• 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
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know how our government was set up to operate. And I see it is not functioning as designed and you don't even recognized it.
 
vesper said:
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.
Click to expand...

The situations are not analogus. SSM and abortion deal with restrictions on freedoms. The Feds deciding to remove pot from schedule 1 does not restrict anyones freedoms so there would be no Constitutional question for federal courts to look into.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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?
Click to expand...

Try reading gooder.
 
Legalize. Today. It isn't a federal question in the first place. As for the states it's stupid public policy and flies in the face of personal freedom.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Drug arrest history is germane, goes to a pattern of criminal behavior. And no, where it comes to shootings ALL drug history is on the table, not just pot.

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

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

You're wrong. Work tests do not show degree, they don't have to because ANY use is disallowed. However, the blood tests given by police can determine the amount of active THC. Yes, we can tell if you're currently stoned medically.

Hatuey said:
I'm going to need some evidence for this.
Click to expand...

Since you were speaking in general terms, without a specific instance, no evidence is going to be available either way.
 
Gaius46 said:
The situations are not analogus. SSM and abortion deal with restrictions on freedoms. The Feds deciding to remove pot from schedule 1 does not restrict anyones freedoms so there would be no Constitutional question for federal courts to look into.
Click to expand...

You know there are always the asswipes who see a potential for sin taxes for everything they allow.

You want drugs to be legal? Then I have a message for you and everyone else. Are you ready?

WHEN YOU ALLOW PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO BE FORFRONT ON ANY PERSON'S PERSONAL CHOICES VOIDING TAXPAYERS TO CARRY THE BURDEN FOR POOR CHOICES OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, THEN YOU CAN LEGALIZE ANY DAMN DRUG YOU WANT. until YOU ARE WILLING TO DO THAT, STICK A SOCK IN IT.

That means I as a taxpayer doesn't have to pay for the mistakes and misjudgments of others. You get hooked of smack or smoke weed till you have no incentive to go to work and make a living. Tough stuff cream puffs, your choice you pay not the taxpayers.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Try reading gooder.
Click to expand...

I did. You said if it was legal and you still had marijuana activists who are "still bitching", you were going to make it your life mission to imprison anyone including children if they came in contact with marijuana. And you justify this all because you dont think its appropriate to "bitch" about because we essentially have a more free government than many countries... Essentially you are annoyed and because you are annoyed you wanna lock up millions of Americans.

First off, you said you would imprison anyone who ever came in contact with marijuana. You also stated you are an ex pot smoker... So if this happens, are you going to be the first to turn yourself in to prison?
Second off, "the still bitching" can be about a lot of things. Federal/state regulations, taxation issues, access issues, pharmaceutical company issues, it could be over many many many things that have to deal with marijuana.
Third off, you possibly want to lock up million millions of Americans simply because you are, "sick of listening to your crap.". You call these activists out because you believe there are more important issues to be debating over, and you justify all this by stating that many countries are still even struggling to have basic democracy and freedom, and struggling to get over authoritarianism. Yet you want to take an authoritarian measure and locking up millions of Americans who at one point had contact with marijuana because you are "sick of listening to your crap.".... Wii bit hypocritical dont you think?
 
vesper said:
You know there are always the asswipes who see a potential for sin taxes for everything they allow.

You want drugs to be legal? Then I have a message for you and everyone else. Are you ready?

WHEN YOU ALLOW PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO BE FORFRONT ON ANY PERSON'S PERSONAL CHOICES VOIDING TAXPAYERS TO CARRY THE BURDEN FOR POOR CHOICES OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, THEN YOU CAN LEGALIZE ANY DAMN DRUG YOU WANT. until YOU ARE WILLING TO DO THAT, STICK A SOCK IN IT.
Click to expand...

Like Portugal!?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Like Portugal!?
Click to expand...

you want to have choices you do not have to be personally responsible for. That is obvious. You don't give a damn of the guy who puts his life on hold for eight years doing things right to be successful. You just want to be a leach on him for his success to pay for the policies you promoted that don't require personal responsibility. Tough being you.
 
vesper said:
you want to have choices you do not have to be personally responsible for. That is obvious. You don't give a damn of the guy who puts his life on hold for eight years doing things right to be successful. You just want to be a leach on him for his success to pay for the policies you promoted that don't require personal responsibility. Tough being you.
Click to expand...

1.)You do realize the amazing success Portugal has had by taking this effort years ago? The overall positive impact it has had for them?
2.) So your saying you are "promoting personal responsibility" by making a personal choice illegal? I mean you do realize people still take drugs and they are illegal? Also are you saying me using marijuana makes me a "leech on society"?
 
clownboy said:
Drug arrest history is germane, goes to a pattern of criminal behavior. And no, where it comes to shootings ALL drug history is on the table, not just pot.
Click to expand...

Right, and past abuses by the police officer are irrelevant. ;) I know your style.

You're wrong. Work tests do not show degree, they don't have to because ANY use is disallowed. However, the blood tests given by police can determine the amount of active THC. Yes, we can tell if you're currently stoned medically.
Click to expand...

You're talking about stuff you REALLY have no concept of. Drug tests can't tell whether a person is 'stoned' anymore than a lie detector can tell whether a person is lying. What it gives is a reading of THC levels at best. However, the presence of these levels doesn't mean that a person is stoned. Tolerance is what determines whether a person is 'stoned' or not. For example, a person can show 30ng/ml on a test and be perfectly functional even though they're supposedly 'stoned'. A different person with the same low amounts of THC can be sitting on a floor vegetating because they simply have no tolerance to marijuana in general. Again, the presence of these chemicals DOES NOT necessarily imply being high. That's absurd.

Since you were speaking in general terms, without a specific instance, no evidence is going to be available either way.
Click to expand...

What? Of course there is. You made a claim about the suspect being usually a drug dealer. I want to know what you base this on.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
1.)You do realize the amazing success Portugal has had by taking this effort years ago? The overall positive impact it has had for them?
2.) So your saying you are "promoting personal responsibility" by making a personal choice illegal? I mean you do realize people still take drugs and they are illegal? Also are you saying me using marijuana makes me a "leech on society"?
Click to expand...
You do realize that Portugal found itself in its dilemma in the first place because they did not require people to take personal responsibility for their choices. Look, you want drugs legalized, then the government which is we the people need to be void of responsibility for your choices. You want to smoke weed, sniff coke, shoot up smack, fine but don't come running to the government "we the people to house you, feed you, provide your children with healthcare because you are so f-ed up you can't provide for your own family or yourself.

Enough of this happy horse ****.
 
vesper said:
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?
Click to expand...

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

States rights are supposed to come first, but when the majority of people in California voted on Proposition 8 a few years ago, it was overturned by a Federal Judge; in Arkansas a vote by the majority of people on adoption by man and wife only was overturned by a Federal Judge in 2010; and there may be more that I'm not aware of. Our States' rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, are slowly being made inconsequential by this administration, and that's seriously wrong.

The Fed's responsibilities are limited, and clearly spelled out, but that doesn't seem to matter. The Supreme Court has twice voted unanimously that Obama has over-reached his authority, and four of them are Democrats - two appointed by him as a matter of fact - but he pays them no heed. He really does think he is above the law. States usually don't have extra money lying around to appeal these cases, so what are they supposed to do?

What would happen if a group of Governors decided to make treaties with other countries on behalf of this Country, contrary to the Constitution? We would go deaf listening to the howls of outrage from DC. What's the difference, if it doesn't matter who does what? Fair is fair!
 
vesper said:
You do realize that Portugal found itself in its dilemma in the first place because they did not require people to take personal responsibility for their choices. Look, you want drugs legalized, then the government which is we the people need to be void of responsibility for your choices.
Click to expand...
What!? What kind of system are you even advocating? "Drugs should be illegal so we can ensure that people are held accountability, and because of personal responsibility!". Ok, then lets look at a country who decriminalized all drugs and see the impact it had on society. "Well Portugal was in that situation because they didnt ensure personal responsibility!".. Uhhh they were illegal, people paid massive fines, and went to jail for a very long time.. Is that not "ensuring personal responsibility"? I mean you are arguing to keep drugs illegal in the US like they are now.. People now pay massive fines, cant get certain jobs, and go to jail for a very long time now.. Like Portugal pre decriminaliztion...

You want to smoke weed, sniff coke, shoot up smack, fine but don't come running to the government "we the people to house you, feed you, provide your children with healthcare because you are so f-ed up you can't provide for your own family or yourself.
Click to expand...
1.)You should also look at how many people went off social welfare in Portugal...
2.)So people who use drugs are now all lazy bums, and cant provide for their kids?
3.)Also so your tired of paying for peoples well being, yet you want to lock them up and have to take care of their well being because they are in prison... You realize this right?

Enough of this happy horse ****.
Click to expand...
Of what? A massive failed policy that has cost thousands of Americans lives, billions of dollars, and ruined millions of peoples lives! Same here! End the drug war! Decriminalize drugs! Treat drug addiction as a disease not a crime!
 
Hatuey said:
Right, and past abuses by the police officer are irrelevant. ;) I know your style.
Click to expand...

And I know yours, which is to put words in other people's mouths if you can't counter their written arguments.

