• 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 marijuana be legalized?

Should we legalize pot?

  • Total voters
    113
angrybeaver said:
You could make the same argument about enforcing any law.
What it would accomplish is less cannabis on the streets if the law was enforced strongly enough.
Click to expand...

And that would be worth the increase in prison populations and government intrusiveness?

Throwing non-violent drug users into PRISON is something you find acceptable?
 
angrybeaver said:
Selling cannabis that is weaker than the skunk or white widow is a compromise as I stated in an earlier post.
If we are going to allow cannabis to be legalised then it would be more sensible to have pot which is less dangerous.
If someone wants to get wasted on alchohol or pot then there is not much we can do to stop them.
Click to expand...

low THC marijuana is arguably MORE dangerous in that you have to smoke more of it to get the same effect.

Which is worse: someone drinking 120 ounces of beer, or someone drinking 15 ounces of Scotch, which is 8 times as concentrated???

This is like saying an 800 mg motrin is more dangerous than a 400 mg. - If I take (2) 400 mgs, or if I take (1) 800 mg motrin, to get the exact same effect, they are equally as dangerous.

Of course if you want to play the "high THC content is so much more dangerous" game, then why is there a prescription 100% THC pill available that is touted as a "safer" alternative?

If 20% THC is so much more dangerous than 5% THC, than 100% THC has to be MUCH MUCH more dangerous than 20%.

your reasoning is FATALLY flawed. Concentration changes dosage.


Absinthe not only has a high alchohol content but also contains wormwood which has the same effect as thc so my argument stands.
Click to expand...

has the same effect as THC? it interacts with the cannabinoid receptors in the brain and causes the same intoxication??

the effects of absinth are a result of the drug Thujone, which has its own specific effects, it is nothing like a cannabinoid.

your argument stands as well as a two legged stool.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
Too vague then,... sorry.

I can't vote.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

How is that vague? The states will create their own regulatory framework. Seems pretty clear to me.
 
Ethereal said:
How is that vague? The states will create their own regulatory framework. Seems pretty clear to me.
Click to expand...

Without more specifics being linked to the poll question,... I can't vote.

In reference to the poll question,... are we to consider pot being 'legal' like cigarettes? Or like booze?

They are two completely different vices.

Think open containers, second hand smoke, public buildings, operating machinery, driving school busses,. etc.

Would it be legal to drive and smoke pot if pot were to be made legal?

The poll question is too vague for me,...

that's all.
 
Chuz Life said:
Without more specifics being linked to the poll question,... I can't vote.

In reference to the poll question,... are we to consider pot being 'legal' like cigarettes? Or like booze?

They are two completely different vices.

Think open containers, second hand smoke, public buildings, operating machinery, driving school busses,. etc.

Would it be legal to drive and smoke pot if pot were to be made legal?

The poll question is too vague for me,...

that's all.
Click to expand...

Oh, I thought you were asking me specifically. I don't know what the OP means by legalized.
 
marduc said:
low THC marijuana is arguably MORE dangerous in that you have to smoke more of it to get the same effect.

Which is worse: someone drinking 120 ounces of beer, or someone drinking 15 ounces of Scotch, which is 8 times as concentrated???

This is like saying an 800 mg motrin is more dangerous than a 400 mg. - If I take (2) 400 mgs, or if I take (1) 800 mg motrin, to get the exact same effect, and they are equally as dangerous.

Of course if you want to play the "high THC content is so much more dangerous" game, then why is there a prescription 100% THC pill available that is touted as a "safer" alternative?

If 20% THC is so much more dangerous than 5% THC, than 100% THC has to be MUCH MUCH more dangerous than 20%.

your reasoning is FATALLY flawed. Concentration changes dosage.




has the same effect as THC? it interacts with the cannabinoid receptors in the brain and causes the same intoxication??

the effects of absinth are a result of the drug Thujone, which has its own specific effects, it is nothing like a cannabinoid.

your argument stands as well as a two legged stool.
Click to expand...

What are you blathering on about?
Are you really saying that a weaker concentration of a drug is more dangerous than a stronger concentration?
This is idiotic.
A spliff which is strong enough to chill you out is better than one that is strong enough to knock you out.
It doesnt follow that you would smoke spliffs until you get knocked out ,does it?
As for the absinthe I have read that wormwood has similar effects as thc .
Wrong or right the argument stands. You havent got a leg to stand on.
You make toke until you are wasted...maybe you are now.
 
Chuz Life said:
Without more specifics being linked to the poll question,... I can't vote.

In reference to the poll question,... are we to consider pot being 'legal' like cigarettes? Or like booze?

They are two completely different vices.

Think open containers, second hand smoke, public buildings, operating machinery, driving school busses,. etc.

Would it be legal to drive and smoke pot if pot were to be made legal?

The poll question is too vague for me,...

that's all.
Click to expand...

the control measures for both tobacco and alcohol are unique to the substance, we learn from each, we draw from each, and we come up with control measures tailored specifically towards cannabis.

As an intoxicant the structure of the controls surrounding the legality of cannabis most assuredly would more closely resemble the controls in place for alcohol, than it would the controls for tobacco.
 
marduc said:
the control measures for both tobacco and alcohol are unique to the substance, we learn from each, we draw from each, and we come up with control measures tailored specifically towards cannabis.

As an intoxicant the structure of the controls surrounding the legality of cannabis most assuredly would more closely resemble the controls in place for alcohol, than it would the controls for tobacco.
Click to expand...

That's fine,... but it still doesn't tell me what I would be voting for if I voted "yes" to the poll.
 
Chuz Life said:
That's fine,... but it still doesn't tell me what I would be voting for if I voted "yes" to the poll.
Click to expand...

An end to black market distribution of cannabis, don't fret over your options too much I don't think your vote will have any effect on policy. :2razz:
 
marduc said:
An end to black market distribution of cannabis, don't fret over your options too much I don't think your vote will have any effect on policy. :2razz:
Click to expand...

I've stated my position on pot in several forums now.

"I would like to see mere possession de-criminalized,... you having a bail of pot in your trunk affects me no more than you having a trunk full of straw for a pet goat... I would like to see the prisons emptied of those arrested for mere possession and the space made available for those who abuse their freedoms by endangering others. So, I would support more severe punishments for those who drive while high or cause other public disturbances, put people in danger, etc."

But for those who think legalizing pot will give a punk ass drug dealer to quit selling on the streets and take up a job working a drive through somewhere? Get real,... any punk making that kind of money doing what he does is just going to move on to another product, then another and another.

It's as much a cultural thing as it is anything else.
 
angrybeaver said:
What are you blathering on about?
Are you really saying that a weaker concentration of a drug is more dangerous than a stronger concentration?
This is idiotic.
Click to expand...

NO I said: "low THC marijuana is arguably MORE dangerous in that you have to smoke more of it to get the same effect."

A spliff which is strong enough to chill you out is better than one that is strong enough to knock you out.
It doesnt follow that you would smoke spliffs until you get knocked out ,does it?
Click to expand...

a person will smoke as much as it take to get the desired effect. If the desired effect is to get knocked out then they will smoke more until they do get knocked out.

concentration has no bearing

As for the absinthe I have read that wormwood has similar effects as thc .
Wrong or right the argument stands.[/quote]

Here read some more, we will go with ease and convenience from a basic source:

Based on studies that looked only at molecular shape, for many years thujone was thought to act similarly to THC on the cannabinoid receptors. Today this is known to be false because studies have shown that thujone does not activate these receptors. Thujone is a GABA receptor antagonist. By inhibiting GABA receptor activation neurons may fire more easily which can cause muscle spasms and convulsions
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thujone]Thujone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]



it is not the same, nor are the effects the same.

You havent got a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

Than I will confidently sit on the merits of my position.


You make toke until you are wasted...maybe you are now.
Click to expand...

resorting to irrelevant personal swipes already?

Have not been for years, a desire to use does not weigh into my stance on prohibition in any way shape or form.
 
Chuz Life said:
I've stated my position on pot in several forums now.

"I would like to see mere possession de-criminalized,... you having a bail of pot in your trunk affects me no more than you having a trunk full of straw for a pet goat... I would like to see the prisons emptied of those arrested for mere possession and the space made available for those who abuse their freedoms by endangering others. So, I would support more severe punishments for those who drive while high or cause other public disturbances, put people in danger, etc."

But for those who think legalizing pot will give a punk ass drug dealer to quit selling on the streets and take up a job working a drive through somewhere? Get real,... any punk making that kind of money doing what he does is just going to move on to another product, then another and another.

It's as much a cultural thing as it is anything else.
Click to expand...

I agree with some of this, but for purpose of this discussion (legalizing marijuana only) the other products the punk will move on to have an already defined market share, and an already defined distribution network, there will be less money, and less incentive to enter the black market all around.

legalizing marijuana will not create a demand for heroin or cocaine that is not already there, and is not already satisfied.
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
I agree with some of this, but for purpose of this discussion (legalizing marijuana only) the other products the punk will move on to have an already defined market share, and an already defined distribution network, there will be less money, and less incentive to enter the market all around.

legalizing marijuana will not create a demand for heroin or cocaine that is not already there, and is not already satisfied.
Click to expand...

I have some first hand experiences that lead me to conclude that you are completely wrong about that.

I seen the 'gateway' aspect up close and personal on more than one occasion.

In my opinion, You do your side a dis-service by denying or ignoring it.
 
Tsunami said:
For people who say ALL drugs should be legal.. I tend to agree that the drug war is a bad idea. But does this include Rohypnol and other so-called "date rape drugs"? Does this include tranquilizers or anesthetics such as chloroform that could be used as a weapon? Does this include antibiotics that produce drug-resistant disease strains when taken unnecessarily? Does this include chemical weapons or other substances used in their development? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
If you want to take a date-rape drug, why shouldn't you be allowed. I doubt it will get you too far though. ;)


.
 
Chuz Life said:
Without more specifics being linked to the poll question,... I can't vote.

In reference to the poll question,... are we to consider pot being 'legal' like cigarettes? Or like booze?

They are two completely different vices.

Think open containers, second hand smoke, public buildings, operating machinery, driving school busses,. etc.

Would it be legal to drive and smoke pot if pot were to be made legal?

The poll question is too vague for me,...

that's all.
Click to expand...

I am talking about complete refer madness. I am talking completely legal. Stay stoned to the bone and let er rip. It's called freedom.:2wave:
 
angrybeaver said:
A spliff which is strong enough to chill you out is better than one that is strong enough to knock you out.
Click to expand...
That's right.
And a kid offered either will pull on each the same way.
I would not serve someone a beerglass full of whiskey and then loudly wonder what difference it makes, either.

Chuz Life said:
But for those who think legalizing pot will give a punk ass drug dealer to quit selling on the streets and take up a job working a drive through somewhere? ...
Click to expand...
No, but the smart ones will get a loan for their legitimate licensed business and open a smoke-shop.

Chuz Life said:
I have some first hand experiences that lead me to conclude that you are completely wrong about that.

I seen the 'gateway' aspect up close and personal on more than one occasion.
...
Click to expand...
First hand experience can be very compelling on a personal level, but it is anecdotal evidence, I'd be careful drawing general conclusions from it.
 
Chuz Life said:
I have some first hand experiences that lead me to conclude that you are completely wrong about that.

I seen the 'gateway' aspect up close and personal on more than one occasion.

In my opinion, You do your side a dis-service by denying or ignoring it.
Click to expand...

your anecdotal evidence that is an ad hoc fallacy is not very relevant.


that whole gateway thing is a huge misrepresentation that the ONDCP dropped like a sack of wet potatoes after a report they sanctioned came up with this:

it is the legal status of marijuana that makes it a gateway drug.
Click to expand...

