• 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

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.
Back in the fall of 2010, California had a pot legalization measure on the ballot. It was touch and go for awhile as to which way the very liberal state would go, many thinking CA might be the first to enact such a revolutionary law, despite the fact that the fed threatened it would most certainly fight it and step up arrests of those possessing controlled substances (and pot is understandably a federally controlled substance).

Then in the fall, liberal bent Democrat Dianne Feinstein joined with the president of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and came out publically against the measure, citing a number of studies (I recall reading the Rand study) that clearly indicated that pot prevalence on the street would greatly increase if legalization occurred, which, of course, does indeed make sense. This would lead to even more kids getting hooked on drugs and increase, the study showed, the number of traffic accidents (and thus maimings and fatalities) caused by pot DUi.

That was enough to encourage citizens even in a non-presidential year to go to the polls and defeat that dangerous measure, in a very liberal state, mind you.

Like you say, no one wants kids doing drugs.

Yet studies show that nearly everyone who got hooked on drugs started as a kid, many very young.

And, considering that it's an understandable given that legalization would make pot more plentiful, increasing the frequency of hooking more addictive kids, parents who are genuinely concerned about their kids just said "No!" ..

.. And understandably so.


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.
So, is being gay a "choice", Lizzie?

Is being a psychological/physiological addict really a "choice"?

No, not at all.

I realize that those who fear losing personal freedoms to an ideology opposite their own ideology will downplay the realities that work against their own ideology, that is, in this case, they might choose to ignore that certain behaviors simply aren't conscious choices in orientation they would then like to conveniently think that they are.

Hopefully those who respect reality will continue to fight the good fight for truth. If that means pot remains illegal, then so be it, just as long as the argumentation made for either position respects the truth.

On another though related front, street pot has no redeeming social value, none whatsoever. It isn't marinol, it isn't a pharmaceutical medicine, etc., etc. It's just a drug, for the purposes of feeding addicts, that functions as a depressant at best, and, as the link I previously posted accurately presents, damages brain and body while it dumbs the user down. Why would anyone want to do or say anything in support of that?!

With regard to the understandable increase in prevalence of drugs legalization would inflict upon our country, well, the last thing we need is a bunch of utilitarian relativists "ignorantly" causing us to go the demising way of the Greek, Roman, and the like democracies before us, when everything became about pleasure, fun and games, and the "voters" said to hell with responsibility, accountability .. and truth.
 
Re: Marijuna

The main problem with drugs in general in this country is in the econimically disadvantaged areas. Drugs, not poverty and racism (although poverty fuels the business of selling drugs in those communities) is a very big factor in why many people living in those areas are are stuck in an endless cycle that keeps them from succeeding in life. Legalizing and/or greatly decriminalizing drugs I think would help to reduce the problem. We need to take the profitability out of the drug trade caused by prohibition. I think it is the only way to at least in part treat the problem. The only other way would be to completely cut off the supply of drugs. I don't see that happening. Once we reduce the criminal element and take away the fear for people coming forward for help with drug problems I think we can begin to solve the problem. The war on drugs has just made things worse for the disadvantaged.

Keeping marijauna illegal does prevent more people from using it. But I believe in a free society we should allow people more of a choice while at the same time preaching the value of being drug free. We are not going to all turn into a bunch of pot heads. Most people recognize the value of being drug free or making their use minimal and casual. Drugs are here to stay. It is about time we manage the problem rather than strictly criminalize it.
 
Re: Marijuna

Another irrelevant link to the same forum. The hyperbole and emotive dramatics from the anti weed crowd further supports decriminalization or legalization. Thanks, guys. :2wave:
When I read your post here, I can't help but think that the following most accurately applies to it: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly

So, yes, street pot is clearly deadly.

Thus the matter is decided, irrefutably.

And I say irrefutably for two reasons: 1) the qualification, competency, currency, accuracy and veracity of the medical authorities presenting the deadly nature of pot is simply not rationally, soberly questioned, and 2) those who rebut these authorities are not rationally believable due to their association with a drug and its culture that clearly prevents its users from telling the truth.

Indeed, those who deny the obviously deadly damage pot does -- and denial is part and parcel to addiction! -- could likely be suffering symptomatically from the effects of pot!

Brain damage, distortion, paranoia, etc., etc. -- how can one possibly rationally consider anything a pro-pot advocate has to say in defense of the drug of street pot as being truthful?!
And street-pot-legalization advocates are no different with regard to the question of their veracity, as though they may try to argue with a bait-and-switch perspective about "the drug war", as the authorities clearly present, such divertive double-talk by drug users is part and parcel of drug use -- they don't care about issues of fighting the necessary battle to keep drugs off our streets, they just want to make it easier to get stoned.

So in any discussion about street pot, a proponent of street-pot, according to the authorities, could likely not be playing with a full deck of mental faculties, and is likely to present distortions, false accusations against the authorities and other paranoid manifestations, links to sites that have purposely controverted reality (NORML, and other pro-pot apologetic links), links to old data that has been scientifically refuted today, nit-pick absolute nothings regarding the valid authorities' presentations, falsely minimize the drug's effect, compare street pot to anything from alcohol to walking down the street saying that "everything is dangerous", etc., etc., etc. .. all essentially non-starters completely lacking in valid truth-based argumentation against the irrefutable deadly nature of street pot.

Thus, though the deadliness of pot is simply rationally and thus truthfully unconjecturable irrefutably, I also have to ask here how any discussion in the matter could ever, ever give credence to the pro-pot users' presentations?
It just seems logical that, considering the rational applicable questions as to the state of mind of street pot-using proponents, 1) how can one ever trust that anything they say is the truth, and 2) how can one differentiate between a) someone who doesn't use pot and isn't brain-damaged/suffering a conflict of interest to the degree they don't tell the truth, and is thus truly only economically etc. concerned about pot legalization, and b) the brain-damaged pot user who can't be trusted to tell the truth about the deadly nature of pot and is suffering an addict-based conflict of interest in the matter?

And, of course, the street pot proponent saying "I'm telling the truth" .. could very easily simply be an unintentional delusion or an intentional distortion, obviously.

Only if a street-pot user exhibiting the deadly damaging effects of street pot finally admits street pot is damaging can he be rationally considered to be telling the truth, given the corroborating authorities, though one would have to question how he knows he's telling the truth at that point!

I mean, it's a valid question isn't it? If the very instrument (the brain), by which truthful rational argumentation is made, is damaged (by street pot) to the quite possible degree it can't present the truth of the matter, how can those who are naturally suspect -- street pot proponents -- of having suffered the brain-damaging effects of street pot, be trusted not to be suffering from such brain damage and be sporting a rational argument? They simply can't -- they can't be trusted in that manner.

I simply don't see how one can logically rationally give any street pot proponent arguing against the irrefutable deadly nature of pot any credence at all.

For if two people are arguing in favor of street pot use and legalization, how do you differentiate between 1) the conflict of interest brain-damaged druggie who just wants to make it easier to get his fix, and 2) the economic oriented arguer who isn't suffering from street pot damage? Both their arguments sound the same!

The valid authorities in the matter have presented the deadly nature of street pot. Their qualification and veracity is not in question.

The qualification and veracity of street pot proponents? Obviously, always, suspect.

The presentation makes a very valid point here: drug addicts will stump to make it easier to get their drug, and they often do it by smirking in the face of the sad truth about their addictive behavior and their very damaging drug.

It's really quite sad.
 
Re: Marijuna

So, is being gay a "choice", Lizzie?

Is being a psychological/physiological addict really a "choice"?

No, not at all.

Being gay or being addictive in nature is not a choice. The actions one enacts in response to these are in fact, choices. An addict chooses to do drugs, and he chooses to stop doing drugs when that becomes more important than the drugs themselves. As for being gay- I couldn't care less whether or not someone is gay, and whether or not it is a choice is irrelevant. Drug addiction and sexual preference are two different things altogether.
 
Re: Marijuna

Being gay or being addictive in nature is not a choice.
That's right -- they're both unconscious compulsions.

The actions one enacts in response to these are in fact, choices.
But at a more mechanical level of making mundane decisions after the fact of being gay and an addict, respectively.

The overriding unconscious compulsion is what is meaningfully relevant here with regard to being gay or an addict, respectively.

The decision with whom to have gay sex or what drugs to use, respectively, isn't meaningful.

What's meaningful is that one's powerfully overwhelming unconscious compulsion to have gay sex and do drugs, respectively, are not consciously made "choices".


An addict chooses to do drugs,
Absolutely false.

An addict is unconsciously compelled to do drugs.

It is not a choice.

Likewise, a gay person doesn't "choose" to have homosexual sex.

A gay person is unconsciously compelled to have homosexual sex.


and he chooses to stop doing drugs when that becomes more important than the drugs themselves.
Pre-teens and teens don't have the sufficiently developed mental facilities to override their unconsciously compelled addictive behavior.

Most adults don't either.

Interventions and treatment programs, societal taboos against drug addiction -- including keeping pot illegal -- play a major role in providing addicts with the external support they require to stop acting out their deadly addictions.

Your tendency to over-simplify into meaningless the terrible affliction of the disease of drug addiction comes at the sacrifice of the truth of the matter.


As for being gay- I couldn't care less whether or not someone is gay, and whether or not it is a choice is irrelevant. Drug addiction and sexual preference are two different things altogether.
Of course you could "care less" -- the accurate application of the transferrable concept of unconscious compulsion in gays to behave homosexually speaks to the very same nature of drug addicts behaving addictively.

Though these are applicably similar, you wouldn't state that a gay person has a "choice" not to behave homosexually, as you realize how absurd that is to say.

But you'll say an addict has a choice not to behave addictively, even though the same type of unconscious compulsion is at work there.

The only difference here is that there is nothing wrong with being gay, but there is something terribly damaging and wrong about addiction.

Your convenient selectivity on the matter makes it obvious that your application of "choice" to the matter is simply an inapplicable contrivance you apply to suit your utilitarian purpose.
 
Re: Marijuna

Your tendency to over-simplify into meaningless the terrible affliction of the disease of drug addiction comes at the sacrifice of the truth of the matter.



Of course you could "care less" -- the accurate application of the transferrable concept of unconscious compulsion in gays to behave homosexually speaks to the very same nature of drug addicts behaving addictively.

Though these are applicably similar, you wouldn't state that a gay person has a "choice" not to behave homosexually, as you realize how absurd that is to say.

But you'll say an addict has a choice not to behave addictively, even though the same type of unconscious compulsion is at work there.

The only difference here is that there is nothing wrong with being gay, but there is something terribly damaging and wrong about addiction.

Your convenient selectivity on the matter makes it obvious that your application of "choice" to the matter is simply an inapplicable contrivance you apply to suit your utilitarian purpose.

It’s not meaningless, but it is a compulsion over which one has ultimate control. I’ve known and I currently know plenty of addicts- of various types. Drugs, alcohol, seedy behavior, whatever type of compulsion you would want to speak of. Compulsions are controllable behaviors. You can either not give in to the addictive compulsion by avoidance, or you can become a full-blown addict, at which point you must make a choice. The choice is on whether or not you will let your addictions control your life. Been there, done that. I understand addictions because I have the trait, not because I am judging those who are addicts. No matter what you believe, and no matter how you want to rationalize and excuse addictive behaviors, behaviors are controllable, and if they are not, then that denotes a certain lack of character on the part of the addict.
 
Re: Marijuna

Very true. Addiction can certainly be influenced by predisposition and the effects of use can become a prison, but it would be totally wrong to suggest that there is not still a good deal of character and choice involved in the nature of addiction. We should not treat it as the sort of thing that is easy to stop at whim, but we must not ignore this choice. Addiction is not the same as other mental illnesses, if it right to call it such.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

It’s not meaningless, but it is a compulsion over which one has ultimate control. I’ve known and I currently know plenty of addicts- of various types. Drugs, alcohol, seedy behavior, whatever type of compulsion you would want to speak of. Compulsions are controllable behaviors. You can either not give in to the addictive compulsion by avoidance, or you can become a full-blown addict, at which point you must make a choice. The choice is on whether or not you will let your addictions control your life. Been there, done that. I understand addictions because I have the trait, not because I am judging those who are addicts. No matter what you believe, and no matter how you want to rationalize and excuse addictive behaviors, behaviors are controllable, and if they are not, then that denotes a certain lack of character on the part of the addict.
Well said. :cool:
 
Re: Marijuna

You have to remember that the law is supposed to be the enforcement arm of society. It's illegal because society has deemed it impermissible.

Support from the majority is not a moral justification by itself.

You strongly implied it.

If I did, that was not my intention.

Government is an important part of human interactions, it is intertwined with many areas of society and culture and therefore has a social role. Government can certainly encourage and support morality. Not in the sense that it completely enforces, but it can certainly has some cautious, but not insignificant role in this area.


That does not mean that it is necessary to support morality or that private actors can do the same job more efficiently.

They are not completely voluntary, far from it. Many of the bonds are partially not chosen, such as family. Government has a role in society, it must be careful not to undermine these bonds, that is why I'm in favour of decentralised and relatively small government. But the idea it can have no moral role is simply an a priori and unsupported assumption and makes no sense. Government as an important aspect of social order and social and cultural consciousness, to be morally and culturally neutral would be to act against social and culture values and beliefs and there is no reason why encouragement of these values and beliefs should not sometimes be supported by law.

Once we turn 18 our family has no control over us. A priest cannot sacrifice one of us to his God if we disagree with him. These institutions cannot send people with guns to your house and send you to prison for not listening to them.
 
Re: Marijuna

That does not mean that it is necessary to support morality or that private actors can do the same job more efficiently.
Yes it does, it means the government must not completely ignore this morality, indeed it must be animated by it and that it can sometimes have a cautious and limited hand in more specific initiatives to support social morality. Why would we a priori rule out the government having some small role anyway? The government can use force, why would it never be okay to protect people from vice through force?
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

Yes it does, it means the government must not completely ignore this morality, indeed it must be animated by it and that it can sometimes have a cautious and limited hand in more specific initiatives to support social morality. Why would we a priori rule out the government having some small role anyway? The government can use force, why would it never be okay to protect people from vice through force?

If someone decides to do drugs, provide sexual services for drugs, or engage in some other vice, the act itself does nothing coerce others. It violates no one else's rights. Other people might not like or may even be affected by the decision, but it is not their body. It is not their choice to make for that person. Even if we ignored the liberty argument, banning vices would still not be a good idea. Banning vices does not really work. People would still do it, except they would then do it in a dangerous, criminal economy that is far more likely to create negative externalities than an open market. Amsterdam and Nevada have decriminalized or legalized prostitution with good results. All you have brought up are subjective abstractions.
 
Re: Marijuna

If someone decides to do drugs, provide sexual services for drugs, or engage in some other vice, the act itself does nothing coerce others. It violates no one else's rights. Other people might not like or may even be affected by the decision, but it is not their body. It is not their choice to make for that person.
Some things have social and cultural effects beyond their immediate users and those immediately effected by them. Again you are basic to implying a very atomist position.

Even if we ignored the liberty argument, banning vices would still not be a good idea. Banning vices does not really work. People would still do it, except they would then do it in a dangerous, criminal economy that is far more likely to create negative externalities than an open market. Amsterdam and Nevada have decriminalized or legalized prostitution with good results. All you have brought up are subjective abstractions.
All I have brought up is reason, we need reason and right thought before proceeding any further. It is simply not true that the government can never have a positive effect, either on making some vices less legitimate and even preventing those who may indulge in them anyway from doing so.
 
Re: Marijuna

Some things have social and cultural effects beyond their immediate users and those immediately effected by them. Again you are basic to implying a very atomist position.

No it isn't. I never said that people's actions don't have an effect on others. I only said that things like prostitution are not coercive. There is a difference.

All I have brought up is reason, we need reason and right thought before proceeding any further. It is simply not true that the government can never have a positive effect, either on making some vices less legitimate and even preventing those who may indulge in them anyway from doing so.

You have not shown why or how this principle applies here.
 
Re: Marijuna

No it isn't. I never said that people's actions don't have an effect on others. I only said that things like prostitution are not coercive. There is a difference.
But you keep saying that as if that means it is never illegitimate to regulate or prohibit such actions.


You have not shown why or how this principle applies here.
Actually I have repeatedly, earlier in the thread.
 
Re: Marijuna

Banning vices does not really work. People would still do it, except they would then do it in a dangerous, criminal economy that is far more likely to create negative externalities than an open market.

Yup, every since we re-legalized alcohol, people are not going blind, dying, or being gunned down by organized mafia syndicates over the rum running.
 
Re: Marijuna

Yup, every since we re-legalized alcohol, people are not going blind, dying, or being gunned down by organized mafia syndicates over the rum running.
In Britain actually since we have had more liberalised licensing laws there have been increased problems with alcohol and its effects. It is the case in Australia as well that too liberal licensing laws, such as the ability of pubs to open till 5am for instance, has often seen increased ill effects of alcohol.

I'm not sure I support them, but you have to admit the drives against smoking, including regulations and prohibitions, have had some effect.
 
Re: Marijuna

But you keep saying that as if that means it is never illegitimate to regulate or prohibit such actions.

I've simply said that vices should not be banned to the extent that they are not coercive

Actually I have repeatedly, earlier in the thread.

Where? I've seen you argue that Amsterdam and Nevada are not good samples, although I don't know what this is based on. Even if these two areas were bad examples. I still have not seen any evidence that banning prostitution solves more problems than it creates.
 
Re: Marijuna

I've simply said that vices should not be banned to the extent that they are not coercive
And I simply pointed out that this is a priori position which I disagree with, and have given various reasons.

Where? I've seen you argue that Amsterdam and Nevada are not good samples, although I don't know what this is based on. Even if these two areas were bad examples. I still have not seen any evidence that banning prostitution solves more problems than it creates.
I argued the topic long ago in this thread, it is all there. I'm afraid I'm not inclined or required to repeat it. I used rational argument rather than any sort of statistical evidence, but firstly we need to start with right thought, secondly statistical evidence is so reliant on rational categorisation and evaluation that it is not the panacea some hold it up to be and lastly in such a setting as this, at this time it is what we have to get master before moving on in our analysis.
 
Re: Marijuna

And I simply pointed out that this is a priori position which I disagree with, and have given various reasons.


I argued the topic long ago in this thread, it is all there. I'm afraid I'm not inclined or required to repeat it. I used rational argument rather than any sort of statistical evidence, but firstly we need to start with right thought, secondly statistical evidence is so reliant on rational categorisation and evaluation that it is not the panacea some hold it up to be and lastly in such a setting as this, at this time it is what we have to get master before moving on in our analysis.

I read through the thread. You said why you thought legalizing prostitution would create problems, but I did not see any evidence to actually support this.
 
Re: Marijuna

I read through the thread. You said why you thought legalizing prostitution would create problems, but I did not see any evidence to actually support this.
You are wrong. I gave rational analysis, including of those places offered as successes. As I said rational evidence is evidence. If we do not start with right thought then we cannot make sense of the issues, and anyway statistics are treacherous, they require a lot of rational categorisation and evaluation to be of any use.
 
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?

I don't know if you have kids or not but despite the laws parents aren't keeping their pre-teens and young teens from the scourage of pot now. Pot is probably more available among teens than any other age group. Unlike the people characterized in the OP I have never been a regular user of pot. I would characterize my history with pot as very casual and rare. So I am not some paranoid, delusional pot head yet I think the pot should be legalized and controlled just like alcohol. We can still just like any parent today try keep our kids from the scourage of pot by our guidance, diligence and training just like we try to keep our kids from other harmful things and activities.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marijuna

If it doesn't help build a society and make it healthy & strong, then it should have no place in a nation of laws.
 
Re: Marijuna

You are wrong. I gave rational analysis, including of those places offered as successes. As I said rational evidence is evidence. If we do not start with right thought then we cannot make sense of the issues, and anyway statistics are treacherous, they require a lot of rational categorisation and evaluation to be of any use.

Statistics may be treacherous, but they are not useless. What specific harms came out of decriminalizing or legalizing prostitution? Amsterdam and Nevada are two very different places that both experienced similar results.
 
Re: Marijuna

If it doesn't help build a society and make it healthy & strong, then it should have no place in a nation of laws.

Human consumption of marijuana predates CIVILIZATION.

Its been with us the whole time and clearly didn't keep us from getting HERE.
 
Back
Top Bottom