade in pot.

It is tongue in cheek. If you'd like it spelled out: There are a lot of posters who wouldn't be able to justify police shootings without marijuana.

It seems to be the first thing they'll run to when screaming that a cop is justified: "Omfg! This person had mari-yuana in they system! The horror. The audacity!"

As if marijuana did anything other than make people lazy and laugh at Beavis and Butthead reruns.
 
We got some Dem lawmakers here on the Texas border who would definitely not want it legalized.

Does not change my opinion.
 
In honor of 4/20:
Should marijuana be legalized nationwide?

Ex-pot smoker here. I fully support, unconditionally, the complete legalization of pot, present and retroactively.

That said, if the day ever comes that weed is legalized and you're still bitching incessantly about pot, I will personally push for the life imprisonment of every man, woman and child who ever came into contact with marijuana. Because compared to people who don't have free elections, access to clean water, education, housing, electricity, and health care, I am so unbelievably sick of listening to your crap.
 
And once again I ask for how long? Till the next political appointed justice won't allow a state's vote to stand? Do you see the dilemma we are in? How important it is to reining in the powers of every federal branch of government?

You see you don't have a fat chance in Hell of making what you deem right til the former is addressed.

Try sticking with the topic of the thread. You made the assertion that the feds have absolute control over legality of pot so it doesn't matter what the states decide. Your solution was for the feds to keep it illegal and the states to vote for legalization. As it stands, the only way the states will regain their power to decide on this one is if the feds legalize it. This would NOT make it legal in all states. It would only make it legal on federal land. The states' vote would then be honored as to legality of the drug.
 
For how long Radcen? Until the next political appointed justice comes along and says differently denying the voters of any state who wished to see it banned? We see it happening over and over again with all "social" issues. The overwhelming number of people in many states have voted to ban certain things only to have their vote taken away by some political activist judge. I don't call that freedom, do you?

When a state votes to ban things that they don't have a right to ban....and the court steps in and overturns the ban...yes that absolutely is Freedom. There are many things that are not subject to a popular vote and they usually involve basic fundamental rights.
 
Try sticking with the topic of the thread. You made the assertion that the feds have absolute control over legality of pot so it doesn't matter what the states decide. Your solution was for the feds to keep it illegal and the states to vote for legalization. As it stands, the only way the states will regain their power to decide on this one is if the feds legalize it. This would NOT make it legal in all states. It would only make it legal on federal land. The states' vote would then be honored as to legality of the drug.
And once again you fail to recognize all it takes is a federal judge to strike down any states vote. They have done it with abortion. They have done it with SSM, as somehow you think miraculously they will respect the vote of the citizens on marijuana.

I got a broken t.v. console with turntable made in the sixties I would like to sell you.
 
It is tongue in cheek. If you'd like it spelled out: There are a lot of posters who wouldn't be able to justify police shootings without marijuana.

It seems to be the first thing they'll run to when screaming that a cop is justified: "Omfg! This person had mari-yuana in they system! The horror. The audacity!"

As if marijuana did anything other than make people lazy and laugh at Beavis and Butthead reruns.

Hmm, haven't run across that argument justifying police shootings. Now, having pot in your system, in a state where it's entirely illegal does tell us the suspect is willing to break the law, and has. It also tells us the suspect's judgment is very likely impaired. Not to mention the suspect is usually a dealer, not just a casual user, something that will still make them a criminal even with legal recreational pot.
 
And once again you fail to recognize all it takes is a federal judge to strike down any states vote. They have done it with abortion. They have done it with SSM, as somehow you think miraculously they will respect the vote of the citizens on marijuana.

I got a broken t.v. console with turntable made in the sixties I would like to sell you.

I'm sure you do, they go well with your broken argument. Those federal judges use precedent and established interpretations set by the SCOTUS. But in this case, you know, the thread topic, if the US Congress legalizes recreational pot federally, by established precedent, they have the power to do so. This could only be overturned by another act of congress.
 
When a state votes to ban things that they don't have a right to ban....and the court steps in and overturns the ban...yes that absolutely is Freedom. There are many things that are not subject to a popular vote and they usually involve basic fundamental rights.

Welll.........whooopie doooooo. Let's just put states rights to rest right now so the Federal government can initiate any agenda they see fit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Let's drop the middle man who so often gets in the way of expanding the agenda of the current assholes in charge of the federal government.


Way to go..................................................
 
In honor of 4/20:
Should marijuana be legalized nationwide?



Might as well. A number of things have convinced me that the upside will far outweigh any downside.


One being this: there's a certain guy I know. Bit of redneck. Likes his beer, smoked a lot of weed. BUT, he's always had a full time job and took care of his family and been functional and a decent human being.


Until... he switched from weed to prescription pills to avoid getting caught in drug test and losing his job.


In a couple years he's gone from functional to almost rock bottom. He's had trouble with the law (he never did before), nearly lost his job twice (lucky bugger that he didn't), and has nearly alienated his entire family due to his crappy behavior. I'm not even telling the half of it.

He was way better off just smoking weed.
 
Hmm, haven't run across that argument justifying police shootings.

Oh, you should look into it. The first thing when a police shooting happens is looking into the person's 'drug history' as if most of America wasn't hyped up on one or another type of drug. Xanax, percs, oxys, codeine, alcohol, etc. You name it and America is on it. Hell, I bet some of the disabled folks on this forum are pretty up and up on their drug use. However, when a police shooting occurs, there only seems to be an issue with marijuana. The demonization of it allows people to justify shootings. To deny it is absolute lunacy.

Now, having pot in your system, in a state where it's entirely illegal does tell us the suspect is willing to break the law, and has.

You can test positive for THC without smoking marijuana. :lol: So no.

It also tells us the suspect's judgment is very likely impaired.

You can test positive for THC months after you've used marijuana and while you're no longer impaired. So once again, no.

Not to mention the suspect is usually a dealer, not just a casual user, something that will still make them a criminal even with legal recreational pot.

I'm going to need some evidence for this.
 
Welll.........whooopie doooooo. Let's just put states rights to rest right now so the Federal government can initiate any agenda they see fit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1Let's drop the middle man who so often gets in the way of expanding the agenda of the current assholes in charge of the federal government.Way to go..................................................
No. It helps it you have a basic understanding of how our government operates. Not every issue should be put to a popular vote. That is the fundamental reason why we have a Constitution. It helps if you understand that.
 
I'm sure you do, they go well with your broken argument. Those federal judges use precedent and established interpretations set by the SCOTUS. But in this case, you know, the thread topic, if the US Congress legalizes recreational pot federally, by established precedent, they have the power to do so. This could only be overturned by another act of congress.

My argument is not broken. And your schpill that those federal judges only use precedence in interpretation makes me want to puke because too many times those federal judges use political ideology and not Constitutional law to base their rulings. In the past decade the number of rulings by federal judges on "feelings" over law is astounding.
 
Ex-pot smoker here. I fully support, unconditionally, the complete legalization of pot, present and retroactively.

That said, if the day ever comes that weed is legalized and you're still bitching incessantly about pot, I will personally push for the life imprisonment of every man, woman and child who ever came into contact with marijuana. Because compared to people who don't have free elections, access to clean water, education, housing, electricity, and health care, I am so unbelievably sick of listening to your crap.

Uhhhh... Ok...... I guess complaining about the major source of the drug war which costs our country billions upon billions of dollars, human beings freedom, and their lives is not a valid issue?
 
Yes. But as a compromise, I can live with letting individual states decide which drugs are legal and which ones aren't.
 
Welll.........whooopie doooooo. Let's just put states rights to rest right now so the Federal government can initiate any agenda they see fit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Let's drop the middle man who so often gets in the way of expanding the agenda of the current assholes in charge of the federal government.


Way to go..................................................

That's precisely what he wants. Liberals have no use for state and local governments unless they can use them for shelter when they're in trouble.
 
Back
Top Bottom