Hatuey said:
You're talking about stuff you REALLY have no concept of. Drug tests can't tell whether a person is 'stoned' anymore than a lie detector can tell whether a person is lying. What it gives is a reading of THC levels at best. However, the presence of these levels doesn't mean that a person is stoned. Tolerance is what determines whether a person is 'stoned' or not. For example, a person can show 30ng/ml on a test and be perfectly functional even though they're supposedly 'stoned'. A different person with the same low amounts of THC can be sitting on a floor vegetating because they simply have no tolerance to marijuana in general. Again, the presence of these chemicals DOES NOT necessarily imply being high. That's absurd.
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense. Tolerance does not determine whether you are stoned or not, just how stoned you are. Even in states where it is legal recreationally it is still illegal to smoke ANY amount and drive. With alcohol, impairment is set at a certain bar point, after which it is legally assumed you are "drunk". A person with a lifetime tolerance who is .08 may not feel any drunkenness or impairment, but legally speaking they are indeed drunk.

Blood tests can indeed show levels of THC. Doesn't matter if you're fully functional, or think you are, you're legally stoned from the first hit, and we can also tell from THC levels how long ago you smoked.

Hatuey said:
What? Of course there is. You made a claim about the suspect being usually a drug dealer. I want to know what you base this on.
Click to expand...

I base this on every shooting I've read about in this forum where drugs were mentioned it has always been dealing. The exception was the Zimmerman shooting where the kid was merely high. The same sort of anecdotal evidence that you put forward to support your argument that they are simply users.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
What!? What kind of system are you even advocating? "Drugs should be illegal so we can ensure that people are held accountability, and because of personal responsibility!". Ok, then lets look at a country who decriminalized all drugs and see the impact it had on society. "Well Portugal was in that situation because they didnt ensure personal responsibility!".. Uhhh they were illegal, people paid massive fines, and went to jail for a very long time.. Is that not "ensuring personal responsibility"? I mean you are arguing to keep drugs illegal in the US like they are now.. People now pay massive fines, cant get certain jobs, and go to jail for a very long time now.. Like Portugal pre decriminaliztion...


1.)You should also look at how many people went off social welfare in Portugal...
2.)So people who use drugs are now all lazy bums, and cant provide for their kids?
3.)Also so your tired of paying for peoples well being, yet you want to lock them up and have to take care of their well being because they are in prison... You realize this right?


Of what? A massive failed policy that has cost thousands of Americans lives, billions of dollars, and ruined millions of peoples lives! Same here! End the drug war! Decriminalize drugs! Treat drug addiction as a disease not a crime!
Click to expand...

you can decriminalize drugs when I as a taxpayer is no longer left on the hook to pay for it, You get addicted, you pay for the treatment. You can't take care of your family because you chose to be a pot head, someone in need for a fix at all costs spending your money on your next fix instead of caring for your family, that's your damn problem. What a worthless member of society that thinks someone else needs to provide for them when they themselves refuse to due to life choices. What a worthless piece of **** in our society that would choose such an addiction that deprives their children of their basic needs and turn around and expect those who didn't make such asinine choices demand they pay for their's. Stick a sock in it.
 
vesper said:
you can decriminalize drugs when I as a taxpayer is no longer left on the hook to pay for it, You get addicted, you pay for the treatment. You can't take care of your family because you chose to be a pot head, someone in need for a fix at all costs spending your money on your next fix instead of caring for your family, that's your damn problem. What a worthless member of society that thinks someone else needs to provide for them when they themselves refuse to due to life choices. What a worthless piece of **** in our society that would choose such an addiction that deprives their children of their basic needs and turn around and expect those who didn't make such asinine choices demand they pay for their's. Stick a sock in it.
Click to expand...

But you are literally doing what you are speaking out against now, and yet you favor the system we have in place. You, the taxpayer, pay for drug war that has costs the federal government $15 billion a year, and state governments $10 billion a year. It costs the US $10+ billion a year, or 330,000 at $31,286 a person to incarcerate drug offenders/users. You pay for this. We pay for this.
 
clownboy said:
And I know yours, which is to put words in other people's mouths if you can't counter their written arguments.
Click to expand...

Lmao, someone is a little touchy.

Absolute nonsense. Tolerance does not determine whether you are stoned or not, just how stoned you are.
Click to expand...

I stopped here. You either don't know what the word 'stoned' means or you think it means the presence of any THC level. In any case, it absolutely doesn't and you're speaking out of blatant ignorance. Tolerance determines the amount of THC required for them to be 'stoned'. SO YES, it does in fact determine whether a person will be stoned and not 'how stoned they are'. There really is no way to tell how "stoned" a person is through THC levels alone barring an ungodly amount of THC in the system and knowledge of consumption habits.

Now, you can wax on poetically comparing marijuana use to alcohol use but they're simply not the same. A habitual user of weed can smoke weed for 6 months, stop for 2 weeks and any THC test worth its salt would still show them as a positive. That is in spite of the fact that they wouldn't be impaired anymore. That simply does not happen with alcohol. Do you understand why these two things are not comparable? Or do I need to go on?

I base this on every shooting I've read about in this forum where drugs were mentioned it has always been dealing. The exception was the Zimmerman shooting where the kid was merely high. The same sort of anecdotal evidence that you put forward to support your argument that they are simply users.
Click to expand...

You made a claim and can't back it up? Good.
 
vesper said:
you can decriminalize drugs when I as a taxpayer is no longer left on the hook to pay for it, You get addicted, you pay for the treatment. You can't take care of your family because you chose to be a pot head, someone in need for a fix at all costs spending your money on your next fix instead of caring for your family, that's your damn problem. What a worthless member of society that thinks someone else needs to provide for them when they themselves refuse to due to life choices. What a worthless piece of **** in our society that would choose such an addiction that deprives their children of their basic needs and turn around and expect those who didn't make such asinine choices demand they pay for their's. Stick a sock in it.
Click to expand...

Wow, nothing extreme and overreaching there. :mrgreen:

I understand you have no clue about drugs, their different effects or even the language used. A "fix" doesn't really apply to pot. Nor does the rest of your rant.

That aside, the taxpayer will always at least partially, remain on the hook for your personal behaviors legal or not if they impact anyone other than yourself, and that's almost always the case.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
But you are literally doing what you are speaking out against now, and yet you favor the system we have in place. You, the taxpayer, pay for drug war that has costs the federal government $15 billion a year, and state governments $10 billion a year. It costs the US $10+ billion a year, or 330,000 at $31,286 a person to incarcerate drug offenders/users. You pay for this. We pay for this.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I favored any system except one that demands personal responsibility for one's choices. If we had a government that required persons to take personal responsibility for their own life choices, half the over bloated budget in Washington would be null and void. If you want the freedom of taking drugs same thing applies. When you are willing to not put those members in society who actually do pay taxes and do avoid things like drug addiction, who do put their lives on hold denying any personal wants to achieve those goals because of educational goals, who provide for their own families without the need of government assistance, who plan for their retirement so they will not be a burden to society.....who are already overtaxed in many instances to provide for those who can't seem to get their **** together.

Personal Responsibility

Until you are willing to concede to that then you can talk all the jive time nickel dime crap you want.
 
Hatuey said:
Lmao, someone is a little touchy.
Click to expand...

YOU displayed the butthurt, just reminding you of your own behavior.

Hatuey said:
I stopped here. You either don't know what the word 'stoned' means or you think it means the presence of any THC level. In any case, it absolutely doesn't and you're speaking out of blatant ignorance. Tolerance determines the amount of THC required for them to be 'stoned'. SO YES, it does in fact determine whether a person will be stoned and not 'how stoned they are'. There really is no way to tell how "stoned" a person is through THC levels alone barring an ungodly amount of THC in the system and knowledge of consumption habits.

Now, you can wax on poetically comparing marijuana use to alcohol use but they're simply not the same. A habitual user of weed can smoke weed for 6 months, stop for 2 weeks and any THC test worth its salt would still show them as a positive. That is in spite of the fact that they wouldn't be impaired anymore. That simply does not happen with alcohol. Do you understand why these two things are not comparable? Or do I need to go on?
Click to expand...

More nonsense and flat out ignorance. One of us has actually studied the affects of THC on the brain and the other is you. And no, tolerance dictates how high you feel, NOT how high or impaired you actually are. Same with alcohol.

Yes, a urine test would still show positive, but a blood test would not show the same levels of THC. You don't need to go on, though I'm positive you will anyway. What you need is an education. Start here:

How Will Police Regulate Stoned Driving? | Popular Science

Hatuey said:
You made a claim and can't back it up? Good.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't make any claim, I made a general observation to counter YOUR general observation. Play with the words all you like, it's not working for you here.
 
vesper said:
You know there are always the asswipes who see a potential for sin taxes for everything they allow.

You want drugs to be legal? Then I have a message for you and everyone else. Are you ready?

WHEN YOU ALLOW PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO BE FORFRONT ON ANY PERSON'S PERSONAL CHOICES VOIDING TAXPAYERS TO CARRY THE BURDEN FOR POOR CHOICES OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, THEN YOU CAN LEGALIZE ANY DAMN DRUG YOU WANT. until YOU ARE WILLING TO DO THAT, STICK A SOCK IN IT.

That means I as a taxpayer doesn't have to pay for the mistakes and misjudgments of others. You get hooked of smack or smoke weed till you have no incentive to go to work and make a living. Tough stuff cream puffs, your choice you pay not the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Two points.

First, hundreds of thousands of people smoke pot regularly and are upstanding, tax paying citizens. Some are even doctors, lawyers, engineers and scientists, politicians and even a couple of Presidents of the United States (though they they are former smokers). So maybe you need to get out of stereotype land every once in a while and see the real world.

Second. I'm fine with personal responsibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom