• 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 for recreational purposes

Should marijuana be legalized for recreational purposes


  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .
A marijuana user killing to get their fix? That's absurd.

While they may not try and kill to get their fix they have killed before. Mainly while driving. And yes I know those that drink and drive kill also. Well guess what? I wouldn't mind if they made alcohol illegal. On my 23 birthday I had an asshole put a knife to my throat..we were both drunk. I've never drank again.

I was trying to highlight the hypocrisy with our laws. It's true that much of what I said wasn't an argument for legalization, and it wasn't really intended to be. The argument for legalization is much simpler: marijuana isn't a harmful drug. And I don't need studies to tell me that, because I have personal experience. I smoked pot every single day for years, including every single day of high school. I finished with a 3.6 GPA, never once got in trouble for anything, worked after school to financially support my habit, participated on the speech and debate teams and won all conference as a tennis player. After college, I quit when it stopped being enjoyable to me and I didn't experience any problems quitting, and all these years later, I have no urge whatsoever to start up again. So it's easy for me to support legalization. I was as happier, as successful, and as productive a person at the height of my habit than at any point before or after.

I've got a friend that quit smoking after 15 years. He just up and quit, doesn't even have the cravings for it either. My point being is that drugs affect different people differently. While it may not have affected you it has definately affected others.

In opposition to that, I drank alcohol heavily for a few months and it literally almost killed me more than once. So yeah, it's a no brainer. And the public may not support legalization now, but I think they will when mainstream politicians do. It won't be taboo and people won't be afraid of getting arrested for speaking out. Which is exactly how it should be.

I seriously hope that it never will be legal. I know that I will never vote for a politician that wants to legalize it.
 
I've got a friend that quit smoking after 15 years. He just up and quit, doesn't even have the cravings for it either. My point being is that drugs affect different people differently. While it may not have affected you it has definately affected others.

I do agree with that 100%

I used to be really passionate about legalizing marijuana, and I'm not anymore. I still think it should be, but everybody's experiences shape their opinions and that's that. I just hope Obama or whoever the next President is cuts wayyy back on funding DEA raids and going after small time growers and sellers and keep people out of jail who are non-violent offenders. That's why I'm not as passionate as I used to be. I've come to see that good policy takes the place of sweeping change. Small things add up.
 
Guns and swords don't alter your perceptions, or ability to think clearly. Drugs do.
So what? It doesn't affect you directly therefore it's none of your business.

Drugs will get you addicted to the point where you will do anything to get them.
And you aren't solving anything by continuing to making them buy from thugs on the street instead of the liquor store, prohibition actually makes the overall problem worse.

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to man, but you don't see people stealing and killing each other over it. That's because it's not illegal to buy, sell, or use it.

I don't even know half of those that you just named off. But if you're getting it from a doctor then I'm assuming that you are using a prescription. Last I looked you could get no more than what the prescription said...and only for as long as the doctor would give you the prescription. If you have one of those drugs without having a prescription for it then it is illegal to have em. Sorry but your point just went down the drain. FYI, if a doctor prescribes MJ to a patient then I have no problem with it. Because it is being used for medical purposes..not recreational purposes that are uncontrolled.
Again, if someone wants to use a drug in a recreational context it is none of your business.

The amount of people in jail for drugs is absurd. I agree. Maybe those people should follow the law instead of using things that they know is illegal.
I would argue that we have a civic duty as Americans to disobey stupid laws until they are repealed. Why not make the law respectable instead?

What I find funny is people are always telling me that my sisters attitude and theivery is not because of the drugs and yet when it comes to people being in prison because of MJ it is suddenly the drugs fault. (ie it being illegal) What ever happened to "personal responsibility" there?
If they're in prison for drug charges alone, it's the law's fault. If they're in prison for violating respectable laws such as harming another person in some way, then it's their own fault. I would have thought that distinction is clear enough.

Also there have been a few prominent politicians in favor of legalizing MJ. But the majority of Americans do not want it legalized. Sorry bucko...you're outta luck.
For now. Support will slowly increase as more and more people start to realize how stupid it is to wage a war on drug users. Of course MJ will be first but the rest will hopefully follow. The prohibition of drugs (MJ or otherwise) doesn't solve any problems, it just creates more problems.
 
There is nothing wrong and no crime committed by an individual who chooses to alter their perceptions.

It is a crime when it affects others. And it does.

I quote:


Sounds as innocuous as caffeine withdrawal.

"sounds" ....to you. It can be just as bad as cigarette withdrawal...at least for MJ. And believe me...that is not good.

These are symptoms of mild addiction. No reason to criminalize marijuana.

You're right. If you are just using this one example. There is also the cancer problems, the problems that are associated with the brain, and others. Put it all together and it becomes a problem.

Assassination, theft, etc are all crimes because they cause harm to other people. Marijuana does not. It should not be a crime.

You can repeat this all you want, it still does not make it true.

This is precisely the point. Legalizing removes the criminal enterprise supplying the drugs in this prohibition. Legalizing causes less harm.

No it doesn't cause less harm. It just causes a different kind of harm. Just because you won't have the drug lords killing people over MJ does not mean that there will no longer be any harm.

Of course it is conducive to a healthy, growing society. Prohibition creates crime and criminal enterprise and that is what is not conducive to a healthy, growing society.

No it's not. Instead of crime you will have other problems. How about we just eliminate MJ completely? Then there will be no more crime attributed to it plus you will not have the problems that MJ creates.

If you don't like it, don't use it, but don't tell me what I can or can't do to my mind or body.

I don't use it. But MJ still affects me weather you want to acknowledge it or not.
 
It is a crime when it affects others. And it does.
B.S. Someone smoking crack in their own home doesn't affect you any more than if they were eating Doritos. You have to add some other action, like stealing from you, before it affects you.

"sounds" ....to you. It can be just as bad as cigarette withdrawal...at least for MJ. And believe me...that is not good.
So what? Their body, their problem. Not yours. And the addictiveness of a drug doesn't correlate to how much crime it leads to, or else we'd have a lot more crime surrounding tobacco.


You're right. If you are just using this one example. There is also the cancer problems, the problems that are associated with the brain, and others. Put it all together and it becomes a problem.
Their body, their problem. Not yours.


You can repeat this all you want, it still does not make it true.
Alright. Tell us then, how exactly does Joe Pothead affect you when he rolls himself fatty every day after work? I'm dying to hear this...

No it doesn't cause less harm. It just causes a different kind of harm. Just because you won't have the drug lords killing people over MJ does not mean that there will no longer be any harm.
Yeah, there will be about as much harm done to you as when I eat a bag of Doritos. The horror!


No it's not. Instead of crime you will have other problems.
Such as? And please use credible sources, none of these "a-motivational syndrome" bull**** myths.

How about we just eliminate MJ completely? Then there will be no more crime attributed to it plus you will not have the problems that MJ creates.
Or we could just ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster to make us all naturally stoned so nobody will want to use drugs in the first place!

Seriously, let's be realistic here. It's simply not possible to eliminate drugs or drug use altogether. The best we can do is focus on reducing the demand. The last 30 years have demonstrated that prohibition is not a good means of reducing demand. It causes more problems than it solves. On the other hand, the last 42 years have demonstrated that education and deglamorization has helped to bring the rate of tobacco use down, and the trend continues year after year. Reasonable people should be able to infer from that what the best way is to wage the war on drugs.
 
It is a crime when it affects others. And it does.

How does smoking pot affect others?

You're right. If you are just using this one example. There is also the cancer problems, the problems that are associated with the brain, and others. Put it all together and it becomes a problem.

They are all problems to the individual, not any others.

No it doesn't cause less harm. It just causes a different kind of harm. Just because you won't have the drug lords killing people over MJ does not mean that there will no longer be any harm.

It does cause a different kind of harm, harm that is currently caused to the individual with illegal smokers. Removing the drug lords and not impacting the harm to users will result in less harm.

I don't use it. But MJ still affects me weather you want to acknowledge it or not.

How does it affect you?
 
Some people are scared of freedom.
 
B.S. Someone smoking crack in their own home doesn't affect you any more than if they were eating Doritos. You have to add some other action, like stealing from you, before it affects you.

Do you seriously think that someone that smokes crack is just going to smoke it in their own home? Or even if they do that they won't go out driving afterwards? And even if they do JUST smoke crack and don't go anywhere what if they have kids? Are you going to put them kids at risk also? Try and be a little more honest in your debating please.

So what? Their body, their problem. Not yours. And the addictiveness of a drug doesn't correlate to how much crime it leads to, or else we'd have a lot more crime surrounding tobacco.

And when they have a health problem due to the crack who do you think is going to have to foot the bill? It certainly isn't the crackhead that's for sure.

As far as the crime vs addictiveness? Since crack is illegal yes it does correlate.

Their body, their problem. Not yours.

It becomes my problem when I have to foot the medical bill.

Alright. Tell us then, how exactly does Joe Pothead affect you when he rolls himself fatty every day after work? I'm dying to hear this...

Hmm let's see here....Since Joe Pothead will no doubt roll himself a fatty before work also and quite possibly during lunch or break...well I hope to god he doesn't drive heavy machinery. Because then he could run my ass over. Remember, MJ does affect a persons perceptions.

Note that I didn't limit it to your "after work" bit because that will not be the only time during the day that he will smoke MJ. Saying otherwise would be dishonest.


Yeah, there will be about as much harm done to you as when I eat a bag of Doritos. The horror!

This folks is called "state of denial".

Such as? And please use credible sources, none of these "a-motivational syndrome" bull**** myths.

It's called common sense. I've already listed several problems that is associated with pot. I'm not going over them again. Of course even if I did you would just deny them as being "propaganda" or try and twist it saying that it's the persons responsibility. Sorry but I don't fly around yelling "conspiracy" every time the government does something I don't like.

Or we could just ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster to make us all naturally stoned so nobody will want to use drugs in the first place!

Seriously, let's be realistic here. It's simply not possible to eliminate drugs or drug use altogether. The best we can do is focus on reducing the demand. The last 30 years have demonstrated that prohibition is not a good means of reducing demand. It causes more problems than it solves. On the other hand, the last 42 years have demonstrated that education and deglamorization has helped to bring the rate of tobacco use down, and the trend continues year after year. Reasonable people should be able to infer from that what the best way is to wage the war on drugs.

It's kinda hard to educate people properly when you've got people like you and others that are pro-marijuana spewing out false information or just limiting your "questions" to limited scenario's so that the whole picture isn't seen.

And it is possible if people actually put their mind to it. History is rife with "it's not possible" and yet in the last 300 years humans have done what for thousands of years was considered impossible.

Anyways I'm done with this thread. It's no use debating to a brick wall.
 
Ok here is the thing about a guy smoking crack. If he gets high enough and becomes paranoid enough he WILL go out on the street thinking someone is out to get him. You think you see crackheads out on the street because they are going for a merry jog?
 
I'm all for those except the last. I don't think we should do drug testing for those who get social services.

People who GIVE social services should not be drunk nor high when performing their duties.
Do we have the quality of people with this responsibility????
 
Ok here is the thing about a guy smoking crack. If he gets high enough and becomes paranoid enough he WILL go out on the street thinking someone is out to get him. You think you see crackheads out on the street because they are going for a merry jog?

The crackheads you see on the street represent the nature of the said addiction. Illegal to possess, market control by gangs, low income/wealth areas for distribution (which pulls a particular segment to these areas), felony possession charges which make it harder to find employment even after a person is clean, etc.... To put it softly, crack is a low income substitute for cocaine.
 
Anyways I'm done with this thread. It's no use debating to a brick wall.

After having failed to point out how smoking pot injures other people, you leave. Nice. Glad I'm not your brother or you would disown me.
 
Do you seriously think that someone that smokes crack is just going to smoke it in their own home? Or even if they do that they won't go out driving afterwards? And even if they do JUST smoke crack and don't go anywhere what if they have kids? Are you going to put them kids at risk also? Try and be a little more honest in your debating please.

By continuously focusing on the user while ignoring the producer exposes your propaganda driven bias. While you have no problem with government bureaucrats deciding what is or is not good for you or society, it opens the door to more than just illicit drugs. People die in car crashes; even those who were not drinking kill fellow commuters on the basis of an accident. Should we outlaw driving because a 3,500lb car traveling at 55mph poses risks for others? Should we outlaw fast food, junk food, prepackaged processed food, etc..., because it poses risks to society? I can go on and on, the truth of the matter is prohibition is embarrassingly ineffective.

And when they have a health problem due to the crack who do you think is going to have to foot the bill? It certainly isn't the crackhead that's for sure.

Peanuts compared to irresponsible eating habits. Obesity costs (on their own) attribute over $130 billion a year in health costs, of which a large portion is payed or by....... you guessed it! Taxpayers!

As far as the crime vs addictiveness? Since crack is illegal yes it does correlate.

Possessing drugs does not harm anyone while being illegal. AKA a victimless crime.

It becomes my problem when I have to foot the medical bill.

Already addressed.

Hmm let's see here....Since Joe Pothead will no doubt roll himself a fatty before work also and quite possibly during lunch or break...well I hope to god he doesn't drive heavy machinery. Because then he could run my ass over. Remember, MJ does affect a persons perceptions.

Care to post a study dealing with cannabis and ability to drive?

Note that I didn't limit it to your "after work" bit because that will not be the only time during the day that he will smoke MJ. Saying otherwise would be dishonest.

So?

This folks is called "state of denial".

This folks is called a state of blindness.

It's called common sense. I've already listed several problems that is associated with pot. I'm not going over them again. Of course even if I did you would just deny them as being "propaganda" or try and twist it saying that it's the persons responsibility. Sorry but I don't fly around yelling "conspiracy" every time the government does something I don't like.

Your problems are not cannabis or other drugs, as these same problems manifest themselves in other aspects. Once you open the door to nanny state control of what you put into your body, it is (as history shows) painfully difficult to not only reverse, but decelerate.

It's kinda hard to educate people properly when you've got people like you and others that are pro-marijuana spewing out false information or just limiting your "questions" to limited scenario's so that the whole picture isn't seen.

Imagine how i feel. It is annoying to no end watching people make up anecdotal scenarios where a cannabis user is "harming" others. Life in and of itself is a risk, and you represent a group of people who use fear as a means to control (without making a minor impact on said risk).

Anyways I'm done with this thread. It's no use debating to a brick wall.

If you had a real argument, maybe a debate would be possible.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I agree with taxing the **** out of all of them. When the tax on cigarettes go up the sales of tax free cigarettes (i.e. the ones controlled by organized crime) go up too. In other words the drug trade could be pushed back underground.
 
I'm not sure I agree with taxing the **** out of all of them. When the tax on cigarettes go up the sales of tax free cigarettes (i.e. the ones controlled by organized crime) go up too. In other words the drug trade could be pushed back underground.

So uhhh what organized crime is selling cigarettes? Anyways, in United States the government has always thought of several clever ways to tax alcohol and cigarettes, we still do not pay nearly what you pay in the UK though.
 
So uhhh what organized crime is selling cigarettes? Anyways, in United States the government has always thought of several clever ways to tax alcohol and cigarettes, we still do not pay nearly what you pay in the UK though.

Well, I think it was the biggest earner for Italian organized crime back in the 80s (or at least one of them). They would sell them on throughout Europe.

Here in the UK it's common knowledge that they come off the back of a truck, so to speak . . . Plenty of people buy them so it's no secret. Sh*t, you sometimes get guys that come up to in the street in broad daylight offering you cheap cigs.
 
Well, I think it was the biggest earner for Italian organized crime back in the 80s (or at least one of them). They would sell them on throughout Europe.

Here in the UK it's common knowledge that they come off the back of a truck, so to speak . . . Plenty of people buy them so it's no secret. Sh*t, you sometimes get guys that come up to in the street in broad daylight offering you cheap cigs.

I wish that would happen to me. I don't know anyone in the mafia. :-(
 
I wish that would happen to me. I don't know anyone in the mafia. :-(

Ugh . . . They're not the mafia, they're the people who make the final sale - into the hands of the consumers. But then I guess you already knew that and were just being sarcastic. Shame on me for replying.

Anyway my point is, it's safe to say that with more addictive drugs taxation would (re-)create a black market.
 
Last edited:
It should be treated about the same as alcohol....
and should be prescribed to every member of congress, might loosen their sphincters a bit, then they won't be so full of crap....
 
Honestly, I have never heard about illegal cigarette trade until now.
 
I think we should totally legalize pot! Oh the tax revenue...and I even heard that the prices of pot would drop from today's prices even with the high taxes. I guess the prices are so exorbitant now because of the illegality of marijuana distribution.

I smoke pot, and I'd love if it were legal to.

On top of everything, I proclaim: why not?
 
Back
Top Bottom