• 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?

Should Marijuana be legalized?


  • Total voters
    78
This is another one of those issues whereby: I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household, and I thought what they told me to think. For a lot of years, I believed as they did on the big, important stuff. Then I started reading and understanding the flip side of the coin, which is why at the bright old age of 52 I strongly believe marijuana should be legalized.

The fact that I also believe that alcohol should be illegal should not be held against me.

I wouldn't hold you that against you at all..in an ideal world Tobacco and Alcohol would be illegal and everybody would just smoke weed, then we would have world peace :)
 
I just think if that's the best you have then it's obvious what should be done with Marijuana, legalize it.

Yes, because a person has the right to imbibe whatever substance they wish. This is based off of the right of self-ownership.

Then where does it stop? At what point will you let it go before it gets to the point where society no longer functions or moves forward? Where do you say... STOP! ENOUGH!????

Also I wouldn't be using cigarette's as an example. They are phasing them out as we speak. They are just doing it in a way in which society will accept it in the long run. Baby steps. They are doing so by raising the prices via taxes and by making it illegal to smoke in various places... California currently has it illegal to smoke while driving if you have kids in the car...how long do you think it will be before they use the same excuse to ban smoking along sidewalks? Your home? Cigarette's will no doubt be totally banned within 3-4 decades I'll betchya. Then after that I'll bet they start working on beer.
 
Then where does it stop? At what point will you let it go before it gets to the point where society no longer functions or moves forward? Where do you say... STOP! ENOUGH!????

Also I wouldn't be using cigarette's as an example. They are phasing them out as we speak. They are just doing it in a way in which society will accept it in the long run. Baby steps. They are doing so by raising the prices via taxes and by making it illegal to smoke in various places... California currently has it illegal to smoke while driving if you have kids in the car...how long do you think it will be before they use the same excuse to ban smoking along sidewalks? Your home? Cigarette's will no doubt be totally banned within 3-4 decades I'll betchya. Then after that I'll bet they start working on beer.

Civil Disobedience
 
This question has been asked before, recently.
Why the change?
Do we have scammers/hackers who vote a certain way(en mass) and upset things?
I only voted "yes" as...:
1.....man has the right to be "wrong"
2.....having marijuana illegal accomplishes nothing positive
 
Civil Disobedience

In that case you should be against making it illegal now. Breaking the law as it stands now is civil disobedience.

But hey lets say it was legal. How many would smoke pot while driving? Just like drinking and driving is illegal you can bet that smoking MJ while driving would be illegal. Which is civil disobedience.
 
In that case you should be against making it illegal now. Breaking the law as it stands now is civil disobedience.

But hey lets say it was legal. How many would smoke pot while driving? Just like drinking and driving is illegal you can bet that smoking MJ while driving would be illegal. Which is civil disobedience.

Civil Disobedience carries the obligation to remain moral and ethical. Smoking pot while driving or driving under its influence does not meet that standard.
 
Civil Disobedience carries the obligation to remain moral and ethical. Smoking pot while driving or driving under its influence does not meet that standard.

No actually it doesn't. Civil disobedience is about breaking the law in order to "voice" your disapproval of such and such a law that the government passes, or wants to pass. There are many ways to voice your disapproval without breaking the law. Also one person's moral and ethical beliefs quite often is not the same as another persons. The drunk driver may think that it is ethical and moral to drive while drunk. You may not. Ethics and morals should never come into play when deciding law that governs millions of people. Only what is and isn't good for the people health wise in regards to such things as MJ. A healthy society will last far longer than a diseased one. ;)
 
No actually it doesn't. Civil disobedience is about breaking the law in order to "voice" your disapproval of such and such a law that the government passes, or wants to pass. There are many ways to voice your disapproval without breaking the law. Also one person's moral and ethical beliefs quite often is not the same as another persons. The drunk driver may think that it is ethical and moral to drive while drunk. You may not. Ethics and morals should never come into play when deciding law that governs millions of people. Only what is and isn't good for the people health wise in regards to such things as MJ. A healthy society will last far longer than a diseased one. ;)

Take your bull**** somewhere else, I'm not buying it. Thoreau's Civil Disobedience absolutely required a moral argument be made which invalidated the illegality.
 
Take your bull**** somewhere else, I'm not buying it. Thoreau's Civil Disobedience absolutely required a moral argument be made which invalidated the illegality.

There is a big difference between 1849 and 2010. ;) We have a much more evolved set of laws and abilities than we did in 1849. There is no longer a need to bring a gun every where you go. There is no longer a need to break laws in order to voice your displeasure at the government and its laws. We now have things called peaceful protests, internet, phones, radio, television, airplanes that can get you from point A to point B in a matter of hours...or less. We have the ability to do things without breaking the law and still be heard.

And FYI, not everyone follows Thoreau's Civil Disobediance "guide". There are people out there that break laws in the name of morality and ethics but really have some other agenda. Remember 9/11?

Now for the disclaimer. I'm not saying that Thoreau's Civil Disobediance idea is not a good one, nor is it not needed. But it should ONLY be used as a LAST resort. When all other possibilities are utterly and totally exhausted. As it was meant. IMO using it first is the sign of weak narrow minded fools that don't really care about anything or anyone but what THEY want.
 
One more thing. As evidence of what you could do to voice your displeasure at a law you could use what is called Jury Nullification. A right that all Juror's have at their disposal. If you don't know what it is I would definately suggest that you look it up. I tell everyone about it as it is our last line of defense against laws that the government makes.
 
I believe it should be legalized. For one, you are never EVER going to be able to get rid of it. Two, why are we wasting millions and millions of tax payer dollars incarcirating people when it could be taxed and generate billions of dollars. When compared to alcohol it is by far the lesser of 2 evils. I do not think it is a gateway drug to more drug. maybe a gateway to munchies, but that's about it.
 
I'm thinking, "Really. Another marijuana thread. Surprise, surprise."

Then I smoke a bowl and dream about a dog chasing his tail.
 
...There is no longer a need to break laws in order to voice your displeasure at the government and its laws. We now have things called peaceful protests...

The act of protest is civil disobedience. The act of speaking out against a perceived wrong or assembling to protest is protected by the Constitutions of the United States and the state you reside, do you really think if those protections were no longer present that the government would actually let you speak out against them or their decisions?

We have the ability to do things without breaking the law and still be heard.

They already limit your ability to protest by requiring permits to form large protests and tell you where you can protest. If you go outside of the permit or fail to obtain a permit, you can be arrested.

Additionally the government is trying to get into “regulation” of the internet, just how free do you think your speech will be with that regulation? I wonder what permits will be required to have a blog or post an opinion on a forum.
 
Yes. It should be legalized.

Now can we finally be done with our 4 new threads about marijuana legalization every other week please?
 
I believe it should be legalized. For one, you are never EVER going to be able to get rid of it.
Yes, I agree with this statement, and it is why I agree with your statement that we should legalize murder.
 
2.....having marijuana illegal accomplishes nothing positive


DING DING DING DING DING DING. We have a winner.

All this blah blah about how damaging the substance is compared to alcohol, nicotine, etc, etc doesn't do a damn bit of good.

If people are going to argue the purpose, they need to do it coming from the right place.

It has nothing to do with how the substance compares to alcohol. Thats getting into scientific mumbo that isn't needed. The fact is that possessing/using a substance yourself, in your home, bothering nobody is not violating anyone's rights, it is not endangering anyone (except said user, who takes that risk upon him/herself), it is not limiting another's freedom. The enforcement of marijuana laws has resulted in the death of many people on both sides of the struggle (criminal and law enforcement alike). This substance is not worth ONE life of my brothers in blue.

RIP Police Officer Carlos Ledesma, Chandler Police Department
 
The act of protest is civil disobedience. The act of speaking out against a perceived wrong or assembling to protest is protected by the Constitutions of the United States and the state you reside, do you really think if those protections were no longer present that the government would actually let you speak out against them or their decisions?

You're trying to lump all types of protests into one single catagory. Sorry but that don't fly. Peaceful protests are allowed and has been since the begining of the US. That is not civil disobedience. Now if you protest by getting into fights with the police or breaking things then that is civil disobedience.

As for your last question why even talk about it? I agree that they wouldn't. But the point is moot considering that it is a part of our Constitution. And getting rid of it is going to take A LOT of work and would cause a lot of problems.

They already limit your ability to protest by requiring permits to form large protests and tell you where you can protest. If you go outside of the permit or fail to obtain a permit, you can be arrested.

Any right that we have has it limits. Requiring permits and only allowing certain area's to protest in is a smart thing to do. It allows organization which helps to keep peace. It keeps one protesting group from interfering with another and drowning out their right to be heard. And there are many other perfectly acceptable reasons to require permits and such. Do you really want riots to happen? Traffic jams that stop area's from getting needed supplies?

Additionally the government is trying to get into “regulation” of the internet, just how free do you think your speech will be with that regulation? I wonder what permits will be required to have a blog or post an opinion on a forum.

When all is said and done? Just as much as you have right now. Provided the sites you visit are based in this country. The rights that are enumerated in our Constitution will apply to the internet also.
 
DING DING DING DING DING DING. We have a winner.

All this blah blah about how damaging the substance is compared to alcohol, nicotine, etc, etc doesn't do a damn bit of good.

If people are going to argue the purpose, they need to do it coming from the right place.

It has nothing to do with how the substance compares to alcohol. Thats getting into scientific mumbo that isn't needed. The fact is that possessing/using a substance yourself, in your home, bothering nobody is not violating anyone's rights, it is not endangering anyone (except said user, who takes that risk upon him/herself), it is not limiting another's freedom. The enforcement of marijuana laws has resulted in the death of many people on both sides of the struggle (criminal and law enforcement alike). This substance is not worth ONE life of my brothers in blue.

