• 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!

National Legalization of Marijuana [W:237]

Legal Weed: For or Against


  • Total voters
    75
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

Libertarian- Remove the schedule one status of it, it should not be considered a narcotic at all. - allowing states to decide its fate.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

Libertarian- Remove the schedule one status of it, it should not be considered a narcotic at all. - allowing states to decide its fate.

That would be the next best action if we can't get national legalization. And it would certainly remove the biggest problem Colorado has with their legal marijuana industry...the unavailability of banking support.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

No.

Not national legalization.

Removal of it from the narcotics list as it isn't one, and allow the individual states the right to regulate or ban.

Why should it be prohibited in some states?

Is that possible for alcohol? Are there states that could still do that if they chose? (I dont know)

Is there a reason why it should be treated differently than alcohol?
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

i could give a **** less whether or not you think i am a libertarian

i have said previously in countless posts, it is the "closest" box i can check related to how i lean

as far as your second statement.....it isnt your problem?

maybe, maybe not

but when a stoner gets behind the wheel and takes out someone you love.....remember that statement

maybe it will give you solace.....maybe

As a libertarian, do you believe that alcohol should be legal?
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

Will there be identified gains? Sure. Incarceration costs may immediately decrease. And as far as 'addictions' go, its an easily treated disorder. Essentially...there is no treatment for marijuana addiction. But...all addicts tend to suffer greater health problems. Someone is going to have to foot the bill. To that end, Colorado would be wise to bank that money.


So by that rationale, we should prohibit alcohol again too?
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

Why should it be prohibited in some states?

Is that possible for alcohol? Are there states that could still do that if they chose? (I dont know)

Is there a reason why it should be treated differently than alcohol?

State and local governments are free to enact their own local laws concerning alcohol, though no States prohibit alcohol at this time. Some counties in some States DO prohibit alcohol...they are known as "dry counties".

Alcohol laws of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

So by that rationale, we should prohibit alcohol again too?
Thats a pretty ****ing stupid comment. Even more stupid in context of the conversation that was being had. You might want to do yourself a favor and actually read and know what you are commenting on before you make more stupid comments.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

Marijuana is not, so far as I understand, addicting. Or at least, no more addicting than any other thing that is fun, like playing video games.

Perhaps I'm wrong about that?

No that's not correct. The reason that it is not addictive to some is because of low frequency, however it does become addictive. There is empirical evidence that marijuana use is also the "gateway" drug; not leading to an addiction to marijuana but to other illegal drugs.

I would challenge anyone who thinks this is a good Idea to spend time visiting or volunteering for a drug treatment facility. They all begin with marijuana, and the stories of homelessness, loss of family and near death outcomes are heartbreaking.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-addictive
 
Last edited:
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

No that's not correct. The reason that it is not addictive to some is because of low frequency, however it does become addictive. There is empirical evidence that marijuana use is also the "gateway" drug; not leading to an addiction to marijuana but to other illegal drugs.

OK, but alcohol withdrawal causes a risk of serious medical events like withdrawal seizures and death. No one has ever died from pot withdrawal to my knowledge. And there is also empirical evidence the typical "hard" drug addiction pathway looks like this - nicotine => alcohol => pot => other illegal drugs.

I would challenge anyone who thinks this is a good Idea to spend time visiting or volunteering for a drug treatment facility. They all begin with marijuana, and the stories of homelessness, loss of family and near death outcomes are heartbreaking.

Is marijuana addictive? | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

Or, you could visit jails where we spend $billions housing drug users and dealers for years, and a lot of lives are ruined for non-violent crimes. The fact that addiction is a terrible thing isn't actually an argument for criminalization. And there is no one arguing FOR drug abuse or against treatment. The idea is treat drugs as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. Alcohol use kills 88,000 per year, but no one notes that and longs for prohibition II.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

No national legislation. I'd rather wait and see what happens in the states where it has been legalized. I'm still concerned about the long-term effects it will have on productivity, self-sufficiency, social engagement, driving under the influence, etc.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

OK, but alcohol withdrawal causes a risk of serious medical events like withdrawal seizures and death. No one has ever died from pot withdrawal to my knowledge. And there is also empirical evidence the typical "hard" drug addiction pathway looks like this - nicotine => alcohol => pot => other illegal drugs.



Or, you could visit jails where we spend $billions housing drug users and dealers for years, and a lot of lives are ruined for non-violent crimes. The fact that addiction is a terrible thing isn't actually an argument for criminalization. And there is no one arguing FOR drug abuse or against treatment. The idea is treat drugs as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. Alcohol use kills 88,000 per year, but no one notes that and longs for prohibition II.

Read the link first

What are marijuana

You seem to basing your argument on two things a comparison between alcohol and marijuana and secondly the ineffectiveness of incarceration. To the first point this is the fallacy of false choice. It's not a comparison of which is more damaging that is being debated. The debate is whether we should give legal status to an additional intoxicant. The question isn't proposing replacing alcohol with marijuana, therefore your argument doesn't address the question. To the second point decriminalization will not decrease use, however the criminal aspect may deter some. There is plenty of room for reform in the criminal aspect, and I'd be open to considering ideas with regard to that. The most damaging outcome is for society and government to accept and even promote use.
 
Last edited:
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

Read the link first

What are marijuana

You seem to basing your argument on two things a comparison between alcohol and marijuana and secondly the ineffectiveness of incarceration. To the first point this is the fallacy of false choice. It's not a comparison of which is more damaging that is being debated. The debate is whether we should give legal status to an additional intoxicant. The question isn't proposing replacing alcohol with marijuana, therefore your argument doesn't address the question. To the second point decriminalization will not decrease use, however the criminal aspect may deter some. There is plenty of room for reform in the criminal aspect, and I'd be open to considering ideas with regard to that. The most damaging outcome is for society and government to accept and even promote use.

Not that the NIDA has much credibility in the first place, but did you read the page titled "Is marijuana a gateway drug?" at the NIDA source you were so kind to link to?

let me help:
Your source said:
However, most people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, “harder” substances. Also, cross-sensitization is not unique to marijuana. Alcohol and nicotine also prime the brain for a heightened response to other drugs32 and are, like marijuana, also typically used before a person progresses to other, more harmful substances.

It is important to note that other factors besides biological mechanisms, such as a person’s social environment, are also critical in a person’s risk for drug use. An alternative to the gateway-drug hypothesis is that people who are more vulnerable to drug-taking are simply more likely to start with readily available substances like marijuana, tobacco, or alcohol, and their subsequent social interactions with other drug users increases their chances of trying other drugs. Further research is needed to explore this question.

The gateway hypothesis continues to be unsubstantiated, and even the NIDA with a history of bieng very loose with their "facts" for the sake of propaganda say as much.

here is a link to a post where I take on one particular example of NIDA's dishonesty for the sake of propaganda: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/116356-marijuana-30.html#post1060102977

Even if marijuana is dangerous, that does little more than strengthen my feelings that it should be legal. I do not want drugs legal despite their dangers, I want them legal because of their potential dangers. We can control distribution, make it less available to youth, and delay the average age of first use (which is a HUGE factor for whether or not someone will develop substance abuse/addiction in their lifetime).

We are not doing anything about our drug problem in this so called war on drugs, we are dealing with a manufactured criminal problem. Without the criminality we can take steps to deal with our drug problem head on instead of wasting time, money, and resources for a criminal problem that exists as a direct result of prohibition.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

Not that the NIDA has much credibility in the first place, but did you read the page titled "Is marijuana a gateway drug?" at the NIDA source you were so kind to link to?

let me help:

The gateway hypothesis continues to be unsubstantiated, and even the NIDA with a history of bieng very loose with their "facts" for the sake of propaganda say as much.

here is a link to a post where I take on one particular example of NIDA's dishonesty for the sake of propaganda: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/116356-marijuana-30.html#post1060102977

Even if marijuana is dangerous, that does little more than strengthen my feelings that it should be legal. I do not want drugs legal despite their dangers, I want them legal because of their potential dangers. We can control distribution, make it less available to youth, and delay the average age of first use (which is a HUGE factor for whether or not someone will develop substance abuse/addiction in their lifetime).

We are not doing anything about our drug problem in this so called war on drugs, we are dealing with a manufactured criminal problem. Without the criminality we can take steps to deal with our drug problem head on instead of wasting time, money, and resources for a criminal problem that exists as a direct result of prohibition.

Note in the article, that "social environment" is a major predictor of use. When legalizing, removing stigma and then further promote it's use for reasons of tax revenue, as is currently happening, the social environment becomes more conducive to use. Secondly it may be accurate to sat that a majority of pot smokers do not go on to harder drug use, but it is also accurate to say a vast majority of hard drug users smoked pot prior to their preferred substance. I believe upwards of 90%.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

State and local governments are free to enact their own local laws concerning alcohol, though no States prohibit alcohol at this time. Some counties in some States DO prohibit alcohol...they are known as "dry counties".

Alcohol laws of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

True, however I went to college in a dry county and altho they couldnt sell alcohol, people couid own and drink it. Are dry counties today totally prohibitive?
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

Thats a pretty ****ing stupid comment. Even more stupid in context of the conversation that was being had. You might want to do yourself a favor and actually read and know what you are commenting on before you make more stupid comments.

I did and just did so again and your entire attempt at analogy was pretty ****ing stupid. Most especially in the context of the converstation that was mostly you doing little drive by comments until you had to explain it...in a most inept manner.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

No national legislation. I'd rather wait and see what happens in the states where it has been legalized. I'm still concerned about the long-term effects it will have on productivity, self-sufficiency, social engagement, driving under the influence, etc.

Why? Alcohol has affects on all those things, and probably (speculation but based on the differences in how MJ affects people) it will be alot less damaging.

Anyone that wants pot now gets it and functions in society. That's not going to change radically.

THey legalized pot here in WA and I didnt start smoking it. It's been 2 years and there's been no increase in car accidents, workplace accidents (that I've heard of and they are studying the crap out of it's legalization and affects), etc.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

I did and just did so again and your entire attempt at analogy was pretty ****ing stupid. Most especially in the context of the converstation that was mostly you doing little drive by comments until you had to explain it...in a most inept manner.
Nah...heres what happened. You found this cool "does that mean you support prohibition?" not even half a retard kind of stupid argument and are running around dropping it like its hot. Rev and I were having a discussion NOT on the legalization of marijuana...something we both agree with...but on whether or not it makes sense for the state to hold back some of the revenue from those sales taxes collected to pay for the pending social spending concerns.

Your argument is stupid. Keep going and see if you cant keep doing a great job of proving its not just your argument.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

Nah...heres what happened. You found this cool "does that mean you support prohibition?" not even half a retard kind of stupid argument and are running around dropping it like its hot. Rev and I were having a discussion NOT on the legalization of marijuana...something we both agree with...but on whether or not it makes sense for the state to hold back some of the revenue from those sales taxes collected to pay for the pending social spending concerns.

Your argument is stupid. Keep going and see if you cant keep doing a great job of proving its not just your argument.

And it can be compared the same issues to those applied to governing and revenue for alcohol.

It's not rocket science, just your knee-jerk defensive lack of comprehension.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

True, however I went to college in a dry county and altho they couldnt sell alcohol, people couid own and drink it. Are dry counties today totally prohibitive?

I don't know. That link I gave you has the best info I've seen, but I didn't read all of it.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

And it can be compared the same issues to those applied to governing and revenue for alcohol.

It's not rocket science, just your knee-jerk defensive lack of comprehension.
So..the latter then. Good to know.

We're done.

FM
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

So..the latter then. Good to know.

We're done.

FM

I'm glad you finally seem to understand...but then didnt answer the question. How is that treatment by govt any different than for alcohol? And if not, why should pot remain illegal?

Or was this just your way of avoiding the question? (Your final comments seem to indicate that)
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

Why? Alcohol has affects on all those things, and probably (speculation but based on the differences in how MJ affects people) it will be alot less damaging.
That may be true, but I'm not of the view that because we have one product that people can abuse, we might as well have 2, or 5, or 10 products they can abuse.

Anyone that wants pot now gets it and functions in society.
I'd say that in most sectors pot is an occasional treat. If it were legalized and easily accessible, use is likely to increase, and it remains to be seen how that will affect society long-term.

THey legalized pot here in WA and I didnt start smoking it. It's been 2 years and there's been no increase in car accidents, workplace accidents (that I've heard of and they are studying the crap out of it's legalization and affects), etc.
Yes, well, we can give it 10 years.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

Well let's just say I grew up in Colorado.

We all know people who do nothing but sit around and smoke weed all day. High all day, no motivation to do anything except play playstation.

I don't like seeing that, therefore I'm against legalizing marijuana.

Where are they getting their money??? I don't know anyone who 'sits around and smokes weed all day'.

I think it should be legal. It's insane that so many taxpayer dollars are being wasted on enforcement, when things like tobacco and alcohol, which are far more harmful, are legal. (no, I am not for making either of those illegal)

I also think it's insane that my doctor will give me all the percocet, oxycontin and codeine I want, but won't sign the papers for legal medical marijuana. People die from legal prescription drugs, I have not heard of one death solely cause by marijuana use.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana

Well let's just say I grew up in Colorado.

We all know people who do nothing but sit around and smoke weed all day. High all day, no motivation to do anything except play playstation.

I don't like seeing that, therefore I'm against legalizing marijuana.

Do you have any thoughts on percentages? You know, the ratio of people who use weed responsibly vs those who don't? I don't know what that ratio would be, but I suspect there are far fewer who don't use responsibly. I'm supposing it's much the same way with alcohol.

I have a couple of questions, though. Do you think the legality of weed in Colorado affects that ratio? Do you think people who don't use weed responsibly use less if it's illegal?

And then there is the issue of whether it is justified to restrict ALL people who use weed...whether responsibly or not...because there is some number, which could be quite small who do not?

This is just my opinion, of course, but I think those who would use it irresponsibly will do so whether it's legal or not.
 
Re: National Legalization of Marijuana


I read it - drugs are bad, pot included. It's not the argument we're having, which is should pot be legal or illegal.

You seem to basing your argument on two things a comparison between alcohol and marijuana and secondly the ineffectiveness of incarceration. To the first point this is the fallacy of false choice. It's not a comparison of which is more damaging that is being debated.

I understand pot should be evaluated on its own merits, but the comparison to the legal recreational drug and the now illegal one is legitimate. Besides, whether you like it or not, the public has already done the comparison and most of us can't figure out why we ban one but not the one that kills 88,000 a year, costs $200B in medical costs, etc. So the public doesn't respect laws against using pot - they don't see them as legitimate because of the massive double standard of a War on Some Drugs used by Some People.

Second, on its merits, I can't think of any good reason to continue the War on Pot. What has it accomplished? It's available everywhere, cheap, potent, sold routinely to kids of any age, is part of the underground economy, rewards and enriches gangs and international drug cartels, fills our jails with non-violent offenders, and hasn't dented the availability, and NEVER WILL. Heck, it can be grown anywhere. What do we hope to gain from this War on Pot? More prison spending is doable - we can shatter our own record for most prisoners in raw numbers and per capita! - but other than that I can't see any realistic goal.

The debate is whether we should give legal status to an additional intoxicant. The question isn't proposing replacing alcohol with marijuana, therefore your argument doesn't address the question. To the second point decriminalization will not decrease use, however the criminal aspect may deter some. There is plenty of room for reform in the criminal aspect, and I'd be open to considering ideas with regard to that. The most damaging outcome is for society and government to accept and even promote use.

What is wrong with society accepting use? Shouldn't adults be free to get high from pot or alcohol? If not, why not?
 
Back
Top Bottom