• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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 .
F

FreeRoamer

This is of course, assuming these restrictions were in place:
- a strictly enforced age limit
- a ban on public usage
- a ban on operating machinery while under the influence
- and a ban on social services to those who produced positive urine tests.

Thanks
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,485
Reaction score
8,039
Location
lincoln park
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mods, for the love of all things good and holy, please create a Drug/alcohol sub forum!!!!
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think it's been all of two weeks since the last maryjane poll.


Standard answer:
Yeslegalizeitandbringthesupplychainintotheopenmarketandimposepurityregulationsandtaxesandtreatitlikebooze.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Should a substance that is less addictive than caffeine and which may have genuine benefits to our pharmaceutical and energy infrastructure be made legal?

Hm...that is a tough one.
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It should be legal. The Fed Gov should stay out of it. Each state should set the regulations on it. Marijuana is better for you than alcohol.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is of course, assuming these restrictions were in place:
- a strictly enforced age limit
- a ban on public usage
- a ban on operating machinery while under the influence
- and a ban on social services to those who produced positive urine tests.

Thanks
I'm all for those except the last. I don't think we should do drug testing for those who get social services.
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm all for those except the last. I don't think we should do drug testing for those who get social services.

I agree. Just because they test positive doesn't mean they bought it.

They shouldn't test for marijuana but they should do testing for heroin and crack.
 
Last edited:

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,223
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I believe it should not be legalized for recreational purposes either. It's a schedule 1 drug for a reason. I don't buy the propaganda of "it's natural, non toxic, and herb maaan." It's a mind altering substance that should be kept illegal. We don't need more cancerous and mild altering drugs.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Marijuana should be legal but not for any of the reasons mentioned above. The only reason why Marijuana and almost everything else should be legal is because the illegality of Marijuana and almost everything else imposes the state on it's subjects, erodes the sovereignty of the individual and erodes the free market. The reasons above suggest that if other goods do not meet the supposed criteria that Marijuana does that it should be illegal too. This is the message conveyed even though you had no intention of showing that.
 
Last edited:

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It was propaganda that made it illegal in the first place.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Interesting, out of the 49 no votes, only 1 is from a member here.

Anyways, yes it should be legal, it's no worse than alcohol, and the only reason it was made illegal was due to propaganda in the early 1900's.
 

Jucon

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
787
Reaction score
222
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is of course, assuming these restrictions were in place:
- a strictly enforced age limit
- a ban on public usage
- a ban on operating machinery while under the influence
- and a ban on social services to those who produced positive urine tests.

Thanks
I see you're new to the forum... I'll direct you to watch this video incase you haven't already seen it before. Note the 2nd thing to consider before starting a new thread...

YouTube - Steam Forum Rules

Happy posting!
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
LMAO nice one Jucon.
 

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Let's look at the benefits of making it legal:
-It can be taxed similarly like alcohol and cigarettes are creating hundreds of millions in state and federal revenue a year
-It can help reinvigorate our agriculture industry not just on a recreational level but on a textile level as well (with the hemp)
-Chances are a lot less people would waste their money on crappy man made medicines that are worse for them anyways, therefore medical companies would be forced to lower their prices overall just to get people to buy their wares
-It would severely reduce the problems we have on the border, and drug related violence around border states
-It would free up the prison system saving tax payers millions in dollars

Disadvantages:
-Ah man do I have to go to work now? Oh well guess I do?
-Ah man do I have to go to the store and buy more oreos now? Oh well guess I do?
-Skunk weed
-Bogarting

Seriously how could ANYONE be against the legalization? From what I understand the majority of Americans are for the legalization of it so we need to do this right now.
 

tlmorg02

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
3,347
Reaction score
1,078
Location
Louisville, Ky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It should be legal. The Fed Gov should stay out of it. Each state should set the regulations on it. Marijuana is better for you than alcohol.
Actually the British Journal of Medicine just released the results of a study that showed people who drink moderate amounts of alcohol have less inflammation from arthritis and that those who drink are less likely to get arthritis altogether. Just a note.;)
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,763
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I believe it should not be legalized for recreational purposes either.
I do.

It's a schedule 1 drug for a reason.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotic:
A looser usage of the word "narcotic" to refer to any illegal or unlawfully possessed drug including marijuana and heroin is common worldwide, although these substances are not considered narcotics in a medical or scientific context. The central drug policy making body within the United Nations, for instance, is the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, although the United Nations officially defines a narcotic drug to be "any of the substances, natural or synthetic, in Schedules I and II of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and that Convention as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961" Used in this manner the word "narcotic" is a useful if not wholly accurate label to denote any drug that is subject to the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, or similar legislation elsewhere.
So, because they are listed in the Schedule I, they are considered narcotics. That is all.

It is on the schedule 1 because they have been demonized and propagandized throughout the 30's, 40's, 50's and to today. It is the "devil's weed" and it will get your daughter pregnant by a Mexican. No actual scientific data went into the decision. In fact, the AMA was against making marijuana illegal. Corporate interests drove making it illegal.

I don't buy the propaganda of "it's natural, non toxic, and herb maaan."
As opposed to the propaganda that it will make you crazy?

It's a mind altering substance that should be kept illegal. We don't need more cancerous and mild altering drugs.
What is the problem with mind altering substances? It doesn't harm anyone and it should be our individual choice.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I do.



From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotic:


So, because they are listed in the Schedule I, they are considered narcotics. That is all.

