• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Should Marijuana Be Legal

DeletedUser

Should the goverment legalize marijuana?

The debate regarding the legalisation of drugs, particularly that of soft drugs like cannabis (or marijuana) is capable of being characterised as one which pits the concept of freedom of the individual against the concept of a paternalistic State. Advocates of legalisation argue, amongst other things, that cannabis is not only less harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco, but as a matter of fact has been proven to possess certain medicinal properties.
In stark contrast, those opposed to legalisation argue
that the legalisation of cannabis will act as a precursor to increased addiction to hard drugs, and will necessarily lead to an increase in the crime rate itself. In 1937, the Marijuana (Marihuana) Tax Act was introduced by Henry Anslinger and passed, levying taxes on anyone who was associated with cannabis, hemp, or marijuana. These types of association include possession, use, sale, and many other acts which would be considered illegal today. In addition to the taxes provisioned by the bill, penal codes for the procedural use and possession of marijuana were also outlined - violators could face five years in prison in up to a $2,000 fine. In 1951, an act that superseded the Marijuana Tax Act was passed criminalizing the possession and use of cannabis, hemp, and/or marijuana. In 1969, in the case of Leary v. United States, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was overturned on the grounds of the 5th Amendment because those seeking a tax stamp would have to incriminate themsleves. In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act listing cannabis as a Schedule I drug. Despite the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, many states and local cities began to decriminalize marijuana citing possession/use/sale/etc. as low priority offenses. Although many attempts have been made to reschedule cannabis off Schedule I, the Supreme Court ruled in a 2005 decision in the case of United States v. Raich, the federal government has jurisdiction over the legal status of marijuana
--------------------------------------------
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Legalization_of_Marijuana

I copied and pasted this debate and did not write it myself.
 

DeletedUser3

(( To place this in context, the initial question is inferring the United States, without clarification as to Federal or State laws. In this understanding, discussing how it pertains to other countries is likewise acceptable and within the otherwise open-ended nature of this topic. However, it must remain within the context of legality and criminality, not in context to advocating use of illegal substances. Thank you for your cooperation, enjoy the debate and, once again, be civil. ))
 

DeletedUser

That marijuana will be a springboard to use other harder drugs is an opinion. That there are no chemicals or substances in marijuana that will make people use harder drugs is a fact.
 

DeletedUser

That marijuana will be a springboard to use other harder drugs is an opinion. That there are no chemicals or substances in marijuana that will make people use harder drugs is a fact.
It's not even an opinion... it's a fallacious slippery slope argument with no evidence to support it. That whole "gateway drug" garbage they taught us in the DARE program was a lie. Kids that try marijuana find that out pretty fast, and understandably proceed to assume everything else in the program was a lie... and refuse to believe anything the school tries to tell them about recreational drugs. Which is perhaps justified, since my health classes cherry-picked data to make it sound as bad as possible, even if the studies in question have since been discredited. I don't know why they insist on spewing such nonsense when there's plenty of perfectly good reasons not to do drugs.

Prohibition isn't really accomplishing anything. Legalize it, tax it, and you eliminate a lot of crime, free up a lot of prison space, and get a new source of income.

Contrary to popular belief, though, marijuana is not harmless, and there should be appropriate warning labels.
 

DeletedUser34

yeah, making alcohol legal caused no problems, it was the most wonderful thing that has ever happened to the government, so lets do the same thing with a product that alters a person just as much, AND makes a person long term lazy....I am all for it.
 

DeletedUser

It doesn't alter a person as much; marijuana is actually a lot less harmful than alcohol and many other drugs. There are many things that take its toll on the body, like fast/junk food, alcohol, cigarettes, and etc. It doesn't make sense to make or keep illegal something that is far less harmful than any of these legal things.
 

DeletedUser

Before anyone brings it up: morphine also has (obvious) medicinal uses, but is illegal without a prescription. The original quote was silly to even bring up that aspect in a debate implying recreational drug use.
 

DeletedUser34

I do agree for medical uses, it should be legalized. But I think as with smoking and drinking, it has cost us a high price....one I think it to high, once it is legal, you have "personal liberties" to deal with for all the morons who have no common sense. Much like those that Drink and Drive.

Can you tell I have a HUGE problem with those who endanger others while under the influence?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Well, presumably they'd also make it illegal to drive while high. The only people that would object to that would be people that don't understand how anything works... sooooo a lot of people then, I guess. I still don't think they'd have trouble adding that stipulation of they were to make it legal, though.

It's not like marijuana being illegal stops people from driving while high. Furthermore it's not like marijuana being illegal stops people with no common sense from using it. It's not like it's at all difficult to come by and it's not like that sort of idiot would take getting caught into consideration.

We can't make something illegal just because it's stupid. We can make something illegal if it hurts someone else. As my dad put it, one person's rights only extend as far as the next guy's nose. But it's hard to justify much more than that.
 

DeletedUser34

We can't make something illegal just because it's stupid. We can make something illegal if it hurts someone else. As my dad put it, one person's rights only extend as far as the next guy's nose. But it's hard to justify much more than that.

Not sure if I should state the obvious here and say It is already illegal. :p So obviously we can. And did, and the fight isn't to outlaw it, but to remove the law.
 

DeletedUser

Not sure if I should state the obvious here and say It is already illegal. :p So obviously we can. And did, and the fight isn't to outlaw it, but to remove the law.
Well, okay, you CAN, yes. But it's difficult to justify and people will whine about a nanny state. I'm going to try to refrain from ranting about political philosophy, but I was referring to the harm principal.
 

DeletedUser34

I actually think they should legalize it, but everyone on this forum is so dang liberal, someone needs to be the other side...or at least center.....all you people are as far left as you can get and not willing to move even an inch to the center, so someone has to butt heads with you.

I am more concerned with designer drugs....and synthetic drugs like K2 and Bath salts and Meth, etc etc...I think our money spend on drug warfare could be spent so much better.

On a side note, once it goes legal, it becomes a pawn in the greed game of the government, and those who do get addicted (about 7-9%) will fall through the cracks more so than they do now....
 

DeletedUser

Devil's advocate, then? Heh, I can respect that. But I wouldn't be arguing about it in the first place if I didn't have a fairly solid stance to begin with, and I wouldn't have a solid stance if I couldn't back it up. Can't say the same for everyone though. It'd good to be able to see both sides of the argument, if only so you can argue that much better.

I confess I don't know much about designer drugs. I saw a documentary on meth users once and oh man, it was so sad. There are definitely better ways the government could be spending that money. Wasn't aware bath salts were drugs? Or is that slang? Never heard of it... been a while since I hung out with drug users though.

Maybe if they added the stipulation that a portion of the tax on marijuana goes to rehabilitation?
 

DeletedUser3

Just to cover a few things: The Federal government classifies marijuana use as illegal, but many States have legalized marijuana use (most for medicinal purposes, which doesn't mean much btw), and some have decriminalized it.

Bath salts is the name given to some designer drugs. It's not the stuff you put in a bath tub. ;)
 

DeletedUser34

Devil's advocate, then? Heh, I can respect that. But I wouldn't be arguing about it in the first place if I didn't have a fairly solid stance to begin with, and I wouldn't have a solid stance if I couldn't back it up. Can't say the same for everyone though. It'd good to be able to see both sides of the argument, if only so you can argue that much better.

I confess I don't know much about designer drugs. I saw a documentary on meth users once and oh man, it was so sad. There are definitely better ways the government could be spending that money. Wasn't aware bath salts were drugs? Or is that slang? Never heard of it... been a while since I hung out with drug users though.

Maybe if they added the stipulation that a portion of the tax on marijuana goes to rehabilitation?

Bath Salts: An Article by WebMD
You should also google "Ronald Poppo" who was the Miami Zombie Victim.

Hell, I am not sure people realize that Federal law trumps State law here, regarding Marijuana, and Federal authorities can still charge people with a crime regarding Marijuana.
 

DeletedUser3

It has since been determined the person who attacked Ronald Poppo was not under the influence of bath salts. He was a "true" zombie. ;)
 

DeletedUser34

there is no testing to find bathsalts. There are mixed signals. I do not care what any peacock says. The cops and the doctors who are familiar with the drug state otherwise.

Article regarding...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Sounds like a severe psychotic episode to me. Looking at what's been said about him he might have been bipolar. How sad... I'm glad people are making the effort to make sure he's remembered for the person he was, not whatever whacked-out chemicals (caused by illness or drugs) turned him into.

Wish I didn't glance at the comments of some of those articles. The things they said about that homeless man, ugh. Not only were they cruel and ignorant but they had nothing to do with anything, unless you count the one that said the officer should have shot them both.
 

DeletedUser

Alcohol, cigarettes, pain meds, muscle relaxers, anxiety meds are legal and pot should be too. Anyone who has ever done anything else knows that the side effects from the first 5 listed can include some pretty horrible feelings in your body.

Anyone who says its the gateway drug is again an idiot. It tells me that person has NO IDEA what goes on in the other world. Jerry go to someone's house to get his usual pot, well the guy doesn't have pot but he offers something else instead. So Jerry settles for something else. It doesn't cause you to take other drugs, PEOPLE are the cause of people using other drugs. All you have to do is be smart enough to say no.

I mean really? How can some senator or congressman hold a cigarette in his hand out back some building and then come in and make a speech against pot? I smoke cigarettes and really wanna quit but I really value human life too. So as long as pot is illegal I'll have to go on smoking cigs to calm down.
 

DeletedUser

Of course it should be legal.

All the reasons that are given to marijuana for it to be illegal are ass-nine and idiotic. Alcohol contributes to more problems in this country (USA) than heroin does, or marijuana ever will. The fact is that they were able control it via taxes and licenses created cash flow. It didn't matter that children went to bed with black eyes or no dinner, as long as their abusive fathers were paying that alcohol tax, it was OK. The 30's to 50's were well hidden.
As a contrast to that environment, marijuana offered a physical relaxation to the migrant workers in the states along the southern borders. The Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms department formed after the Bureau of Prohibition {On April Fool’s Day [ how apt ], 1927, Treasury elevated the Prohibition Unit to bureau status within the department. Congress was impatient with the results. On 1 July 1930 Congress created certain confusion for later historians by transferring “the penal provisions of the national prohibition act” from Treasury’s Bureau of Prohibition (which then ceased to exist) to the Department of Justice’s new Bureau of Prohibition } had no work after prohibition was overturned as unconstitutional and it was the bright Idea of some of those leaders that were afraid to release 3000+ workers into the unemployment ranks (they've just came out of a depression) found a new demon to persecute.
Since migrant workers were mostly Mexican and foreign, they made an easy mark.
Unfortunately, their efforts to contain this relativcely harmless and effective means of relaxation after picking American needed goods, effectively became an american tradition in the years to follow this immediate attack on the freedom of humans, regardless of their national descent, creed, or political views. Rather than admit an error, the department later transformed a division to "cope" with this matter. The DEA is a result of an infringement on civil liberties and a waste of our tax payer's money. The fact is that if all drugs became legal, there would be a quick change in the American traditions and a world wide return to farming food, not drugs. After a removal of the consumption market ( drug addicts) by death from overdose, a small and insignificant portion of the workforce, the world wide exporters of these drugs would find that there is no more demand for them and go belly up. As for Marijuana, well, there wouldn't be a problem here any longer. Everyone could grow it when they felt, and smoke it or eat it or make rope out of it, without having an armed assault with helicopters and trucks which when valued, outweighs any need to contain that marijuana tax evasion. 12 dollars in tax evasion is not worth 250,000 dollars a day in personnel and equipment to round it up.

:blink:~====~


or so I've heard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top