Welcome to the new Sinister Design forums!

Main Menu


Started by Deagonx, April 20, 2011, 04:14:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


There is a lot of controversy among whether or not marijuana should be illegal. I think it should be legal.


1. It is a plant, it is nature. Not something concocted by human beings.

2. The reason it was illegalized was because [cannot remember name] spread a hate campaign about it to protect his interests in the wood industry. Hemp is a very cheap source for paper.

3. It is not as addicting, nor intoxicating as both smoking and alcohol. Yet both of those are legal.

4. If the government sold and taxed weed it would be a big source of money for the government.

5. More than half of America does it, infact.. more than half of the human race has done it, or does it frequently.

So I ask you, fellow debaters, do you disagree with me on this?

FACT: I do not smoke.
I believe in evolution. How else would Charmander become Charizard?


Why is it that I always find myself on the opposite side of the debate from you? Possibly because we're very different people.

Point 1: So is the coca plant, hallucinogenic mushrooms, opium, alcohol, and tobacco. What's your point?

Point 2: I have nothing against the use of the Cannabis sativa plant for hemp and hemp products.

Number three is malarkey. The marijuana drug is, while not physically addictive, heavily psychologically addictive and habit-forming. Workers are completely unproductive while on the drug, while with moderated use of alcohol, workers can still continues to function, albeit not with heavy machinery. Marijuana smoking is brain-damaging, behavior-altering, judgement-impairing, and carcinogenic.

4: The US government does not sell recreational drugs. Any sales tax revenues generated go to, individually, the states. The US federal government alone has the authority legalize marijuana. Therefore, it is not in their best interests to legalize marijuana. To do so would be a violation of a signed treaty.

5: Oh, so it should be legal by popular opinion? No one I know does it. Do people you know? If so, try to encourage them to stop. Really.


1: for weed, you simply burn it. For most others listed you must do some sort of refining.

2: Could not happen without legalizing the plant entirely

3: With that logic, Im addicted to Mountain Dew. The second sentence is 'malarkey.' If they are entirely nonproductive its because of their own accord. Marijuana does nothing but raise THC levels. Those 'studies' that proved it kills brain cells... Hmm let me describe the test.

They put masks on monkeys and fed nothing but weed through it. They got no oxygen and brain cells died.
Carcinogenic? Many many things are claimed carcinogenic. If I drank soda for 4 years and got cancer they would claim soda was carcinogenic. It is not judgement impairing, it heavily relaxes you and puts you in better spirits.

4: MARIJUANA IS NOT A DRUG! It is basically the some concept as tobacco, a plant that you burn. What treaty?

5: You cannot say for fact that no one you know does it. I know TEACHERS that do it. My BROTHERS do it. My PARENTS do it. My NEIGHBORS do it.

They just wont tell you since you are so heavily against it.
I believe in evolution. How else would Charmander become Charizard?


Point 1: For weed, you burn or eat. For tobacco, you burn. For coca, you boil and brink. For mushrooms, you eat. For opium, you dry the juice. For alcohol, you leave fruit out, and when it smells like alcohol, you drink / eat it. Yep, that's really refined.

Point 2: Actually, cultivation, possession, consumption, and distribution of marijuana are three separate crimes. Legalize cultivation and possession with a license and you have hemp production.

Point 3: Yes, quite possibly. Are you unable to stop drinking it? Would you go into withdrawal if you stopped?

About the test: now that's the biggest load of malarkey I've heard in a long time. Test procedure:

  • Take FMRI scans of test subjects' brain functions and activity.
  • Subjects injest marijuana drug.
  • Take FMRI scans of test subjects' brain functions and activity after drug use.
  • Compare

The findings included decreased frontal lobe activity, lower activity in areas of the brain handling judgement, and higher levels of activity in areas of the brain associated with creativity. Not surprising; it's a recreational drug.

Smoke inhalation is carcinogenic and unhealthful, leading to brochial irritation, lung cancer, and throat cancer. Marijuana smoking does just that. Marijuana, eaten, is simply harmful as a psychoactive drug.

Being relaxed at the wrong times can be judgement-impairing by itself, but actually, I'm going to have to say you're incorrect on this point. Marijuana is judgement-impairing, like alcohol.

Point 4:
Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 05:49:33 PMMARIJUANA
Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 05:49:33 PMIS NOT A DRUG!

Drug: a non-nutritious chemical that alters the normal functioning of bodily systems, including brain, heart, glandular and other functions. This means that tobacco, marijuana drug, caffeine, alcohol, cocaine, opium and opium derivatives, and all the bad ones you hear about not listed, and all the ones your doctor might perscribe are drugs. Recreational drugs are the above, but for fun. That excludes the doctor-perscribed ones, usually, but painkillers sometimes make the list.

Yes, I can say it for a fact. I live in an area where no one does it. All I have to say about your parents doing it is no wonder you're okay with it, and they aren't being particularly good role models right there, and I'm sorry you have to live surrounded by drug-abusers.

It saddens me that such areas where marijuana use is so rampant exist, and I hope you don't end up following their example in that respect, for the good of the country, the world, society, and yourself.


Good lord you are so full of it.

1. You proved my point, then used sarcasm to call me wrong  :D

2. Believe me when I say those 'licenses' aren't going into effect anytime soon.

3. Yes, I ACTUALLY go into withdrawal. I use the caffeine as a counter to my ADHD

4. With that definition weed is not a drug. The THC that it gives you is a drug, it is not a chemical.

Don't you dare say I am influenced by my parents. I had this concept long before I knew that they did it. I came to this by my own accord and I used to be very very strongly set against it. I did a lot of research on it and as far as I am concerned if Tobacco is legal Pot should be legal.
I believe in evolution. How else would Charmander become Charizard?


I don't see a strong reason for forbidding the sell of the so-called "light" drugs. However, I can't agree with all that Deagonx said.

So, regarding the 1st post by Deagonx:

1. There are in the world a few poisonous plants. Should they be allowed to be sold? I don't think so.

2. I never heard anything about it. I went to wikipedia and I found a reference about it, but not exactly as you stated it.

3. I heard that too. Here is an illustration from the wikipedia:

4. That is true. Taxes from legalized weed would be a source of income. But that can be applied to any other substance, so it can't be used as a (strong) argument in favour of legalization.

5. I would like to know if that number is accurate. Having tried a few times is different from regular consumption. Furthermore, where I live, I know (because I see it) that lots of under-aged kids drink alcoholic beverages and smoke. Should this be used as an argument to legalize alcohol and tobacco to people of any age? Again, I don't think so.

And the final line of your post don't have to be on a large sized font.

Duckling, a few things aren't true in your point #3 of your 1st post, at least according to what is written on the wikipedia. The figure above contradicts what you said. And the carcinogenic allegations aren't proved.

And about point 4, Treaties can be changed. The 2 main reasons to change a treaty are: monetary profit and getting more votes.

My parents don't smoke marijuana (and they told me they never did it). And still I'm in favour of legalizing. I'll state my points below.

So, here are my points:

1. Prohibiting a substance don't stop it's consumption.
2. Legal substances can be taxed and in return, a country controls the quality of the substance (and have some revenue).
3. Fluctuations in the quality and the addition of other products just to increase the weight increase the risk of health problems.
4. Drug traffic is a very profitable activity for a limited number of people at the expense of drug addicts. Furthermore, it increases criminality: fight for control of a zone (by the dealers) and robbery to get money (by the addicts).

So, thinking in terms of public health and crime rates, legalization is the reasonable option to make.
Ert, the Dead Cow.
With 2 small Mandelbrot sets as the spots.



Tobacco? Mushrooms? Alcohol? (About the fruit; you can just go looking for fermented fruit, and immediately eat) Coffee beans (they can be ingested directly)? Cocao? Opium? (You just have to drink the latex of the fruit if you don't want to go to the trouble of drying it out).
If you count making tea as "some sort of refining", (which, technically, it is) then yes, coca must be refined. For weed, you burn or eat.

I tell you that few to no drugs actually require refinement, and you say I've proved your point.

Second: True. But they could.

Third: If you use it as a medical treatement, it's not an addiction. But I must remark that soda is not a treatment for ADHD and would only make distraction and attention deficit worse.

Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 06:34:57 PM
Good lord you are so full of it.

4. With that definition weed is not a drug. The THC that it gives you is a drug, it is not a chemical.

Any substance containing a drug is a drug.

And finally, there is not a single person on the Earth that is not influenced by their parents. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you when you insist that you were not influenced by them in this regard. One question: did you form your new opinion after, or before you found out? Research is just that; it is what you search. If you search for an answer, the answer you seek you will find.

With that I may cease arguing a pointless debate. Your mind will not be changed. My mind will not be changed. But if you say some things that are simply not true, I may have to kindly correct you.

@ert: I haven't gotten around to making my points about what you've said yet. Hold on.


Other than the third one you generally just called me wrong/stated opinions.

Third: The caffeine counteracts my ADHD. Don't try to tell me otherwise. I drank a BFC and I was like a turtle on heroine.
I believe in evolution. How else would Charmander become Charizard?


@ert: May I double-post? I'd like to respond to your post, but I can't effectively get a point across when the text fills up my box by too much, because of a glitch with the post box.

1: Which figure? I can't figure out what you're referring to.

Carcinogenic? Not quite proven, but smoke inhalation in general is linked to cancer.

2: Yes, but these are the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, both of which are UN based, and items are put on or taken off the list of controlled substances at the WHO's discretion; it's not very negotiable. The United States does have the sovereign right to withdraw from the treaty, but it wouldn't look very good, and Reid v. Covert would jump on the federal government in a second if we tried to withdraw from the entire treaty, but made some of the drugs illegal again.

And to address your points:

1: Yes, but it can slow it down. If many are smoking now, think of how many will be smoking if we legalize. (And yes, I'm sure you have a very good response to this; I vaguely remember it being a trap argument when I last debated it. All I can hope for is that you either don't have that in mind, or that it's not undefeatable as an argument)

2: If we officially condone the use of marijuana, we look bad, and we will have legalized a harmful drug for money. There are better ways to generate revenue. Like raising taxes.

3: I don't understand that last bit. Smoking has been linked to obesity; is that what you mean when you say "to increase the weight increase the risk of health problems."?

4: The reason that marijuana usage is so common is that despite its illegality, the rist compared to the high one recieves isn't significant enough. It is my belief that marijuana-related sentences should be lengthed, fines increased, and misdemeanor offenses related to marijuana should be upgraded to felonies. Sure, we can't get rid of smoking or drinking yet, but those are incredibly well-ingrained in our culture. We should try to stamp out marijuana when we still can.


2: Except.. its not harmful  :D

3: I don't know any fat people, even slightly overweight people who smoke. Most of them are very very skinny.

4: You will never, and I mean never, stop people from smoking. According to some people I know the feeling of being high is practically therapeutic.

If we increase the punishments the drug market will get that much more violent. That is the last thing we want.

I believe in evolution. How else would Charmander become Charizard?


Except... it is harmful. LOL! PEOPLE DYING! Hahaha!

3: That was to Ert.

4: It's not meant to stop all. It's meant to stop some. Some people aren't constant abusers, but are trying the drug once. If we stop them, that's half the prospective market.

Also, if we can't stop people, we can try to keep them from starting. Being jailed for ten years on your first try of a drug is rather discouraging, eh?


Yes, a fictional statement saying people are dying is quite funny isn't it?

4: Jails will be overflowing.
I believe in evolution. How else would Charmander become Charizard?


I'm not going to get into a big whole debate here. Just my opinions. I personally feel that anything of that nature that's used simply to be used is to be avoided. In other words, for reasons of my own, I don't think that Marijuana should be legalized. Just my opinion.


Aw, Buggy and I agree on something. How awesome! *gives Bug a hug and doesn't care if Bug doesn't want a hug*

Now, I'm wondering if that opinion is at all influenced by your religion. Not that it matters either way, but the way you phrased it... well, anyway, that's one less marijuana drug-abuser out there!

155,000,000 or more people to go!


You can't abuse marijuana LOL!

Anyways, in terms of religion....

God made the cannabis plant. Therefore, isn't it alright?
I believe in evolution. How else would Charmander become Charizard?