• We're currently experiencing a minor issue with our email system preventing emails for new registrations and verifications going out. We're currently working to fix this
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Duuuddee... Pass the blunt...

ChedWick

Well-Known Member
Its already banned so why waste the time? I mean, im fine with medical prescribed purposes honestly. But there are alot of arrogant people.
Such as yourself? You've completely sidestepped the question and in a rather poor manner.

We "waste the time" because the negative effects are quite negligible but the positive effects are many.
 

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
Its already banned so why waste the time? I mean, im fine with medical prescribed purposes honestly. But there are alot of arrogant people.
So your entire argument consists of "I don't like it" and "The government says so."

Fortunately, I don't rely on the government to tell me what is right and what is wrong. I draw my own conclusions.

We "waste the time" discussing these serious issues because the current policy of "No! Never! It's bad! Gateway druuuuuug!" is clearly not working. We've spent BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on this prohibition theory and it has done absolutely nothing. To say the status-quo is acceptable as a public policy position is nothing short of delusion.
 
Last edited:

Ohshi

Banned from Club Penguin
(which is lol to begin with because the War on Drugs has never been successful)

There is proof that it the success has been fluctuating, but at the most part it is generally decreasing.

I don't see a correlation between smoking pot and education or lack thereof. Pot can be just like any other vice.

You just admitted it is a vice. Releasing another a vice to the public increases the chance of more young folk being distracted with this drug. Either, they end up smoking this and kill their brain cells. Or, they waste all their time smoking besides studying. You can't honesty argue that if this becomes legal (which makes it more available in general), there won't be at least any slight decrease in education.

People walk out of cigar and hookah bars, and regular bars too...after drinking and smoking. I know *gasp* won't someone think of the children??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!!?!

Ignoring the overuse of question marks and exclaimation points which makes this rebuttal lose credibility, I wasn't even arguing against that in the first place. I just disagree if there will be public "marijuana zones." You know just like smoking zones, not like bars...
Replies in bold.

Generally, if you don't care about marijuana's effects on education of the young folk and the general well-being/appearance/standard of society, then yea. You are kinda insensitive about it. You end up being one of those people saying "Well, I don't see it affecting me if it becomes legal, so why not?" and you give advice saying "If you hate it so much, avoid it." However, you don't realize that there are not-so-smart people that succumb to the terrible effects of marijuana and you could care less. But to one's own I guess.

It's not like, the minute pot is legalized, millions of people will come out and clog the streets with their smoking.
To tell you the truth, that is not that far-fetch'd. Clearly, we have supressed by the law for so long that once it does become legal, I'm afraid but people are going to go crazy and let lose. Not like what you exaggerated, but it will happen, probably briefly. But how brief is the real question, could it be mere days or few weeks? Or actually be at least a month or two? That sounds like serious damage imo.

I really don't get what's so bad about being honest and truthful about raising the next generation to be responsible with drugs, alcohol, and (safe) sex. This whole "no! never! it's bad!" is just clearly not working.
We already promoted being responsible with alchohol and safe sex. That is why there are health class promoting (and even sometimes giving away) condoms and alcohol brands already say drink moderately. That is also not working. Like how abstinence>safe sex, illegal marijuana>responsible marijuana use.
 
Last edited:

Raddaya

My Little Ponyta
If only there WERE terrible effects of marijuana. Unfortunately, it's pretty much a hugely safe drug and we may as well ban painkillers or aspirin.
 
Last edited:

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
Replies in bold.
Yes, vices are bad stuff. But do we ban everything that can negatively impact someone's well being? Does that expand to junk food? Soda? Vehicle use? Smart phones?

You know what else can affect education?

Video games. Smart phones. Texting. All types of other stuff.

If you think pot being illegal now makes it hard to get, you are, again, delusional.

The rate of teens who think pot is "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain has remained virtually unchanged since 1975.

This is a clear indicator that the War on Drugs is a failure. We've spent BILLIONS of dollars, money that could've been spent on improving our crumbling bridges and roads, our failing schools, or any number of other uses, and instead we spent it on banning a substance that has resulted in the drug being just as easy, if not easier than ever, to obtain.

Telling a teenager "Don't do this. It's bad" does not work. If we treat them like the young men and women they are, and tell them the TRUTH instead of using scare tactics, maybe we can make some headway here.

Generally, if you don't care about marijuana's effects on education of the young folk and the general well-being/appearance/standard of society, then yea. You are kinda insensitive about it. You end up being one of those people saying "Well, I don't see it affecting me if it becomes legal, so why not?" and you give advice saying "If you hate it so much, avoid it." However, you don't realize that there are not-so-smart people that succumb to the terrible effects of marijuana and you could care less. But to one's own I guess.
The education system is broken, no doubt about it. Marijuana and alcohol use isn't even in the top 10 of why though.

You're operating under the assumption that it being illegal has deterred use. It clearly has not. If you legalize it, you at least take the stigma off it and allow a legal distribution to combat the illegal distribution.

See, this is the difference I have with liberals. Liberals want to use their own morality to guide society and ban vices they deem immoral, but allow vices that they personally are fine with. I'm more of the persuasion that all vices are vices. All can potentially be abused. People can become addicted to video games just as they can become addicted to pot (because pot itself, as I've documented before, is not phyiscally addictive). But should we ban video games?

To tell you the truth, that is not that far-fetch'd. Clearly, we have supressed by the law for so long that once it does become legal, I'm afraid but people are going to go crazy and let lose. Not like what you exaggerated, but it will happen, probably briefly. But how brief is the real question, could it be mere days or few weeks? Or actually be at least a month or two? That sounds like serious damage imo.
Clearly, alcohol prohibition where only those over 21 can purchase alcohol has worked because we don't have a bunch of young kids going off to college and getting completely wasted and not knowing how to deal with alcohol at all...

oh wait, that's actually the opposite of what happens.

We already promoted being responsible with alchohol and safe sex. That is why there are health class promoting (and even sometimes giving away) condoms and alcohol brands already say drink moderately. That is also not working. Like how abstinence>safe sex, illegal marijuana>responsible marijuana use.
Actually, high school pretty much demonizes alcohol use. In another thread, a high school aged poster claimed that two drinks can make the average adult male drunk and claimed his health class as where he got his facts from. All too often, that is the norm in our system of high schools rather than the exception. Alcohol use is generally demonized and again it's something that clearly hasn't worked.

It should remain illegal until they find a way to remove that horrible smell.
You are honestly one of the worst posters in the Debate forum. Even when I agree with your positions, they're backed up by the worse "me! me! me! me! me!" logic.

When appropriately used and strictly used for medicine/painkiller purposes, no duh. But otherwise:
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm
http://www.kriskris.com/is-weed-bad-for-you/
Yes, alcohol and pot can be bad. How willing are you to extend these same attitudes to video games, fast food, and soda?
 

thunderblade12

Well-Known Member
marijuana isn't even addictive like cigarettes or alchohol... dunno how it would affect our world
I don't believe that for a minute. The substance itself may not be addictive but any behavior that is pleasing positively reinforces engaging in it again. Even food can be addicting.

That's not a reason for it to be illegal though. Chips. cigarettes, alcohol, chocolate, and medications may as well be illegal too then.
 

Raddaya

My Little Ponyta
Yes, but unlike cigarettes, alcohol, heroin and other hard drugs, it isn't physically addicting. Only psychologically, which as you've pointed out, includes a crapton of things.
 

GrizzlyB

Confused and Dazed
If only there WERE terrible effects of marijuana. Unfortunately, it's pretty much a hugely safe drug and we may as well ban painkillers or aspirin.
The difference being that painkillers and aspirin are actually useful, and not completely niched and situational.

The rate of teens who think pot is "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain has remained virtually unchanged since 1975.

This is a clear indicator that the War on Drugs is a failure. We've spent BILLIONS of dollars, money that could've been spent on improving our crumbling bridges and roads, our failing schools, or any number of other uses, and instead we spent it on banning a substance that has resulted in the drug being just as easy, if not easier than ever, to obtain.

Telling a teenager "Don't do this. It's bad" does not work. If we treat them like the young men and women they are, and tell them the TRUTH instead of using scare tactics, maybe we can make some headway here.You're operating under the assumption that it being illegal has deterred use. It clearly has not. If you legalize it, you at least take the stigma off it and allow a legal distribution to combat the illegal distribution.
I wouldn't say you're necessarily off the mark with the argument that the War on Drugs has been non- or minimally effectual when it comes to marijuana and alcohol, but really, how many of the billions of dollars going towards anti-drug efforts are actually spent on those minor drugs, as opposed to, say, overseas anti-narcotics efforts? I ask because all of the statistics I've ever seen people bring up about it are vague.

Yes, but unlike cigarettes, alcohol, heroin and other hard drugs, it isn't physically addicting. Only psychologically, which as you've pointed out, includes a crapton of things.
Comparing the addictiveness of fast food/video games/etc. to marijuana is roughly akin to comparing alcohol to herion.
 

deoxysdude94

I'm gonna miss my boi Deoxys...
NO!!! If it's legal, even more people will use it. I live in New York, and I know if it's legal I'll see people smoking it around every corner of every street. I don't want to live in that kind of environment.
 

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
NO!!! If it's legal, even more people will use it. I live in New York, and I know if it's legal I'll see people smoking it around every corner of every street. I don't want to live in that kind of environment.
For someone who lives in NYC, you sure don't know much about the smoking bans in your own backyard. Outdoor smoking in (most) public places is already banned, and I imagine it'd be easy to add pot to that ordinance.

There's no logical reason to ban a substance for every single use just because of some random person's one specific complaint.

Grizzly said:
I wouldn't say you're necessarily off the mark with the argument that the War on Drugs has been non- or minimally effectual when it comes to marijuana and alcohol, but really, how many of the billions of dollars going towards anti-drug efforts are actually spent on those minor drugs, as opposed to, say, overseas anti-narcotics efforts? I ask because all of the statistics I've ever seen people bring up about it are vague.
I wish I could give you an answer, but there's so much money going in and out in the forms of grants to police departments, federal prosecutions, and so much more, that its hard to tell exactly where it all goes. There have been notable anti-marijuana campaigns in recent years, such as that whole "marijuana supports terrorist" set of commercials that aired shortly after 9/11.

Comparing the addictiveness of fast food/video games/etc. to marijuana is roughly akin to comparing alcohol to herion.
The comparison in the case of marijuana is legit because it is not physically addictive. As I've pointed out in this and other threads (I sourced it somewhere in the gun thread), its addiction is chemical or mental. Similarly, video games can form a mental/psych addiction and soda and caffeine and prescribtion drugs can form both chemical and mental addictions.
 
Last edited:

GrizzlyB

Confused and Dazed
randomspot555 said:
I wish I could give you an answer, but there's so much money going in and out in the forms of grants to police departments, federal prosecutions, and so much more, that its hard to tell exactly where it all goes. There have been notable anti-marijuana campaigns in recent years, such as that whole "marijuana supports terrorist" set of commercials that aired shortly after 9/11.
Not surprised that you don't know, and again, I'm not completely dismissing the point. It just seems a little, well, irresponsible to appoint billions of dollars of spending to any particular effort of the War on Drugs, especially one that seems as relatively minor as marijuana. Advertising and instructing teachers/cops/whoever to tell kids that weed is terrible seems pretty cheap (in the scheme of things), while supplying aid overseas to combat drug cartels doesn't seem so cheap. Not that we should be throwing even small amounts of money at something if it doesn't avail us anything, just that it's a much smaller deal than it sounds like.

The comparison in the case of marijuana is legit because it is not physically addictive. As I've pointed out in this and other threads (I sourced it somewhere in the gun thread), its addiction is chemical or mental. Similarly, video games can form a mental/psych addiction and soda and caffeine and prescribtion drugs can form both chemical and mental addictions.
This is, of course, true, but as far as things that aren't physically addicting go, marijuana has an extremely high risk of addiction, while the other things listed are almost negligibly addicting compared to any other sort of positive stimulus. Likewise, alcohol is physically addicting, but pales in comparison with another physically addictive substance like heroin. They're all in the same psychological/physical category, but at opposite ends of the spectrum, is what I was getting at. I mean, the effects vary wildly, but the comparison is there, speaking strictly in terms of addictiveness; the comparison wasn't wrong, but it was very extreme.

As far as caffeine goes, I guess I'd have to hazard a guess that it's entirely unregulated because it's generally good all around and minimally addicting (even if it is physical). I guess that's interesting to point out, but caffeine can be isolated and added to many things almost as an afterthought, which differs pretty drastically from THC/etc. And yes, many prescription drugs run a huge addiction risk, especially physically, but that's exactly why they're regulated through prescriptions.
 

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
Not surprised that you don't know, and again, I'm not completely dismissing the point. It just seems a little, well, irresponsible to appoint billions of dollars of spending to any particular effort of the War on Drugs, especially one that seems as relatively minor as marijuana. Advertising and instructing teachers/cops/whoever to tell kids that weed is terrible seems pretty cheap (in the scheme of things), while supplying aid overseas to combat drug cartels doesn't seem so cheap. Not that we should be throwing even small amounts of money at something if it doesn't avail us anything, just that it's a much smaller deal than it sounds like.
The entire criticism of War on Drugs applies to the whole thing, not just marijuana. Illicit drugs, including prescribtion drugs to non-prescription patients, are more available now than ever before. It is clear that these bans do not work.

And before someone says "but but but heroin shooters in the street!", it's clear there is a middle ground between prohibition and laissez faire anarchy.



This is, of course, true, but as far as things that aren't physically addicting go, marijuana has an extremely high risk of addiction, while the other things listed are almost negligibly addicting compared to any other sort of positive stimulus. Likewise, alcohol is physically addicting, but pales in comparison with another physically addictive substance like heroin. They're all in the same psychological/physical category, but at opposite ends of the spectrum, is what I was getting at. I mean, the effects vary wildly, but the comparison is there, speaking strictly in terms of addictiveness; the comparison wasn't wrong, but it was very extreme.
Yes, they all have varying degrees of risk and regulation. The difference is, many of them are legal but regulated, and others are not. The difference really isn't how risky one is and how unrisky the others are, but rather one being legal and one not.
 

paracelsus

Well-Known Member
With legalization, you can not only cut a major area of funding for drug cartels, but you can help to fund the state. After the end of prohibition, the tax on alcohol helped the government to sustain itself for at least a decade. With our national debt higher (no pun intended) then it has ever been, legalizing and taxing the hell out of marijuana seems like an obvious move.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
You are honestly one of the worst posters in the Debate forum. Even when I agree with your positions, they're backed up by the worse "me! me! me! me! me!" logic.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Are you saying that you agree with my position or not? You weren't really that clear. I'm going to guess you agree with me. I have no idea what you meant by "me! me! me! me! me!" logic. Perhaps you word your posts better next time.

I have a roommate who has a medical card because he hurt his back or something when he was young. The awful stench from when he smokes his weed in his truck stays on his clothes, and you can smell it even if you aren't in the same room as him. The odor is a major negative externality of marijuana.
 
I'm sorry you feel that way. Are you saying that you agree with my position or not? You weren't really that clear. I'm going to guess you agree with me. I have no idea what you meant by "me! me! me! me! me!" logic. Perhaps you word your posts better next time.
Basically he's saying you're an attention seeking dullard (possibly also suggesting that you're far less intelligent than you believe yourself to be). I agree.

The odor is a major negative externality of marijuana.
It's not really though is it.
 

DJ Pon-3

Elite DJ
With legalization, you can not only cut a major area of funding for drug cartels, but you can help to fund the state. After the end of prohibition, the tax on alcohol helped the government to sustain itself for at least a decade. With our national debt higher (no pun intended) then it has ever been, legalizing and taxing the hell out of marijuana seems like an obvious move.
^ That 100%
 

Charizardfan900

Charizard King!
I don't know if this has been brought up, but there are a series of things that would change.

Who would grow legal weed? Would they grow it for quality or quantity?

Wherr we this be bought? Supermarkets? Weed shops?

Would age limits be made? Will you be able to smoke it in public places?


This whole idea of legalization is very complicated.


I see it as it should be legal, but restricted like tobacco (cigarettes) are.
 

DJ Pon-3

Elite DJ
Most of that can be planned, like where it would be distributed, quality control, and age limits. Public consumption would vary by state/city ordinances. As for growing it, it would be up to the farmers.
 
Top