• 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!

Marijuana

How should Marijuana be dealt with?

  • Stricter federal laws must be made, and more money put to enforcing them

    Votes: 7 7.2%

  • Give individual states the right to decide how to go about it

    Votes: 32 33.0%

  • Legalize it through a federal law

    Votes: 42 43.3%

  • Give states the right to decide about it as long as they abide by certain Federal guidelines

    Votes: 16 16.5%
  • Total voters
    97
Re: Marijuna

justabubba said:
some of us would argue that it is actually a sign of moral decay - make that rot - for a segment of society to impose on another - by law - a prohibition of actions, which actions, if taken, do no harm to any other
Click to expand...

Man is a social, cultural and imaginative animal. The acceptance of particularly baleful actions can have widespread moral and social effects.
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
I don't think prostitution will be the same as cigarettes. Cigarettes are despised by all the trendy groups and cultural viewpoints. Such people and groups, with the exception of the Germaine Greer's of the world, do not necessarily despise prostitution and their ideologies see little wrong with it.

I think morality has a social aspect. I do not think it is necessarily government's job to simply legislate this, but that doesn't mean that it can't have a role in maintaining social morality in certain areas.

It must be remembered there is a difference between forcing people to act morally and in certain areas stopping them acting immorally. You can help prevent the indulgence of certain temptations without simply forcing people to be moral.
Click to expand...

But the laws don't stop people from acting Immorally as you would view it. They are still going to go to prostitutes, and won't ever stop. You can either be practical, and make life better for people, or you can keep insisting that your morality be law. What about people see nothing wrong with prostitution? Why should they have to follow your morality being forced through the law? Like I said, laws should be practical, and improve peoples lives, not have some arbitrary morality enforced.
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
Man is a social, cultural and imaginative animal. The acceptance of particularly baleful actions can have widespread moral and social effects.
Click to expand...

show us what you are able which defends your opinion
 
Re: Marijuna

Your Star said:
But the laws don't stop people from acting Immorally as you would view it. They are still going to go to prostitutes, and won't ever stop. You can either be practical, and make life better for people, or you can keep insisting that your morality be law.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is settled that legalising prostitution will not somewhat increase its use. Anyway, there is still the social and cultural effects of legitimising it to think about.

What about people see nothing wrong with prostitution? Why should they have to follow your morality being forced through the law? Like I said, laws should be practical, and improve peoples lives, not have some arbitrary morality enforced.
Click to expand...
All law must be based on morality. Even if your end is social health you must proceed by making laws based on an idea of right and wrong. You will not get a general respect and obedience to laws if you simply try and base them on social utility. As for why we should ignore people who don't see anything wrong with prostitution. Because they are wrong, to put it simply. Because not only will their position likely end up inconsistent and wrong but it would be socially damaging as well.
 
Re: Marijuna

This may be a bit off topic, but why do we charge people with illegal actions for using drugs? They aren't criminals, they are sick people...
 
Re: Marijuna

justabubba said:
you have asserted:

what evidence do you have to support your position
Click to expand...
What evidence would you like? I offer common sense, reason and experience as evidence. Man is a social animal. He is born into social groups with regulate and partially form him. Social and cultural mores, beliefs and values have a large effect over him; indeed he is an imaginative animal as well, the way he imaginatively constructs his view actions, which is impacted on by general social attitudes, has a lot to do with how he views those actions and the world. Therefore it stands to reason that the general legitimising of dubious behaviours may have a social and cultural effect.
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
I don't think it is settled that legalising prostitution will not somewhat increase its use. Anyway, there is still the social and cultural effects of legitimising it to think about.
Click to expand...

It's been around for thousands of years I don't think it can get more legitimized than that.

All law must be based on morality. Even if your end is social health you must proceed by making laws based on an idea of right and wrong. You will not get a general respect and obedience to laws if you simply try and base them on social utility. As for why we should ignore people who don't see anything wrong with prostitution. Because they are wrong, to put it simply. Because not only will their position likely end up inconsistent and wrong but it would be socially damaging as well.
Click to expand...

Laws should not be based on personal morality, as in what is right, and wrong for me to do, but what is best for society as a whole, and how much should the government interfere with peoples lives. Trying to make the standard of living the best possible for everyone, regardless of their standing in the society, or their opinions on things like morality, religion etc. Your comment on prostitution being wrong is simply an opinion, not a fact, and you can't treat it like a fact, which is what your doing. If you don't want people engaging in prostitution then go out and protest about it, start a campaign telling people about the dangers of it, and tell them not to do it. But should the government really legislate, and interfere with people's freedoms in such a way? I don't think so, that is not the governments place, it is just harmful for the people in every aspect.
 
Re: Marijuna

Your Star said:
It's been around for thousands of years I don't think it can get more legitimized than that.
Click to expand...
But it was rarely accepted.

Laws should not be based on personal morality, as in what is right, and wrong for me to do, but what is best for society as a whole, and how much should the government interfere with peoples lives. Trying to make the standard of living the best possible for everyone, regardless of their standing in the society, or their opinions on things like morality, religion etc. Your comment on prostitution being wrong is simply an opinion, not a fact, and you can't treat it like a fact, which is what your doing. If you don't want people engaging in prostitution then go out and protest about it, start a campaign telling people about the dangers of it, and tell them not to do it. But should the government really legislate, and interfere with people's freedoms in such a way? I don't think so, that is not the governments place, it is just harmful for the people in every aspect.
Click to expand...
Well now you are simply trying to replace restrictive, personal morality with some sort of collective morality based on standards of living. This is just as much legislating morality as any other attempt to do so. It also ignores the importance of personal morality, of self-control, prudence and temperance and such virtues. These are surely very important, even to the health of society. To think that you can make a healthy society just by encouraging a sentimental concern with collective standards of living seems terribly misguided. You need at least a basic amount of self-control and temperance among the individuals who make up society.

Prostitution is wrong because it encourages the worst in man, the cheapening of one of his most important relationships and aspects to a business exchange and to its most animal and least human aspects.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

Thorgasm said:
How do you define dignity?
Click to expand...
Presumably it is being fully human, or perhaps a full, female human.

Sexuality is a very important aspect of Man. To reduce it to the interactions involved in prostitution, financial and animal, is to loose out of much of this aspect.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

Tigger said:
For me it is. It might not be for you, but that's your problem, not mine. :)
Click to expand...

In spite of you being an asshole, I still have empathy for you.
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
What evidence would you like? I offer common sense, reason and experience as evidence. Man is a social animal. He is born into social groups with regulate and partially form him. Social and cultural mores, beliefs and values have a large effect over him; indeed he is an imaginative animal as well, the way he imaginatively constructs his view actions, which is impacted on by general social attitudes, has a lot to do with how he views those actions and the world. Therefore it stands to reason that the general legitimising of dubious behaviours may have a social and cultural effect.
Click to expand...

but we are discussing an activity which can not result in harm to another

why should society oppose actions which are not detrimental to anyone other than the individual who exercises personal choice to engage in them
 
Re: Marijuna

justabubba said:
but we are discussing an activity which can not result in harm to another

why should society oppose actions which are not detrimental to anyone other than the individual who exercises personal choice to engage in them
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is harm isn't always direct. Harm can be based on the social, cultural and imaginative effects of legitimising such an activity.

Prostitution even more personally prostitution effects those engaged in it and through them their relations, associations and communities.
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
But it was rarely accepted.
Click to expand...

That's not true. It was accepted for centuries in various places around the world, and in some places today.

Well now you are simply trying to replace restrictive, personal morality with some sort of collective morality based on standards of living. This is just as much legislating morality as any other attempt to do so. It also ignores the importance of personal morality, of self-control, prudence and temperance and such virtues. These are surely very important, even to the health of society. To think that you can make a healthy society just by encouraging a sentimental concern with collective standards of living seems terribly misguided. You need at least a basic amount of self-control and temperance among the individuals who make up society.

Prostitution is wrong because it encourages the worst in man, the cheapening of one of his most important relationships and aspects to a business exchange and to its most animal and least human aspects.
Click to expand...

There is a different type of morality you must use when making laws for large groups, you must consider the greater good of the people, and not just try and shove your morality down people's throats. And my way of thinking does not ignore the importance of personal morality, it actually enhances it, and puts greater importance on it, because it is up to the people to act moral, and do what they think is right based on their own though process and volition, and not have the force of the government make them. Laws should be based on what gives people the most freedom, while keeping the populace safe, providing them their basic needs. Does outlawing prostitution do that? No it does not, it actually endangers people, not help them. So why should it be a law when your only objection to it is a moral when, which is subjective.

And your opinion on prostitution is a valid one, that is a valid opinion, but someone who views prostitution as a way to relax, and have some human companionship, and that there is nothing wrong with it, is also another valid opinion. Why should the government choose sides here? You both have valid opinions, why not let you live your lives based on your own personal opinions and morality, and have the government stay out of your ****ing business. Everyone's happy in that scenario IMO.
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
That seems a rather 'French' approach to military strategy.
Click to expand...

Barring some added explanation, which still may not get it done, that is a very ignorant reply.
 
Re: Marijuna

Your Star said:
That's not true. It was accepted for centuries in various places around the world.
Click to expand...
It was still rarely accepted and even when it was it was hardly considered acceptable. I'm not saying that it is always black and white how to deal with issues like prostitution and drug use. Social and cultural context is important. You can delegitimise and marginalise it without it being illegal, but you can also use the law as a tool in this process. It all depends on the context. Prostitution is generally illegal in the West, for the to legalise it in the contexts of gross falls in morality and decency is a bad move.


There is a different type of morality you must use when making laws for large groups, you must consider the greater good of the people, and not just try and shove your morality down people's throats. And my way of thinking does not ignore the importance of personal morality, it actually enhances it, and puts greater importance on it, because it is up to the people to act moral, and do what they think is right based on their own though process and volition, and not have the force of the government make them. Laws should be based on what gives people the most freedom, while keeping the populace safe, providing them their basic needs. Does outlawing prostitution do that? No it does not, it actually endangers people, not help them. So why should it be a law when your only objection to it is a moral when, which is subjective.
Click to expand...
What you are doing is confusing the importance of individuals choosing to be moral and individuals choosing what is moral. You simply create social chaos by trying to remove any sort of overarching and in depth social morality. This does not help freedom because it will stop many people striving to achieve any sort of restrictive, humanist (as opposed to humanitarian or sentimental) morality. This will lead to a loss of social cohesion, which will weaken freedom. Man is most free when he is most fully human. It is not simply in choice, but in his nature that man becomes free.

The government, particularly in our modern, relatively statist societies, is important in terms of social morality. The position it takes will effect social morality. If it takes a neutral opinion on prostitution this means that it will harder for social morality to repudiate prostitution.

And your opinion on prostitution is a valid one, that is a valid opinion, but someone who views prostitution as a way to relax, and have some human companionship, and that there is nothing wrong with it, is also another valid opinion. Why should the government choose sides here? You both have valid opinions, why not let you live your lives based on your own personal opinions and morality, and have the government stay out of your ****ing business. Everyone's happy in that scenario IMO.
Click to expand...
But that person is wrong. That person is indulging in the lower and baser aspects of human sexuality and just defending this because they like it. The government should choose sides because one side is right and one is wrong and the government is an important aspect in society and culture, particularly in modern societies. If you were to shut down government schools and drastically lessen the social reach of government and we were in a situation where there was strong social cohesion and morality then things might be different, but in the contexts it would be a bad move.
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
I don't think it is settled that legalising prostitution will not somewhat increase its use. Anyway, there is still the social and cultural effects of legitimising it to think about.
Click to expand...

"Legalizing" is not the same as "legitimizing", as the former is an objective application, and the latter subjective. BUT, since you raised it here, and in other posts, if you make a private social choice criminal (ie. folks are going to do it anyway), you have only further deligitimized respect for the law, and those who made the law. That is to create essentailly a moral hazard, in that you are now compelling more disrespect for the law, where I submit it was not necessary.


All law must be based on morality ..........
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Terribly incorrect. Again you defer to the subjective. All laws must be based on respecting the rights of others to exercise their liberty. It is not for you to decide what is moral for someone else. It is only for you to defend, and campaign for, your rights.
 
Re: Marijuna

Eighty Deuce said:
"Legalizing" is not the same as "legitimizing", as the former is an objective application, and the latter subjective. BUT, since you raised it here, and in other posts, if you make a private social choice criminal (ie. folks are going to do it anyway), you have only further deligitimized respect for the law, and those who made the law. That is to create essentailly a moral hazard, in that you are now compelling more disrespect for the law, where I submit it was not necessary.
Click to expand...
This all depends if you convince people it is wrong doesn't it. It all depends on the contexts.

Most people now, despite all the bombardment with socially liberal, do what you want, its all okay if it's 'consensual' ideology, think prostitution is wrong. Indeed it is already generally illegal. This is not an area where you will necessarily lessen general respect for the law by keeping it illegal.

Incorrect. Terribly incorrect. Again you defer to the subjective. All laws must be based on respecting the rights of others to exercise their liberty. It is not for you to decide what is moral for someone else. It is only for you to defend, and campaign for, your rights.
Click to expand...
This is a moral statement. All talk of rights and respecting others liberty and so forth are moral arguments.

And by the way, don't misuse the term subjective. Subjective just means it is of the subject.
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
It was still rarely accepted and even when it was it was hardly considered acceptable. I'm not saying that it is always black and white how to deal with issues like prostitution and drug use. Social and cultural context is important. You can delegitimise and marginalise it without it being illegal, but you can also use the law as a tool in this process. It all depends on the context. Prostitution is generally illegal in the West, for the to legalise it in the contexts of gross falls in morality and decency is a bad move.
Click to expand...

Again false, it has been accepted in many places, all over the world.


What you are doing is confusing the importance of individuals choosing to be moral and individuals choosing what is moral. You simply create social chaos by trying to remove any sort of overarching and in depth social morality. This does not help freedom because it will stop many people striving to achieve any sort of restrictive, humanist (as opposed to humanitarian or sentimental) morality. This will lead to a loss of social cohesion, which will weaken freedom. Man is most free when he is most fully human. It is not simply in choice, but in his nature that man becomes free.

The government, particularly in our modern, relatively statist societies, is important in terms of social morality. The position it takes will effect social morality. If it takes a neutral opinion on prostitution this means that it will harder for social morality to repudiate prostitution.
Click to expand...

It does not create social chaos, it creates freedom, social morality is for the people do decide, not for government to enforce. Limiting the ability of people who would want to tell people things like who I can have sex with, what I can put in my body, does not limit freedom as you would suggest, but increase it. And what does "fully human" mean? And I doubt you will be able to give a concrete answer that is a fact, it is again another opinion, what makes you feel "fully human" may make someone else feel unfulfilled.

But that person is wrong. That person is indulging in the lower and baser aspects of human sexuality and just defending this because they like it. The government should choose sides because one side is right and one is wrong and the government is an important aspect in society and culture, particularly in modern societies. If you were to shut down government schools and drastically lessen the social reach of government and we were in a situation where there was strong social cohesion and morality then things might be different, but in the contexts it would be a bad move.
Click to expand...

Again, this is only your opinion, not a fact, you can't treat it like a fact because it is not. We can't have a decent debate when you treat opinion like facts. The government should keep people safe, and make sure their basic needs are met, that is it. And keeping prostitution illegal puts people in danger, so it should not be law.
 
Re: Marijuna

Jryan said:
This may be a bit off topic, but why do we charge people with illegal actions for using drugs? They aren't criminals, they are sick people...
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?
 
Re: Marijuna

Wessexman said:
This all depends if you convince people it is wrong doesn't it. It all depends on the contexts.

Most people now, despite all the bombardment with socially liberal, do what you want, its all okay if it's 'consensual' ideology, think prostitution is wrong. Indeed it is already generally illegal. This is not an area where you will necessarily lessen general respect for the law by keeping it illegal.
Click to expand...

Do you just make up stuff ? As it is the "oldest profession", where is that high horse that says that you can firstly convince folks it is wrong (immoral is the word), when it is as old as dirt ? But yet which still misses the point ? It is not for you to then criminalize where neither your rights, nor anyone else's, have been denied. I find your logic beyond pretzel.

This is a moral statement. All talk of rights and respecting others liberty and so forth are moral arguments.

And by the way, don't misuse the term subjective. Subjective just means it is of the subject.
Click to expand...

Wrong and wrong. Way wrong and wrong. Grossly misinformed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom