• 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

Yes. Non violent.

The vast majority of violence associated with drugs exists because drugs are illegal. It's supply and demand just like everything else. If the legal market cannot provide, then the black market steps in. This unregulated market controlled by gangs is the source of almost all drug related violence. Legalize it.
Your post here didn't at all speak to what I wrote.

You bemoaned locking drug dealers up and you gave as your alluded reason for so bemoaning that if a drug dealer is non-violent and a citizen then they should not be punished for dealing drugs.

I then pointed out that just because someone behaves non-violently and is a citizen does not mean their behavior isn't severely damaging and that when said severely damaging behavior is understandably illegal, the fact that they may have engaged in that behavior non-violently and as a citizen does in no way excuse them of their crime or the time they must serve.

But here you stray from defending your point, instead diverting to something else entirely.

I challenge you to defend your point to which I initially responded.

I also challenge you to read the OP of the link I previously referenced (Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly) and tell me what you think.
 
Re: Marijuna

Your post here didn't at all speak to what I wrote.

You bemoaned locking drug dealers up and you gave as your alluded reason for so bemoaning that if a drug dealer is non-violent and a citizen then they should not be punished for dealing drugs.

I then pointed out that just because someone behaves non-violently and is a citizen does not mean their behavior isn't severely damaging and that when said severely damaging behavior is understandably illegal, the fact that they may have engaged in that behavior non-violently and as a citizen does in no way excuse them of their crime or the time they must serve.

But here you stray from defending your point, instead diverting to something else entirely.

I challenge you to defend your point to which I initially responded.

I also challenge you to read the OP of the link I previously referenced (Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly) and tell me what you think.

Can you please explain to me how a law against drugs can decrease those negative externalities.
 
Re: Marijuna

Can you please explain to me how a law against drugs can decrease those negative externalities.
Again, you divert from the point.

Your choice not to defend your position, your position being that non-violent citizens don't commit incarceration-worthy crimes simply because their behavior was non-violent and they were citizens, means that you've conceded the argument, admitting your error in making such a ludicrous point.

As to your new question here, I'm not interested in discussing your irrelevant diversion.

However, if you wish to comment on the very comprehensively relevant OP here: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly .. I might be intersted in discussing your opinion of it.
 
Re: Marijuna

“Now here's somebody who wants to smoke a marijuana cigarette. If he's caught, he goes to jail. Now is that moral? Is that proper? I think it's absolutely disgraceful that our government, supposed to be our government, should be in the position of converting people who are not harming others into criminals, of destroying their lives, putting them in jail. That's the issue to me. The economic issue comes in only for explaining why it has those effects. But the economic reasons are not the reasons”
― Milton Friedman


“It is because it's prohibited. See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true.”
― Milton Friedman


“This plea comes from the bottom of my heart. Every friend of freedom, and I know you are one, must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. A country in which shooting down unidentified planes "on suspicion" can be seriously considered as a drug-war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations.”
― Milton Friedman
 
Re: Marijuna

Again, you divert from the point.

Your choice not to defend your position, your position being that non-violent citizens don't commit incarceration-worthy crimes simply because their behavior was non-violent and they were citizens, means that you've conceded the argument, admitting your error in making such a ludicrous point.

As to your new question here, I'm not interested in discussing your irrelevant diversion.

However, if you wish to comment on the very comprehensively relevant OP here: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly .. I might be intersted in discussing your opinion of it.

Not sure how a link to another forum supports anything you have claimed in this thread. I am asking you a relevant question. If you do not wish to engage in further discussion on this topic, I'm fine with that. However, the burden of proof is on you to show that society should dedicate yet more resources to this never ending war. Prohibition was a huge failure. The billions wasted on this war far outweighs the negative externalities caused by the drugs themselves. The entire premise is illogical and counter productive for the cause of liberty.
 
Re: Marijuna

Not sure how a link to another forum supports anything you have claimed in this thread.
It doesn't. But that's irrelevant.

The only claim I made is that your previous point that non-violent citizens don't commit incarceration-worthy crimes was absolutely ludicrous.

That the link I referenced doesn't support (or negate, either) my previous point is meaningless.

After I squashed your point, I then moved on, simply offerring up something new on the topic to stimulate conversation.

You, however, keep wanting to bury a dead horse.

To which I say .. nay.


I am asking you a relevant question.
I don't have an opinion framed in the terms you present. So I have no answer for you.


If you do not wish to engage in further discussion on this topic,
Just because I don't want to succumb to a meaningless tired old same thing kind of digression, doesn't mean I'm not interested in further discussion. It just means what you're asking is meaningless in light of bigger more foundational realities on the topic.


