• 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!

Prop Numbers Assigned, Marijuana Ballot Measure is Prop 19

I'll try, but what do you mean by "ok" to use? Do you think it would encourage non-users to suddenly go out and become potheads? The laws have no known effect on the rate of use. Legalization doesn't mean it's "ok" to use in the sense that it would automatically become socially encouraged. It just means if someone wants to go to a liquor store and buy a joint instead of a six-pack, the law isn't going to tell them they can't.
I don't have a formed opinion on this issue but I just want to point out how you might be incorrect. Legalization would mean that it's ok to use because our laws follow what is socially and morally acceptable to do. They codify pretty much what we are allowed to and should do. Just like its not acceptable to go out and hit someone or steal their stuff, that's what the law mirrors what is acceptable in society and what we are allowed to do. Saying that using drugs would be legally acceptable, but not acceptable in society is a contradiction, because simply if you don't want them or think they are harmful, you should outlaw them. I agree that the practicality of outlawing drugs may not be good, but from an ideal standpoint it makes sense. What I'm concerned with is that the message it says to all people and also children is that when you grow up, it will be acceptable to try drugs because it is legally ok, therefore it is probably ok socially too. I'm not saying that using drugs is definitively a bad thing, and that drug users are all wrong, but looking from the position that we currently have established, its hard for me to get past it and move toward legalization.

Since the government's job is to preserve our personal liberties, there should only be legal consequences if people take actions that infringe on the liberties of others. The government should not infringe on the liberties of soverign individuals by dictating what they can and cannot knowingly and willingly put into their own bodies. It's their body, which means it's their choice and nobody else's business - especially not the government's.
I just want to point out a different position. The government has the right to dictate to people what they can and cannot do if it will harm someone's body. For example, lets say there was a weird cult that had its members significantly harming their bodies, even if the members agreed, would that be ok to let happen? And don't forget about addiction. The person may not be able to stop even if he/she wants to and it may require the government to not allow certain substances to prevent someone from falling into an addiction cycle.

I will say as the measure has significant practical benefits to it though, as it would free up law-enforcement resources and generate money, and the current outlawing hasn't worked to well, but right now I have reservations of legalizing the substances. I probably won't stand in the way of the proposition, if the people want it let them have the proposition, but this is what I'm thinking so far.
 
I don't have a formed opinion on this issue but I just want to point out how you might be incorrect. Legalization would mean that it's ok to use because our laws follow what is socially and morally acceptable to do. They codify pretty much what we are allowed to and should do. Just like its not acceptable to go out and hit someone or steal their stuff, that's what the law mirrors what is acceptable in society and what we are allowed to do. Saying that using drugs would be legally acceptable, but not acceptable in society is a contradiction, because simply if you don't want them or think they are harmful, you should outlaw them. I agree that the practicality of outlawing drugs may not be good, but from an ideal standpoint it makes sense. What I'm concerned with is that the message it says to all people and also children is that when you grow up, it will be acceptable to try drugs because it is legally ok, therefore it is probably ok socially too. I'm not saying that using drugs is definitively a bad thing, and that drug users are all wrong, but looking from the position that we currently have established, its hard for me to get past it and move toward legalization.

Are cigarettes socially acceptable? yet they are legal, how about gambling? or other vices? legality does not equal socially acceptable, if that was the case farting in public would be illegal too.

As far as the message sent to children, we can still tell them that drugs, MJ, and smoking as a whole is bad. We have made a huge dent in deglamourization and reducing the amount of smokers recently. A highly effective route of attack that has helped cut down on new smokers is delaying the age of first use. Keeping pot out of their hands as impressionable irresponsible schoolkids is a vital step to reducing overall lifetime usage rates.

What they decide to do as adults is of lesser concern than current availability to them as non adults. Year after year school kids consistently report it is easier to get marijuana than it is to get tobacco and cigarettes. This is because a black market distribution does not present any controls or obstacles such as checking for ID at the point of sale unlike the controlled distribution of alcohol and cigarettes.


I just want to point out a different position. The government has the right to dictate to people what they can and cannot do if it will harm someone's body. For example, lets say there was a weird cult that had its members significantly harming their bodies, even if the members agreed, would that be ok to let happen? And don't forget about addiction. The person may not be able to stop even if he/she wants to and it may require the government to not allow certain substances to prevent someone from falling into an addiction cycle.

Do you really think/want to have the governent babysitting us and controlling waht we choose do do with/to ourselves? If so then they also need to outlaw promiscuity, fatty foods, white water rafting, rock climbing, sailing, and any other activities that have an inherent risk.

Legalizing would also create a clear and unfettered pathway to allow someone to get treatment they need if it was an issue. Currently our position of criminality, intolerance, and ostracism detracts needy people from seeking treatment

I will say as the measure has significant practical benefits to it though, as it would free up law-enforcement resources and generate money, and the current outlawing hasn't worked to well, but right now I have reservations of legalizing the substances. I probably won't stand in the way of the proposition, if the people want it let them have the proposition, but this is what I'm thinking so far.

resources and money that in part can be used to foster drug awareness, education, and also promote availability and access to treatment in cases where it is needed/desired (you cant cure an addict that does not want to stop though).
 
Last edited:
I hope this passes, and becomes a catalyst for a national legalization bill.

Get real girl, can you, even in your wildest dreams, ever imagine Pelosi/Biden/Obama allowing this to be National law?
 
I continue to firmly believe that this is a conservative issue, resplendent with personal freedoms and individual liberty.
 
Get real girl, can you, even in your wildest dreams, ever imagine Pelosi/Biden/Obama allowing this to be National law?

I'm not aware of any of them taking a particularly strong stance against it. Have any reason for what you say or is it just speculation?
 
Legalization would mean that it's ok to use because our laws follow what is socially and morally acceptable to do. They codify pretty much what we are allowed to and should do.

Something being legal to do, does not equate automatically to something being ok or moral to do.

Getting stupid drunk each and every day is perfectly legal, yet it is not ok or healthy.
Having sex with multiple partners each and everyday is legal, but not morally ok to most.
Watching porn everyday is legal, yet to many is not morally ok to do.
 
Year after year school kids consistently report it is easier to get marijuana than it is to get tobacco and cigarettes. This is because a black market distribution does not present any controls or obstacles such as checking for ID at the point of sale unlike the controlled distribution of alcohol and cigarettes.

Just saw that I messed up here, and I cannot edit any longer, this should read:

"Year after year school kids consistently report it is easier to get marijuana than it is to get tobacco and alcohol..."
 
Last edited:
Actually, he's 100% correct on his assessment. Anyone who has paid any attention to politics for the last 12 years or so knows that wedge issues have been used for the purpose of driving out the vote and both sides have done it repeatedly.

Thanks. I know I'm right. That is why I didn't take the time to to rebut those that can't see behind the curtain.

The confidence of knowing.
 
Something being legal to do, does not equate automatically to something being ok or moral to do.

Getting stupid drunk each and every day is perfectly legal, yet it is not ok or healthy.
Having sex with multiple partners each and everyday is legal, but not morally ok to most.
Watching porn everyday is legal, yet to many is not morally ok to do.

You can take my porn from my cold, dead warm, sweaty hands!
 
Damnit they are taking the fun out of smoking pot......It was kinda of a kick when I was a kid knowing we were doing something illegal...against the system.
 
Whoaaaah Duuuuuuude.
 
Either you legalize pot, or you ban alcohol, and nicotine. Atleast be ****ing consistent.
 
Either you legalize pot, or you ban alcohol, and nicotine. Atleast be ****ing consistent.

Either you legalize ****ing cows in the ass, or you ban sex altogether. At least be ****ing consistent.
 
I'll bet everyone who thinks that marijuana should be legalized smokes it.
 
Bet the mormons will fund a campaign against this like they did with gay marriage :).. mormons from Utah that is!

But else I agree.. hope it passes.

Betcha they don't. Speaking as a Mormon from Utah who has lived in "Happy Valley" his whole life I am for this bill. I am totally against Marijuana and any drugs and any kind of alcohol, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal. I do agree it would dent the drug lords and be a benefit. If nothing else we need to run an experiment on what the effects of legalization would do and how it would hinder the drug rings. If California is up for participating then so be it.
 
I'll bet everyone who thinks that marijuana should be legalized smokes it.

Moderator's Warning:
Pay no attention to this drug addicted troll.
 
I have to admit, even thou I do not smoke, im a big fan of this. Seems a long time coming on this BS ban. Good on Cali for stepping up.

Just to add, i watched the "Super High Me" documentary and infact the DEA was busting the "pot cafes" who sold weed to people with state issued medical prescriptions. The DEA would take everything. But as mentioned on page 3, Obama has said he will not use federal agents in this matter.
 
Either you legalize ****ing cows in the ass, or you ban sex altogether. At least be ****ing consistent.

Watch as I ignore the obvious intent of your post and actually show why its idiotic.

Animals can’t consent. As such, that would be abuse. The issue in your case for its illegality is not the sex, it’s the inability for the cow to consent to such an act. Due to this, your analogy is off base and amazingly incorrect.

A more accurate analogy of sex would be “Either you legalize ****ing a woman in the ass, or you ban sex altogether”. This is because in many places that’s sodomy and considered illegal. At the same time, that is essentially a blue law that is absolutely ignored. So sure, if you’d like to make marijuana’s illegality akin to a blue law and have it “illegal” and never enforced…to the point you can sell it like they sell anal lube, anal toys, and anal sex videos…be my guest.

Any other ridiculous strawmans, unthinking arguments, or idiotic one liners that you’d like to throw out or would you like to have conversations like adults?
 
Either you legalize ****ing a woman in the ass, or you ban sex altogether

Wrong. Sodomy laws have already been shot down by federal courts.
I think this was much earlier last decade (2000-2009).
 
Wrong. Sodomy laws have already been shot down by federal courts.
I think this was much earlier last decade (2000-2009).

Ah, you're correct, they were turned down in 2003. In that instance sex was sex.

So yep, my analogy doesn't work. However I can't help but notice you didn't in any way touch the fact that I showed the amazing error in judgement and complete nonsense that was your analogy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom