• 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?

  • Yes, Weed should be legalized in the US.

    Votes: 50 89.3%

  • No, Weed should not be legalized in the US.

    Votes: 6 10.7%

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

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    56
kaya'08 said:
Give me a second to find the post where i stated such laws will completely stop these kinds of things happening. Oh yeah, i didnt say that.
Click to expand...

Alright, drugs law do not "completely stop these kinds of things". Now you must prove that they stop them AT ALL.

Because legalization will have the opposite affect!!
Click to expand...

Prove it.

So they will be less accessible when sold in liquor stores by the government?
Click to expand...

Nice dodge. The fact remains, drugs are easily accessible.

:rofl Good night, kid. :2wave:
Click to expand...

The irony is thick with this one. I'm twenty-four, you're a teenager.
 
kaya'08 said:
They didnt legalize anything. Policy reform is the magic word, i told you.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they legalized anything. I said decriminalize. You do know the difference, right?

kaya'08 said:
You dont have anything, nobody has ever tried complete legalization of drugs because most politicians know that would be disastrous.
Click to expand...
It's revealing to see that you still haven't supported your assumption that legalizing drugs would lead to an increase in drug use. This "disaster" you speak of is nothing more than a myth.

kaya'08 said:
Saving us from such substances is hardly a breach of civil liberties.
Click to expand...
The war on drugs, as it is currently being waged, isn't saving us from jack.
 
Alright, drugs law do not "completely stop these kinds of things". Now you must prove that they stop them AT ALL.
Click to expand...

Proove to me legalizing will stop them. At least in my argument all you have to do is apply so common sense. Am i supposed to be impressed?

Nice dodge. The fact remains, drugs are easily accessible.
Click to expand...

Easier when its being sold legally everywhere.

The irony is thick with this one. I'm twenty-four, you're a teenager.
Click to expand...

I was referring to mental capacity. Grown up of you, btw, to insult a teenager by calling me a "little idiot" in your previous post. Well done, you're a man now.

I didn't say they legalized anything. I said decriminalize. You do know the difference, right?
Click to expand...

Yes but do you actually think the same results would be achieved by practically handing them the drugs? There is a difference between decriminalization and legalization. You seem to think the further we decriminalize the less drugs taken, therefore it should be decriminalized to the point its legal which defeats the object.

It's revealing to see that you still haven't supported your assumption that legalizing drugs would lead to an increase in drug use. This "disaster" you speak of is nothing more than a myth.
Click to expand...

The effects of drugs, addict or not, on an indivisual, is am myth, is it?
 
kaya'08 said:
Proove to me legalizing will stop them.
Click to expand...
Nobody made that assertion. It's your claim that the drug laws are keeping drug use low and that legalization will result in more drug use. Support that assertion or admit it's nothing more than a myth unsupported by facts.

kaya'08 said:
Easier when its being sold legally everywhere.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's one of the benefits because addicts won't have to associate with the criminal black market. Again you assume without evidence that more people will start using drugs if they're easier to get. You completely ignore the social factors and health consequences, and assume the laws are the only thing keeping everyone from using drugs. All this when you can't even show that the laws have any effect at all. Show that drug laws are keeping drug use low and that legalization will result in more drug use, or admit it's nothing more than a myth unsupported by facts.

kaya'08 said:
Yes but do you actually think the same results would be achieved by practically handing them the drugs?
Click to expand...
I believe that making drugs legally available will have little or no effect on how many people use drugs. I have supported this belief multiple times, by showing that there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. You have supported your belief with a facade of "common sense" that is not based in reality.

kaya'08 said:
There is a difference between decriminalization and legalization. You seem to think the further we decriminalize the less drugs taken
Click to expand...
I have never made that assertion, nor have I said anything to even imply that. I have been abundantly clear on this. There is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. That means legalization will not increase or decrease the rate of drug use. It has no known effect. That goes both ways.

kaya'08 said:
The effects of drugs, addict or not, on an indivisual, is am myth, is it?
Click to expand...
Please stop trying to change my argument, I'm not that stupid. You said that full legalization will never happen because it would be a "disaster." That's what you need to prove, or admit that it's a myth.

Again you have assumed that legalization will lead to an increase in drug use. Almost everything you've been saying is based on this one single assumption, which you STILL haven't supported with anything but your own version of "common sense" that falls apart in reality.
 
kaya'08 said:
Proove to me legalizing will stop them.
Click to expand...

I've never made such a claim.

At least in my argument all you have to do is apply so common sense. Am i supposed to be impressed?
Click to expand...

Sorry. "Common sense" does not constitute proof. Provide some evidence that drug laws actually prevent drug-related crimes from occurring and maybe we can take you seriously.

Easier when its being sold legally everywhere.
Click to expand...

What's the difference? It would be easier for me to use a remote when changing the channel instead of getting up to press the buttons myself. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that I can change the channel whenever I like with as much frequency as I desire.

I was referring to mental capacity. Grown up of you, btw, to insult a teenager by calling me a "little idiot" in your previous post. Well done, you're a man now.
Click to expand...

I figured that as long as you were going to call Ego a retard I would return the favor. Don't presume to raise yourself above anyone on this forum. You are an immature and ill-mannered boy, nothing more.
 
Thoreau said:
What is your point, alcohol can make you forget a entire night. No such thing happens with cannabis.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ.
 
Last edited:
americanwoman, ARealConservative, bhkad, Blackdog, Catz Part Deux, celticlord, Cptnrodent, danarhea, dclxvinoise, EgoffTib, Ethereal, FallingPianos, Gibberish, Goldwaters, Hatuey, hiswoman, Ikari, Inferno, Jerry, Jessica, jonnyalpha, Kali, Kandahar, Kernel Sanders, Korimyr the Rat, Lerxst, mbig, MrFungus420, Orius, peepnklown, Psychoclown, rudedog, Saboteur, Sanitas, Shadow Serious, Shep Dawg, Singularity, SouthernDemocrat, Thoreau, Zyphlin
Click to expand...

It's so good to see people who I agree with on very little agreeing with me that pumping sweet sticky smoke into my lungs is not something that should be left up to the rabidly anti-marijuana contingent. Seriously - I'm all for going after drugs like meth, coke, crack, heroin, **** that makes you want to sell your kids for a hit and then rots your teeth right out of your skull. Sure. Let's go after that crazy ****. But marijuana? The most marijuana makes you do is eat $300 worth of food with 2 of your closest friends and then drink half a gallon of Sunny D. Seriously. Marijuana is the retarded member of the drug family.
 
Redress said:
This will be unpopular, but to me it's just not worth the effort that legalizing it would be. There is no compelling reason that I can see to legalize it, and out of all the issues that I think face the country and need attention, it is about the least of those issues.

Note, it would not bother me in the least if it was legalized. My argument is not that weed is bad(it is, but that is not the argument), only that the time it would take politicians to do it would be better spent elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I do agree that there are far more pressing reforms and improvements.....in banking....in education....have the states failed here ????

It was wrong to make marijuana illegal in the first place..We need more intelligent legislators.....having something illegal that is popular (alcohol in particular) is utterly counterproductive.
Education is the answer.....I do NOT advocate the use of any of this crap in our bodys.....
What is it that so many hate themselves, that they must drink to excess, smoke filthy cigarettes, brand themselves, inject themselves....is our society sick ???
 
Pot should not be legalized, but it should not have jail time as punishment. A fine would be plenty.
 
decriminalize weed, the inanimate object, and criminalize people being drunk or high in public, the act of abusing the inamimate object.
Weed doesn't make you high, smoking weed does...
 
Zyphlin said:
So james, would you also be in favor of banning alcohol and tabacco sales? It would reduce the amount of users and abusers and all the other things you said you didn't want marijuana legalized for.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I didn't see your name on the "which drugs should be legalized for recreational use" poll.
 
jamesrage said:
I could be wrong but I didn't see your name on the "which drugs should be legalized for recreational use" poll.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but that doesn't answer the question and has nothing to do with the topic. Do you have anything to actually say about the topic and my question or are you just derailing?
 
Zyphlin said:
I could be wrong but that doesn't answer the question and has nothing to do with the topic. Do you have anything to actually say about the topic and my question or are you just derailing?
Click to expand...

If you are going to bring up alcohol and tobacco in a marijuana legalization debate then it is just as right to bring up other drugs. If you think some drugs should be legal for recreational use and some shouldn't then why wonder what my views are on alcohol and cigarettes?
 
jamesrage said:
If you are going to bring up alcohol and tobacco in a marijuana legalization debate then it is just as right to bring up other drugs. If you think some drugs should be legal for recreational use and some shouldn't then why wonder what my views are on alcohol and cigarettes?
Click to expand...

Except you didn't bring up anything, other than another thread. If you want to ask me about other drugs, then ask me, don't ask if I'm participating in another thread. However, don't expect to ask me a question and me answer it when you wont' even asnwer mine.

I ask you about Alcohol becasue every single thing you stated was problematic about marijuana being legalized ALSO directly applies to alcohol. However, harder drugs have more issues OVER TOP of what Alcohol and Marijuana have, with higher physical addicting properties than either of them, more mental damage than either of them, and longer after affects and quicker deterioration than them. Indeed, Marijuana and its issues from use are far closer to the dangers of alcohol than most heavier drugs. As such, all the things you listed as a reason for keeping Marijuana illegal can equally apply to alcohol, where as with harder drugs there'd be additional reasons. As such, I ask again...

If those things you stated are your reason for keeping marijuana illegal, why to are you not calling for alcohol to become illegal because it fits the exact same criteria.
 
Fellas no dont go all your life in taking drugs,my good friends,thro that sh--e
in the sewers please,i dont want u to die,i want u to live for as long as possible,please dont go down that road,i love to much.

mikeey
 
kaya'08 said:
The debate on legalizing weed in the White House continues...but would this be a good idea? Could it prompt further debate on the legalization of other class C drugs? Why should weed be made acceptable and other class C drugs not? Would this be a good idea for a productive work force in the US?

Share your opinions.
Click to expand...


WTF is a Class C drug?
 
Hatuey said:
On Race :

Race and the Drug War
Click to expand...

The only thing I have to say about that is, TODAY, anyhow (not 20 years ago) it has less to do with race and more to do with environment.

In areas of higher crime, more police are going to be around, and more calls generated from 911, and more interaction with those in the low-income (typically minority) areas. Couple that with the fact that these areas tend to work Outside as I believe your source mentioned (open-air) or when they do operate out of mobility (vehicles) these vehicles are usually poorly maintained and usually easy targets of equipment violation traffic stops (broken tail light, etc) which then result in drug arrests.

I think it has less to do with a "LETS ARREST US SUM' BLACK SUNSA BITCHES" than people who use these statistics tend to think.
 
mikeey said:
Fellas no dont go all your life in taking drugs,my good friends,thro that sh--e
in the sewers please,i dont want u to die,i want u to live for as long as possible,please dont go down that road,i love to much.

mikeey
Click to expand...


Bah, I could care less about living forever in that sense.

Its being the worthless peice of garbage waste of human DNA that you become when you become seriously addicted to drugs is what I don't want to be or see.

Which is why I don't see a problem with legalization of marijuana, as long as people can stay productive when being a user of it (I don't mean currently high at work).
 
Jerry said:
I'm not a smoker, but imo as long as tobacco is going to be legal, weed may as well be also.

I think you should have to be 21 to buy, with regulations and penalties smiler to alcohol. All smoking bans apply to smoking weed, all plant growing limitations, license requirements and smiler that apply to growing tobacco also apply to weed.

Questions for law enforcement out there:
  • What tests could be used to determine if someone is too high to drive?
  • How is the chemical measured?
  • What should be the legal limit for driving?
Click to expand...
I dunno if someone already answered your questions since Im still sifting through this thread that Im way behind on, but..

The NHTSA has determined that the current divided attention tests used to determine impairment while driving as a part of their SFST battery (standardized field sobreity testing) apply universally to all drugs that impair driving. The physical, roadside tests probably will not change any.

As far as chemical testing, that would be a bit more difficult, as currently since the product is illegal, ANY measurable amount of the drug in the blood of a defendant is evidence that the defendant had consumed the drug, and must be combined with evidence that the defendant was impaired at the time of driving (testimony or MVR tape of field sobriety test performance).


I personally believe the current system will have to remain in place in order to work out properly, even if it leaves alot of open questions, due to the fact that there are many drugs (namely marijuana) which can stay in your blood analysis for quite some time, thus the requirement for testimony an/or video taped evidence of poor performance on field sobriety tests, coupled with an officer's opinion that the defendant was driving while impaired by alcohol or another impairing substance.


I guess the medical community could do some research to determine if there is a better system of measuring the amount of impairment the body was under at the time, but our current ways will still work fine.
 
Caine said:
The only thing I have to say about that is, TODAY, anyhow (not 20 years ago) it has less to do with race and more to do with environment.

In areas of higher crime, more police are going to be around, and more calls generated from 911, and more interaction with those in the low-income (typically minority) areas. Couple that with the fact that these areas tend to work Outside as I believe your source mentioned (open-air) or when they do operate out of mobility (vehicles) these vehicles are usually poorly maintained and usually easy targets of equipment violation traffic stops (broken tail light, etc) which then result in drug arrests.

I think it has less to do with a "LETS ARREST US SUM' BLACK SUNSA BITCHES" than people who use these statistics tend to think.
Click to expand...

Read the link my police officer friend. Instead of going off in your usual uneducated and apologist rants for police misconduct regardless of the issue. Regardless of whether it is today or 20 years ago - blacks are still prosecuted more often then whites for the same offense. Which is what the link explained. That has nothing to do with how much interaction cops have with blacks and whites. If police were consistent in this matter then there wouldn't be such a discrepancy.

Example : You a cop. See 3 different white kids on 3 different occasions smoking weed. Yet you only arrest one for it. Then give warnings to the other two.

Then on 3 other occasions you end up arresting 3 different black kids for the same offense you only arrested one white kid for.

Do you get it now? Good.
 
Hatuey said:
Read the link my police officer friend. Instead of going off in your usual uneducated and apologist rants for police misconduct regardless of the issue.
Click to expand...
Prove misconduct and maybe you'd have a point.

Regardless of whether it is today or 20 years ago - blacks are still prosecuted more often then whites for the same offense. Which is what the link explained. That has nothing to do with how much interaction cops have with blacks and whites. If police were consistent in this matter then there wouldn't be such a discrepancy.
Click to expand...
So now its the POLICE responsibility what gets PROSECUTED? Im sorry, I don't work in the District Attorney's Office. I think you have failed when it comes to learning how the justice system works.


Example : You a cop. See 3 different white kids on 3 different occasions smoking weed. Yet you only arrest one for it. Then give warnings to the other two.
Click to expand...
Lets see. The one who got arrested was being a mouthy little bitch. The other two would have got CITATIONS, not warnings.


Then on 3 other occasions you end up arresting 3 different black kids for the same offense you only arrested one white kid for.

Do you get it now? Good.
Click to expand...
All three were mouthing off acting like complete asses.....


Do you see where this is going?

When the authority to ARREST or CITE someone for the same charge exists..... The officer is usually ALWAYS going to CITE unless for some god awful reason the defendant gives him a reason to believe that an ARREST would be more suitable for the individual involved.
 
Caine said:
WTF is a Class C drug?
Click to expand...
It is the UK drug scheduling. I think it would correlate with the US' schedule III, basically possession of a class C drug is a fine or warning based on officer's discretion.

Caine said:
The only thing I have to say about that is, TODAY, anyhow (not 20 years ago) it has less to do with race and more to do with environment.

In areas of higher crime, more police are going to be around, and more calls generated from 911, and more interaction with those in the low-income (typically minority) areas. Couple that with the fact that these areas tend to work Outside as I believe your source mentioned (open-air) or when they do operate out of mobility (vehicles) these vehicles are usually poorly maintained and usually easy targets of equipment violation traffic stops (broken tail light, etc) which then result in drug arrests.

I think it has less to do with a "LETS ARREST US SUM' BLACK SUNSA BITCHES" than people who use these statistics tend to think.
Click to expand...
The numbers say otherwise. Caucasian youths are statistically speaking FAR more likely to use illegal drugs than their minority peers, but minorities are arrested at rates twice to three times their numbers for drug offenses. Let's face it, police do not patrol the suburbs like they do the inner city, and if they did hit the burbs as hard as they do to the inner city, the drug war would over in a few decades.
 
^ I should be more specific, when I say the drug war would be over, I do not mean it is won. For it is an unwinnable war. It would end because when the sons and daughters of judges, mayors, governors, senators, police chiefs and other affluent members of society, get popped for minor drug violations, their parents will lobby for ending the war.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom