• 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!

Should weed be legalized?

Should weed be legalized in the US?

  • Weed should be legalized for those whose religious beliefs dictate otherwise (like Rasta's).

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    56
Legalization means increased availability which means increased usage and increased users.
Like I said, there is no evidence that prohibition has any effect on lowering the rate of drug use, and there is no evidence that legalization of any drug would lead to an increase in the use of that drug. If you know of any such evidence, please post it, and then let these guys know:

World Health Organization said:
“The U.S., which has been driving much of the world’s drug research and drug policy agenda, stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies. … The Netherlands, with a less criminally punitive approach to cannabis use than the US, has experienced lower levels of use, particularly among younger adults. Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in nation level rates of illegal drug use.

The World Health Organization Documents Failure of U.S. Drug Policies

CATO Institute said:
"Some supporters of drug prohibition claim that its benefits are undeniable and self-evident. Their main assumption is that without prohibition drug use would skyrocket, with disastrous results. But there is little evidence for this commonly held belief. In fact, in the few cases where empirical evidence does exist it lends little support to the prediction of soaring drug use. For example, in two places in the Western world where use of small amounts of marijuana is legal--the Netherlands and Alaska--the rate of marijuana consumption is arguably lower than in the continental United States, where marijuana is banned. In 1982, 6.3 percent of American high school seniors smoked marijuana daily, but only 4 percent did so in Alaska. In 1985, 5.5 percent of American high school seniors used marijuana daily, but in the Netherlands the rate was only 0.5 percent.[6] These are hardly controlled comparisons--no such comparisons exist--but the numbers that are available do not bear out the drastic scenario portrayed by supporters of continued prohibition."

Thinking about Drug Legalization | James Ostrowski | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Institute of Medicine said:
Sanctions against drug use are a preeminent feature of policy on illegal drugs, yet very little is known about the actual effects of these sanctions on drug use (independent of the effects of other social controls).

Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us

The empirical literature bearing on the declarative effects of legal sanctions is scant, mainly because it is so difficult to distinguish these effects from deterrent effects or to disentangle the effects of preexisting social norms and informal controls from the declarative effects of formally prescribed sanctions. In one of a series of studies investigating this issue, Grasmick et al. (1991) showed that an antilittering campaign increased the likelihood of compliance because people felt that violating the norm would be an occasion for shame or embarrassment. Similarly, substantial increases in seat belt use and child restraint after enactment of mandatory legal requirements appear to be attributable primarily to declarative effects (in this case, probably a pedagogical effect) rather than deterrence (Institute of Medicine, 1999). (Interestingly, proponents of so-called primary enforcement of seat belt laws—allowing a penalty for failing to wear a seat belt even if the driver has committed no other violation—argue that an increase in the deterrent threat is now needed to increase the rate of seat belt wearing beyond current levels.) No studies have successfully isolated the declarative effects of sanctions against use of illegal drugs from their deterrent effects.

Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us
 
So james, would you also be in favor of banning alcohol and tabacco sales? It would reduce the amount of users and abusers and all the other things you said you didn't want marijuana legalized for.
 
Why not?



Because such debates should not stop with the legalization of weed. We should stop waging war on drug users, that only makes the problems worse. We should wage war on drugs by reducing demand through education, like we've done fairly successfully with tobacco.



Good, because the same logic applies and the use of cocaine should not be illegal either.


This claim about permanent memory loss is almost as old as the drug war itself, but has never been substantiated that I'm aware of. Can you please provide a link to this research?

Regardless, the argument that says "drug X is unhealthy, therefore drug X must be illegal" has never held up under scrutiny to begin with. Permanent health problems or not, no drug has ever been made safer by slapping its users with arbitrary criminal charges. There is no evidence that prohibition has any effect on lowering the rate of drug use, and there is no evidence that legalization of any drug would lead to an increase in the use of that drug.

People are educated about cigarettes, do they stop smoking them? No. Whats going to make putting highly addictive substances on the market any different? Do you just say this stuff to stand out or something? Are you ignorant to the damage drugs have caused to society, it has torn people and families apart, destroyed lives, and serves no good cause to society apart from the death and destruction of many. If you had an addict in your family, to see what it does to them, you would have the sense to review such idiotic posts. We wage war on drugs for a reason. Because they serve to destroy. We dont therefore legalize them, we reform our policies to combat the war more effectively. I cannot believe im reading this.
 
People are educated about cigarettes, do they stop smoking them? No. Whats going to make putting highly addictive substances on the market any different?
Who cares? It's not your choice to make. If someone wants to kill themselves knowingly, it is hardly your business.

Are you ignorant to the damage drugs have caused to society, it has torn people and families apart, destroyed lives, and serves no good cause to society apart from the death and destruction of many.
Completely unsubstantied opinion. The Drug War causes more strife for families and society than recreational drug use ever could. It's because of the War that people are taken from their homes and families destroyed.

If you had an addict in your family, to see what it does to them, you would have the sense to review such idiotic posts.
Stop making assumptions.

We wage war on drugs for a reason. Because they serve to destroy.
Again, you cannot prove your statement. I think certain drugs serve to enlighten. So now where are we?

I cannot believe im reading this.
Yeah, tell me about it. :2wave:
 
Who cares? It's not your choice to make. If someone wants to kill themselves knowingly, it is hardly your business.

Okay, lets get rid of the police force then and let everybody kill each other and themselves. Its none of our business.


Completely unsubstantied opinion. The Drug War causes more strife for families and society than recreational drug use ever could. It's because of the War that people are taken from their homes and families destroyed.

Yeah exactly, imagine what putting them on the market for all to enjoy would do?

Stop making assumptions.

Im not...

Again, you cannot prove your statement. I think certain drugs serve to enlighten. So now where are we?

Like Cocaine? Heroin? Do you know trafficers use drugs to stone up the women and sell them after they have kidnapped them? Imagine the bundles of money they will recieve after finding out they dont have to pay shed loads of money for heroin from shady sellers.

Yeah, tell me about it. :2wave:

Im not actually suprised. I have debated with you before and its well known your slightly retarded.
 
People are educated about cigarettes, do they stop smoking them? No.
Actually, yes. Yes they do.

tobacco3.gif


Smoking and Tobacco Use | Tables, Charts, and Graphs | Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) | CDC

Are you ignorant to the damage drugs have caused to society, it has torn people and families apart, destroyed lives, and serves no good cause to society apart from the death and destruction of many. If you had an addict in your family, to see what it does to them, you would have the sense to review such idiotic posts.
I have two older brothers who are recovering drug addicts. One of them was addicted to crack for about 8 years. At one point he was so skinny we thought he was going to die from malnourishment. He came to live with us in Arizona when he finally decided to get clean, and he stayed in bed for days suffering from withdrawal symptoms. The other one spent the better part of his adult life in jail for non-violent drug offenses. He has tried every drug known to man. At one point he was addicted to four different narcotics at the same time. So yes, I know quite well what drugs can do to people. I watched drugs almost totally destroy their lives, and I also watched the criminal justice system do nothing but make their problems worse.

We wage war on drugs for a reason. Because they serve to destroy. We dont therefore legalize them, we reform our policies to combat the war more effectively. I cannot believe im reading this.
Yes, we wage war on drugs for a reason, but the way we've been waging that war has been a failure. It's no longer a war on drugs, it's a war on drug users. When someone is strung out and addicted to drugs, they have serious problems. It does them no good whatsoever to slap them with criminal penalties on top of an already bad situation. It does nothing but cause more problems. When a solution causes more problems then it solves, it's time for another solution.

Prohibition fails to correctly identify the drug problem as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. It's the wrong tool for the job.
 
The same reason I do not want any other drug legalized for recreational use. Legalization means increased availability which means increased usage and increased users. Those increased users mean they will become my problem if they decided to drive on the road,my problem if they decided they are a addict and want tax payer funded problem to help them kick the habit, my problem if employers refuse to hire junkies and they mooch off the tax payers by going on welfare, my problem if the government decides to sucker tax payers into voting for a tax increase voter initiative by raising taxes for some program that will eventually require that something else to be taxed in order to keep the program funded, my problem if they decided to have tax payer funded needle exchange programs and my problem if junkies with kids can no longer take care of their kids due to their drug habit. I am sure that will claim some bull**** that legalization will not mean increased usage. People are more than likely to try something if it is legal and they do not have to worry or suffer the consequences.

Legalization will take control of this out of the criminals hands. It will be controlled and regulated. What could be the possible problem with this. I can think of Alcohol as being abused all the time. Weed would be no worse.
 
Okay, lets get rid of the police force then and let everybody kill each other and themselves. Its none of our business.
Wrong. When I take drugs, I only put myself at risk. When you murder someone, you take another individual's life without their permission. Please refrain from ridiculous hyperbolic arguments.
Yeah exactly, imagine what putting them on the market for all to enjoy would do?
Cut the crime rate, increase revenue for the Government, etc.
Im not...
You assumed that some individuals have never had a friend or family member addicted to drugs.
Like Cocaine? Heroin? Do you know trafficers use drugs to stone up the women and sell them after they have kidnapped them? Imagine the bundles of money they will recieve after finding out they dont have to pay shed loads of money for heroin from shady sellers.
Right. They would have to legally obtain it. Which means that they would have to put themselves at risk by buying it from a Government regulated source. Great argument. :roll:

Im not actually suprised. I have debated with you before and its well known your slightly retarded.
Nice. This is coming from someone who cannot spell "surprised", "receive" or "traffickers" properly. :lol:
 
I have two older brothers who are recovering drug addicts. One of them was addicted to crack for about 8 years. At one point he was so skinny we thought he was going to die from malnourishment. He came to live with us in Arizona when he finally decided to get clean, and he stayed in bed for days suffering from withdrawal symptoms. The other one spent the better part of his adult life in jail for non-violent drug offenses. He has tried every drug known to man. At one point he was addicted to four different narcotics at the same time. So yes, I know quite well what drugs can do to people. I watched drugs almost totally destroy their lives, and I also watched the criminal justice system do nothing but make their problems worse.

So legalizing will help your family...how?
Yes, we wage war on drugs for a reason, but the way we've been waging that war has been a failure. It's no longer a war on drugs, it's a war on drug users. When someone is strung out and addicted to drugs, they have serious problems. It does them no good whatsoever to slap them with criminal penalties on top of an already bad situation. It does nothing but cause more problems. When a solution causes more problems then it solves, it's time for another solution.

Which is why the justice systems approach to drug users should change. This doesnt involve legalizing. I mean, this logic is totally wrong. It will be meet with disastrous consequences.

Prohibition fails to correctly identify the drug problem as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. It's the wrong tool for the job.

There is rehab for users who want to change. If they admit to using at a clinic and submit themselves to get better, they wont do time for it. Therefore the state does acknowledge it as a medical problem, of course it does. Its those who get caught they you should be worrying about.


Educational campaigns is the reason why it has fallen. But how much lower would those stats be if we illegalized tobacco? Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. When I take drugs, I only put myself at risk. When you murder someone, you take another individual's life without their permission. Please refrain from ridiculous hyperbolic arguments.
Oh yes because when stoned on cocaine you dont pose a threat to society!


Cut the crime rate, increase revenue for the Government, etc.
You assumed that some individuals have never had a friend or family member addicted to drugs.

From the way your talking, im narrowing that assumption to you only.

Right. They would have to legally obtain it. Which means that they would have to put themselves at risk by buying it from a Government regulated source. Great argument. :roll:

Put themselves at risk? Of what? Its legal! The government wont care.

Nice. This is coming from someone who cannot spell "surprised", "receive" or "traffickers" properly. :lol:

Debate English or politics? Do you think spelling is my priority here? Ill stop writing down "lol" too, since the word doesnt exist.
 
Binary Digit, how much of that chart is education, and how much is increased taxes making cigarettes ungodly expensive?
 
Oh yes because when stoned on cocaine you dont pose a threat to society!
No, you don't. You become a threat when you decide to do something that infringes upon the rights of others. Since there is no infringement, your argument fails.
From the way your talking, im narrowing that assumption to you only.
Then your assumption would be wrong. I have a mother with Ehlers-Danlos who is addicted to prescription painkillers. That's a LEGAL addiction, by the way. So much for your silly argument.

Put themselves at risk? Of what? Its legal! The government wont care.
At risk of a background check. Anyone involved with human trafficking would have a record. If you purchase drugs in a public place and you are a criminal, it's a lot easier to get busted.

Debate English or politics? Do you think spelling is my priority here? Ill stop writing down "lol" too, since the word doesnt exist.
Apparently it's "Try to Debate Politics, but just call people names, make assumptions and make hyperbolic and unsubstantiated arguments" to you.
 
This claim about permanent memory loss is almost as old as the drug war itself, but has never been substantiated that I'm aware of. Can you please provide a link to this research?

Marijuana Affects Memory, Attention, Speech, Thinking - This is provoked by its main component, cannabinol - Softpedia

Researchers at Rutgers University have found that the marijuana's active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), interferes
with the synchronized activity between neurons in the hippocampus of rats and decreases brain waves, impairing this way memory formation.
 
No, you don't. You become a threat when you decide to do something that infringes upon the rights of others. Since there is no infringement, your argument fails.

My next door neigbour used to take cocaine consistently. I woke up one morning and she wasnt there. Why? Got stoned, stabbed 4 people, one being a pregnant lady, then turned the knife onto herself.

Then your assumption would be wrong. I have a mother with Ehlers-Danlos who is addicted to prescription painkillers. That's a LEGAL addiction, by the way. So much for your silly argument.

Theres no such thing as a legal addiction. If she was caught by authorities deliberately overdosing and they could proove it, should could go down for it. But because they are subscribed to her, it could make the prooving process harder for police, but it doesnt make it a legal addiction.

At risk of a background check. Anyone involved with human trafficking would have a record. If you purchase drugs in a public place and you are a criminal, it's a lot easier to get busted.

Not all human traffickers have a record enlightened one, incase you didnt know. Next.

Apparently it's "Try to Debate Politics, but just call people names, make assumptions and make hyperbolic and unsubstantiated arguments" to you.

Shame its not, im sure you'd feel right at home otherwise.
 
My next door neigbour used to take cocaine consistently. I woke up one morning and she wasnt there. Why? Got stoned, stabbed 4 people, one being a pregnant lady, then turned the knife onto herself.
So can you prove that Cocaine made her do it? People do things like this when they're sober. It's called mental instability.

Theres no such thing as a legal addiction. If she was caught by authorities deliberately overdosing and they could proove it, should could go down for it. But because they are subscribed to her, it could make the prooving process harder for police, but it doesnt make it a legal addiction.
Addiction does not require overdosing, nor is addiction illegal... :doh

Not all human traffickers have a record enlightened one, incase you didnt know. Next.
Not all human traffickers dope up their women, either. You've been watching "Taken", I presume.

Shame its not, im sure you'd feel right at home otherwise.
More nonsense? Are you really using the "I know you are but what am I?" debate tactic? :rofl
 
This does not support what you said, which was that marijuana can "harm your memory capacity at a later date." From your link:

"Overall, our findings indicate that under the influence of cannabinoids, neurons are liberated from population control."

This research studied the effects of memory while intoxicated. It says nothing about permanent memory loss following the short-term effects of THC.

My next door neigbour used to take cocaine consistently. I woke up one morning and she wasnt there. Why? Got stoned, stabbed 4 people, one being a pregnant lady, then turned the knife onto herself.
Was cocaine the cause of all this, or merely a symptom of a bigger problem? I think it's pretty irrational to assume cocaine had anything to do with this.
 
So can you prove that Cocaine made her do it? People do things like this when they're sober. It's called mental instability.

Mental instability as a result of the Cocaine...she isnt the only person i know who pops that ****. The other lot have done some unbelievable things, especially when under its influence.
Not all human traffickers dope up their women, either. You've been watching "Taken", I presume.

Watching what?
Its a typical tactic of traffickers especially in Europe. But obviously it suits you to think otherwise.
 
Was cocaine the cause of all this, or merely a symptom of a bigger problem? I think it's pretty irrational to assume cocaine had anything to do with this.

The doctors said her thinking was severley distored and they found high amounts of hormones in her body because the cocaine has that effect on the brain that it distorts the thinking process, impaires the speech and sometimes causes the brain to instruct the body to release large amounts of hormones. It caused her to go mad, not to mention she wasnt thinking because of the drug. And the cost to society? Lives. But you know, who cares??
 
Last edited:
Was cocaine the cause of all this, or merely a symptom of a bigger problem? I think it's pretty irrational to assume cocaine had anything to do with this.

I think you are oversimplifying. Cocaine does seem to affect your ability to make rational decisions while under the influence. I doubt cocaine was the sole, or even the primary reason, but it certainly could have been a part of it.
 
My next door neigbour used to take cocaine consistently. I woke up one morning and she wasnt there. Why? Got stoned, stabbed 4 people, one being a pregnant lady, then turned the knife onto herself.

How could this have happened!? Aren't there drug laws in your country?
 

Wait! I thought drug laws stopped these kind of things from happening. How was she able to obtain cocaine? Is she some kind of special agent?

just imagine if they where legal and therefore easily accessible. :doh

They are easily accessible. Millions upon millions of people use illegal drugs. I could get enough cocaine to kill a race horse within the next hour.
 
Binary_Digit said:
I think it's pretty irrational to assume cocaine had anything to do with this.
I think you are oversimplifying. Cocaine does seem to affect your ability to make rational decisions while under the influence. I doubt cocaine was the sole, or even the primary reason, but it certainly could have been a part of it.
You're right, what I said was too broad and probably inaccurate. I agree more with how you said it than how I did.

Yes, just imagine if they where legal and therefore easily accessible. :doh
You mean like the disasterous affects of the Netherlands' drug policy?

The U.S., which has been driving much of the world’s drug research and drug policy agenda, stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies. … The Netherlands, with a less criminally punitive approach to cannabis use than the US, has experienced lower levels of use, particularly among younger adults.

Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in nation level rates of illegal drug use.

The World Health Organization Documents Failure of U.S. Drug Policies
:doh
 
Last edited:
Wait! I thought drug laws stopped these kind of things from happening. How was she able to obtain cocaine? Is she some kind of special agent?

Give me a second to find the post where i stated such laws will completely stop these kinds of things happening. Oh yeah, i didnt say that. Because legalization will have the opposite affect!! Man, reverse logic, i see how it works!

They are easily accessible. Millions upon millions of people use illegal drugs. I could get enough cocaine to kill a race horse within the next hour.

So they will be less accessible when sold in liquor stores by the government? :rofl Good night, kid. :2wave:
 
You're right, what I said was too broad and probably inaccurate. I agree more with how you said it than how I did.


You mean like the disasterous affects of the Netherlands' drug policy?

:doh

They didnt legalize anything. Policy reform is the magic word, i told you. You dont have anything, nobody has ever tried complete legalization of drugs because most politicians know that would be disastrous. Saving us from such substances is hardly a breach of civil liberties.
 
Back
Top Bottom