Does Marijuana legalization, - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Does Marijuana legalization,
in United States

By TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
Only make it easier for some of career marijuana smokers, or the on an off again marijuana users, to get their now legalized marijuana, when previously they would have maybe found themselves being arrested for their illegal marijuana use, or possession?

Thus interrupting their own probable, individual family time with their families because of their previously illegal drug use issues? 

In the reality of marijuana legalization, has it stopped the underaged marijuana users, from no longer being able to still use marijuana?
(Reality note, no it hasn't, reason being, the kids who smoked weed prior to the legalization, are still smoking weed, post legalization.)

Does the taxation and the revenue, from the legalization of marijuana ideology, make a difference when it comes to the other taxation and revenue coffers like alcohol, and tobacco sales?

The alcohol legalization, made a difference, for the alcohol drinker, who drinks alcohol 5-7 days a week?

And maybe that alcohol drinker, introduced alcohol to a friend, or a family member who was underaged, at the time, but if the kid was told, that it was no big deal, no harm no foul right?

In some states it's legal for a kid to be enabled by an adult with alcohol.

The truth, it's makes the recreational weed user happy, and it makes the pro weed supporters happy, and it makes some of those political representatives who make the marijuana legalization talk, as a part of the campaign speeches, who are apparently pandering, to the (recreational weed user's, and the pro weed supporters, for their probable votes,) happy as well?

The aftermath of medical weed legalization, in turn, helping to get recreational weed use legalized, in turn, helping to get some of the offenders weed arrest records expunged, or getting released from jail, because of (the tactic of inventing a new way to look at the recreational weed use, and maybe even the marijuana trafficker, as non violent offenders?)

So when some of the adults, are using marijuana around kids, in the same room, or in the same dwelling, what type of weed legalization deterrent, is going to be used to address that illegal use, of legalized medicinal marijuana, or recreational marijuana, around those kids, in the same room, or in the same dwelling?

I wonder, why maybe the above illegal activity, isn't maybe mentioned in some of the language, that was used to author, some of the Legalization of Medical Marijuana legalization language, and the Recreational Marijuana legalization language? 

Or maybe some have allowed themselves, to in a sense,  to be raised by their individual marijuana usage, since they themselves were kids, or teenagers, and were maybe introduced to recreational marijuana, by another kid, or a teenager who was illegally using weed at the time?

So basically the Legalization of Marijuana amounts to a recreational weed user sanctuary law?

Or a polite con job?

"con job:

an act or instance of duping or swindling."

Thus, the recreational marijuana user, can smoke their weed, pretty much where ever they choose to get high at, at their individual leisure? 

Or another probable and polite con jon?

Just as in the same situation with the illegal aliens, or immigrants, being given sanctuary in a sanctuary city, via the Sanctuary City laws that were created to benefit the illegal alien, or immigrant? 

And they get to do what they want in the United States illegally, because they live, and reside in a sanctuary city?

And the rest of the law abiding U.S. citizens get to involuntarily live with the recreational marijuana use of the recreational weed user?

And if the recreational weed user's, are using their preferred drug of choice around their families or maybe other individuals kids, it's none of the rest of the publics business? 

Because the Legalization of Marijuana maybe, and involuntary helped those situations to be created, because of the recreational weed user's actions? 


«134567



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • And the rest of the law abiding U.S. citizens get to involuntarily live with the recreational marijuana use of the recreational weed user?

    Can I just say here that in truth I haven’t stopped living since I have discovered marijuana is the very reason America became a nation. As all sailing ships that had taken people across oceans at one time had been powered by sails made with hemp fiber.

    I also did not stop living when finding out people smoked marijuana. Did you? The freedom of religion can be used to describe a recreational consumption of a public without cost and without imposed price. This is outside the boundaries of religions who undertake the use of marijuana in many ways within the structures of a religion itself.

    My grievance would be a better structured in judicial separation in constitutional principle, for as with alcohol from the very beginning the Drug War had an understanding that drugs can be weaponized as an arm brought to bear, and this is a danger which is not constant with control of distribution issues for money.

  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    @John_C_87

    "I also did not stop living when finding out people smoked marijuana. Did you?"

    There is a video on YouTube, of a female adult, coaching, or teaching a toddler in how to indulge in smoking a joint.

    (Video of 2 year old baby smoking weed, "marijuana mom" arrested in Ohio.)

    Is was sad and demoralizing to see an adult, influence a toddler like that.

    That real life Truth, speaks for itself.

    The Truth, is this:

    The truth, it's makes the recreational weed user happy, and it makes the pro weed supporters happy, and it makes some of those political representatives who make the marijuana legalization talk, as a part of the campaign speeches, who are apparently pandering, to the (recreational weed user's, and the pro weed supporters, for their probable votes,) happy as well?

    The aftermath of medical weed legalization, in turn, helping to get recreational weed use legalized, in turn, helping to get some of the offenders weed arrest records expunged, or getting released from jail, because of (the tactic of inventing a new way to look at the recreational weed use, and maybe even the marijuana trafficker, as non violent offenders?)

    So when some of the adults, are using marijuana around kids, in the same room, or in the same dwelling, what type of weed legalization deterrent, is going to be used to address that illegal use, of legalized medicinal marijuana, or recreational marijuana, around those kids, in the same room, or in the same dwelling?

    I wonder, why maybe the above illegal activity, isn't maybe mentioned in some of the language, that was used to author, some of the Legalization of Medical Marijuana legalization language, and the Recreational Marijuana legalization language? 

    Or maybe some have allowed themselves, to in a sense,  to be raised by their individual marijuana usage, since they themselves were kids, or teenagers, and were maybe introduced to recreational marijuana, by another kid, or a teenager who was illegally using weed at the time?

    So basically the Legalization of Marijuana amounts to a recreational weed user sanctuary law?

    Or a polite con job?

    "con job:

    an act or instance of duping or swindling."

    Thus, the recreational marijuana user, can smoke their weed, pretty much where ever they choose to get high at, at their individual leisure? 

    Or another probable and polite con jon?

    Just as in the same situation with the illegal aliens, or immigrants, being given sanctuary in a sanctuary city, via the Sanctuary City laws that were created to benefit the illegal alien, or immigrant? 

    And they get to do what they want in the United States illegally, because they live, and reside in a sanctuary city?

    And the rest of the law abiding U.S. citizens get to involuntarily live with the recreational marijuana use of the recreational weed user?

    And if the recreational weed user's, are using their preferred drug of choice around their families or maybe other individuals kids, it's none of the rest of the publics business? 

    Because the Legalization of Marijuana maybe, and involuntary helped those situations to be created, because of the recreational weed user's actions?  
  • So basically the Legalization of Marijuana amounts to a recreational weed user sanctuary law?

     No, legislation of medical or recreational use of Marijuana is a way to draw a possible public admission of guilt on a legislation which may be otherwise unconstitutional, or illegal under conditions plus circumstance. Per person. What we are witnessing is an action which describes a freedom of religion fist hand.

    The price assigned by its legislation cost does not match assigned value of free as a liberty in whole truth. We have a liberty to grow our own fruits, vegetables, meat and control production, refining, application are the burdens of independence allowing application of learning methods for mass production. Even medical treatment as found out with alcohol, quite painfully. Uses outside consumption alone, on a natural raw material inside a community by law. There is marijuana there is hashish there are oils. There are poppy seeds, the poppy milk, opium, and heroin. The idea of law is that heroin is a patented engineered marital which a set under protection and can be reapplied by restructure of focused necessity as a medication.

    Basic principle Marijuana is legal in every state of the union. The argument of our union within united states for marijuana means people must prove hemp rope, and hemp sails and materials are illegal before an idea of amnesty is fit for united state as Constitutional law.

    Otherwise the tyrannical governing can simple just stack crimes one, upon one, to create a weight to tip a scale of impartial separation.

  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    edited April 23
    @John_C_87

    Did you go to YouTube, and look for, and watch that video, I told you about?

    (There is a video on YouTube, of a female adult, coaching, or teaching a toddler in how to indulge in smoking a joint.

    Video of 2 year old baby smoking weed, "marijuana mom" arrested in Ohio.

    Is was sad and demoralizing to see an adult, influence a toddler like that.

    That real life Truth, speaks for itself.)


    You're equating Recreational marijuana use, to a U.S. citizen, pursuing their "freedom of Religion?"

    There are Recreational marijuana users, who smoke weed, inside of this building?

    https://www.elevationists.org/

    Show me some information, where U.S. citizens, outside of the "elevationists" building, go to a Catholic Church, Baptist Church, or any other Religion based Churches, are smoking weed, while going to their services? 

    "No, legislation of medical or recreational use of Marijuana is a way to draw a possible public admission of guilt on a legislation which may be otherwise unconstitutional, or illegal under conditions plus circumstance. Per person. What we are witnessing is an action which describes a freedom of religion fist hand."

    More of your "truth philosophy," right? 
  • @TKDB

    You know, these videos say more about lack of character of certain people then about marijuana use itself... I could show you multiple videos where people are irresponsible with alcohol, guns, cars, food, chemical products, you name it, remember the Tide Pod Challenge?

    These videos say nothing about marijuana itself... There are no valid reasons to ban its use, only ideological dogmas...
    MajoMILSdlGMGV
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    edited April 23
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Your below overall response, is majoritively off topic.

    "You know, these videos say more about lack of character of certain people then about marijuana use itself... I could show you multiple videos where people are irresponsible with alcohol, guns, cars, food, chemical products, you name it, remember the Tide Pod Challenge?"

    This topic isn't over alcohol, guns, cars, food, chemical products, or the rest of your either.

    Who's character, are you talking about, maybe the toddlers character?

    The lady enabling the toddler, with the weed?

    The lady in the video, who appears to be defending the lady who enabled the toddler, with the weed?

    Or maybe the news anchor, who's educating, and informing, the viewing public, over the actions, that took place in the video? 

    "These videos say nothing about marijuana itself... There are no valid reasons to ban its use, only ideological dogmas..."

    "There are no valid reasons to ban its use, only ideological dogmas" 

    You mean these dogmas?

    Some of the kids introducing other kids to their weed use? 

    Some of the parents who have maybe introduced kids to weed? 

    Some of the teenagers, who I've seen, on various occasions, smoking their weed, while driving their vehicle, illegally? 

    I wonder, how many U.S. citizens, are mixing recreational weed use, or their medical weed use, while owning a gun illegally at the same time? 

    I wonder, how many recreational marijuana users, are maybe mixing their weed use, with meth, cocaine, heroin, or Opioid use, as well?

    I wonder how many Recreational weed users drive to work while high on weed?
    Or, maybe get high on weed, while on their lunch breaks, and then go back to work, while providing medical care, or some sort of customer service, while they are at their jobs? 

    Do you mean those types of dogmas? 

    Are you maybe a pro marijuana activist, or advocate? 

    Are you pro medical marijuana, for those states, that have as of yet to legalize weed for medicinal use, and then follow up the medical marijuana, with recreational marijuana use as well? 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @TKDB

    Obviously I was referring to the character of the adult enabling the toddler, if you had trouble figuring that out, well it says a lot about you IMO..........

    I'm advocating for full legalization of any drug, period...  The government should have no say whatsoever in what one choose to put in their body. You are aware that marijuana was legal and widely used in many ways for thousands of years before being illegal right?  

    As for dogmas, I think I won't be able to get past yours at this point... Weed is bad, M'kay?  Yeah yeah, I get it... *lights one up* 
    MajoMILSdlGMGV
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    This says a lot about your, any drug should be legalized philosophy?

    "I'm advocating for full legalization of any drug, period...  The government should have no say whatsoever in what one choose to put in their body. You are aware that marijuana was legal and widely used in many ways for thousands of years before being illegal right?"

    Where's your evidence to support your above claim?

    And the below questions: 

    (I'll make the guess, that they go against the grain of your, any drug should be legalized mindset right?)

    Some of the kids introducing other kids to their weed use? 

    Some of the parents who have maybe introduced kids to weed? 

    Some of the teenagers, who I've seen, on various occasions, smoking their weed, while driving their vehicle, illegally? 

    I wonder, how many U.S. citizens, are mixing recreational weed use, or their medical weed use, while owning a gun illegally at the same time? 

    I wonder, how many recreational marijuana users, are maybe mixing their weed use, with meth, cocaine, heroin, or Opioid use, as well?

    I wonder how many Recreational weed users drive to work while high on weed?
    Or, maybe get high on weed, while on their lunch breaks, and then go back to work, while providing medical care, or some sort of customer service, while they are at their jobs?  
  • @TKDB

    Change "weed" for "booze", "hip-hop music", etc... it's all the same... 

    Some kids introduced (weed, booze, Scandinavian death-metal, etc) to other kids.. yeah so what...
    Some parents did the same, again so what...
    Some people are mixing weed with meth, cocaine, heroin, etc... again so what?? Some people mix pineapple with pizza which to me is heresy but eh, I just won't eat any...
    Some people drive under the influence of weed, booze, hip-hop, or prescription drugs that alter their faculties...

    All these are irrelevant points to the validity of criminalizing weed... I'm not saying that any drug should be free to consume at any moment by any one... Driving under the influence of anything, should be illegal... Going to work under the influence, to the point of impairing the ability to work efficiently and/or safely, should be reason enough to fire someone... 

    The most basic point is that, if in itself, an activity doesn't cause prejudice to any one beside the person practicing said activity, the government or any individual, have no right to stop anyone from indulging themselves in said activity... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Nonsense, the below works towards the way, that you're choose to rationalize the below?

    Change "weed" for "booze", "hip-hop music", etc... it's all the same...  

    Are the kids, teenagers, or anyone else who has listened to hip hop, ever died from overdosing on listening to hip hop music?

    So no, its not all the same.

    I wonder, how many parents, enabled their own kids with booze, and some of those same kids, are abusing alcohol, just like their parents are, and have been doing for a while now? 

    "Some kids introduced (weed, booze, Scandinavian death-metal, etc) to other kids.. yeah so what..."

    Wow, are you maybe being anti kid, because of your, (any drug should be legalized philosophy?)

    "Some parents did the same, again so what..."

    Wow, are you maybe anti parent as well?

    "Some people are mixing weed with meth, cocaine, heroin, etc... again so what??"

    Wow, are you maybe anti non drug user oriented, while being pro drug user oriented?

    "Some people mix pineapple with pizza which to me is heresy but eh, I just won't eat any..."

    "Some people drive under the influence of weed, booze, hip-hop, or prescription drugs that alter their faculties..."

    Wow, again, are you maybe (pro drunk driving under the influence of weed, or booze, or maybe pro prescription drug abuser oriented,) and maybe have an apparent dislike for sober driving practices?

    The kinds of driving practices, that the drunk driver's, the drugged driver's, and the prescription abuse driver's ignore, thus placing the rest of the driving public in danger because of those abusive driver's?

    Some of the above are examples of purposeful prejudices against, the sober driver's, and those kids, and parents, who aren't indulging in weed, or booze like some of their kid, and parental counterparts might be illegally indulging in.

    "The most basic point is that, if in itself, an activity doesn't cause prejudice to any one beside the person practicing said activity, the government or any individual, have no right to stop anyone from indulging themselves in said activity..."

    If the drunk driver's have unlawfully killed other people, than yes, that's why the drunk driving laws are in place.

    If the drugged driver's have unlawfully killed other people, than yes, that's why the drugged driving laws are in place.

    Are you maybe an anarchist, or an anti law oriented individual?

    Because you made the effort to point out the Government in your point of view? 

    "or any other individual, have no right to stop anyone from indulging themselves in said activity..."

    Like a Police Officer, as an example? 

  • @TKDB
    If the drunk driver's have unlawfully killed other people, than yes, that's why the drunk driving laws are in place.
    I like how you say "unlawfully killed" like it was usually lawful, but I digress... 

    Just want to point out, it's "drunk driving" law, not drinking law, there are many things one is allowed to do while drunk, drugged or otherwise cognitively impaired, driving happens to be one of the things that isn't, for obvious reasons, didn't think I'd had to explain but eh... I'm obviously in favor of "drugged driving" laws for the same reason I want "drunk driving" laws, "texting while driving" laws, "having sex while driving" laws, or "playing VR games while driving laws"... Shall I go on?
    Are the kids, teenagers, or anyone else who has listened to hip hop, ever died from overdosing on listening to hip hop music?
    Well, pretty sure the level of death caused by hip-hop listening sessions, is on par with cannabis overdose rates... Sure people overdose on cocaine, heroin, etc, but then, people have died eating Tide-Pods... You can't legislate stupidity, it's futile...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    What about the below questions, any comments for them?

    Are you maybe an anarchist, or an anti law oriented individual?

    Because you made the effort to point out the Government in your point of view? 

    "or any other individual, have no right to stop anyone from indulging themselves in said activity..."

    Like a Police Officer, as an example?  
  • @TKDB

    What didn't you understand in my previous comment? 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @TKDB
    Are you maybe an anarchist, or an anti law oriented individual?
    No and no... 
    Because you made the effort to point out the Government in your point of view? 
    "or any other individual, have no right to stop anyone from indulging themselves in said activity..."
    Like a Police Officer, as an example?  
    As long as the activity in question doesn't cause prejudice to anyone else... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @TKDB ;

    You're equating Recreational marijuana use, to a U.S. citizen, pursuing their "freedom of Religion?"

    A recreational marijuana smoker is displaying a freedom of religion. A religion can form in a society without cost or self-value. Catholic, Christian, Orthodox, Baptist, Protestant, and Scientology are religions that have set their own self-value and are not a free religion.

    More of your "truth philosophy," right? 

    Not exactly it would be part of a grievance. The truth is marijuana does not share a united states which describes it as illegal. So, a person can prove before a court of law methods describing how smoking marijuana can be legal. As there are methods that are legal or they can be separated from the basic principles which may be apply a tyrannical lean.


  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Yeap, more of your truth philosophy.

  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    edited April 24
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Because you made the effort to point out the Government in your point of view? 
    "or any other individual, have no right to stop anyone from indulging themselves in said activity..."
    Like a Police Officer, as an example?  
    "As long as the activity in question doesn't cause prejudice to anyone else..."

    As long a Police Officer, doesn't maybe  show prejudice towards the drunk driver, or the alcohol abuser, who's being abusive to their family, via domestic violence, or abuse, via alcohol, or drug abuse right?

     Doesn't show prejudice towards the weed smoker, for smoking weed, while at work, or while driving to and from work, or in front of their kids, where weed hasn't been legalized for medicinal or recreational use?

    Are those the kind of prejudices, you're maybe referring to? 
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Other examples of prejudice? 

    I've seen, and smelled a drug user, smoking weed in their vehicles, at a grocery store, and a mall parking lot.

    And then the weed user put their vehicle in gear, and then illegally drove their vehicle while high on weed, thus pushing their prejudice, towards the law making drugged driving illegal, along with doing their drug, in a state where their weed use is illegal to begin with.

    So wouldn't those drug user actions, be expressing a prejudice towards those two separate laws?

    If a kid, is introducing weed to another kid, that weed using kid, is expressing a prejudice towards that kid, and that kids parents, right? 

    If a parent is using weed around their kids, or kid, when those kids, shouldn't be around weed to begin with, even in the event in which weed legalization took place, isnt that parent, or parents, maybe expressing a probable prejudice, towards their kids, and towards the law making weed use legal, but not the weed use around kids, or a kid? 
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 507 Pts
    edited April 24
    @TKDB

    I'd hoped that you had enough common sense to see that it's not, maybe it's just bad faith or even cognitive problems... Driving under influence is prejudicial, being abusive is prejudicial....  Being drunk on your couch in your home is not, being high on weed in your backyard is not... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    If the weed user, is using weed in a state, where weed is illegal, then drug user, would be in violation of the law making weed illegal, in his own backyard.

    "being high on weed in your backyard is not... "
  • @TKDB

    Do you understand the definition of "prejudicial"??  The fact that something is somewhere illegal doesn't make it prejudicial...  
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • "As long as the activity in question doesn't cause prejudice to anyone else..

    No. Harm can be self-inflicted, or others can be forced to inflict harm. There is a United State shared as belief that marijuana is completely illegal, which was never made or proven as a legal precedent. Marijuana is not 100% illegal. TKDB you are addressing me like a person who is attempting to defend smoking pot, or getting stoned, high, etc. While in truth I defend the united state of Constitution.

    Legislation of the uses of marijuana are set only in legal precedent of the general welfare of United States Constitution. Whole truth there are murders that are linked which take place in relationship to control of income from Marijuana. Like Alcohol the people in a united state bound by a constitution have a right to remove themselves of self-incrimination of this truth. Guidance in preserving constitution in independence is among the basic principles a person can hold as truth which is selfevident. States which may not have clear understanding of how to better serve the United state inside basic principle and legal precedent for general welfare are not an enemy.

    Above all things officers of the judicial Court are officers of a United States Constitution. They are held there by axiom that translates simplistically. There is a public grievance that these officers serve and protect the people and do not share a United States Constitution to serve and protect the United state of constitution with the people. The idea is to provide constitutional separation that can be established as impartial as a United state so it can be implemented with security and tranquility.

  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    I think you have your self opinion, on how you view the word prejudice, maybe verses how other's view the word "prejudice," via the definition itself?

    Definition:

    prej·u·dice

    noun
    1. 1.
      preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

      : injury or damage resulting from somejudgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights.

      harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment.


      "Do you understand the definition of "prejudicial"??  The fact that something is somewhere illegal doesn't make it prejudicial..."


  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Yeap, more of your truth philosophy.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 507 Pts
    edited April 24
    @TKDB

    Definition of prejudicial

    1: tending to injure or impair... Synonym : Detrimental...
    2: leading to premature judgment or unwarranted opinion...
    ---------------------------------------------------

    If something is not prejudicial, it should not be illegal... That's the whole point here...  Say for whatever nonsensical reason, hip-hop music becomes illegal, would it make listening to it prejudicial? No... It would still be illegal, but it wouldn't be prejudicial, and this is why this hypothetical illegal status of hip-hop music would be wrong, because it's not prejudicial to listen to hip-hop whether one likes it or not...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    You're entitled to your any drug should be legalized philosophy.

    And you're going to self justify, and self rationalize, your philosophical opinion, as you see fit to.

    You've educated me.
  • @TKDB

    I see you ran out of rational arguments... ok then!
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @TKDB ;

    It is much more detailed than any drug should be legalized.

    First Drugs are covered under patent law. Which describes a restriction to the public as legal to make but only self-consume in a basic principle, ( laws serves many purpose here) it is when some-one takes cold medicine and combines it with industrial solvent without permission or payment to the insured institutions, when they take solvents and plant to refine and distribute that infringes on the institution which produced these products, there is consequence by this control. There is defined difference in providing this service for others.

    Second Drugs are legal and are subject to doctor’s supervision even when independently made by a patient. The doctors has general understanding and access to specification of medications to insure your medication is equal to the production medication. The doctor can delegate this process out to specialists in their fields and for scrutiny by testing.

    The grievance in civil understanding is negligence by allowing marijuana to remain bound to those type products and the people who use lethal force to carry out the control in the sale of them. Is it negligent when in fact also a conveniently truth? Marijuana is a plant that can be grown with multiple uses for earning money, not one use. Creating a United States Constitutional separation to pivot the judicial separation which had been previously abandoned or neglected is simply a reparation.

    Do you know people are killed for control over who sells marijuana, who may pay, how much must be paid, even who might not pay for marijuana in then general public? My fact is I see this as true. I am looking for truth from you. A free state of religion is describe in the 1st Amendment. An assignment of shared public belief which can be directed to a state without cost or self value for the general welfare.



  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    edited April 24
    @Plaffelvohfen

    You're the pro illegal drug advocate, I've seen other pro illegal drug advocate peddlers as well pushing the same rhetoric, that you're using to platform your present arguments with? 

    Your rhetoric, is sadly nothing new.

    "I see you ran out of rational arguments... ok then!"
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Yeap, more of your truth philosophy.

    And you're going to self justify, and self rationalize, your philosophical opinion, as you see fit to.

    You've educated me, as well.
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    https://www-vox-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/4/20/15328384/opioid-epidemic-drug-legalization?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/20/15328384/opioid-epidemic-drug-legalization 

    "legalizing all drugs. Then the opioid epidemic happened.

    America’s worst drug crisis shows what can happen when a dangerous, addictive substance is made easily accessible."


    "By the time I began as a drug policy reporter in 2010, I was all in on legalizing every drug, from marijuana to heroin and cocaine."

    "It all seemed so obvious to me. Prohibition had failed. Over the past decade, millions of Americans had been arrested and, in many of these cases, locked up for drugs. The government spent tens of billions of dollars a year on anti-drug policies — not just on policing and arresting people and potentially ruining their lives, but also on foreign operations in which armed forces raided and destroyed people’s farms, ruining their livelihoods. Over four decades, the price tag for waging the drug war added up to more than $1 trillion.

    Yet for all the effort and cost, the war on drugs had little to show: Drug use had actually trended up over the past several years, and America was in the middle of the deadliest drug crisis ever in the opioid epidemic.

    I wasn’t totally naïve. I believed legalization would increase drug use. But I also thought the government could sensibly regulate drugs to make sure the worst cases of misuse were kept under control — by cracking down on misleading marketing, keeping prices sufficiently high and therefore inaccessible to too much use, and, at the very least, making sure kids couldn’t get these substances."

    "Then I began reporting on the opioid epidemic. I saw friends of family members die to drug overdoses. I spoke to people who couldn’t shake off years of addiction, which often began with legal prescription medications. I talked to doctors, prosecutors, and experts about how the crisis really began when big pharmaceutical companies pushed for doctors and the government to embrace their drugs.

    Meanwhile, the government responded very slowly. The opioid epidemic began in the late 1990s, particularly with the birth of Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin in 1996. But it wasn’t until 2014 that the Drug Enforcement Administration rescheduled some opioid painkillers to put harsher restrictions on them. And it took until 2016 for Congress to pass a law that attempted to seriously address the epidemic.

    In fact, the federal government pushed doctors to prescribe opioids through the “Pain as the Fifth Vital Sign” campaign in the 1990s and 2000s, as drug companies misleadingly marketed opioids to treat chronic pain. And in some cases, different levels of government loosened access to opioids after lobbyingfrom drug companies — by passing laws that, for example, required insurers to cover the drugs."

    "And while Purdue Pharma was eventually fined for its horribly misleading marketing for OxyContin, the hundreds of millions it paid added up to peanuts compared to the tens of billions it’s reaped from the drug.

    As a result, a lot of people have died: In terms of overdoses, the opioid epidemic is deadlier than any other drug crisis in US history — more than crack, meth, and any other heroin epidemic. In total, more than 560,000 people in the US died to drug overdoses between 1999 and 2015 (the latest year of full data available) — a death toll larger than the entire population of Atlanta. And while many of these deaths are now linked to illicit drugs like heroin and fentanyl, the source of the epidemic — what got people started on a chain to harder drugs — was opioid painkillers, and legal painkillers were still linked to most opioid overdose deaths as of 2015 (although there are signs that changed in 2016).

    This was exactly what anti-legalization activists have warned about: Companies got a hold of a dangerous, addictive product, marketed it irresponsibly, and lobbied for lax rules. The government’s regulatory response floundered. The government even worked with the drug companies in some cases — under the influence of lobbying, campaign donations, and drugmaker-funded advocacy groups. And people got addicted and died."

    The above article on legalization speaks for itself.

  • @TKDB

    You're desperately clutching at straws... The fact that you're trying to include race as a factor shows you're using red herring fallacy... Stay on point, if you can...

    If something is not prejudicial, it should not be illegal... That's the whole point here...  Say for whatever nonsensical reason, hip-hop music becomes illegal, would it make listening to it prejudicial? No... It would still be illegal, but it wouldn't be prejudicial, and this is why this hypothetical illegal status of hip-hop music would be wrong, because it's not prejudicial to listen to hip-hop whether one likes it or not...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Does hip hop music, have anything to do with the weed addicts getting high on weed, while smoking weed around their kids, or helping patients out at a medical facility, or while being a white collar professional, and providing customer service to a business, that the white collar weed addict is running?

    "If something is not prejudicial, it should not be illegal... That's the whole point here...  Say for whatever nonsensical reason, hip-hop music becomes illegal, would it make listening to it prejudicial? No... It would still be illegal, but it wouldn't be prejudicial, and this is why this hypothetical illegal status of hip-hop music would be wrong, because it's not prejudicial to listen to hip-hop whether one likes it or not..."


  • @TKDB

    Difficulties understanding written statements?  I said: "Say for whatever nonsensical reason, hip-hop music becomes illegal..." , it doesn't have anything to do with weed, it is an example of non-prejudicial activities. 

    The point, which you still have not addressed (refuse to?)  is still this : If something is not prejudicial, it should not be illegal... And you've failed time and time again to demonstrate how smoking weed in itself is prejudicial, don't deflect by placing the activity of smoking weed in specific contexts like while driving, while performing brain surgery, etc because it cowardly evades the point...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @TKDB ;
    No, I didn't educate you. I'm not sure you can even participate in the construction of whole truth set on United States Constitutional principle. It is our truth not my truth. Your grievance made in the creation of the forum is asking for witness accounts to be voiced openly. All narcotics are regulated under paten laws moving marijuana's status in the Federal patent registration opens it to investigations of negligence. It has a history in global status as hemp which is effected by declarations of complete criminal accusations.  

    "legalizing all drugs. Then the opioid epidemic happened.

    America’s worst drug crisis shows what can happen when a dangerous, addictive substance is made easily accessible."

    This is not a whole truth, opioids had never been easily accessible to the public. Had they been easily available people who have purchased pharmaceutical medications would have instead been addicted to opioids from a do it yourself opium kit. For a lesser price, but greater time in acquiring the opioid by having to process cooked opium out of poppies directly for their own gardens for medical pains. I understand what Plaffelvolhfen is saying, and agree. It just isn't enough in depth of direction to a state of the union of marijuana criminal activities. 

  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    edited April 24
    @Plaffelvohfen

    A weed using kid, enabling, or influencing, another kid with weed, is an example of a kid weed user, being prejudicial towards the kid, who's not used weed before.

    The weed using kid, is being prejudicial towards the kid, by introducing them to the other kids weed.

    A weed addict parent, or parents, using their weed, around their own kids, is an example of those weed addict parents, being prejudicial towards their own kids, by illegally using their drug around them.

    The weed using parents, are being prejudicial towards their kids, by exposing them to the parents weed.

    A nurse, or a white collar individual, or a customer service employee, using weed before going to their jobs, and providing medical assistance, or running a company, or providing customer service, to their patients, or to the customers of a business, are examples of being prejudicial towards those patients, or the customers, by going to work high, or getting high on weed, while at work.

    The weed using nurse, the weed using white collar individual, and the customer service employee, are being prejudicial towards, their parents, and their customers, by being high on weed, while at work.

    "in specific contexts like while driving, while performing brain surgery, etc because it cowardly evades the point..."

    Would you, volunteer yourself to have your brain worked on by a brain surgeon, whos high on weed, while performing surgery on your own brain?

    Chances are you'll be presented with a waiver form, to release the brain surgeon, from any responsibility, if a patient could possibly pass away, if something goes wrong during the surgery?

    Would you want anyone that you know, to go into brain surgery, while the Doctor is high on weed, and hope that Doctor, can perform their duties?

    Are you familiar with this Oath?

    "As an important step in becoming a doctor, medical students must take the Hippocratic Oath. And one of the promises within that oath is “first, do no harm” (or “primum non nocere,” the Latin translation from the original Greek.)Oct 14, 2015,"

    A doctor performing brain surgery, while high on weed, and a patient dies while on that Doctors operating table, deserves to be treated, like the cheater that he or her, is. 

    Being a doctor, and indulging in illegal drugs, while practicing medicine, is cheating on the patients, and on the very hospital that they are working for.

    If a weed addict, drives their vehicle, while high, they are quietly begging to be arrested, while they drive below the speed limit, as they cowardly drive their ignorant selves home. 

    prej·u·di·cial
    adjective
    1. harmful to someone or something; detrimental.
  • @TKDB

    Still evading and dodging cowardly... How can you expect to be taken seriously? 

    Ok, let's try this... And this is very simple; Tell me, if this activity is prejudicial or detrimental: Joe is smoking weed alone in his living room. 
    If, and only IF, you can show me how this is detrimental to anyone else than Joe, then you may show that you have substance on which to build your argument...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    edited April 24
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Cowardly huh?

    A doctor high on weed, and practicing medicine isnt cowardly? 

    A parent getting high on weed, isn't cowardly?

    A drugged driver, driving a car, while high on weed, isn't cowardly?

    Do you maybe view the above individuals as anti societal hero's, maybe according to your pro illegal drug philosophies? 

    "Joe is smoking weed alone in his living room."

    If Joe, is smoking weed, in a state, where weed use is illegal, then he is being detrimental to himself, and to the law making weed illegal as well. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @TKDB

    Now you're just being ridiculous...  :D

    Tell me, if this activity is prejudicial or detrimental: Joe is smoking weed alone in his living room. 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    edited April 24
    @Plaffelvohfen

    "Joe is smoking weed alone in his living room."

    Joe is a slave to weed, Joe is owned by weed, Joe is avoiding jail, by hiding in his living room, and proudly giggling to himself, that his life is being bettered because his weed, has been dictating to Joe, how to live his life? 

    And if Joe has kids, well, that's just another whole chapter in Joe's drug use, around his family as well? 

    Joes doing well, because Joe's weed, is his "mind altering parent," being that his actual family, may not agree with Joe's undisclosed weed use? 
  • @TKDB

    LOL You couldn't resist going out of context ( By adding some external factor in) eh?  So predictable...

     All you've made clear is that you can't bring an objective argument against my position, but I felt like this was going to happen anyway...  All you made are personal judgment calls... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    edited April 25
    @Plaffelvohfen

    You're a pro illegal drug advocate, that's all you have, and that same attitude, is what some of the drug addicts have as well?

    A drug addict, basically acts as their own cheerleader, their own defense attorney, with a few "pro drug advocate defense attorneys," get out of jail business cards as well?

    The addict runs to the internet, to garner love for their drug abuser/user mindsets.

    That's their position, they basically want to be babied, catered, and pandered to, thus, allowing themselves to self evolve into the proud drug addicted individuals that they have chosen to become? 

    They love their drugs, with the same dignity, and integrity, that they love their own lives with? 



    Plaffelvohfen
  • @TKDB

    It's ok, you have no valid counter arguments and it pisses you off, we understand... But there's no need to go fully fallacious here... It's uncalled for... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Who is "We?"

    Your cursing, is uncalled for.

    I'm not upset, because the below is the truth.

    A drug addict, basically acts as their own cheerleader, their own defense attorney, with a few "pro drug advocate defense attorneys," get out of jail business cards as well?

    The addict runs to the internet, to garner love for their drug abuser/user mindsets.

    That's their position, they basically want to be babied, catered, and pandered to, thus, allowing themselves to self evolve into the proud drug addicted individuals that they have chosen to become? 

    They love their drugs, with the same dignity, and integrity, that they love their own lives with?  

    More to educate yourself on:

    Otherwise why would the pro marijuana crowd, rely so heavily on the internet to do their bidding since roughly 2010?

    To help the marijuana addict, keep themselves out of jail, and away from their individual families, because when they got busted by the police, for the drug use, drug possession, and maybe selling drugs as well, that messed up their family time, at home, didn't it?

    So if you legalize their weed, you help the weed addict, keep themselves out of trouble with the police, and with their individual families?

    And the taxation, and revenue, sure does help those. taxation coffers, look fat and happy with all of that weed user, made cash right?

    And why would the marijuana industry, as well, come to rely on the internet, and their pro marijuana talking heads, to do their promotional promoting for marijuana legalization, in front of any liberal news camera to help sell the marijuana industry messaging to the voting public? 

    Pandering.

    Or creating on the internet, such a website, as the Marijuana Majority? 

    More pandering.

    To enjoy the internet publicity, and any free publicity as well.

    And where weed has been legalized, some of the homeless populations are booming, along with the increased drug use?

    In some places, needles litter the ground like regular trash does?

    Look up Seattle, and see what they are living with.

    Look up Denver Colorado, and see how the drug using teenagers are doing? 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • I'm not upset, because the below is the truth.

    Yes, it is truth. The question that is asked to you. Is its whole truth and nothing but truth?

    So, if you legalize their weed, you help the weed addict, keep themselves out of trouble with the police, and with their individual families? So, in addition to this truth by preserving the United state in constitution in general, the United States Constitution as well the weed addict is helped. And?

    Marijuana use is regulated through legislation of law meaning a person or court official can test the reasons of use to insure a general welfare of the United States Constitution TKDB. This is to make the judicial separation process work faster and better organized.

    Again a Presidential or Presadera state of the union is called for here. The understanding that is being set to a connection of basic principle and legal precedent is the murders of not only undercover court officials as officers of United States Constitution. It includes murders of citizen which have taken place over control of distribution of Drugs in general. As this is part of an official burden of War. This was not like and issue of slavery where the slave had been part of a War outside the United States of America. 

    A state of the Union that should be made to the representation elected to the House is. All legislation by principle is to separate the civilian from the organized combatant. The combatant is no longer just a criminal by basic principle. This is to address the idea some people have that those in prison are their simple do to the marijuana and not the crimes of those they had associated with have been found, All this is connected to the authority seized with and by private distributing.

  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    edited April 25
    @John_C_87

    A version of a truth, is how some of the pro weed
    crowd, goes about trying to sell their message to whomever they can get to sympathize with them, via their pandering to the public with their promotional promoting of their pro legalization of marijuana rhetoric.

    "The question that is asked to you. Is its whole truth and nothing but truth?"

    The below is the Truth, because the information has been expressed by some of the pro marijuana crowd themselves, via the internet, and via a TV news media camera, before some of their very faces.

    YouTube, has videos, showing an adult, coaching a toddler, on how to smoke weed?

    I've been educated by two other debate websites, besides this one, in regards to the legalization of marijuana conversation.

    (I watched two marijuana industry talking heads on a news program, be given a platform, to pander to the public, with their promotional promoting of the marijuana legalization conversation.

    And the news anchor, just sat there, and let the two talking heads, express their pro marijuana rhetoric, while at no time, did the news anchor ask the talking heads, this one question:

    If the legalization of marijuana would benefit the United States public as a whole, or if the legalization of weed, would specifically benefit, the marijuana users needs, and the taxation, and revenue coffers only?

    Treat weed, with the same treatment, that alcohol, and tobacco gets?

    Then you have another user dynamic, of the marijuana user, adding their getting high, with their getting drunk, practices? 

    A question for the pro weed legalization crowd, what "taxation and revenue coffer," was being used to pay for the education, and school funding, prior to the taxation and revenue of weed, as being a way to fund the education and school funding?

    The answer is, that question was answered by purposesful silence, because even as we speak, the pro weed crowd, has no clue, as to what taxation and revenue coffer, was being used to pay for the education, and school funding programs, in the same states, where recreational weed was legalized.)

    Yes, the below is the Truth:

    A drug addict, basically acts as their own cheerleader, their own defense attorney, with a few "pro drug advocate defense attorneys," get out of jail business cards as well?

    The addict runs to the internet, to garner love for their drug abuser/user mindsets.

    That's their position, they basically want to be babied, catered, and pandered to, thus, allowing themselves to self evolve into the proud drug addicted individuals that they have chosen to become? 

    They love their drugs, with the same dignity, and integrity, that they love their own lives with?  

    More to educate yourself on:

    Otherwise why would the pro marijuana crowd, rely so heavily on the internet to do their bidding since roughly 2010?

    To help the marijuana addict, keep themselves out of jail, and away from their individual families, because when they got busted by the police, for the drug use, drug possession, and maybe selling drugs as well, that messed up their family time, at home, didn't it?

    So if you legalize their weed, you help the weed addict, keep themselves out of trouble with the police, and with their individual families?

    And the taxation, and revenue, sure does help those. taxation coffers, look fat and happy with all of that weed user, made cash right?

    And why would the marijuana industry, as well, come to rely on the internet, and their pro marijuana talking heads, to do their promotional promoting for marijuana legalization, in front of any liberal news camera to help sell the marijuana industry messaging to the voting public? 

    Pandering.

    Or creating on the internet, such a website, as the Marijuana Majority? 

    More pandering.

    To enjoy the internet publicity, and any free publicity as well.

    And where weed has been legalized, some of the homeless populations are booming, along with the increased drug use?

    In some places, needles litter the ground like regular trash does?

    Look up Seattle, and see what they are living with.

    Look up Denver Colorado, and see how the drug using teenagers are doing?  
  • YouTube, has videos, showing an adult, coaching a toddler, on how to smoke weed?

    So how is this already not covered under legislation already surrounding constitutional set principle on the general welfare of a child as a united state. The reminder here is that overkill of legislation does not make a separation or prosecution more effective when to idea is set all on the same basic principle.

    This is something both I and Plaffefvohfen are trying to establish with you.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    edited April 25
    @John_C_87

    @Plaffelvohfen

    Now the "We" comment oddly makes sense?

    The two of you using the internet, to try to coax, influence, or persuade, the rest of those on the internet, by trying to get others, to mindfully buy into your conjoined philosophies? 

    You're both here to promotionally promote your conjoined ways of thinking?

    I've already watched your brethren pander to the viewer public already.

    Have a good day, peddling your philosophies.

    Because, the below is the truth, and because your brethren, have already peddled their knowledge to the public, thus, making your arguments, resemble "used tires." 


    (A version of a truth, is how some of the pro weed
    crowd, goes about trying to sell their message to whomever they can get to sympathize with them, via their pandering to the public with their promotional promoting of their pro legalization of marijuana rhetoric.

    "The question that is asked to you. Is its whole truth and nothing but truth?"

    The below is the Truth, because the information has been expressed by some of the pro marijuana crowd themselves, via the internet, and via a TV news media camera, before some of their very faces.

    YouTube, has videos, showing an adult, coaching a toddler, on how to smoke weed?

    I've been educated by two other debate websites, besides this one, in regards to the legalization of marijuana conversation.

    (I watched two marijuana industry talking heads on a news program, be given a platform, to pander to the public, with their promotional promoting of the marijuana legalization conversation.

    And the news anchor, just sat there, and let the two talking heads, express their pro marijuana rhetoric, while at no time, did the news anchor ask the talking heads, this one question:

    If the legalization of marijuana would benefit the United States public as a whole, or if the legalization of weed, would specifically benefit, the marijuana users needs, and the taxation, and revenue coffers only?

    Treat weed, with the same treatment, that alcohol, and tobacco gets?

    Then you have another user dynamic, of the marijuana user, adding their getting high, with their getting drunk, practices? 

    A question for the pro weed legalization crowd, what "taxation and revenue coffer," was being used to pay for the education, and school funding, prior to the taxation and revenue of weed, as being a way to fund the education and school funding?

    The answer is, that question was answered by purposesful silence, because even as we speak, the pro weed crowd, has no clue, as to what taxation and revenue coffer, was being used to pay for the education, and school funding programs, in the same states, where recreational weed was legalized.) 

    Plaffelvohfen
  • @TKDB

    I don't know if your case is one of hypocritical bad faith or something else... Either you honestly cannot cognitively grasp the point we're making, or you just evade, deflect and redirect because you "don't like it"... 

    That's the foundation of your argument really: "I don't like it"...  That's weak, really weak... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 208 Pts
    edited April 25
    @John_C_87

    (YouTube, has videos, showing an adult, coaching a toddler, on how to smoke weed?)

    "So how is this already not covered under legislation already surrounding constitutional set principle on the general welfare of a child as a united state. The reminder here is that overkill of legislation does not make a separation or prosecution more effective when to idea is set all on the same basic principle.

    This is something both I and Plaffefvohfen are trying to establish with you."



    @Plaffelvohfen

    "I don't know if your case is one of hypocritical bad faith or something else... Either you honestly cannot cognitively grasp the point we're making, or you just evade, deflect and redirect because you "don't like it"... 

    That's the foundation of your argument really: "I don't like it"...  That's weak, really weak..."

    Lets see how limited of an answer, that your individual responses might garner? 

    Placing these websites at your fingertips:

    Why don't you reach out, and challenge the below websites, with your pro illegal drug philosophy? 

    https://calmca.org/

    "Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM) is an all-volunteer Political Action Committee dedicated to defeating any effort to legalize marijuana."

     
    https://poppot.org/
     

    "LARGE NEW STUDY SHOWS TEEN CANNABIS USE RISK FOR LATER DEPRESSION"


    "HEADLINES BRING UP MORE MARIJUANA – RELATED BEHAVIORAL ISSUES"


    "MY 16-YEAR-OLD SON DIED FROM MARIJUANA"



    "By Gordon MacDougall, Ludington, Michigan  My heart is broken. I taught my son that peer pressure is dangerous and that action is never justified because someone else said it was “okay.”

    "How It Happened

    It was the evening of October 6, 2017 (homecoming night!). Henry was at the home of a 19-year-old young man, “dabbing”, which is the use of an inhaler to breathe marijuana into your system, making it extremely potent.

    This 19-year-old took videos of my son Henry both while he was dabbing and also after he passed out; he then let Henry get into his car to drive home. Apparently, Henry passed out again, only this time behind the wheel. Driving through a stop sign, he hit a semi-truck. He would die a few hours later. And my life has never been the same.

    You can imagine my agony as my state now faces a decision on the November ballot on whether or not to legalize the very drug that took my son. I implore Michigan voters: please vote no to legalizing recreational marijuana in Michigan."

    "Marijuana is Too Accessible

    When someone loses a child, you ask yourself, “how can I honor his legacy to make sure this never happens again to someone else’s child?”  Some people have said, “if it was legal it would mean less trouble in the world.” Those who make that argument are short-sighted, basing their rationale on their own desire and not on facts or responsible judgment.

    Medical marijuana is already legal in Michigan but its use is already being abused. This ballot initiative addresses recreational marijuana, allowing every adult in a home to have up to 12 plants. Can you imagine how accessible it will become to children?! In spite of parents’ best efforts, when a dangerous substance is that easily within reach (often cloaked in gummy bears and brownies), children and teenagers will find access. By making recreational marijuana legal – this will increase abuse on this dangerous drug, not curb danger.

    It is not helpful to point fingers at those who have lost someone and suggest we are to blame as parents. On top of poor choices, Henry made that night, this substance was way too accessible and acceptable to the people in this community.

    We must do all we can now and in the future to empower law enforcement and the justice system to address those who are using it irresponsibly in our communities. To make it legal, will make their jobs all the harder. Facts show that very few in Michigan are in prison because of marijuana use. Let’s not open the door to unnecessary problems like recreational marijuana flooding our streets and homes more than it already is. Please, as a state, let us NOT lift the regulations on a dangerous substance just to make it more convenient. Your children are too important to make recreational marijuana more accessible."

    "Redeeming the Future

    I know first hand that talking to those who are for legalizing recreational marijuana is a waste of time: one excuse leads to the next. I am not interested in rationales, or unsubstantiated claims. I lost my son because of his misuse of this terribly misrepresented drug. I am interested in truth and in protecting other parents from having to experience the pain I felt, and still feel.

    I would do anything to go back in time and keep my son from going to that house that fateful night. In the same way, I want to do all I can to keep the canary in the cage when it comes to legalizing this poison. Please share my story, tell your neighbors who are not aware, inform your churches and your social clubs, make sure the coaches and teachers are educated and make sure your teenagers know about my Henry and the dangerous drug that took his life.

    Together, we must tell others so we can be informed and responsible citizen voters on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. Please, Michigan – say NO to recreational marijuana before it’s too late."

    "FORMER NYT WRITER’S NEW BOOK WARNS OF MARIJUANA, VIOLENCE, MENTAL ILLNESS"


    "MARIJUANA IS THE COMMON WEB BETWEEN SO MANY MASS KILLERS"



    "WHY CANNABIS IS NOT A SOLUTION TO OPIOID CRISIS

    Addiction weighs you down, so marijuana can’t solve the opioid problem"


    @Plaffelvohfen

    @John_C_87

    Plenty of articles, that you can reach out to, and challenge the individual authors, with your pro illegal philosophy, and debate them? 

    Maybe even invite them to this very forum, and debate them here as well?




    Plaffelvohfen
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch