• 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!

Proposition 19 to legalize marijuana defeated....

Wake said:
That was a random example. Weed is carcinogenic and more potent than in the 60's. Ideally, tobacco should be banned as well because it kills more and costs more in healthcare. But because of addiction, that will never happen.
Click to expand...

There is a rapidly growing body of scientific papers that are showing cannabinoids to have very promising potential for fighting cancer, and actually reversing tumors.

There have been studies expecting to find elevated cancer rates in pot smokers, and they did not find this to be the case. Although there are carcinogens inherent in smoke (which is a crude and ineffective delivery system) they seem to be offset by the anticarcinogenic properties of cannabinoids themselves.

It being more potent than in the 60's is a non issue.. a user tends to titrate their dosage and smoke less when it is stronger. This is the same concept as a drinker who will either have 48 ounces of beer, or 6 ounces of scotch because it is more potent. The dosage of alcohol or THC ends up remaining essentially the same.
 
Last edited:
Just about everything we have heard about the dangers of POT are a CROCK.

Pot was not discovered by the Hip Cats, or Zoot Suiters. Pot has been used for various purposes since at least 7000BC, and was legal for use until August 2, 1937,when it was made illegal by the Feds, based on Racism, lies, for profit because of the uses of the Hemp plant was so much better than any other fiber for clothing, and other items.

An organized effort was put forth for years to demonize Pot and it's use was claimed to be the cause of some sensational murder cases that were complete B.S.

The Movie I saw in High School, Reefer Madness was a total fabrication and I believe that when a lot of young people learned that it did not make you a sex crazed maniac is what caused a spike in the use of all other drugs in the 60s, because the kids said well hell they lied about Pot. Did they lie about all the rest, and what about sex?

There is a lot more but this is enough other than to say most of what people here are saying here is more misinformation.

I'm not claiming it's good for you, but in moderation it is pretty much harmless as long as you don't drive or fly a plane, or operate machinery, or operate as in doing surgery etc.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
I will never understand the irrational paranoia that some people have regarding marijuana.
Click to expand...

And to think.. the ones using it are supposed to be the paranoid ones
 
Pretty much anyone who wants to get marijuana can get it already.
I doubt that there are very many people who want pot who won't get any until it's decriminalized.
 
Navy Pride said:
If grass were legal there would be a lot more.........
Click to expand...

This is actually very poor logical thinking. Here's why.

Driving while intoxicated is illegal. If someone is engaging in illegal activity at a relatively common level they are unlikely to be disuaded from engaging in other illegal activity that is even less severe. The punishment for smoking marijuana is far less than that of driving while intoxicated. So its reasonable to say that MANY of those who do not smoke pot now because its illegal, but would if it was legalized, would NOT drive while intoxicated because they're people who actively try to stay within the law.

Furthermore, it assumes that everyone that will start smoking that didn't already would not already be engaging in a LEGAL mind influencing drink. IE, to believe that a LOT more people would DWI it would mean that there's a lot of people out there who don't DRINK, and don't smoke because its illegal, but would smoke if it was made legal.

Now, forgive me, but I don't believe that number is extremely large.

So you're going to have a small segment of people who will begin smoking, that didn't before, that didn't drink before either. Out of those you're going to need the ones that didn't avoid smoking due to fear of violation the law. That group then becomes your "most likely" people to DWI with the legalization of marijuana.

Frankly, I do not think that that number would be "A lot".
 
Zyphlin said:
This is actually very poor logical thinking. Here's why.

Driving while intoxicated is illegal. If someone is engaging in illegal activity at a relatively common level they are unlikely to be disuaded from engaging in other illegal activity that is even less severe. The punishment for smoking marijuana is far less than that of driving while intoxicated. So its reasonable to say that MANY of those who do not smoke pot now because its illegal, but would if it was legalized, would NOT drive while intoxicated because they're people who actively try to stay within the law.

Furthermore, it assumes that everyone that will start smoking that didn't already would not already be engaging in a LEGAL mind influencing drink. IE, to believe that a LOT more people would DWI it would mean that there's a lot of people out there who don't DRINK, and don't smoke because its illegal, but would smoke if it was made legal.

Now, forgive me, but I don't believe that number is extremely large.

So you're going to have a small segment of people who will begin smoking, that didn't before, that didn't drink before either. Out of those you're going to need the ones that didn't avoid smoking due to fear of violation the law. That group then becomes your "most likely" people to DWI with the legalization of marijuana.

Frankly, I do not think that that number would be "A lot".
Click to expand...

Don't use logic when arguing with pro-prohbition forces. It makes their heads hurt.

In all seriousness I have yet to hear one reasonable, logical argument in favor of prohibition. Almost always the argument comes down to "I don't like it, so it should be illegal" and if that is the new standard to ban things, I propose we immediately ban mushrooms, Lady Gaga, Little Ceasar's Pizza, soccer, reality TV, speedos, France, and the White Sox.
 
winston53660 said:
Really? Can you list any medical case histories supporting your accusation?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know about the weed itself, but smoking anything can cause cancer. The byproducts of combustion entering your lungs can cause lung cancer.
 
Zyphlin said:
This ... lot.
Click to expand...
Basically, what you're saying is that if someone respects the law enough not to be smoking pot because it's illegal, they probably respect the law enough not to drive while intoxicated?
 
In other news, 100% of cannabis suppliers who vote were opposed to proposition 19.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Basically, what you're saying is that if someone respects the law enough not to be smoking pot because it's illegal, they probably respect the law enough not to drive while intoxicated?
Click to expand...

I'd say probably, yes. Its not going to be a garauntee across the board, as the substance does impair ones thought process. However, if the relatively minor legal consequences of pot is enough to deter you from ever using it I imagine that same desire is going to be relatively strong in keeping you from doing something that has far more severe consequences.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'd say probably, yes. Its not going to be a garauntee across the board, as the substance does impair ones thought process. However, if the relatively minor legal consequences of pot is enough to deter you from ever using it I imagine that same desire is going to be relatively strong in keeping you from doing something that has far more severe consequences.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.
Some folks just want to drink booze.
And then they go out drinking with no planning involved in how they are going to get home.
And then they decide, "**** it, I'll drive and hope I don't get caught".
Then the po-lease get behind em and they go ducking off in a neighborhood they don't live in to try to 'avoid' the police. Then they get back on the road 1 minute later and get pulled over for being a douchebag and swerving while trying to light up the cigarette after they saw the police waiting for them to come back out of the neighborhood because they figure they will hide the smell of booze with a cigarette.

Then they get arrested.

See how easy that is?
 
Caine said:
Not necessarily.
Some folks just want to drink booze.
And then they go out drinking with no planning involved in how they are going to get home.
And then they decide, "**** it, I'll drive and hope I don't get caught".
Then the po-lease get behind em and they go ducking off in a neighborhood they don't live in to try to 'avoid' the police. Then they get back on the road 1 minute later and get pulled over for being a douchebag and swerving while trying to light up the cigarette after they saw the police waiting for them to come back out of the neighborhood because they figure they will hide the smell of booze with a cigarette.

Then they get arrested.

See how easy that is?
Click to expand...
And are these the same sort of people who would be letting the law stop them from smoking pot even though they want to.
 
Navy Pride said:
Why does that not surprise me?
Click to expand...

So you have nothing to back up your paranoid assertions? Interesting...

BTW, what do you mean by your comment? Do you foolishly assume that because I support Prop 19 that I smoke pot or that I am a stoner?
 
Dr_Patrick said:
So you have nothing to back up your paranoid assertions? Interesting...

BTW, what do you mean by your comment? Do you foolishly assume that because I support Prop 19 that I smoke pot or that I am a stoner?
Click to expand...

I just know that if you legalize pot and put a bunch of stoned drivers out the to compete with the frunk ones a lot of innocent people are going to get killed...In answer to your question putting Dr in front of your name does not make you a doctor in here and if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then its usually a duck my left wing friend..........
 
Navy Pride said:
I just know that if you legalize pot and put a bunch of stoned drivers out the to compete with the frunk ones a lot of innocent people are going to get killed...In answer to your question putting Dr in front of your name does not make you a doctor in here and if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then its usually a duck my left wing friend..........
Click to expand...

And people's previous points debunking that theory didn't phase you? And now you are resorting to personal attacks I see. You don't know me, so you really have no place to make assumptions about me. Is it that hard for you to stay on topic?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
And are these the same sort of people who would be letting the law stop them from smoking pot even though they want to.
Click to expand...

They could... they could not.

They aren't mutually inclusive or exclusive.
 
Moderator's Warning:
The other posters here are not part of the topic of this thread. Stop talking about them, stop the veiled insults, stick to the topic.
 
Redress said:
Moderator's Warning:
The other posters here are not part of the topic of this thread. Stop talking about them, stop the veiled insults, stick to the topic.
Click to expand...

And like a sheep that I am. I am going to thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom