Author Topic: Debate Club  (Read 2730 times)

I can't believe i'm going to attempt this. I've decided to make a SERIOUS debate club here on the forums.

So, here's how it goes down, every week i'm going to give topic and that's going to be your subject to discuss . STAY ON TOPIC PEOPLE!!

Also here are two important rules I encourage all of you to follow.
1. Support your opinion, simple right?
2. dont target the arguer, target the argument - ( Netwars4 ) 

This week's topic is marijuana, should it be legalized?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 01:02:29 AM by zeros_bro »

No, it shouldn't. Why? Even if it's 'good' for you, which i doubt it is, it will just encourage people to try to legalize other drugs like heroine. Next topic please.

No.
There is no feasible way to account for every transaction or to in any way regulate an industry of it due to the ease in production. If it was more difficult, cooporations may be able to handle the task better than private induviduals, though this would create an oligopoly, at least the industry would be regulated to an extent.

you should restate rule #2, it could be misled that you want us to keep our opinions to ourselves, instead say "dont target the arguer, target the argument"

and i personally think marijuana is a bad thing, since it gives you the downsides of smoking along with lowered attention span, lowered motivation, and lowered senses.
sure you can use a bong to lower the effects of what it does to your lungs, but mentally its not good news.

and to retort the 'its good for the eyes'
if bad for the lungs, as well as the mind. if rather be blind then a coughing handicap.

No.
There is no feasible way to account for every transaction or to in any way regulate an industry of it due to the ease in production. If it was more difficult, cooporations may be able to handle the task better than private induviduals, though this would create an oligopoly, at least the industry would be regulated to an extent.

touche, but it makes it harder for people to access the drug.
like at one point we had a marijuana distributor at a local pharmacy (im in California), and a bunch of perfectly healthy surfers would always go there and get some using a fake prescription.
so sure we cannot stop it entirely, we can make it harder for people to access it, which can make person not want the drug (if they are deciding whether to start or not)
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 01:01:41 AM by Netwars4 »

touche, but it makes it harder for people to access the drug.
like at one point we had a marijuana distributor at a local pharmacy (im in California), and a bunch of perfectly healthy surfers would always go there and get some using a fake prescription.
so sure we cannot stop it entirely, we can make it harder for people to access it, which can make person not want the drug (if they are deciding whether to start or not)
I don't really understand what you are trying to say...
You can't really make anything harder than saying its illegal.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say...
You can't really make anything harder than saying its illegal.

well what im saying is that if it is illegal, then people will be turned off to starting to use it.
they wont want to as much because theyll realize it would be much harder to obtain then if you could just go by the local pharmacy.

and yeah i tend to word myself weirdly.

But it already is illegal federally.
True, the state of California allows it for medical purposes, but states have now authority to overrule a government descision on their own. For instance, FBI can still bust you for possession if they wanted to, no matter what state you are in.

but if it is legalized even for medical use, it will take away some of the severity of it.
"oh its illegal? nevermind then"
as oppose to
"oh its legal for medical purposes? well theyll never know if im using it for medical purposes or not"

and not everyone knows about the FBI thing

inb4 someone makes a master debater joke

People are going to smoke weed regardless of whether its legal or not - that's a fact. Whether our governments should waste such huge portions of taxpayer money and personnel on trying to regulate that is what makes for a better argument to legalise it. Statistically smoking weed is less dangerous than alcohol yet alcohol is perfectly legal. Furthermore, someone mentioned weed having the bad effects of cigarettes plus other bad things - well weed isn't addictive for a start and doesn't contain tar either (which is one of the things that irreparably damages your lungs) so that's a load. Finally, there has been no conclusive evidence as to the overall negative side-effects of smoking weed whereas cigarettes are known to cause lung cancer.

I hear weed can be good for you in some cases. You have very valid points there and have opened my eyes.

I hear weed can be good for you in some cases.
Yeh, but the problem for most people using it for medicinal purposes - is that it can help so much that they get too used to using it, and start overusing it.

doesn't contain tar either (which is one of the things that irreparably damages your lungs)

uh, yeah it does. now i'm pro-legalisation but spreading things that are blatantly false even if they do support my point of view i don't agree with. weed contains tar (but only about 33% that of cigarettes), but tar is not what causes lung cancer. i can't be botherd explaining my view on the matter, go look in the other legalisatiobn thread for a fuller explanation.

This issue has been beaten to death in the other topic and

People are going to smoke weed regardless of whether its legal or not - that's a fact. Whether our governments should waste such huge portions of taxpayer money and personnel on trying to regulate that is what makes for a better argument to legalise it. Statistically smoking weed is less dangerous than alcohol yet alcohol is perfectly legal. Furthermore, someone mentioned weed having the bad effects of cigarettes plus other bad things - well weed isn't addictive for a start and doesn't contain tar either (which is one of the things that irreparably damages your lungs) so that's a load. Finally, there has been no conclusive evidence as to the overall negative side-effects of smoking weed whereas cigarettes are known to cause lung cancer.
what he said.

uh, yeah it does. now i'm pro-legalisation but spreading things that are blatantly false even if they do support my point of view i don't agree with. weed contains tar (but only about 33% that of cigarettes), but tar is not what causes lung cancer. i can't be botherd explaining my view on the matter, go look in the other legalisatiobn thread for a fuller explanation.
That topic was long, could you provide a link to your exact post?

Given that other extremely addictive and/or dangerous substances are legal (to people of a certain age), and the relatively similar degree of effect marijuana has compared to them, the only reason I can see for being against legalizing it is for some moral reason. Drugs are bad, reefer madness, etc.

In fact, on "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way - Marijuana" I recall that the man behind the original legislation to ban marijuana's main motivation was to send Mexicans to jail or get the deported.

It saddens me that the propoganda regarding marijuana is still being circulated as fact today :(. Yes, i'm for it.

The funny thing is the prohibition against marijuana is the only possible reason this theory could be true. There is nothing in marijuana that would make its users seek a harder drug, if marijuana was legalised, regulated and taxed like alcohol and tobacco you would be able to smoke your pot with no way to access harder drugs. Wheras with its current illigal status, to obtain you you need to get into contact with drug dealers, who are just there to make money. So a lot of them will try to convince you to do other drugs if they are also dealers of that drug.

:facepalm:

The LD50 (lethal dosage) for THC (active ingredient in marijuana)  in male rats is 1,270mg/kg (That's for every kilogram of your weight 1.27grams is THC). The usual dosage for THC is around 10-15mg to be 'high'. Doing the maths for rats compared to humans, you would need about 300 grams of pure THC to overdose. That's 30,000 joints (assuming 10mg per joint).

If you can smoke 30,000 joints and overdose on marijuana, i applaud you.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

Your logic is done.

People, please research what you say before you make outragious claims, check out this website:

http://abovetheignorance.org/



That's my post from the other topic, i didn't mentioned the tar argument in that post because it wasn't brought up. But basically what it is is another poorly done 'scientific' test done to 'prove' the negative effects on cannabis, by testing the tar content of cannabis resin (resin basically = pure tar anyway) compared to that of tobacco it came up with a higher concentration level (surprise!). But tar doesn't cause cancer, tobacco is grown with radioactive fertiliser, and contains hundreds of dangerous additives that cannabis does not.