It is on the schedule 1 because they have been demonized and propagandized throughout the 30's, 40's, 50's and to today. It is the "devil's weed" and it will get your daughter pregnant by a Mexican. No actual scientific data went into the decision. In fact, the AMA was against making marijuana illegal. Corporate interests drove making it illegal.



As opposed to the propaganda that it will make you crazy?



What is the problem with mind altering substances? It doesn't harm anyone and it should be our individual choice.
Wow...soooo many problems in this one post.

1: You're using wiki. A worthless site that can be edited by ANYONE. It's basically a glorified blog website.

2: Your link does not go to the page with which you quote. Why don't you make one?

3: Your quote starts out "A looser usage of the word "narcotic""...seriously? A looser usage? That alone would disqualify anything to anyone with even half a brain.

4: No it will not get your daughter pregnant from a mexican. No one of any decent scientific standing that wants to be taken seriously would ever have said that. The only ones that do are idiots...probably originally by dopers themselves trying to be sarcastic.

5: If you seriously think that mind altering substances doesn't hurt anyone then I would suggest to you to take a big sniff of coccaine. See weather or not it will hurt someone.

6: The only ones calling it propaganda are those with no brains...at least imo. I've seen the effects on people that smoke MJ personally. You cannot tell me that it does no harm and think that I will take you seriously.

IMO those trying to say that pot does no harm are no better than cigarette companies when they were saying the same thing.

Yes there are medicinal uses for MJ. There are medicinal uses for any herb out there. But just like everything else if it is used improperly or in excess it can and will hurt you and by default the ones you love.
 

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Kal'Sang everything the guy is saying is very true. It just isn't sourced by wikipedia but several others as well. There has never been proof of the serious ill effects that people believe marijuana give you. It is no more worse than drinking alcohol and much less dangerous. Here are a few things you won't do while smoking pot that you could potentially do drinking alochol:
-get poisoning from it
-die from it
-get violent and hurt someone else using it
-seriously impair your vision
-kill brain cells
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,763
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Wow...soooo many problems in this one post.

1: You're using wiki. A worthless site that can be edited by ANYONE. It's basically a glorified blog website.

2: Your link does not go to the page with which you quote. Why don't you make one?

3: Your quote starts out "A looser usage of the word "narcotic""...seriously? A looser usage? That alone would disqualify anything to anyone with even half a brain.

4: No it will not get your daughter pregnant from a mexican. No one of any decent scientific standing that wants to be taken seriously would ever have said that. The only ones that do are idiots...probably originally by dopers themselves trying to be sarcastic.

5: If you seriously think that mind altering substances doesn't hurt anyone then I would suggest to you to take a big sniff of coccaine. See weather or not it will hurt someone.

6: The only ones calling it propaganda are those with no brains...at least imo. I've seen the effects on people that smoke MJ personally. You cannot tell me that it does no harm and think that I will take you seriously.

IMO those trying to say that pot does no harm are no better than cigarette companies when they were saying the same thing.

Yes there are medicinal uses for MJ. There are medicinal uses for any herb out there. But just like everything else if it is used improperly or in excess it can and will hurt you and by default the ones you love.
I don't know what happened to the link.

Cannabis is not a medical or scientific narcotic. I see you chose to avoid this point.

Propaganda was heavily used prior and after the Marijuana Tax Act of 1936. There were no scientific studies done supporting this action. It was political.

Pot does no harm to anyone else. It does do minor harm to the user. This is not sufficient to prevent legal casual use.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't know what happened to the link.

Cannabis is not a medical or scientific narcotic. I see you chose to avoid this point.
Mirriam-Webster: Narcotic - From the dictionary part.

Mirriam-Webster: Drug - From the dictionary part.

Mirriam-Webster: Narcotic - From the medical part

Mirriam-Webster: Drug - From the medical part.

Yes it is scientifically and medically considered a narcotic and a drug.

Propaganda was heavily used prior and after the Marijuana Tax Act of 1936. There were no scientific studies done supporting this action. It was political.
So what? We have the studies now.

Pot does no harm to anyone else. It does do minor harm to the user. This is not sufficient to prevent legal casual use.
Bull. Any drug use has been proven to harm loved ones of the user. Mainly emotional. My sister does pot. Because of the way she acted due to it she is no longer welcomed by my family or my mom and dad. She has hurt us all emotionally. Partly because of theft from us. Partly because of her attitude due to MJ.

Oh wait...those are her actions and were not caused by pot right? Pot doesn't alter a persons personality right? That is such bullcrap.
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,763
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
No, it is not. I quote the relevant definition from your link to the medical dictionary for narcotic:
2 : a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether in fact physiologically addictive and narcotic or not
Pot is not physiologically addictive like a narcotic, nor is it classified as a scientific narcotic. It is only subject to the same restrictions as a narcotic.


So what? We have the studies now.
and they do NOT support this action.


Bull. Any drug use has been proven to harm loved ones of the user. Mainly emotional. My sister does pot. Because of the way she acted due to it she is no longer welcomed by my family or my mom and dad. She has hurt us all emotionally. Partly because of theft from us. Partly because of her attitude due to MJ.

Oh wait...those are her actions and were not caused by pot right? Pot doesn't alter a persons personality right? That is such bullcrap.
Anecdotal and theft was no caused by the drug. Emotional pain - get over it. The fact that you have banished her says it all. Seems there is more to your opposing legalization.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I agree. Just because they test positive doesn't mean they bought it.

They shouldn't test for marijuana but they should do testing for heroin and crack.
I don't think those who are being given social services should be tested at all for anything.
 
Top Bottom