I'm fine with that.
I'm not sure that's really true.


However, the burden of proof is on you to show that society should dedicate yet more resources to this never ending war.
No it's not. Again, I haven't stated either way on the divertive and tired old question you broached, so your jump-to-conclusion about me having to show some "burden of proof" to your question is, of course, obviously, wrong.


Prohibition was a huge failure.
Whatever.

Not sure you understand why, though.


The billions wasted on this war far outweighs the negative externalities caused by the drugs themselves.
So it sounds like you're saying that the economic benefits to legalizing drugs outweighs the damage drugs have done and continue to do to scores of millions.

Okay, that's your opinion -- I'm not interested in debating that with you.


The entire premise is illogical and counter productive for the cause of liberty.
You're quite the idealist.

Ever consider removing those rose-colored glasses?

***


Again, the OP in this thread is pretty darn convincing about the deadliness of pot and why we can't trust those opposed to the drug war to be telling us any truth in the matter whatsoever: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly.

You know, you can run from the truth of this here, if you want ..

.. Or I can post a brand new thread leading off with a full quote of this OP.

It's your choice, for the moment.

I really think this link's OP is something new on the topic, in that it appears to be a comprehesive winning argument about which there is no rational refutation.

Considering that this topic has been to death with the same old, same old, wouldn't it be nice to pivot discussion off of something completely new and accurate on the matter?

I would think so.
 
Re: Marijuna

It doesn't. But that's irrelevant.

The only claim I made is that your previous point that non-violent citizens don't commit incarceration-worthy crimes was absolutely ludicrous.

That the link I referenced doesn't support (or negate, either) my previous point is meaningless.

After I squashed your point, I then moved on, simply offerring up something new on the topic to stimulate conversation.

You, however, keep wanting to bury a dead horse.

To which I say .. nay.



I don't have an opinion framed in the terms you present. So I have no answer for you.



Just because I don't want to succumb to a meaningless tired old same thing kind of digression, doesn't mean I'm not interested in further discussion. It just means what you're asking is meaningless in light of bigger more foundational realities on the topic.



I'm not sure that's really true.



No it's not. Again, I haven't stated either way on the divertive and tired old question you broached, so your jump-to-conclusion about me having to show some "burden of proof" to your question is, of course, obviously, wrong.



Whatever.

Not sure you understand why, though.



So it sounds like you're saying that the economic benefits to legalizing drugs outweighs the damage drugs have done and continue to do to scores of millions.

Okay, that's your opinion -- I'm not interested in debating that with you.



You're quite the idealist.

Ever consider removing those rose-colored glasses?

***


Again, the OP in this thread is pretty darn convincing about the deadliness of pot and why we can't trust those opposed to the drug war to be telling us any truth in the matter whatsoever: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly.

You know, you can run from the truth of this here, if you want ..

.. Or I can post a brand new thread leading off with a full quote of this OP.

It's your choice, for the moment.

I really think this link's OP is something new on the topic, in that it appears to be a comprehesive winning argument about which there is no rational refutation.

Considering that this topic has been to death with the same old, same old, wouldn't it be nice to pivot discussion off of something completely new and accurate on the matter?

I would think so.

My questions about the negative externalities caused by our current drug laws are extremely relative to this topic, and I'm not quite sure why you will not address this. I suppose then, that there is nothing left for us to discuss, and I understand your hesitation to engage in that particular topic. Facts would not support your position. Have a nice evening.
 
Re: Marijuna

The continued criminalization of drug use is more akin to the Salem witch trials than it is some perverse warping of common sense. That this thread is still growing is a testament to the stupidity of busy-body mankind to have to have a boogieman to get through their day.

It should be against the law to legislate against personal choice for personal pleasure. But stupid is forever, and so we suffer.

BTW, drugs suck. But restrictions on personal liberty suck worse.
 
Re: Marijuna

My questions about the negative externalities caused by our current drug laws are extremely relative to this topic, and I'm not quite sure why you will not address this. I suppose then, that there is nothing left for us to discuss, and I understand your hesitation to engage in that particular topic. Facts would not support your position. Have a nice evening.
Avoidance via projection.

Yep .. same old, same old from the legalize pot crowd ..

.. When faced with the truth of the matter: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly.

So, Ev has bailed.

Anyone else care to take a stab at something new?
 
Re: Marijuna

...... When faced with the truth of the matter: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly...........

So what ? Who is forcing you to smoke pot when you do not want to ?

Care to take a stab at why anyone should restrict the personal freedom of another who is infringing on no one else ?
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

So what ? Who is forcing you to smoke pot when you do not want to ?

Care to take a stab at why anyone should restrict the personal freedom of another who is infringing on no one else ?
Freedom and security are yin and yang forces that only work well when paired in dynamic balance.

Those who are constantly screaming "Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!" .. are probably lacking in personal security.

As to why any parent would want to keep their pre-teens and young teens from the scourage of a deadly drug like pot, got me by the sneakers. :roll:

Seriously, though, I don't have all the answers; don't profess to.

But this OP -- Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly -- has quite a few. Did you read it? What'd you think?
 
Re: Marijuna

Freedom and security are yin and yang forces that only work well when paired in dynamic balance.

Those who are constantly screaming "Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!" .. are probably lacking in personal security.

As to why any parent would want to keep their pre-teens and young teens from the scourage of a deadly drug like pot, got me by the sneakers. :roll:

Seriously, though, I don't have all the answers; don't profess to.

But this OP -- Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly -- has quite a few. Did you read it? What'd you think?

As I said more than once. I think drug use is a bad choice. But it is most certainly not for me to legislate against your opportunities to make bad choices for yourself. Only to support legislation and enforcement to keep you from making bad choices for anyone but yourself.

I think its folly, btw. And I am not advocating that kids can drink either.
 
Re: Marijuna

As I said more than once. I think drug use is a bad choice. I think its folly, btw. And I am not advocating that kids can drink either.
Drug abuse is more than a bad "choice" -- it's a deadly unconscious compulsion .. or so I've read. Not everything we're told is a "choice" is. I mean, some people keep saying that being gay is a choice, but, really, we all know better .. just like we all know that drug addiction isn't a choice.

I also once read that nearly everyone who has abused pot as an adult started while they were still a kid, some quite young.

So recommending that pot be legally plentiful is like .. advocating child abuse.

Just some new perspectives I thought I'd thow into the mix here.


But it is most certainly not for me to legislate against your opportunities to make bad choices for yourself.
That's rather .. libertarian .. of you.

Society tends not to be libertarian.

Soceity tends to be social conservative .. and they just love protecting those they care about from making so-called bad "choices", especially when those they are protecting are too young to have a good adult probability of making good choices, doubly so when the topic matter isn't about making choices but is about unconscious compulsions.


Only to support legislation and enforcement to keep you from making bad choices for anyone but yourself.
Clever and trite does hardly make right.

But your words do indeed reveal you as socially libertarian ..

.. And greatly in the minority in society.

***

Again, though, what did you think of the OP in the link I gave you?
 
Re: Marijuna

Legalize it at the state level, without a federal mandate. It's insane to keep marijuana illegal when it is less dangerous and destructive to the family unit than alcohol.
 
Re: Marijuna

Legalize it at the state level, without a federal mandate. It's insane to keep marijuana illegal when it is less dangerous and destructive to the family unit than alcohol.
Well, there's the perfect argument for illegalizing alcohol, when you realize how damaging pot is: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly.

You really do sound .. oh, yeah, "libertarian" -- I see it, it's uh, right there at the left of your post, under your avatar: "libertarian" .. okay ...
 
Mary Jane Poll number 1,264.....
 
Re: Marijuna

Well, there's the perfect argument for illegalizing alcohol, when you realize how damaging pot is: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly.

You really do sound .. oh, yeah, "libertarian" -- I see it, it's uh, right there at the left of your post, under your avatar: "libertarian" .. okay ...

Yeah, that's the thing about libertarians. They support your right to do what you want with your own body as long as it's not causing harm to another. Our prisons are filled with non-violent drug users already. I don't support locking up someone who likes to get high after a day's work, just to take the edge off.
 
Re: Marijuna

Well, there's the perfect argument for illegalizing alcohol, when you realize how damaging pot is: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly.

You really do sound .. oh, yeah, "libertarian" -- I see it, it's uh, right there at the left of your post, under your avatar: "libertarian" .. okay ...


That link is WAY overdramatized. I mean, drama-queen level over-dramatized.

Is pot bad for you? Sure.

Is it really any worse than booze? Probably not.

Is there any chance of making booze illegal? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... :lamo


I don't smoke weed, but I'm open to the possibility that full legalization might actually be preferable to society on the whole than the alleged War on Drugs, in which I was once a footsoldier (cop) and can tell you is a pointless clusterfrack....
 
Re: Marijuna

Yeah, that's the thing about libertarians. They support your right to do what you want with your own body as long as it's not causing harm to another.
So .. is it also a thing about libertarians to advocate the same to be applied to kids, that kids, too, do have or should have a "right" to do with their own body whatever they want, even if it's against the wishes of their parents?


Our prisons are filled with non-violent drug users already. I don't support locking up someone who likes to get high after a day's work, just to take the edge off.
I don't either.

I do support locking people up who are caught drinking and driving .. or toking and driving .. and, of course, for great lengths of time when they maime or kill people as a result.

There are some who say that drug addicts can't help themselves, though, and that the very nature of drug abuse, you know, "taking the edge off" and other euphemistic descriptions of addictive behavior, is such that those who do are DUI fatality causers waiting for their future accident time to happen.

Most who are saying that are parents of pre-teens and teens, those who have a good sober reason to face the truth about the unconscious compulsive non-choice nature of drug abuse.

I'm not sure where I fall in the summation of all this. I'm just pretty good at differentiating between unconsciously polly-parroted ideolgoical BS and what's really true. And that's where the fun of all this is for me, regardless of taking sides.

But I do know this OP here -- Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly -- is a pretty powerful statement .. one that, so far, legalization advocates behave as is they're down right afraid of.
 
Re: Marijuna

Is pot bad for you? Sure. Is it really any worse than booze? Probably not.
I'm right there with you.

Each is probably similarly damaging and each probably has its own unique ways of causing damage too.

My guess is that most people don't really know just how damaging and in what ways each, pot and boose, really is damaging.


Is there any chance of making booze illegal? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... :lamo
Heh heh! Absolutely.

Booze had once been legal, for centuries. Then they tried to outlaw it. Prohibition failed foundationally because boose was once and nearly forever legal. Never stood a chance.


I don't smoke weed,
That makes sense, based on what you've written so far.


but I'm open to the possibility that full legalization might actually be preferable to society on the whole than the alleged War on Drugs, in which I was once a footsoldier (cop) and can tell you is a pointless clusterfrack....
My guess is there is a great majority of Americans, parents, mostly, who would disagree with you.

No matter how much you might present the varying ways it's a "pointless clusterfrack", they'll only be concerned with vectoring in the opposite direction. To them, getting pot the hell off their streets is the goal, and legalization is simply vectoring in the opposite direction to them, and understandably so, reasonably.


That link is WAY overdramatized. I mean, drama-queen level over-dramatized.
Now that's strange. I mean, we both seem like reasonable people, yet I didn't find it drama-queenish or over-dramatized. I found it to be quite well presented, complete with valid authoritative references .. and I thought the way it finished was quite insightful, and, okay, also inciteful, yet still pretty much .. right on.

So, could you point out with linked reference to quotes from the link where you thought it was over-the-top? I'm curious.
 
Re: Marijuna

I support the decriminalization of weed. One real problem, however much smokers ignore this because they buy their weed from a neighbor or co-worker who's really nice and perfectly ordinary and otherwise a law-abiding citizen is that the weed has been sold at the point of a gun. Maybe not at your neighbor's or his bud's, but somewhere. This is a given. So is the fact that Americans are losing their lives at various "distribution points."
 
Re: Marijuna

My guess is there is a great majority of Americans, parents, mostly, who would disagree with you.

I'm a parent of a 16yo teenage boy. I am firmly aware that there is ONE way to keep him from smoking pot, and that is to PERSUADE him that it is a bad idea. There is absolutely no other avenue of action that will prevent him from smoking weed, unless I lock him in his room forever, which is impractical. It cannot be enforced away.... forty years of trying and failing miserably proves that.




Now that's strange. I mean, we both seem like reasonable people, yet I didn't find it drama-queenish or over-dramatized. I found it to be quite well presented, complete with valid authoritative references .. and I thought the way it finished was quite insightful, and, okay, also inciteful, yet still pretty much .. right on.

So, could you point out with linked reference to quotes from the link where you thought it was over-the-top? I'm curious.

The studies he quoted were succinct and scholarly, but in between he kept harping on how DEADLY street-pot is, with implications that it will KILL you stone dead in short order. I'm sorry, but that's a laugh. I'm a street-wise guy; I don't smoke the stuff but I've known plenty who do. It is no deadlier than booze, but his presentation sure tries to make it sound like one joint might kill you.

It's as over the top as "Reefer Madness" was.
 
Re: Marijuna

I'm a parent of a 16yo teenage boy. I am firmly aware that there is ONE way to keep him from smoking pot, and that is to PERSUADE him that it is a bad idea. There is absolutely no other avenue of action that will prevent him from smoking weed, unless I lock him in his room forever, which is impractical. It cannot be enforced away.... forty years of trying and failing miserably proves that.






The studies he quoted were succinct and scholarly, but in between he kept harping on how DEADLY street-pot is, with implications that it will KILL you stone dead in short order. I'm sorry, but that's a laugh. I'm a street-wise guy; I don't smoke the stuff but I've known plenty who do. It is no deadlier than booze, but his presentation sure tries to make it sound like one joint might kill you.

It's as over the top as "Reefer Madness" was.

Go with the consequences angle, because it's true. Although I have to say both of my kids smoked, but both no longer do. When you don't tell them the truth, they know.
 
Re: Marijuna

I'm a parent of a 16yo teenage boy. I am firmly aware that there is ONE way to keep him from smoking pot, and that is to PERSUADE him that it is a bad idea. There is absolutely no other avenue of action that will prevent him from smoking weed, unless I lock him in his room forever, which is impractical. It cannot be enforced away.... forty years of trying and failing miserably proves that.
Which speaks to society's position that if we were more effective in fighting the drug war, pot would be less prevalent.

I don't have all the answers.

I tried to be a good parent .. and my kids managed to avoid drugs. Of course, they may not have been prone to addiction. Hopefully my grandkids won't be either.

But many, many millions are prone to unconscious compulsive drug abuse.

Society says that, for their benefit, pot has to go, and legalization is the wrong direction on that.


The studies he quoted were succinct and scholarly, but in between he kept harping on how DEADLY street-pot is, with implications that it will KILL you stone dead in short order. I'm sorry, but that's a laugh. I'm a street-wise guy; I don't smoke the stuff but I've known plenty who do. It is no deadlier than booze, but his presentation sure tries to make it sound like one joint might kill you. It's as over the top as "Reefer Madness" was.
Yes the presentation was accurate, succinct, even scholarly. That alone should be sufficient.

As to the editorializing, I found it to be appropriate emphasis, as so many people simply didn't realize how damaging pot is.

I don't think it's "harping" to reiterate the valid point and theme of the presentation.

Nor did the presentation "imply" that pot would kill you dead in short order. The presentation described the damage to the brain and body that pot does as more along the lines of a degenerative disease, "degenerative" being the actual description used. That means "over time", clearly.

Now sure, those who abuse large amounts of "skunk" in one sitting, well, yes, they're asking for bad things to happen to them quickly, which the presentation was correct in pointing out, that and, of course, those who drive while stoned who all too often cause instant death creating traffic accidents.

Though for those who might be allergic, one joint could indeed kill them, and for most of those, they usually find out the hard way .. well, no, they don't "find out", 'cause they're .. dead .. .. .

But there was simply no exageration there at all in the presentation.

What I think, is that there was simply a lot of fact there to take in, more than most people realize exists, and that, having to take in so much that, well, after having drug abusers and their "union" -- NORML -- presenting so much false propaganda about pot not being harmful .. again, the link I presented would indeed be a shock to the system for those falsely indoctrinated.

Also, the way it concludes sheds understandably applicable shadows on the veracity of legalization proponents.

So I understand where those who support legalization will imagine exagerations in the presentation that simply don't exist.

What I found in the presentation was one of the few examples of well-used redundancy, which made for effective emphasis on the well-revealed degeneratively deadly quality of pot.

And considering all the misinformation about pot, the presentation's redundancy and emphasis was most appropriate in driving home the point to those who would otherwise have a hard time accepting the truth of of the deadly nature of pot.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

So .. is it also a thing about libertarians to advocate the same to be applied to kids, that kids, too, do have or should have a "right" to do with their own body whatever they want, even if it's against the wishes of their parents?



I don't either.

I do support locking people up who are caught drinking and driving .. or toking and driving .. and, of course, for great lengths of time when they maime or kill people as a result.

There are some who say that drug addicts can't help themselves, though, and that the very nature of drug abuse, you know, "taking the edge off" and other euphemistic descriptions of addictive behavior, is such that those who do are DUI fatality causers waiting for their future accident time to happen.

Most who are saying that are parents of pre-teens and teens, those who have a good sober reason to face the truth about the unconscious compulsive non-choice nature of drug abuse.

I'm not sure where I fall in the summation of all this. I'm just pretty good at differentiating between unconsciously polly-parroted ideolgoical BS and what's really true. And that's where the fun of all this is for me, regardless of taking sides.

But I do know this OP here -- Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly -- is a pretty powerful statement .. one that, so far, legalization advocates behave as is they're down right afraid of.

No, I don't advocate children smoking pot at all. They are minors, and pot-smoking should be restricted to minors just as booze and cigarettes are.

Drug use is always a choice. Some people have addictive personalities, and in that case, stopping drug use is extremely difficult, but the choice is always there. I advocate for personal responsibility and not for the blame game. Whatever people do is their own responsibility to correct if their actions are determined to be destructive.
 
Back
Top Bottom