RIP Police Officer Carlos Ledesma, Chandler Police Department

Actually if we wanted to we could wipe out MJ. We have the technology to do so right now.

As for the part in bold...

Tell that to the people that get thier stuff stolen due to addicts. Tell that to the people that have died due to some idiot smoking it while driving..or just driving while high. Despite what pro-MJ people say...it does hurt more people than just the user.
 
I believe it should be legalized. For one, you are never EVER going to be able to get rid of it. Two, why are we wasting millions and millions of tax payer dollars incarcirating people when it could be taxed and generate billions of dollars. When compared to alcohol it is by far the lesser of 2 evils. I do not think it is a gateway drug to more drug. maybe a gateway to munchies, but that's about it.

Money is never a good reason to legalize anything. Why not just say "Hey! Lets legalize assassins so that we can tax it and make money!"
 
Actually if we wanted to we could wipe out MJ. We have the technology to do so right now.

As for the part in bold...

Tell that to the people that get thier stuff stolen due to addicts. Tell that to the people that have died due to some idiot smoking it while driving..or just driving while high. Despite what pro-MJ people say...it does hurt more people than just the user.

Im fully aware of that, in fact my colleagues bring this up all the time. When is the last time you heard of someone committing a burglary or robbery to get the money to afford cigarettes? Once you get legalization started, and the price doesn't have to be jacked up to cover the cost of the risk involved, the price is lowered and the product gets purchased at the store like beer and cigarettes. Theft problem fixed.

All one does when they arrest a marijuana user is cost them more money that they then have to go steal **** to recover said cost.
 
Im fully aware of that, in fact my colleagues bring this up all the time. When is the last time you heard of someone committing a burglary or robbery to get the money to afford cigarettes? Once you get legalization started, and the price doesn't have to be jacked up to cover the cost of the risk involved, the price is lowered and the product gets purchased at the store like beer and cigarettes. Theft problem fixed.

All one does when they arrest a marijuana user is cost them more money that they then have to go steal **** to recover said cost.

It might stop the thefts. Don't know for sure since cigarettes have pretty much always been legal so you can't really go by that. But what are you going to do about the drivers that kill? The families that will be affected by it? The families that it will tear apart due to people being against it? There are many effects that MJ causes. Effects that we are better without.
 
It might stop the thefts. Don't know for sure since cigarettes have pretty much always been legal so you can't really go by that. But what are you going to do about the drivers that kill? The families that will be affected by it? The families that it will tear apart due to people being against it? There are many effects that MJ causes. Effects that we are better without.

We have that same problem already with impaired drivers. We also have several decades of work in place that have set up specific standards on impaired driving cases, including methods to detect/determine impairment (called SFSTs or Standardized Field Sobriety Tests), we have programs like DRE (Drug Recognition Expert), and we have blood testing for controlled substance in relation to DWI cases.
With all the money saved from not jailing/prosecuting marijuana users/sellers by the state, the state can expand DRE programs, as well as improve/expand their blood testing capabilities to better handle the DWI blood analysis requests that come from an increase in marijuana based DWIs.

Any more brain busters?
 
We have that same problem already with impaired drivers. We also have several decades of work in place that have set up specific standards on impaired driving cases, including methods to detect/determine impairment (called SFSTs or Standardized Field Sobriety Tests), we have programs like DRE (Drug Recognition Expert), and we have blood testing for controlled substance in relation to DWI cases.
With all the money saved from not jailing/prosecuting marijuana users/sellers by the state, the state can expand DRE programs, as well as improve/expand their blood testing capabilities to better handle the DWI blood analysis requests that come from an increase in marijuana based DWIs.

Any more brain busters?

Of course, they have saliva tests for drugs as well: 5 Panel Oral Saliva Test :: Oral Drug Tests :: Arham International, Inc.
 
Yo Caine, I was wondering. Say a fella smokes a doobie on a Saturday night and has an auto accident the following Wednesday and they test him and he tests dirty. I hear it stays in your system up to 30 days, test-wise, however, as any experienced person knows the actual effects only last for a short period of time. Does that guy get screwed or are there measures in place than can detect whether the person was actually under the influence at the time of the accident?
 
Last edited:
We have that same problem already with impaired drivers. We also have several decades of work in place that have set up specific standards on impaired driving cases, including methods to detect/determine impairment (called SFSTs or Standardized Field Sobriety Tests), we have programs like DRE (Drug Recognition Expert), and we have blood testing for controlled substance in relation to DWI cases.
With all the money saved from not jailing/prosecuting marijuana users/sellers by the state, the state can expand DRE programs, as well as improve/expand their blood testing capabilities to better handle the DWI blood analysis requests that come from an increase in marijuana based DWIs.

Any more brain busters?

Has any of that stopped drunk driving? What you'll be doing is increasing death rates due to DWIs. Quite likely doubling it at the very least. Plus right now we can stop habitual drunk drivers by attaching a device to their cars that won't let the car start unless they breath into it. How is that going to work with MJ users?
 
Back
Top Bottom