• 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

How exactly is that?

Question: If murder was made legal, would that as well drop the rate in murder?

The logic is that making it legal decreases the occurence, so wouldn't that work for theives and murderers and other currently illegal things as well?

You're smarter than this.....

In areas where prostitution has been legalized protections have been put into place. Those protections include health screenings and mandatory, regularly scheduled STD testing and treatment. If a prostitute tests positive for an STD she is either treated or dismissed from the industry. Men (or women) seeking to purchase services from a prostitute are required as a term of the agreement to use condoms during any sexual activity so as to reduce the risk of transmission from the customer to the prostitute, or from a prostitute who might have contracted something since the last testing.

The use of protection and the frequency of STD testing severely diminishes the contraction and spread of STDs, just as it does in un-regulated activities between cautious, responsible sexual partners.
 
Re: Marijuna

Your analogy fails. Marijuana and prostitution are victimless crimes unlike theft and murder.

You misread my question.

Victimless or not, the logic is that making something legal decreases the occurence.

That said, what actual response do you have to my earlier post?
 
Re: Marijuna

You misread my question.

Victimless or not, the logic is that making something legal decreases the occurence.

That said, what actual response do you have to my earlier post?

We have models where marijuana and prostitution have been decriminalized to point to.
 
Re: Marijuna

How exactly is that?

Question: If murder was made legal, would that as well drop the rate in murder?

The logic is that making it legal decreases the occurence, so wouldn't that work for theives and murderers and other currently illegal things as well?

This is a flawed comparison. There are enormous differences between soliciting a prostitute, and committing first degree murder. There's really no equivalency, there. the reason why STD infections are less common in areas where prostitution is legalized is because they regulate it, they require that brothels meet certain health codes, among other things, they require the use of condoms, as well as STD testing. This is also more attractive to the customers, most of whom would rather go to a safe establishment where they know they won't catch anything, even if they have to pay a little more. It's a win/win. Better for the girls, better for society.

Back to the point; there simply aren't any cogent arguments for the prohibition of marijuana. It should be legalized, immediately.
 
Re: Marijuna

You're smarter than this.....

In areas where prostitution has been legalized protections have been put into place. Those protections include health screenings and mandatory, regularly scheduled STD testing and treatment. If a prostitute tests positive for an STD she is either treated or dismissed from the industry. Men (or women) seeking to purchase services from a prostitute are required as a term of the agreement to use condoms during any sexual activity so as to reduce the risk of transmission from the customer to the prostitute, or from a prostitute who might have contracted something since the last testing.

The use of protection and the frequency of STD testing severely diminishes the contraction and spread of STDs, just as it does in un-regulated activities between cautious, responsible sexual partners.

Actually, I am far smarter than people think. Merely, I like to check peoples' thought processes and exactly what makes them think so, thus why I have to drag the ideas out of them. It doesn't help that most of these completely dead-horse issues disinterest and annoy me.

I can see the part on mandatory screenings and STD scheduling/treatment. I had not known of that earlier. Very interesting indeed. I had not known that the prostitute could be either treated OR removed from it altogether. How exactly do those regulating this, ah, commodity, keep tabs on these people? ID tags? Interesting as well, in that I didn't know those regulating the industry requires the prostitute/suitor to wear protection.

With that said, I not only understand your position but agree with it.

On a slightly different issue, I wonder how good this is for society in terms of $$$. Sure, less costs for law enforcement, but what could be out there, regarding this industry, that costs a lot of money?

Though, STD portion of my argument discarded, I still maintain that there will be more people attracted to being prostitutes/seeking prostitutes with all of these protective benefits in place. So, regardless of disease, the roaches will still crawl onto the floor when the light, [the law], is turned off.
 
Re: Marijuna

This is a flawed comparison. There are enormous differences between soliciting a prostitute, and committing first degree murder. There's really no equivalency, there. the reason why STD infections are less common in areas where prostitution is legalized is because they regulate it, they require that brothels meet certain health codes, among other things, they require the use of condoms, as well as STD testing. This is also more attractive to the customers, most of whom would rather go to a safe establishment where they know they won't catch anything, even if they have to pay a little more. It's a win/win. Better for the girls, better for society.

Back to the point; there simply aren't any cogent arguments for the prohibition of marijuana. It should be legalized, immediately.

You misread my post, as well.

The logic is that legalizing something decreases the occurence.

If you legalize all drugs, supposedly less people will use drugs.
If you legalize prostitution, supposedly less people will either be prostitutes/seek out prostitutes.

Thus, I wonder if the same would hold true for thievery and murder.

Remember. Legalizing something lowers the occurence, so, by that logic, anything you legalize will undoubtedly lower the occurence?

According to whichever questions I recieve, why would that logic work for prostitution yet not murder, when they are both illegal things? What exactly are the differences which cause that logic to bend?




You see, I believe logic must be absolute. No wiggle room for bias and emotion to confuse it. If 2 +2 = 4, then 2 + 2 must equal 4.

With that, here is the phrase of logic:

"Legalizing anything will decrease the occurence of said once-illegal thing [drugs, prostitution, whatever]."

Therefore, would this also apply to murder and other currently illegal things? Why?
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

You misread my post, as well.

The logic is that legalizing something decreases the occurence.

If you legalize all drugs, supposedly less people will use drugs.
If you legalize prostitution, supposedly less people will either be prostitutes/seek out prostitutes.

Thus, I wonder if the same would hold true for thievery and murder.

Remember. Legalizing something lowers the occurence, so, by that logic, anything you legalize will undoubtedly lower the occurence?

According to whichever questions I recieve, why would that logic work for prostitution yet not murder, when they are both illegal things? What exactly are the differences which cause that logic to bend?




You see, I believe logic must be absolute. No wiggle room for bias and emotion to confuse it. If 2 +2 = 4, then 2 + 2 must equal 4.

With that, here is the phrase of logic:

"Legalizing anything will decrease the occurence of said once-illegal thing [drugs, prostitution, whatever]."

Therefore, would this also apply to murder and other currently illegal things? Why?

legalizing pot would decrease the use of pot? that's not logical at all, wake.
 
Re: Marijuna

legalizing pot would decrease the use of pot? that's not logical at all, wake.

I argue that legalizing pot would increase the use. I also argue that legalizing prostitution would increase the occurence of prostituting/seeking prostitutes. Since I've been here, that's been my stance, and a logical one, imho, at that.

My earlier posts are checking the claims of other arguments.
 
Re: Marijuna

You misread my post, as well.

The logic is that legalizing something decreases the occurence.

If you legalize all drugs, supposedly less people will use drugs.
If you legalize prostitution, supposedly less people will either be prostitutes/seek out prostitutes.

Thus, I wonder if the same would hold true for thievery and murder.

Remember. Legalizing something lowers the occurence, so, by that logic, anything you legalize will undoubtedly lower the occurence?

According to whichever questions I recieve, why would that logic work for prostitution yet not murder, when they are both illegal things? What exactly are the differences which cause that logic to bend?




You see, I believe logic must be absolute. No wiggle room for bias and emotion to confuse it. If 2 +2 = 4, then 2 + 2 must equal 4.

With that, here is the phrase of logic:

"Legalizing anything will decrease the occurence of said once-illegal thing [drugs, prostitution, whatever]."

Therefore, would this also apply to murder and other currently illegal things? Why?

I'm not aware that anyone said that. If they did, they were wrong. All I've heard people say, what I say, is that it's likely that if cannabis or other drugs were legalized, that we would see a reduction in the prevelence of drug use. That's borne out by comparisons to other countries that have done so, and where drug use is significantly less prevalent than in the United States. Drug use, and murder are both illegal, but they are fundamentally different things.
 
Re: Marijuna

I'm not aware that anyone said that. If they did, they were wrong. All I've heard people say, what I say, is that it's likely that if cannabis or other drugs were legalized, that we would see a reduction in the prevelence of drug use. That's borne out by comparisons to other countries that have done so, and where drug use is significantly less prevalent than in the United States. Drug use, and murder are both illegal, but they are fundamentally different things.

They may be different things, but the logic I have heard from others is that "legalizing something decreases the occurence." Either that statement is wrong, or the person who said that is dealing in absolutes instead of shades of grey. Iirc, Evanescence argued that legalizing drugs decreases the occurence. I think it would increase the occurence. I check her logic to see if she thinks that way about anything else, like prostitution and other currently illegal things.

I don't know the EXACT how/why use would decrease if legalized. IF prostitution were legalized, undoubtedly more people would swarm to it with all of those protective benefits, so why not the same with drugs?
 
Re: Marijuna

I argue that legalizing pot would increase the use. I also argue that legalizing prostitution would increase the occurence of prostituting/seeking prostitutes. Since I've been here, that's been my stance, and a logical one, imho, at that.

My earlier posts are checking the claims of other arguments.

instead of me making a lengthy time consuming post here, let me just give you a link to a couple of previous posts for you to mull over.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/55660-legalizing-marijuana-bad-idea-3.html#post1058236364

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/69213-should-u-s-legalize-drugs-mexicos-benefit-15.html#post1058649799

there are likely repeat studies between the two links. especially look at the situation with Portugal and their usage rates.
 
Re: Marijuna

They may be different things, but the logic I have heard from others is that "legalizing something decreases the occurence." Either that statement is wrong, or the person who said that is dealing in absolutes instead of shades of grey. Iirc, Evanescence argued that legalizing drugs decreases the occurence. I think it would increase the occurence. I check her logic to see if she thinks that way about anything else, like prostitution and other currently illegal things.

I don't know the EXACT how/why use would decrease if legalized. IF prostitution were legalized, undoubtedly more people would swarm to it with all of those protective benefits, so why not the same with drugs?

This is a prime example of a strawman argument. They claim legalizing drugs would reduce consumption of drugs. You claim then that legalizing homicide or anything illegal would reduce murders or anything that we made legal. You've extremely twisted their point. They're talking about drugs specifically. You're the one talking about everything else.

Don't get me wrong, I don't THINK it would reduce consumption. But I can't stand by and let you build an argument on such a twisted premise that only you have stated.
 
Re: Marijuna

Marijuana Smoking Does Not Harm Lungs, Study Finds

A large new government study has found that smoking marijuana on a regular basis, even over many years, does not impair lung function.

Marijuana Smoking Does Not Harm Lungs, Study Finds - NYTimes.com

Effects on the Lungs
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;6 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.7 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.

Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.8 Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Marijuana - InfoFacts - NIDA

Are you saying that study trumps these .gov websites?
 
Re: Marijuna

This is a prime example of a strawman argument. They claim legalizing drugs would reduce consumption of drugs. You claim then that legalizing homicide or anything illegal would reduce murders or anything that we made legal. You've extremely twisted their point. They're talking about drugs specifically. You're the one talking about everything else.

Don't get me wrong, I don't THINK it would reduce consumption. But I can't stand by and let you build an argument on such a twisted premise that only you have stated.

Then the notion of "legalizing something will decrease the occurence of said something" isn't absolute?

Why?

I understand the drugs part, but I want to know if/where that logic applies to other currently illegal things.


Furthermore, I never claimed that. I was wondering if that logic would apply to murders/theft, as well.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

Another "legalize pot" thread. :roll:

Is there anything left to say that hasn't already been said on the matter?

Is it now just different people saying the same old thing?

What's new here?
 
Re: Marijuna

Another "legalize pot" thread. :roll:

Is there anything left to say that hasn't already been said on the matter?

Is it now just different people saying the same old thing?

What's new here?

This can apply, I think, to most political fissures from abortion to marriage.
 
Re: Marijuna

Marijuana - InfoFacts - NIDA

Are you saying that study trumps these .gov websites?

Two things:

1. The study in the NYT article was a government-funded study with a higher sample group.
2. The most recent resource cited on the page you linked is from 2008, where as the NYT article is from 2011.

Newer data from a larger sample is probably what I'd go with in almost all situations.
 
Re: Marijuna

Ten percent support the status quo, still live in the past, still are against ...dare I say ...freedoms and liberty..
The states must take the responsibility, and they must determine what works and what does not, and then this info must be shared...
It must be known, by now, that prohibition does not work, never has, never will.
And, even as I support the right of the masses to grow and use this crap, I would never use it myself....nor would I walk into a burning building.
Others feel differently about this, which must be respected.
Its now eleven percent.. but must we continue to have a minority "run things" ???
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

Two things:

1. The study in the NYT article was a government-funded study with a higher sample group.
2. The most recent resource cited on the page you linked is from 2008, where as the NYT article is from 2011.

Newer data from a larger sample is probably what I'd go with in almost all situations.

...interesting. Though I distrust the NYT for their blatant bias I'll consider the scientific data itself.
 
Re: Marijuna

I realise there are plenty of ways conservatism has changed. On the other hand it is hard for me to understand a conservatism that doesn't recognise man as a social, cultural and imaginative animal and simply views him as the same atomistic and antisocial way as any classical or modern liberal. I can understand you taking a different position on prohibition, though I didn't really have you in my Tessa, I do not believe in alcohol or marijuana prohibition, but I cannot understand you doing so for reasons that are very unconservative and seem identical to the staunchest social liberals on the board.

Will people ever stop with this stupid straw-man argument that gets flung at Liberals and Libertarians? No one says that a man is an island. He simply is not a cog in a machine. People have the right and ability to react to society and find their place in it. The government does not need to be there to wipe crap from our bottoms or dress us. People are social and largely moral, not because someone makes them do it, but because they want to be. You've been talking in abstracts, and I have not seen any evidence of "moral decay" (whatever the hell that is) in places where prostitution is legal. Meanwhile, we do know that allowing people to engage in vices that you don't like (and, in this case, I don't really like either) but don't violate anyone's rights tends to reduce harm to society and the people involved in those vices
 
Re: Marijuna

I think I'm going to make a new poll on marijuana. NOT about legality, but about the effect on the body, regarding that link Winston provided. If no one can offer updated data to counter the research in that article, then I have no real choic but to accept it as currently correct.
 
Re: Marijuna

Will people ever stop with this stupid straw-man argument that gets flung at Liberals and Libertarians? No one says that a man is an island. He simply is not a cog in a machine. People have the right and ability to react to society and find their place in it. The government does not need to be there to wipe crap from our bottoms or dress us. People are social and largely moral, not because someone makes them do it, but because they want to be. You've been talking in abstracts, and I have not seen any evidence of "moral decay" (whatever the hell that is) in places where prostitution is legal. Meanwhile, we do know that allowing people to engage in vices that you don't like (and, in this case, I don't really like either) but don't violate anyone's rights tends to reduce harm to society and the people involved in those vices

Do you find it ironic that some on the right would stand and demand more "personal accountability" when it comes to financial solvency but would just as willingly try to regulate private, personal behavior for the "common good"?
 
Re: Marijuna

Marijuana - InfoFacts - NIDA

Are you saying that study trumps these .gov websites?

Are you referring to the same NIDA that once stated this "fact" in their "Facts parents need to know" publication?

•The risk of using cocaine is estimated to be more than 104 times greater for those who have tried marijuana than for those who have never tried it.

here is this so called fact in its full context that they cherry picked and played loose with. notice any omissions or distortion of the actual truth of this "fact"?

The Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia (CASA) released a study Oct. 27 showing that children (12 to 17 years old) who use gateway drugs--tobacco, alcohol and marijuana--are up to 266 times--and adults who use such drugs are up to 323 times--more likely to use cocaine than those who don't use any gateway drugs. Compared with people who used only one gateway drug, children who used all three are 77 times--and adults are 104 times--more likely to use cocaine.

so adults who use all three of tobacco, alcohol and marijuana are 104 times more likey to use cocaine, but when it comes to NIDA and their "facts" it suddenly becomes just marijuana, and the other 2 necessary components behind this figure come up missing.

NIDA plays very loose with their "facts" and distorts and misrepresents them for the sake of propaganda. They have no credibility despite the .gov. But of course.. you know the gov is infallible, why would they lie to us? :roll:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom