• 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!

Do you support federal marijuana legalization?

Should marijuana be legalized at the federal level?

  • No, but we should decriminalize it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    65

Vapor

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
150
Reaction score
64
Location
Oklahoma City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Figures in the last 6 months have ranged from 47% to 56% of Americans in favor of marijuana legalization, and roughly 81% support legalization for medicinal purposes. 60% say that the matter should be decided by the states. Let's see how the DP community feels about this. Should marijuana be legalized (for medicinal and/or recreational use), decriminalized, or prohibited?
 
Don't really care.
 
i support full legalization; basically, the alcohol model. adults should be able to buy it commercially or to make their own.

edit to add i that support full national legalization. a hodgepodge of backward states taking twenty years to finally legalize it while the states around them have various degrees of legality will promote proliferation of blackmarkets / crime / confusion.
 
Figures in the last 6 months have ranged from 47% to 56% of Americans in favor of marijuana legalization, and roughly 81% support legalization for medicinal purposes. 60% say that the matter should be decided by the states. Let's see how the DP community feels about this. Should marijuana be legalized (for medicinal and/or recreational use), decriminalized, or prohibited?

Legalization at the federal level does leave it to the states, just as the repeal of alcohol prohibition did.
 
Legalize it. Not only is it less harmful than alcohol, it's inherently immoral to imprison human beings for non-violent behavior that effects nobody but themselves.
 
Exactly.
Yes, for recreational use
Leave it up to the states to decide
Legalize/decriminalize all drug

All 3 apply. By leaving it up to the states, I seriously doubt anything but pot will be legalized. States are stupid in that way. Notice how prostitution is illegal in every state (except remote NV) even though it would be wiser and safer to legalize brothels? Same thing with drugs. They should be able to legalize - but they won't.
 
Keep it illegal. I would support less jail time but instead imposing heavy fines on marijuana users.
 
Yeah, legalize it. The minor harm it may cause isn't worth the massive cost to enforce laws against it.
 
Not no but hell no....Its bad enough we have a bunch of drunks out there killing innocent people...We should never legalize grass and just add more spaced out people to the equation.
 
Keep it illegal. I would support less jail time but instead imposing heavy fines on marijuana users.

What's that going to accomplish?
 
What's that going to accomplish?

Paying for the war on drugs and rehab. Non-violent drug users don't need to be behind bars, but I'm fine with imposing heavy fines for breaking the law. Maybe they'll think twice when the penalty for lighting up is $1,000+
 
Figures in the last 6 months have ranged from 47% to 56% of Americans in favor of marijuana legalization, and roughly 81% support legalization for medicinal purposes. 60% say that the matter should be decided by the states. Let's see how the DP community feels about this. Should marijuana be legalized (for medicinal and/or recreational use), decriminalized, or prohibited?

It should be legalized for both recreational and medical usage at the federal level.
 
Paying for the war on drugs and rehab. Non-violent drug users don't need to be behind bars, but I'm fine with imposing heavy fines for breaking the law. Maybe they'll think twice when the penalty for lighting up is $1,000+

I think I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying we should keep something illegal just so we can fine it to fund other projects? Because that's what it sounds like.
 
I think I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying we should keep something illegal just so we can fine it to fund other projects? Because that's what it sounds like.

I think it should remain illegal because it is bad for public health and we don't need another substance like that as an OTC substance.

What I am saying though is that using marijuana shouldn't get someone thrown in jail, instead they should be fined.
 
I think it should remain illegal because it is bad for public health and we don't need another substance like that as an OTC substance.

What I am saying though is that using marijuana shouldn't get someone thrown in jail, instead they should be fined.

Do you approve of fines for all things that are bad for public health?
 
Do you approve of fines for all things that are bad for public health?

No, and I don't have to since you are trying to make a straw man argument.

I'll say it again. Non-violent drug offenses should receive fines, not jail time. I don't support legalizing drugs and especially to the level of OTC status, but I also don't think the recreational pot user needs to go to jail for breaking the law.
 
No, and I don't have to since you are trying to make a straw man argument.

I'll say it again. Non-violent drug offenses should receive fines, not jail time. I don't support legalizing drugs and especially to the level of OTC status, but I also don't think the recreational pot user needs to go to jail for breaking the law.

I didn't respond to the jail issue because we're both in agreement on that. However, you said that marijuana use should be fined "because it's bad for public health." That was your reason. So why shouldn't you fine something else if it's bad for public health?

I also have no idea what "straw man" you're referring to.
 
I voted to leave it to the states. The real danger with the feds jumping in is that they'll
A) **** up the details and
B) establish it by fiat as a standard for all the states to follow or else.
 
Figures in the last 6 months have ranged from 47% to 56% of Americans in favor of marijuana legalization, and roughly 81% support legalization for medicinal purposes. 60% say that the matter should be decided by the states. Let's see how the DP community feels about this. Should marijuana be legalized (for medicinal and/or recreational use), decriminalized, or prohibited?

I don't favor legalization nor do I oppose decriminalizing it. I'm unaware of any evidence that marijuana is any more addictive or disruptive than alcohol or tobacco, each of which are highly regulated and taxed. I see no reason not to do the same with marijuana. I still wouldn't have any interest in using it. It would, perhaps, reduce the number of petty crimes as well as houses being turned into grow-ops both of which would be good things. Courts are jammed with minor drug infractions and as a society we have to accept some activities that hurt no one and punish them only when they do.
 
I didn't respond to the jail issue because we're both in agreement on that. However, you said that marijuana use should be fined "because it's bad for public health." That was your reason. So why shouldn't you fine something else if it's bad for public health?

I also have no idea what "straw man" you're referring to.

No, I don't think it should be legalized because it is bad for public health and we don't need it as an OTC product. I do think that violators should be fined instead of imprisoned.
 
No, I don't think it should be legalized because it is bad for public health and we don't need it as an OTC product.

Why shouldn't a principle that you apply to one thing not be applied elsewhere?

I do think that violators should be fined instead of imprisoned.

I am clear on this. It need not be brought up again.
 
Last edited:
I think the point that Cardinal is making is why not do the same for tobacco and alcohol. Make them illegal but limit punishment to fines. Certainly those 2 aren't helping public health much.

If somebody is ambitious enough to produce their own, so be it. As long as they don';t get caught, it will surely discourage many.

Until 10 years ago, possession of marijuana in any amount was a felony in NV. So, we have/had tens of thousands of decent people that are now ex-felons. Nowadays, the fines are the main response to illegal possession.

But consistency and rationality dictate that all these things be in one category or another. Alcohol is definitely a near-dangerous drug and tobacco is a major health problem.

Please notice I don't bring up obesity. That is simply not a deliberate negative health condition.


No, I don't think it should be legalized because it is bad for public health and we don't need it as an OTC product. I do think that violators should be fined instead of imprisoned.
 
Please notice I don't bring up obesity. That is simply not a deliberate negative health condition.

What's the difference between possibly getting cardiovascular disease as a result of obesity and possibly getting lung cancer as result of smoking tobacco?
 
Easy to answer.

I have known a number of people who would be considered obese. I have seen their valiant efforts at diet and exercize and yet, as one of them put it "I drink a glass of water and I gain 5 pouns". In short, there are many obese people who are not obese because of irresponsible choices but because of metabolic and genetic hereditary issues. To punish anyone for something that is not a complete choice, is as morally wrong as I can imagine. Myself, I am anything ut obese, I'm what you would call slender.

Tobacco is a completely different choice. True, it is highly addictive and for some, at least, very difficult to quit. But it isn't impossible to quit. I am a smoker and I would still advocate for eliminating all formal, legal options to continue my habit with. If I just can't quit, then I must choose to take the risk of growing and curing my own tobacco, in secret and in shame. Since I have a "black thumb", I assure you I would just quit. But it certainly has been my CHOICE to continue.




What's the difference between possibly getting cardiovascular disease as a result of obesity and possibly getting lung cancer as result of smoking tobacco?
 
Easy to answer.

I have known a number of people who would be considered obese. I have seen their valiant efforts at diet and exercize and yet, as one of them put it "I drink a glass of water and I gain 5 pouns". In short, there are many obese people who are not obese because of irresponsible choices but because of metabolic and genetic hereditary issues. To punish anyone for something that is not a complete choice, is as morally wrong as I can imagine. Myself, I am anything ut obese, I'm what you would call slender.

Tobacco is a completely different choice. True, it is highly addictive and for some, at least, very difficult to quit. But it isn't impossible to quit. I am a smoker and I would still advocate for eliminating all formal, legal options to continue my habit with. If I just can't quit, then I must choose to take the risk of growing and curing my own tobacco, in secret and in shame. Since I have a "black thumb", I assure you I would just quit. But it certainly has been my CHOICE to continue.

Do you think the majority of people who are obese are living healthy lifestyles, eating healthy, exercising regularly, etc? Or do you think the number of people who are obese due to genetic factors is a slim minority? I would have to go with the latter. Obesity has been on an exponential increase in the United States. There's a reason for that, and its not genetic.
 
Back
Top Bottom