• 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 weed be legalized?

Should weed be legalized in the US?

  • Weed should be legalized for those whose religious beliefs dictate otherwise (like Rasta's).

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    56
Yeah, I get that argument but I don't see the sense of funding a policy that has proven to be an expensive utter failure, in the middle of a budget crisis.

Heck possession is still a criminal misdemeanor here, they could cut court costs just be decriminalizing it.

I think the point is that it will bring more money into government coffers if it is legalized and taxed. What the money is actually used for - more government spending, deficit reduction, or tax cuts elsewhere - is a separate issue.

Why, do you have a problem with governmental :roll: spending as quickly as they can get it printed. :shock: I have no idea why that would be?;) hehehehe

My hard-on for pot goes away when we start talking about all the "responsible" things we could do with the money.

Legalize pot because we want to get high and god damn it we have the right to get high if we ****ing want to!!!

Did we legalize booze because we wanted to spend money responsibly? **** NO!! We boot-legged and moonshine'd because we wanted to get ****-faced! Well god dammit I want to get ****ing stoned!!! **** your budgets and **** your poor school children! Lift off in 5....4....3....
 
Last edited:
Prohibition at tax payer's expense < Taxed marijuana and gov. spending.
 
My hard-on for pot goes away when we start talking about all the "responsible" things we could do with the money.

Legalize pot because we want to get high and god damn it we have the right to get high if we ****ing want to!!!

I am with you we should roll a joint and just chill. The hell with the taxes.
 
doobie-730024.jpg


Image from Lita456 enjoy everyone.
 
Weed should be legalized because it is an individual rights issue.
 
Even from the standpoint of alchoholics. It is good for an alchoholic to smoke weed. It tends to allow them to drink less thus possibly avoiding at least some of the destructive effects of constant alchohol consumption.

I'm definitely in favor of legalization and have said my reasons in other threads.

However, these kind of comments are part of what keep it back. The "Pot is 100% harmless, the perfect alternative, and the greatest thing ever that can't possibly cause any issues any way ever" (being a bit hyperbolic of course) type people hurt the cause.

The root issues with Alcoholics isn't the things they do when they're drunk, but the cause for the drunk which is a natural predisposition for addiction. Shuffling out one very bad addiction for one slightly less bad addiction is not "good". Heavy marijuana addiction, while perhaps marginally better than alcohol, is still not good. Pizza in general may be healthier than hotdogs as its a more rounded meal. Shoving your face full of 6 hot dogs every meal would be bad and shoving it full of 6 slices of pizza may be "better", but its still not GOOD.

Pot is not some miracle drug that is perfectly harmless and has no adverse affects or side effects that can just be done to any degree with no reprucussions. The legalization of pot should hold no real benefit to alcoholics as if they need to stay away from alcohol they should probably be staying away from Pot as well.
 
The debate on legalizing weed in the White House continues...but would this be a good idea?

No.

Could it prompt further debate on the legalization of other class C drugs?

Why would such debates stop with the legalization of weed. I do not think crack heads,meth addicts and other junkies are thinking "man if only weed was legal then I wouldn't need to do other drugs'. Booze is legal but yet every pot head thinks weed should be legal.

Why should weed be made acceptable and other class C drugs not?

This is a interesting question.
Would this be a good idea for a productive work force in the US?
No because some junky will claim its their right to get ****ed up and how dare an employer refuse to hire them.
 
Would this be a good idea for a productive work force in the US?

Share your opinions.

Sure marijuana has the reputation of making people lazy but when I used it, I found that I had a lot less stress at work. I don't think legal marijuana would change the productivity of a workforce as much as the internet has though. Most working people that also use marijuana are already using it.

I quit because I don't want to be part of the exploitation of people who are unwilling smugglers. Though if I knew someone that grew it themselves like I used too, I'd smoke again.
 
There's a lot of hyperbole on both sides.

Its likely not going to greatly interefere with work.

I'm sure you're not going to have all work places saying "You can come and be high at work". You can't be drunk at work, why would they want you high?

So then for it to have an impact on your laziness at work you'd have to assume that somehow doing it outside of work would hurt.

My guess is, for most people, it would be a lot like alcohol. Yeah, they may smoke after work but they're not probably going to be stoned out of their mind up till 3:00 AM toking out just like they're probably not going to be up till 3:00 **** faced and beer bonging.

The ones that may have a problem are:

1. The ones that already have an addicitive problem to it, with the only difference being now it'll be legal
2. Those that have addictive problems to other things and only don't do pot due to accessability/price/legality/etc. So they're probably trading out one bad vice for another

There's really no reason someone shouldn't be able to have one joint after work to relax for the night and get up and do fine at work the next day any more than them coming home and having a strong Jack and Coke.
 
I do not think that it is the Government's duty to shape policy around controlling behavior that some may find it objectionable yet harms only the individual doing it . There are many valid arguments why pot should be legalized, or at least decriminalized. I do not think that taxing the prospective "pot industry" as a new form of Government revenue is one of the better arguments for the ends of legalization; the same goes for a new "pot workforce".

As far as taxing pot goes, the Federal Government is an over-bloated monster that needs to go on a crash-diet, not something new to eat. If pot was legalized, there wouldn't be any new "pot industry" people would just grow their own. There wouldn't be too many new jobs created by legalizing pot either - certainly not in clothing retail. Walk by a Spencer's lately?
 
I do not think that it is the Government's duty to shape policy around controlling behavior that some may find it objectionable yet harms only the individual doing it .

I disagree with you. I could use this logic for legalizing cocaine.

There are many valid arguments why pot should be legalized, or at least decriminalized. I do not think that taxing the prospective "pot industry" as a new form of Government revenue is one of the better arguments for the ends of legalization; the same goes for a new "pot workforce".

Okay. Some British politicians would disagree. Research shows it can harm your memory capacity at a later date, which is why they up-classed it to a B drug.

As far as taxing pot goes, the Federal Government is an over-bloated monster that needs to go on a crash-diet, not something new to eat. If pot was legalized, there wouldn't be any new "pot industry" people would just grow their own.

Not neccessarily. If the industry can harness and grow weed and use capital to produce them 100's at a time, for cheap prices and good quality, who knows? I could say the same for agriculture but not everybody can or wants to grow there own carrots. They much rather not wait and buy it whenever they will.
 
There's a lot of hyperbole on both sides.

Its likely not going to greatly interefere with work.

I'm sure you're not going to have all work places saying "You can come and be high at work". You can't be drunk at work, why would they want you high?

So then for it to have an impact on your laziness at work you'd have to assume that somehow doing it outside of work would hurt.

My guess is, for most people, it would be a lot like alcohol. Yeah, they may smoke after work but they're not probably going to be stoned out of their mind up till 3:00 AM toking out just like they're probably not going to be up till 3:00 **** faced and beer bonging.

The ones that may have a problem are:

1. The ones that already have an addicitive problem to it, with the only difference being now it'll be legal
2. Those that have addictive problems to other things and only don't do pot due to accessability/price/legality/etc. So they're probably trading out one bad vice for another

There's really no reason someone shouldn't be able to have one joint after work to relax for the night and get up and do fine at work the next day any more than them coming home and having a strong Jack and Coke.

You have some good points. I drank on friday night, I had like 13 beers or so. I'm still feeling a little hungover. If I had smoked on friday instead I'd be just fine right now.
 
Why would such debates stop with the legalization of weed. I do not think crack heads,meth addicts and other junkies are thinking "man if only weed was legal then I wouldn't need to do other drugs'. Booze is legal but yet every pot head thinks weed should be legal.

That's fine, those should all be legalized too.

jamesrage said:
No because some junky will claim its their right to get ****ed up and how dare an employer refuse to hire them.

Just because substances are legal doesn't mean that employers still can't refuse to hire someone. For example, alcohol is legal...but if I show up to work drunk, I'll probably get fired.
 
Just because substances are legal doesn't mean that employers still can't refuse to hire someone. For example, alcohol is legal...but if I show up to work drunk, I'll probably get fired.
So a company would be wrong for firing a meth addict or crack head as long as that junkie showed up to work sober even though the company doesn't want junkies working for them?
 
Last edited:
Okay. Some British politicians would disagree. Research shows it can harm your memory capacity at a later date, which is why they up-classed it to a B drug.
Wrong, British politicians ignored their own scientific committee's recommendation NOT to upgrade it to class B. I am not even from the UK and I know that.
 
So a company would be wrong for firing a meth addict or crack head as long as that junkie showed up to work sober even though the company doesn't want junkies working for them?

I support employer's rights, so they can fire any unproductive employees.
 
I support employer's rights, so they can fire any unproductive employees.

Employers should be able to fire anyone for any reason; it's their money and their property. A business owner shouldn't have to justify his/her hiring practices to the government.
 
I support employer's rights, so they can fire any unproductive employees.

A junkie may not necessarily be unproductive if he shows up to work sober. Should a employer still be able to fire that worker if that worker pisses hot?
 
So a company would be wrong for firing a meth addict or crack head as long as that junkie showed up to work sober even though the company doesn't want junkies working for them?

Nope. The legality of a substance has nothing to do with whether or not you can be fired for it. In most states, employers can fire people for any reason they want (except for a few civil rights issues)...or for no reason at all.

They could fire someone for being a meth addict even if they were sober at work...just like they could fire someone for being an alcoholic who was sober at work.
 
Yes, of course it should be legalized.

I am prepared to do my service to the cause and embark on a months long journey to scientifically prove just why weed should be legal. It's a sacrifice, but damn it, it'll be worth it.
 
So a company would be wrong for firing a meth addict or crack head as long as that junkie showed up to work sober even though the company doesn't want junkies working for them?

If they are in a right to work state, most definitely they should be able to fire them for it.

That said, I think a business would be as foolish to say...fire someone because they smoke pot off duty...as they would be to fire someone for drinking alcohol off duty.
 
Kaya'08 said:
The debate on legalizing weed in the White House continues...but would this be a good idea?
No.
Why not?


Why would such debates stop with the legalization of weed.
Because such debates should not stop with the legalization of weed. We should stop waging war on drug users, that only makes the problems worse. We should wage war on drugs by reducing demand through education, like we've done fairly successfully with tobacco.


I do not think that it is the Government's duty to shape policy around controlling behavior that some may find it objectionable yet harms only the individual doing it .
I disagree with you. I could use this logic for legalizing cocaine.
Good, because the same logic applies and the use of cocaine should not be illegal either.

There are many valid arguments why pot should be legalized, or at least decriminalized. I do not think that taxing the prospective "pot industry" as a new form of Government revenue is one of the better arguments for the ends of legalization; the same goes for a new "pot workforce".
Okay. Some British politicians would disagree. Research shows it can harm your memory capacity at a later date, which is why they up-classed it to a B drug.
This claim about permanent memory loss is almost as old as the drug war itself, but has never been substantiated that I'm aware of. Can you please provide a link to this research?

Regardless, the argument that says "drug X is unhealthy, therefore drug X must be illegal" has never held up under scrutiny to begin with. Permanent health problems or not, no drug has ever been made safer by slapping its users with arbitrary criminal charges. There is no evidence that prohibition has any effect on lowering the rate of drug use, and there is no evidence that legalization of any drug would lead to an increase in the use of that drug.
 
Would someone roll me a joint please.

There are few people of any political bent that think that pot should still be illegal. It has serves no purpose being illegal. It give the criminals a great income selling pot and other drugs. So much for the drug money for the Cartels if you legalize the stuff.
 
I see no reason, at this point in time, to keep weed illegal. Legalize it, and tax the **** out of it.
 

The same reason I do not want any other drug legalized for recreational use. Legalization means increased availability which means increased usage and increased users. Those increased users mean they will become my problem if they decided to drive on the road,my problem if they decided they are a addict and want tax payer funded problem to help them kick the habit, my problem if employers refuse to hire junkies and they mooch off the tax payers by going on welfare, my problem if the government decides to sucker tax payers into voting for a tax increase voter initiative by raising taxes for some program that will eventually require that something else to be taxed in order to keep the program funded, my problem if they decided to have tax payer funded needle exchange programs and my problem if junkies with kids can no longer take care of their kids due to their drug habit. I am sure that will claim some bull**** that legalization will not mean increased usage. People are more than likely to try something if it is legal and they do not have to worry or suffer the consequences.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom