• 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!

Miracle Marijuana

Should Medical Marijuana Be Legal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 40 78.4%
  • No

    Votes: 5 9.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 11.8%

  • Total voters
    51
That's good. Hopefully this trend continues until it reaches the point that a majority of likely voters approve of legalization
 
It's just that you posted this, so I just assumed you were against using personal experience as fact.
Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
"Your experiences are irrelevant. You are one person and do not speak for everyone."---and Howdy there H-Town.-- Mexican weed was $50 an lb, and a match box was $5. Ah the good old days.

Oh, I get it. :doh

You're smoking White Widow and didn't notice that I am Captain America NOT Captain Courtesy. (White Widow/Houston. I shoulda made the connection. :mrgreen:)

All is forgiven. Go and sin no more my son.


PS.... Commercial grade mexican in 1975 was 100.00 per lb and 160-180 for a kilo. A "matchbox" of weed was 2-3 dollars and you had to go to "the other side of the tracks" to buy quantities that small. Me and my friends would give away matchboxes should the friend be out of weed. Fat four finger ounces (lids) were only 10.00 bucks. Heck, I spilled more than a matchbox of weed without ever bending over to pick it up. If you bought doobage for 50.00 a pound you gotta be at least 75 years old.

Back on topic. Weed is addictive. I know. Any questions? Good. Case closed. Have a nice weekend class and remember. Monday. Class starts at 8:00 am. Bring pen and paper.
 
Last edited:

Another great slang term I used to use! Here's my list:

pot
weed
herb
grass
eggs!

In college it was all about buying and frying some eggs, man. A dozen was an ounce and 3 egg omelet was a quarter. Then we (me and my cousin) decided to splurge for a pound. Coulda called that a chicken farm!
 
I honestly have mixed feelings about medical marijuana and legalizing marijuana. I guess I'm neither for or against it so I voted "other." Anyone want to persuade me either which way?
 
I honestly have mixed feelings about medical marijuana and legalizing marijuana. I guess I'm neither for or against it so I voted "other." Anyone want to persuade me either which way?

It's none of the government's business what a medical professional prescribes to their patient, nor is it any of the government's business what an adult puts into their own body.
 
I honestly have mixed feelings about medical marijuana and legalizing marijuana. I guess I'm neither for or against it so I voted "other." Anyone want to persuade me either which way?

Let me try to collect my thoughts into a reasonable argument.

First, against marijuana being criminal from a personal use perspective:
  1. marijuana is slightly addictive and smoking it can cause health problems for the user, but these factors do not exceed those found with alcohol and cigarettes, which are legal
  2. smoking marijuana responsibly does not harm anyone but the person smoking it
  3. therefore, there is no good reason that smoking marijuana should be a criminal offense

Second, against the production and distribution of marijuana being a criminal offense
  1. The War of Drugs spends a lot of money to little effect - many are caught, but the drugs still flow because of the demand
  2. The existence of the War on Drugs drives up prices which makes it more criminally lucrative
  3. The existence of the War on Drugs creates the need for organized criminal enterprises to subvert interdiction
  4. Therefore, the War on Drugs creates crime and criminal enterprises.
 
Oh, I get it. :doh

You're smoking White Widow and didn't notice that I am Captain America NOT Captain Courtesy. (White Widow/Houston. I shoulda made the connection. :mrgreen:)

All is forgiven. Go and sin no more my son.


PS.... Commercial grade mexican in 1975 was 100.00 per lb and 160-180 for a kilo. A "matchbox" of weed was 2-3 dollars and you had to go to "the other side of the tracks" to buy quantities that small. Me and my friends would give away matchboxes should the friend be out of weed. Fat four finger ounces (lids) were only 10.00 bucks. Heck, I spilled more than a matchbox of weed without ever bending over to pick it up. If you bought doobage for 50.00 a pound you gotta be at least 75 years old.

Back on topic. Weed is addictive. I know. Any questions? Good. Case closed. Have a nice weekend class and remember. Monday. Class starts at 8:00 am. Bring pen and paper.

When I got married in key west in 1969 a "lid" ( a prince albert pipe tabocco can filled with pot) was fifteen dollars. A pound of good snap, crackle, and pop, mexican weed was eighty dollars.
 
That's a great tactic. Make the testimony of pot heads irrelevant and, poof, you win the debate. Awesome!

And what debate have I won? If you weren't so focused on presenting the "pothead" agenda, you'd see I was PRO-legalization. It's folks like you that damage the pro- argument. A "pothead's" personal opinion is irrelevant. He just wants pot to be legalized so he can get high without consequences. That is NOT a good argument for legalization. There have been plenty of good arguments for legalization presented in this thread. Why don't you read a few of them.
 
It's none of the government's business what a medical professional prescribes to their patient, nor is it any of the government's business what an adult puts into their own body.

I don't completely agree with this. A certain amount of regulation is necessary, because what you put in your body CAN affect me and others around you.
 
what you put in your body CAN affect me and others around you.
Not by itself it can't. Affecting you would require some other action on the part of the user besides simply putting drugs into their body - say like driving. The only way you can even remotely say that someone else's drug use (by itself) can affect you is when taxpayers have to foot medical bills caused by drug use, but that's a slippery slope because I can complain about McDonald's and HFCS just the same. That's more of an issue with the health care system than with someone else's drug use affecting you.
 
I honestly have mixed feelings about medical marijuana and legalizing marijuana. I guess I'm neither for or against it so I voted "other." Anyone want to persuade me either which way?

Nope. The way I figure it, the less other people smoke, the more available for me. :mrgreen:
 
It's none of the government's business what a medical professional prescribes to their patient, nor is it any of the government's business what an adult puts into their own body.
I'll take that even further - it's nobody's business what other people's doctors prescribe to them, and it's nobody's business what other adults put into their own bodies.
 
I honestly have mixed feelings about medical marijuana and legalizing marijuana. I guess I'm neither for or against it so I voted "other." Anyone want to persuade me either which way?

I am for legalizing ALL drugs, not just marijuana, I already posted the super condensed reasoning for this earlier in this thread:

Prohibition = drug anarchy
legalization = drug control

Drugs are too dangerous to allow to be regulated by unscrupulous criminals, legalization could and would get drugs out of the hands of children, decimate gang income, power, allure, and recruitment of children, destroy the black market, and the associated crimes, violence, and porous borders, it would free police resources to tackle and solve violent crimes, as well as significantly lower our prison populations, it would save billions of tax dollars annually, it would create an environment where people would feel comfortable seeking treatment when they have a problem, and also a means to pay for the treatment, across the board legalization is a net gain for soceity.

After that brief stream of though explanation of some salient points I am taking the lazy way out and posting from the LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) site that my signature links to, I am firmly behind their mission and their message, I want drugs legal because they are dangerous, too dangerous to keep illegal, unregulated, and UNCONTROLLED.

I encourage people to look at the link in my signature, and to browse through the site a bit (yes it is an ugly site look at the publications by leap members, perhaps even look up some you tube videos from leap - hmm I might include one, but this is going to be a lengthy post now.. ohh well, hopefully it can undo some of the damage done by the OP and others here:

A few great publications from LEAP members:
LEAP - Publications Publications COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS!

LEAP said:
COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS!
ASK US WHY
After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams. Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease!

The stated goals of current U.S.drug policy -- reducing crime, drug addiction, and juvenile drug use -- have not been achieved, even after nearly four decades of a policy of "war on drugs". This policy, fueled by over a trillion of our tax dollars has had little or no effect on the levels of drug addiction among our fellow citizens, but has instead resulted in a tremendous increase in crime and in the numbers of Americans in our prisons and jails. With 4.6% of the world's population, America today has 22.5% of the worlds prisoners. But, after all that time, after all the destroyed lives and after all the wasted resources, prohibited drugs today are cheaper, stronger, and easier to get than they were thirty-five years ago at the beginning of the so-called "war on drugs". With this in mind, we current and former members of law enforcement have created a drug-policy reform movement -- LEAP. We believe that to save lives and lower the rates of disease, crime and addiction. as well as to conserve tax dollars, we must end drug prohibition. LEAP believes that a system of regulation and control of production and distribution will be far more effective and ethical than one of prohibition. We do this in hopes that we in Law Enforcement can regain the public's respect and trust, which have been greatly diminished by our involvement in imposing drug prohibition. Please consider joining us. You don't have to be a cop to join LEAP! Find out more about us by reading some of the articles in our Publications section or by watching and listening to some of our multimedia clips,. You can also read about the men and women who speak for LEAP, and see what we have on the calendar for the near future.

And the video from them I mentioned:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0TMDc"]YouTube- Law Enforcement Against Prohibition[/nomedia]
 
Last edited:
Not by itself it can't. Affecting you would require some other action on the part of the user besides simply putting drugs into their body - say like driving. The only way you can even remotely say that someone else's drug use (by itself) can affect you is when taxpayers have to foot medical bills caused by drug use, but that's a slippery slope because I can complain about McDonald's and HFCS just the same. That's more of an issue with the health care system than with someone else's drug use affecting you.

Things don't operate in a vacuum. If you use drugs and get into a car, that can affect me. Your drug use can have an impact on what happens. Since we know that driving while intoxicated negatively affects one's driving ability using a driving can affect others and should be regulated. This is the type of regulation I am talking about.
 
Things don't operate in a vacuum. If you use drugs and get into a car, that can affect me. Your drug use can have an impact on what happens. Since we know that driving while intoxicated negatively affects one's driving ability using a driving can affect others and should be regulated. This is the type of regulation I am talking about.
That's exactly what I said: "Affecting you would require some other action on the part of the user besides simply putting drugs into their body - say like driving." If I do drugs and sit on my couch like a vegetable, that's not your business because it has no affect on you whatsoever. But If I do drugs and drive, then it's your business - but only the intoxicated driving part, not the drug use. So it's not what people are putting in their own body that affects you, but what they put in their own body and then do afterward. Those actions while on drugs are what should be regulated.
 
That's exactly what I said: "Affecting you would require some other action on the part of the user besides simply putting drugs into their body - say like driving." If I do drugs and sit on my couch like a vegetable, that's not your business because it has no affect on you whatsoever. But If I do drugs and drive, then it's your business - but only the intoxicated driving part, not the drug use. So it's not what people are putting in their own body that affects you, but what they put in their own body and then do afterward. Those actions while on drugs are what should be regulated.

Note my wording throughout this discussion. I always used the word CAN, and I always stayed consistent with the regulation being the result of a behavior while intoxicated or using drugs. However, you cannot separate out the two behaviors, because one affects the other. Once you get behind the wheel, your drug use becomes my business.
 
And what debate have I won? If you weren't so focused on presenting the "pothead" agenda, you'd see I was PRO-legalization. It's folks like you that damage the pro- argument. A "pothead's" personal opinion is irrelevant. He just wants pot to be legalized so he can get high without consequences. That is NOT a good argument for legalization. There have been plenty of good arguments for legalization presented in this thread. Why don't you read a few of them.

I have read them. I have also presented some good issues of why pot should be legalized otheer than so I could legally get high on it.

My major argument for legalization is that it would take it off the street so kids could not get it as easily as they do now, not to mention that it would bankrupt a lot of drug dealers.

My other point is that how can I believe anything that the war on drugs cottage industry says after claiming that pot is addictive on the dea website. This is simply not true, but no real government study will ever be done to present it in a non biased way. Too many people rely on pot being illegal to pay their country club dues.


OTC cough syrup is more dangerous than pot.
 
I always stayed consistent with the regulation being the result of a behavior while intoxicated or using drugs.
Actually, no you didn't. Your words were: "what you put in your body CAN affect me and others around you." and that makes no mention of behavior while intoxicated. The way it reads, it sounds like your claim was that it can affect you if someone else smokes a joint and does nothing else but watch MTV. That's what I disagreed with. If you didn't mean that, or if you no longer believe it, then I think we are probably in agreement on what kind of regulations there should be after all.

you cannot separate out the two behaviors, because one affects the other.
Yes you can. People use drugs and don't cause other people any problems all the time. Drug use alone can't affect you. Drug use and subsequent irresponsible behavior can.
 
Last edited:
Note my wording throughout this discussion. I always used the word CAN, and I always stayed consistent with the regulation being the result of a behavior while intoxicated or using drugs. However, you cannot separate out the two behaviors, because one affects the other. Once you get behind the wheel, your drug use becomes my business.

You should be happy to know that I have a perfect driving record with no infractions in my entire life. My father drove for a living and I learned very young about "defensive driving.".

Pot also helps to control road rage, believe it or don't believe it, Cap'n.
 
Back
Top Bottom