Marijuana as Medicine - Assessing the Science Base - Institute of Medicine Report

more details scattered across several posts here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/62548-marijuana-helps-grow-brain-cells-9.html#post1058440770

It was the ONDCP that determined the gateway hypothesis undermined their position. I will not ignore it, I will tackle it head on.
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
NO I said: "low THC marijuana is arguably MORE dangerous in that you have to smoke more of it to get the same effect."



a person will smoke as much as it take to get the desired effect. If the desired effect is to get knocked out then they will smoke more until they do get knocked out.

concentration has no bearing

As for the absinthe I have read that wormwood has similar effects as thc .
Wrong or right the argument stands.
Click to expand...

marduc said:
Here read some more, we will go with ease and convenience from a basic source:



Thujone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



it is not the same, nor are the effects the same.



Than I will confidently sit on the merits of my position.




resorting to irrelevant personal swipes already?

Have not been for years, a desire to use does not weigh into my stance on prohibition in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...

The danger of high concentrations of thc in cannabis is that the effect is that the toker gets wasted anyway.
A bottle of beer and a bottle of whisky has the concentration of alchohol written on the bottle.
It doesnt follow that one will put less bud in a spliff it is stronger..so people get used to smoking strong spliffs from the start.
Saying that having to smoke more joints to get to the same level of being stoned is more dangerous is just stupid.

Whatever the effects of absinthe is does not alter my original argument.
You compared it to comparing one form of alchohol with another..it wasnt but you seem to think that by stating that thujone has a different effect than thc has any bearing on the argument..you are just opening up another argument to disguise the weakness it your original point.

You can happily sit on what you want, your argument is weak and pointless.


Cannibis is a dangerous drunk that really should be banned. If that is impossible then the higher thc forms should be banned and the weaker ones allowed to be used.
Its a compromise a bad one but a compromise all the same.
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
your anecdotal evidence that is an ad hoc fallacy is not very relevant. ... I will not ignore it, I will tackle it head on.
Click to expand...

Do what you will.

Calling my personal experiences annecdotal doesn't change my feelings on the matter. If anything, your defensiveness solidifys my views on it.

But I digress,...

There's bigger fish to be fried elsewhere.
 
molten_dragon said:
I hear this argument a lot, but it doesn't make sense to me. There are heavy taxes on tobacco, but you don't see people growing it in their basements to get around paying the tax.

As far as the issue in general goes, I'm fairly neutral towards it. There are some benefits and drawbacks to legalizing it in about equal measure. At the very least it should be legalized for medical use.
Click to expand...
Funny how people just take for granted that eveything they enjoy should be taxed. How does that make any difference, as for as it being harmful or not?? To just tax everything we do, serves no purpose. It only hurts those paying the tax.
 
Chuz Life said:
I have some first hand experiences that lead me to conclude that you are completely wrong about that.

I seen the 'gateway' aspect up close and personal on more than one occasion.

In my opinion, You do your side a dis-service by denying or ignoring it.
Click to expand...
I been a close friend of Pot, since 64. I have tried most everything, but only do Pot and Cold Beers. One never lead to the other. the Human curiosity is what does that. Plus some folks just have addictive personalities. It's all up to the individual. Pot is no big deal, unless you get busted with it.
 
angrybeaver said:
The danger of high concentrations of thc in cannabis is that the effect is that the toker gets wasted anyway.
A bottle of beer and a bottle of whisky has the concentration of alchohol written on the bottle.
It doesnt follow that one will put less bud in a spliff it is stronger..so people get used to smoking strong spliffs from the start.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Cannibis is a dangerous drunk that really should be banned. If that is impossible then the higher thc forms should be banned and the weaker ones allowed to be used.
Its a compromise a bad one but a compromise all the same.
Click to expand...
I don't think distinguishing between strengths is a feasible criterium to ban one and not the other.
It can be handled similarly to alcohol, disclosure of composition on the packaging. Or colour coding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom