• 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

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?

Not much at all new here, which is why I often find myself linking to old posts of mine to refute positions that have already been refuted previously in other threads :)
 
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?

Yeah I felt the same way... heard it all before right? That's why I didn't post until now. I remember when I first joined debatepolitics, I was excited to argue all the "hot button" issues. I think I need to find a new strategy though. It seems like people just separate into camps and refuse to budge on issues even when presented with logical, reasonable evidence. What it really comes down to (I think) is that people just stick with what they "feel" and try to argue rationally from there instead of sticking with what is reasonable. I guess what I am saying is that it would awesome if people's motivations were more "reason-based" than "feeling-based". Actually, I'll take that back... I think both are equally important - but what is most important is that one can be flexible. For example, some life circumstance or event leads one to feel one way about something, but when presented with counter evidence, one changes his/her mind. Anywho, totally off subject.

But....

I'd like to talk about why people think they personally want to see marijuana legal or illegal.....

I have flip-flopped on this issue several times... when I was younger I was against it, when I got a little older, I was for it, then after that I was against it and now for it again - every time things changed it was for different reasons

First there was family values involved
Then there was teenage rebellion involved
Then, after some insight into the "drug" world, I was against it again
Now, I am for legalization, i.e. end the prohibition. But now I feel this way because I feel like I have accurately viewed all the pros and cons. Also, I tend to support freedom for the individual so long as no one else is being hurt and any damage done to self is minimal. I believe people should have the right to live their lives and experience their lives the way that they want to. I am against these kinds of government as baby-sitter situations. Adults should be able to make up their own minds and be responsible. There are many reasons people would want to use marijuana, e.g. pain relief (many have chronic pain and the medicines that are out there become ineffective quickly), psychiatric uses for mental health disorders, recreation and social use etc. The great thing about this natural plant is that people cannot overdose on it, its not very addictive, sources have said at most it may be as addictive as caffeine (actually most sources say less than that). Also, the way/reason that marijuana was prohibited just doesn't sit well with me. We have far more damaging substances, such as fast food restaurants, over the counter medications, alcohol, tobacco etc. that are allowed. Additionally, there is a strong monetary reason for legalizing marijuana. It would significantly boost our economy - new businesses, new tax revenue, less crime, fewer inmates etc. well, everyone's probably heard all this before, so I'll just stop there

..... well I will say one more thing ... I believe propoganda and fear is what is keeping marijuana illegal, that mixed with a severely puritanical population ... anywho
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

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



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"?



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:

yes I am. The study just came out today.

You have succeeded in persuading me.
 
Re: Marijuna

You have succeeded in persuading me.

did you look at my links I posted a couple of pages back regarding decriminalization and usage rates?
 
Re: Marijuna

You have succeeded in persuading me.

is anyone familiar with the effects on the brain and body by getting THC via vapor?

It seems there would be less carcinogens if any at all via that route.

Also, THC can be extracted, marijuana can be eaten, etc.

It seems there are definitely some safe ways to use the plant.

But that is a little besides the point - i.e. what is more important... living one's life the way one wants to, or having a parental government that disallows anything that could be potentially harmful.

If you go with one or the other, its kind of an all or nothing thing. if you're against unhealthy things and believe we should police them, then we'd better start having the police make sure we are eating proper meals that won't cause heart problems, obesity, diabetes, etc.

On the other hand - we could put high tax rates on different products correlating with their potential health risks, thereby requiring consumers to pay for their possible health problems ahead of time, thus costing the tax payers no undue burden

Oh and one last thing - generally, it is believed by the psychological community that our brain does not fully develop until around the age of 25 - so, with certain products, I believe some restrictions around that age should be applied
 
Re: Marijuna

did you look at my links I posted a couple of pages back regarding decriminalization and usage rates?

I haven't read them yet because I was dealing with a hacker on FB. I'll copy/paste those links onto my profile and check them out later at my leisure.
 
Re: Marijuna

Periodically smoking marijuana doesn't appear to hurt lung capacity, the largest study ever conducted on pot smokers has found.

Even though most marijuana smokers tend to inhale deeply and hold the smoke in for as long as they can before exhaling, the lung capacity didn't deteriorate even among those who smoked a joint a day for seven years or once a week for 20 years, according to the study published Tuesday in JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association.

In recent years, studies on marijuana smoking and its effects on lung function have been contradictory. While most studies have shown no effects on the lungs from smoking cannabis, others have shown adverse effects, and still others have shown improvement in lung function. Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, and University of Alabama at Birmingham knew tobacco smoking causes lung damage and leads to respiratory issues such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but they wanted to be clear whether smoking marijuana, had similar effects.

They measured lung function multiple times in more than 5,100 men and women during a 20-year period. In fact, the research shows, some people who regularly smoke marijuana can have a slight improvement in lung function.

Vitals - Smoking pot doesn't hurt lung capacity, study shows

sweet, slight improvement? I've been thinking of restarting my 1 mile run routine...

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.

The effects on the body are- great. *cough*

Marijuana - InfoFacts - NIDA

Are you saying that study trumps these .gov websites?

No, you shouldn't trust in .gov sites.

And what basis do you have for this?

If most roaches don't crawl onto the floor from the shadows when the light is out, what happens when you turn the light off? More roaches emerge.

Compare STD transmission rates between places where prostitution is legal to places where it is illegal. You will find that where it's legal, STD transmission is lower, and so is violence towards women. That fact has already been addressed in this thread, Wake.

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?

Comparing murder to smoking weed is dumb.
 
Re: Marijuna

I haven't read them yet because I was dealing with a hacker on FB. I'll copy/paste those links onto my profile and check them out later at my leisure.

Fair enough, I linked to the posts of mine that have the relevant citations, the second thread I linked to goes on for a while after the relevant post. If you want to read the whole thread, have at it, -if I recall it covers a lot of ground - if not no worries, just the post I linked to (and perhaps post 189 from Binary_Digit) will do to cover the usage rates related to decriminalization.
 
Re: Marijuna

Logically, if drugs and prostitution were legal, both would be safer. Isn't that more important than other considerations?
No. We have to think at a social and cultural level as well as what might be better for junkees and prostitutes.
 
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
The Marxist says he is not a collectivist, the liberal says he is not an atomist, when pushed. When you get down to it they are almost always these. You have shown that you may be rather quickly when you associate any sort of governmental and societal role in morality and social cohesion with the governmental simply forcing people to do things. As if it were simply some simplistic choice of completely removing all government roles in these issues or having them do everything for everyone. This denotes a simplistic view of society.

I have been talking about the basic, intellectual issues. If this is abstract then it is a necessary abstraction in the contexts.
 
Re: Marijuna

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"?
Come let me tell you a tale of what it means to be a conservative.

A conservative believes very much in individual responsibility and the individual. He however realises he is a social animal. That society and culture not only regulate him, but help to form his personality and provide him meaning and purpose. This society in turn is made up of society at large and just as importantly intermediate associations, like family, community and work, which are ever present in the lives of individuals, regulating and forming them and bringing them into a somewhat healthy relationship with society at large. All these layers of society are made up of a complex web of associations, authorities, loyalties, relations, ideas and so forth. Culture and Imagination are essential aspects as well, because men do not just do things and view things, healthily, in a simplistic and utilitarian way. All their ideas, particularly the important ones like values and meaning, tend to take on a deep significance based on the concepts that become associated with them and they also tend to be weaved loosely together into one diverse but coherent cultural whole, in a healthy society. Now government must tread carefully in this complex mesh of society and culture, but as it can effect it anyway, culturally and socially, and as there is no a priori reason why it shouldn't do its limited bit, there is no reason to rule out the government helping to support society and culture in various ways. It must be watched to see it doesn't usurp areas of individual and associational responsibility, but that doesn't mean it can have no role. It is simply not the case that individual responsibility alone can form a healthy and cohesive society.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

I never compared murder to weed.

Ergo, there was no "catch."

Umm.... lets just back track and see exactly what you said .... oh yeah, here it is:

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

You were either making an analogy with prostitution (which would be off topic) or you were making an analogy with marijuana use, either way, murder is not comparable to either of those currently illegal activities and that was the whole point, i.e. the "catch".
 
Re: Marijuna

Umm.... lets just back track and see exactly what you said .... oh yeah, here it is:



You were either making an analogy with prostitution (which would be off topic) or you were making an analogy with marijuana use, either way, murder is not comparable to either of those currently illegal activities and that was the whole point, i.e. the "catch".

Actually, no.

Actually, I was testing this line of logic:

"Legalizing something decreases the occurence of that once-illegal something."

I was not comparing the two, but rather focusing on that line of logic.
 
Re: Marijuna

Actually, no.

Actually, I was testing this line of logic:

"Legalizing something decreases the occurrence of that once-illegal something."

I am not saying you were comparing; what you were doing was trying to make the legalization of marijuana analogous to the legalization of murder (when they are two incomparable activities; see the following explanation). Your argument was that you think that legalizing murder would not lead to less murders, therefore, legalizing marijuana would not lead to less marijuana use. While I see what you were trying to do, it was ineffective because the motivations for committing murder are different from those for using marijuana. Make sense? Basically is was an outrageously inappropriate analogy.
 
Re: Marijuna

The Marxist says he is not a collectivist, the liberal says he is not an atomist, when pushed. When you get down to it they are almost always these. You have shown that you may be rather quickly when you associate any sort of governmental and societal role in morality and social cohesion with the governmental simply forcing people to do things. As if it were simply some simplistic choice of completely removing all government roles in these issues or having them do everything for everyone. This denotes a simplistic view of society.

I have been talking about the basic, intellectual issues. If this is abstract then it is a necessary abstraction in the contexts.

So now you're telling me what I think? No, Wessexman, I'm not an atomist. Each person has a place in society, but it is up to people to pick that spot. We do not need government controlling our every move. Again, what happened in Amsterdam and Nevada? You have not provided any evidence of the harms caused by legalizing things like prostitution
 
Re: Marijuna

So now you're telling me what I think? No, Wessexman, I'm not an atomist. Each person has a place in society, but it is up to people to pick that spot. We do not need government controlling our every move. Again, what happened in Amsterdam and Nevada? You have not provided any evidence of the harms caused by legalizing things like prostitution
If it is completely up to each person to pick their spot in society then surely that makes society something very superficial and unimportant to individuals who would be self-reliant and formed outside society? Sort of sounds quite atomistic to me. A basic plank of a non-atomistic view of society is there are elements that are not simply choice.

And again you resort to the simplistic 'we do not need government controlling our every move' line. As if I ever suggested any such thing. I'm quite a decentralist, I'm hardly going to advocate for what you keep suggesting.

I provided analysis of why we must use a broader evaluation of those places before we come to any firm conclusions.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/116356-marijuana-26.html#post1060101107
Statistics are treacherous things, they need a lot of evaluation and assessment to make sense of them. One can immediately point out large wholes in using these examples. For instance they are quite limited in scope, they are also, in the case of Amsterdam, in a country which is hardly a shining moral beacon for humanity anyway. The conservative should start by considering the social effects; statistics can help, but they are far from a complete guide to such issues. We should look at those involved and the communities in which they take place, but also at their cultural and imaginative setting. Nevada is socially and culturally quite interwoven with the rest of the US, which mitigates the effects of such practices, either way. You also have not attempted to assess the amount of people using these prostitutes, who is using them and the moral effects this has on them, on the prostitutes and on their relations and close associates.

Also prostitution is just a part of a whole cultural and social milieu. Like so called 'gay marriage', we shouldn't suggest that it would end all sexual and social morality, but it would be one more nail in the coffin. The same goes for legalised prostitution in the current. Western contexts.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

No. We have to think at a social and cultural level as well as what might be better for junkees and prostitutes.

How is keeping Marijuana and drugs illegal better on a social and cultural level? It's not as if these laws actually prevent the behavior.
 
Re: Marijuna

Marijuana smokers are not "junkies".
 
Re: Marijuna

How is keeping Marijuana and drugs illegal better on a social and cultural level? It's not as if these laws actually prevent the behavior.
I'm not arguing for keeping marijuana illegal, in fact I said I'd end its prohibition. As for the rest of the drugs, many of them are completely artificial and lazy highs which are taken wholly or mostly for their own effects, as is the case with both heroin, crack and meth and party drugs like MDMA, rather than for any sort of positive contribution to a positive human activity, as is the case with alcohol which can be drunk in a convivial atmosphere where it is not the main part of the activity. In our decadent and indulgent society we do not need any more lazy and artificial ways to feel good.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

Marijuana smokers are not "junkies".

nope. in fact, I even passed the Little Debbies on the way out of Walmart a few minutes ago.

fundraising.jpg


I'm not arguing for keeping marijuana illegal, in fact I said I'd end its prohibition. As for the rest of the drugs, many of them are completely artificial and lazy highs which are taken wholly or mostly for their own effects, as is the case with both heroin, crack and meth and party drugs like MDMA, rather than for any sort of positive contribution to a positive human activity, as is the case with alcohol which can be drunk in a convivial atmosphere where it is not the main part of the activity. In our decadent and indulgent society we do not need any more lazy and artificial ways to feel good.

ah so you're for legalizing Pot, just keeping the other drugs illegal. And no bang for your buck, either. Get it? Bang for your buck. :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom