• 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!

Medical Marijuana, will it be misused ?

Will people misuse the Marijuana under its medical purpose ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 78.8%
  • No

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • Dunno

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Total voters
    33
Would it be more beneficial for society to keep Marijuana illegal or to just legalize it? What benefits are there for it being illegal ? Yes it's bad for you, but so are a lot of things (listening to Rush Limbaugh for example). I think the failed attempts to stamp out weed usage are far more costly to society than the use of it ever would be.
 
Would it be more beneficial for society to keep Marijuana illegal or to just legalize it? What benefits are there for it being illegal ? Yes it's bad for you, but so are a lot of things (listening to Rush Limbaugh for example). I think the failed attempts to stamp out weed usage are far more costly to society than the use of it ever would be.

I think offering Medical Marijuana is kind of legalizing it in indirect way, they cant legalize it explicitly one-time .
 
I think medicalizing marijuana was the biggest detriment to actual legislation towards legalizing the substance and is the total wrong pro-drug argument. If you're going to have a pro-drug argument start the argument where it should start:

1. The federal government should not have the right to ban the sale of any good in the united states, and is totally unconstitutional stripping Americans and states of there rights to exercise the rights bestowed upon them by the founders.

Stop trying to parade little jimmy with glaucoma on the pedestal while you and your buddies are running the cannabis club down the street throwing parties for people who are supposed to have medical problems.

Alright you want to use marijuana as a recreational drug to smoke to relax, that's fine but don't give me this bull**** about how people that have these terminal cancers are using marijuana to get by. When you know and I know that is less than 1% of the people who are actually prescribed the "medical cannabis".
 
I think medicalizing marijuana was the biggest detriment to actual legislation towards legalizing the substance and is the total wrong pro-drug argument. If you're going to have a pro-drug argument start the argument where it should start:

1. The federal government should not have the right to ban the sale of any good in the united states, and is totally unconstitutional stripping Americans and states of there rights to exercise the rights bestowed upon them by the founders.

Stop trying to parade little jimmy with glaucoma on the pedestal while you and your buddies are running the cannabis club down the street throwing parties for people who are supposed to have medical problems.

Alright you want to use marijuana as a recreational drug to smoke to relax, that's fine but don't give me this bull**** about how people that have these terminal cancers are using marijuana to get by. When you know and I know that is less than 1% of the people who are actually prescribed the "medical cannabis".

You might be right. After looking into it, I still wonders .. Whats the difference , Renaming the term "Marijuana" ? For what ?
 
I think medicalizing marijuana was the biggest detriment to actual legislation towards legalizing the substance and is the total wrong pro-drug argument. If you're going to have a pro-drug argument start the argument where it should start:

1. The federal government should not have the right to ban the sale of any good in the united states, and is totally unconstitutional stripping Americans and states of there rights to exercise the rights bestowed upon them by the founders.

Stop trying to parade little jimmy with glaucoma on the pedestal while you and your buddies are running the cannabis club down the street throwing parties for people who are supposed to have medical problems.

Alright you want to use marijuana as a recreational drug to smoke to relax, that's fine but don't give me this bull**** about how people that have these terminal cancers are using marijuana to get by. When you know and I know that is less than 1% of the people who are actually prescribed the "medical cannabis".

You might be right. After looking into it, I wonder why adding the term "Medical" to cannabis if they are all the same ?

I'd read an article about legalizing California's government for the "Medical Marijuana" . . Half a minute I'd read a post about the uses of marijuana as a medicine without mentioning the term "Medical" !!!
 
You might be right. After looking into it, I still wonders .. Whats the difference , Renaming the term "Marijuana" ? For what ?

prescription-medicinal-liquor-prohibition.jpg


They medicalized liquor during prohibition, it's just alcoholics are much more ornery than stoner's at not allowing the ruling elite to **** them out of there liquor while stoner's are content with taking all 18 inchs of the law in the ass for there habits.

The supreme court will never own up to enacting an unconstitutional clause in 10th amendment that totally contradicts the rest of the amendment. The Amendment states the federal government does not have the ability to restrict the states rights to delegate on an issue, then they come out during FDR's term and add a commerce clause that allows federal government the ability to restrict the sale or possession of any good. Every drug law in this country is held together by that ****ing commerce clause that totally contradicts the rest of the amendment. It's a ****ing travesty that nobody has tried the supreme court on the reasoning why that amendment is even in place.

Not even on a drug legalization level, but on a moral level to our total working our governance, it ****ing kills me inside.
 
prescription-medicinal-liquor-prohibition.jpg


They medicalized liquor during prohibition, it's just alcoholics are much more ornery than stoner's at not allowing the ruling elite to **** them out of there liquor while stoner's are content with taking all 18 inchs of the law in the ass for there habits.

The supreme court will never own up to enacting an unconstitutional clause in 10th amendment that totally contradicts the rest of the amendment. The Amendment states the federal government does not have the ability to restrict the states rights to delegate on an issue, then they come out during FDR's term and add a commerce clause that allows federal government the ability to restrict the sale or possession of any good. Every drug law in this country is held together by that ****ing commerce clause that totally contradicts the rest of the amendment. It's a ****ing travesty that nobody has tried the supreme court on the reasoning why that amendment is even in place.

Not even on a drug legalization level, but on a moral level to our total working our governance, it ****ing kills me inside.

Actually, I dont see whats wrong with the federal government ?
As I dont see any reason of adding that clause which allows the federal government to restrict any good in any way. I'd heard that the federal government got the right to restrict guns ownership among citizens, but dont know, how will that affect if the order is coming from either the supreme court or the federal government.
 
Actually, I dont see whats wrong with the federal government ?
As I dont see any reason of adding that clause which allows the federal government to restrict any good in any way. I'd heard that the federal government got the right to restrict guns ownership among citizens, but dont know, how will that affect if the order is coming from either the supreme court or the federal government.

America is so large and diverse, the founders set up the ability for states to decide for themselves what they thought was ok. Many states in America if devided into countries would rival most of the world economy by themselves. California for example even with recent problems has the 8th largest economy in the world.

California wants to legalize cannabis, but because of a clause that stripped them of this right to delegate on this issue, there efforts are a big waste of time. Unless the supreme court amends the constitution of the commerce clause in the 10th Amendment or Obama/Congress changes the way the DEA perceives cannabis, they are just blowing a bunch of smoke around. At the moment the people in the states votes do not count, even though they are the most populated state.

Restricing states rights in this way is what will drive states out of our Union, which is what the founders feared, eventually it will happen if the federal government continues to gain power over the states rights.
 
America is so large and diverse, the founders set up the ability for states to decide for themselves what they thought was ok. Many states in America if devided into countries would rival most of the world economy by themselves. California for example even with recent problems has the 8th largest economy in the world.

California wants to legalize cannabis, but because of a clause that stripped them of this right to delegate on this issue, there efforts are a big waste of time. Unless the supreme court amends the constitution of the commerce clause in the 10th Amendment or Obama/Congress changes the way the DEA perceives cannabis, they are just blowing a bunch of smoke around. At the moment the people in the states votes do not count, even though they are the most populated state.

Restricing states rights in this way is what will drive states out of our Union, which is what the founders feared, eventually it will happen if the federal government continues to gain power over the states rights.

Federal law is over State's law, if California recognized that why dont the ask for a permission from the supreme court for the legalization and get free from this "Federal" headache ?

Another point, why are you acting like if that the Federal government is kind of alliens who are trying to get in your business, I think both of the supreme court and the federal government aims for public interest
 
Federal law is over State's law, if California recognized that why dont the ask for a permission from the supreme court for the legalization and get free from this "Federal" headache ?

Another point, why are you acting like if that the Federal government is kind of alliens who are trying to get in your business, I think both of the supreme court and the federal government aims for public interest

Federal government is supposed to have limitations to what they can restrict states to do, as long as a states is not mistreating population the federal government is supposed to stay out of their business. Much like how the EU stays out of individual countries business. The EU is more like the United States of Europe, think of that analogy when you think of American governance.

The federal government are aliens, they are a few men in seats half way across the country that make decisions about how I should live my life, yes they do things more often than not in my favor positively, but very many times they act in ways that are very negative. They are very short sided in some of there actions.

The original clause I speak of was meant to boost trade during the great depression, it has been proven now that restricting the sale of foreign goods in America actually prolonged the depression another 6-8 years. It is an abomination, and I have no way as a citizen to challenge this law in the book. Later on the clause was used to restrict the sale of drugs, which Nixon used because he was scared the counter culture would spread across America.

I understand why Nixon did this, even Hunter S Thomas the famous hippy journalist noticed the counter culture created a generation of dead beats, degenerates and so on. He acted hastily to the drug problem in the united states, instead of trying to regulate it like what he should had done he created a all out drug war which is a failure which we throw millions to each year. If he had regulated marijuana, and eliminated the black market, we wouldn't be in this mess now.
 
Federal government is supposed to have limitations to what they can restrict states to do, as long as a states is not mistreating population the federal government is supposed to stay out of their business. Much like how the EU stays out of individual countries business. The EU is more like the United States of Europe, think of that analogy when you think of American governance.

The federal government are aliens, they are a few men in seats half way across the country that make decisions about how I should live my life, yes they do things more often than not in my favor positively, but very many times they act in ways that are very negative. They are very short sided in some of there actions.

The original clause I speak of was meant to boost trade during the great depression, it has been proven now that restricting the sale of foreign goods in America actually prolonged the depression another 6-8 years. It is an abomination, and I have no way as a citizen to challenge this law in the book. Later on the clause was used to restrict the sale of drugs, which Nixon used because he was scared the counter culture would spread across America.

I understand why Nixon did this, even Hunter S Thomas the famous hippy journalist noticed the counter culture created a generation of dead beats, degenerates and so on. He acted hastily to the drug problem in the united states, instead of trying to regulate it like what he should had done he created a all out drug war which is a failure which we throw millions to each year. If he had regulated marijuana, and eliminated the black market, we wouldn't be in this mess now.

That means that the federal government is responsible for the depression :shock: ..
Anyway I see that drug problem is being regulated by using the term "Medical", that would calm down the counters, maybe .

But I do agree that Nixon could have done much better in the drugs issue, I think he was busy spying on Gerald Ford :lol:
 
That means that the federal government is responsible for the depression :shock: ..
Anyway I see that drug problem is being regulated by using the term "Medical", that would calm down the counters, maybe .

But I do agree that Nixon could have done much better in the drugs issue, I think he was busy spying on Gerald Ford :lol:

I am saying that FDR prolonged the depression a few more years with a bad decision, a decision that stripped states of there rights which we are still having trouble with to this day. What would had turned down the counter culture would of been regulation, something every god fearing hippy secretly fears about there weed. They don't want marijuana legalized, as an illegal substance it is easier obtainable, cheaper and unregulated, a drug dealer will sell to anyone even children.

Nixon was a crook, did a few good things for America, but in all he was more worried with abroad than at home, he acted hastily to listened to much to his base in making his decision about creation of DEA. The PTA pushed him into a corner, and required him to make the DEA and restrict drug sale and possession. All presidents are crooks, I mean I can show you a hose of presidents that did things in the office and outside the office that were very questionable.

As Lynard Skynard said, "Watergate does not really bother me". Being from outside the country, you probably do not know who that is, but it was a famous rock and roll band that had that line in one of there more famous songs.

imnotacrook128609841416858771.jpg
 
Last edited:
I am saying that FDR prolonged the depression a few more years with a bad decision, a decision that stripped states of there rights which we are still having trouble with to this day. What would had turned down the counter culture would of been regulation, something every god fearing hippy secretly fears about there weed. They don't want marijuana legalized, as an illegal substance it is easier obtainable, cheaper and unregulated, a drug dealer will sell to anyone even children.

Nixon was a crook, did a few good things for America, but in all he was more worried with abroad than at home, he acted hastily to listened to much to his base in making his decision about creation of DEA. The PTA pushed him into a corner, and required him to make the DEA and restrict drug sale and possession. All presidents are crooks, I mean I can show you a hose of presidents that did things in the office and outside the office that were very questionable.

As Lynard Skynard said, "Watergate does not really bother me". Being from outside the country, you probably do not know who that is, but it was a famous rock and roll band that had that line in one of there more famous songs.

But you didn't showed whats the benifit for the PTA from restricting drugs sale ?
You are right about being all crooks and getting more, every new one looks in the previous' mistakes and malignantly avoids them ..

You're kinda humiliating me when you tell me about Lynard Skynard :cool:
Ican play "Freebird" extreme on my guitar hero :lol:
 
But you didn't showed whats the benifit for the PTA from restricting drugs sale ?
You are right about being all crooks and getting more, every new one looks in the previous' mistakes and malignantly avoids them ..

You're kinda humiliating me when you tell me about Lynard Skynard :cool:
Ican play "Freebird" extreme on my guitar hero :lol:

Well you have to think at this time was right after the explosion of counter culture in, right after about 1968, millions of young adults in America were experimenting with drugs a lot. Parents in there worried state that they were, over reacted, much like in the 20's, people overreacted to consumption of alcohol.

I could go on for a long time about the problems in my state with marijuana, but I fear that would turn into a long boring process for you.
 
It's medical purpose? Who determines that? A botonist? A chemist? A doctor?
A politician?

I choose none of the above. I'll determine what I can or cannot ingest or inhale.
 
It's medical purpose? Who determines that? A botonist? A chemist? A doctor?
A politician?

I choose none of the above. I'll determine what I can or cannot ingest or inhale.

:spin::spin:
 
Last edited:
Well you have to think at this time was right after the explosion of counter culture in, right after about 1968, millions of young adults in America were experimenting with drugs a lot. Parents in there worried state that they were, over reacted, much like in the 20's, people overreacted to consumption of alcohol.

I could go on for a long time about the problems in my state with marijuana, but I fear that would turn into a long boring process for you.

Yeah, It looks like a colsed circuit issue .
But thanks for the info anyway :2wave:
 
After legalizing Marijuana for medical purposes, will it be misused ?
Of course it will. I don't think you'll find a single medication prescribed by a doctor that isn't misused--or at the very least not used in accordance with the prescription.

Does that make the use morally wrong? Does that justify criminalizing that use? Not in my mind. Every person should have the right to make such decisions for themselves.
 
Will it be misused? Yes.
Will it to any harm when misused? No.
 
This may be a little off topic, but I also want to point out the potential benefits of legalizing marijuana as far as the "civil war" in Mexico goes. I think it's possible that if marijuana was regulated and taxed in America we would be taking a huge amount of money away from drug cartels throughout Latin America. Estimates I've looked at from a few economists said that the US would save about 7 billion dollars a year in litigation costs of marijuana related cases and would also generate over 6 billions dollars in taxed revenue.

...And it would also be a good stay at home job for a few people ;)
 
So why using the term "misuse" then ?

Misuse is appropriate, because it relates to the intention of it the thing is used, as opposed to the harm it causes.

For example, if it was intended that medical marijuana was for pain relief, then a person using it merely out recreation use, would be misusing the drug.

In this example it is very unlikely that marijuana used medically or recreationally would cause harm.

Now lets contrast this with medical morphine. A doctor may use the drug correctly or to within the best of his skilss, and intends to use it to provide medical pain relief. Thus the doctor is using the drug as it was intended, which is correct use. Although, considering the pharmacology of the drug, there is a great risk that the actual patient could be harmed.
 
Now lets contrast this with medical morphine. A doctor may use the drug correctly or to within the best of his skilss, and intends to use it to provide medical pain relief. Thus the doctor is using the drug as it was intended, which is correct use. Although, considering the pharmacology of the drug, there is a great risk that the actual patient could be harmed.

I got got addicted to the stuff after a motorcycle wreck.
 
Back
Top Bottom