Democracy - 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!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities








Democracy

Debate Information

Looking for a way to create immunity for marijuana on a federal level of law.

A Constitutional Republic hint:
The classification of marijuana as a narcotic is a lie, it is a privately popular pollutant that will always remain criminal as it can be used in a way that can be of negative impact on children under age and people... 
A Constitutional Republic hint:
Adding narcotics to marijuana changes the type of pollution.
A Constitutional Republic hint:
The use of lethal force necessary in carrying out such crimes, defending from such constitutional as criminal violation influence punishments.
A Constitutional Republic hint:
A group of people does not make a crime legal they offer immunity as a bribe for a political vote and get away with perjury...



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • maxxmaxx 801 Pts   -  
    regardless of the leagl aspects of it. marijuana does harm your body, (not to mention the brain cells it kills) .  just take a good look at a person who smoked marijauan for many years, in contrast to an individual  who has never done any drugs. @John_C_87
    PlaffelvohfenTreeMan
  •  just take a good look at a person who smoked marijuana for many years, in contrast to an individual who has never done any drugs.
    Marijuana is not a drug. As marijuana is not a drug it has no connection to regulation as part of protected chemical composition or process. Marijuana has and can be laced with narcotics as a weapon causing serious harm.

    @Maxx you are agreeing with the fact marijuana has been known to be a pollutant in basic principles since its first public use. The harm someone creates while polluting has several levels, first off the person who sells the object that can be used in such a way as to become a pollutant is not the polluter. Second, the environmental concern is secondhand consumption and in the case of young adults, it means smoking next to a person under 18 -21 is not the same as polluting next to someone over 18-21.
  • in contrast to an individual who has never done any drugs.
    To be provided with intelligence, the American Drug War takes in the understanding that people have been documented having been given narcotics and other substances illegal and experimental without their knowledge. 
  • maxxmaxx 801 Pts   -  
    Thc  the active chemical in pot alters your mind so most experts believe it to be a drug @John_C_87

  • maxx said:
    Thc  the active chemical in pot alters your mind so most experts believe it to be a drug @John_C_87
    The active chemical in pot alters the mind so most experts lie and say marijuana is a drug that has been refined to just that chemical that the prescription industry wished to control. On an official government report, this type of mistake is called perjury, on a constitutional level as a simple principle, the chemical as a pollutant or weapon has not changed and is in a two-part risk, not one condition.
    piloteer
  • The united state of marijuana is cross-contamination by exposer to the second-hand methods of public consumption. 
    Again, If a clear call to the end of the Civil Chemical Warfare which has been raging and taking place over the past 100 so years is to be official debriefing should be truthful. There has been a significant amount of narcotics that have been found to have been placed on marijuana that is sold in the past.
  • maxxmaxx 801 Pts   -   edited July 19
    where is your  authotity that it is not a drug.  sure it is an herb but so are lots of palnts that causes the mind to alter. Is Marijuana A Drug Or Something Else? - The Fresh Toast   can you provide me with a valid scientific link where it shows marijana is not a drug?John_C_87
  • piloteerpiloteer 1442 Pts   -  

    maxx said:
    Thc  the active chemical in pot alters your mind so most experts believe it to be a drug @John_C_87
    Most experts consider sugar a drug. ALL experts consider alcohol a drug, which is legal by virtue of the constitution. You could maybe try to argue that marijuana is harmless like sugar, or dangerous like cocaine, but it's obviously a drug. I believe marijuana should be decriminalized (but not legalized) on the federal level. This would still allow states to uphold any restrictions they already have on marijuana, but allow others to legalize it within state lines.      
  • @piloteer
    Expert of basic principle?
    Expert of formation of united states?

    @Maxx
    Where is your authority that it is not a drug?
    1. Marijuana can be used, marijuana has been used as a fiber totally unrelated to human intake.  2. A 1982 declaration of War given from the exsecutive office as it relates to an American Civil War. This is an informal debate do you feel a link to this information is necessary it has already been given in public debriefing as a common defense to the general welfare? 

    A drug is a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medicine and translation has not been politically created ever which sets out to create a united state under a uniform basic principle that would apply to a state of the union consuming the biggest area in legal precedent that can be built around marijuana as harmful. My authority as you say is an illusion as I hold a command that demands relief of constitutional duty due to a grievance of perjury has been implicated in the congressional writing of American law with relation to slavery by surrender. So you understand clearly chemicals that are released into the public and are not used under their proper guidelines is in basic principle a chemical spill. Be it a doctor, a pharmaceutical company, or a college grad with a meth lab.
  • maxxmaxx 801 Pts   -  
    something does not have to be chemically manufactured to be clasified as a drug, nor does it have to be manufactured to BE a drug.drug definition - Bing@John_C_87
  • maxx said:
    something does not have to be chemically manufactured to be clasified as a drug, nor does it have to be manufactured to BE a drug.drug definition - Bing@John_C_87
    It does have to be used as a medication only or as an ingredient of the medication. The damage of the pollutant and the environmental impact are what has already been set in legal precedent. Is marijuana a narcotic? This is easily proven by sticking a person high with a pin to receive a reaction? correct?
  • JeanJean 85 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Enough of the pseudo science from people who have no clue.

    The medicinal properties of marijuana are so well established that it is actually prescribed by doctors for various infirmities. Secondly, as compared to cigarettes and alcohol, marijuana is far less dangerous yet it remains illegal in some jurisdictions due to the opinions of religious fundamentalists with half-baked ideas about science. Thirdly, American jails and prisons are jam-packed with black citizens on charges or convictions for possession of small amounts of marijuana. It is a disgrace.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Jean said:
    The medicinal properties of marijuana are so well established that it is actually prescribed by doctors for various infirmities. Secondly, as compared to cigarettes and alcohol, marijuana is far less dangerous yet it remains illegal in some jurisdictions due to the opinions of religious fundamentalists with half-baked ideas about science. Thirdly, American jails and prisons are jam-packed with black citizens on charges or convictions for possession of small amounts of marijuana. It is a disgrace.

    @ Jean
    Any medicinal home remedy of marijuana nor medical use stops the possibilities of pollution caused by public use. A democracy can be created by united state of basic principle,s not educated opinion. I agree the extent of the pollution created by marijuana should be held in a more basic principle when criminal charges are held in court. Using the incarceration of race is not addressing the basic issue of pollution.

     American jails and prisons are jam-packed with black citizens on charges or convictions for possession of small amounts of marijuana. It is a disgrace. I think the bigger problem is that because of unconstitutional legislation there are pending espionage charges that loom as a united state. It is not clear if the number of people of color who are in custody because of religious conflicts or a fault in the area of a plea bargaining process. Each has different outcomes when the basic building of legality of marijuana is in line with the simplest truth of public grievances collected from the population. In order to form the more perfect larger union of well-regulated restriction is the basic argument.

  • maxx said:
    something does not have to be chemically manufactured to be clasified as a drug, nor does it have to be manufactured to BE a drug.drug definition - Bing@John_C_87
    You are expressing an opinion of sole ownership and we are addressing the statement narcotic marijuana.
  • @maxx
    Are you saying pollution does not take place on a chemical level?
  • maxxmaxx 801 Pts   -  
    Are you saying it is only man made chemicals that should be considered drugs?@John_C_87
  • @maxx
    Maxx asked: Are you saying it is only man made chemicals that should be considered drugs?
    No, I'm saying marijuana is not a narcotic.
    I am saying Drug is a crappy word of basic principle to explain as united States held in the legislation of law.

     I take it you do not wish to express any truth about united states built around chemicals?
    I am saying marijuana, alcohol, and narcotics as chemicals share a basic common concern as a risk of becoming a pollutant? ( How to build a united state in the united states of America) For lawyers and other intellectual complex idiots.

    Some short-acting narcotics contain a single active ingredient that’s opium-based. 

    Leser known narcotics...
    • Buprenorphine
    • Abstral
    • Actiq
    • Dolophine
    • Butrans
    • Demerol
    • Dolophine
    • Duragesic
    • Fentora
    • Lorcet
    • Levorphanol
    • Oxymorphone hydrochloride
    • Oncet
    • Procet
    • Xodol
    • Zydone
    • Lortab
    • Kadian
    • Maxidone
    • MS Contin
    • Palladone
    • Percodan
    • Reprexain
    • TussiCaps
    • Zydone
    • Xodol
    • Vicoprofen
    • Vituz
    • Vicoden ES
    • Vicoden HP
    • Oxymorphone hydrochloride
    • Opana
    • Xartemis XR
    • Zolvit
    • Tuzistra XR
    narcotics.com
    Schedule 2
    The drug industry clearly knew marijuana was not a narcotic when it was placed into legislation as one.
    Why marijuana is not a drug by constitutional meaning is due to basic principle it has multiple purpose recreational, medicinal, and mechaical 


  • I would like to make something clear, I am not against the public use of marijuana, the united state is to find the smallest risk of criminal prosecution to allow people equal access to courts of law in all matters of marijuana use. We call this liberty and it will come with the burden of understanding freedom. A free action must come without a price and sometimes liberty requires an advancement of independence from others to keep them from paying a cost no matter how small it may appear to ourselves at the time.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1442 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @piloteer
    Expert of basic principle?
    Expert of formation of united states?
    When we are discussing the legal status of marijuana, we do consider the basic principles of the formation of the United States. So we can, and most definitely should consider the input of experts on how drugs affect the body of humans who are using them when we are discussing the legal status of marijuana. So yes, they can be considered experts of basic principle, and of the formation of united states.  
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4153 Pts   -  
    I am of the opinion that victimless crimes, or even victimless offenses, should not be a part of a legal system. If someone's action does not infringe on anyone else's rights, then no one else has the right to respond by infringing on their rights.

    It seems to me that simply writing it in the Constitution as an amendment is going to solve the problem radically and, hopefully, permanently. Something along these lines:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting actions that do not constitute violation of any other person's constitutional rights".

    Selling heroin to people, for example, should be fully legal, as well as using it. Now, the first is morally questionable, and the second is self-destructive - but as long as everything is done on the mutually consensual basis, it really is none of the government's business how individuals choose to interact with each other.
    piloteer
  • @piloteer
    When we are discussing the legal status of marijuana, we do consider the basic principles of the formation of the United States. 
    When we discuss the legal status of marijuana, marijuana is the one united state. When we address damage to health the united state between marijuana and all other narcotics, drugs, and substance abuse is pollution as a basic principle.

    I'm not sure you understand the concept in the wording of unions created as a single legal state by basic principle. The states I refer, are found in law filled with basic principles, not America made of land held as a jurisdiction. A state of the union between basic principles and legislation on the floor. We do not consider the basic principles of the formation we address and hold the basic principles which should be in the formation of the united states.

    One way the American united states constitution is written in an order of precedent set by age in the other way we use legal importance to set the position of Amendment of a union held by Preamble, Articles, or Sections in America by all states governing by a court.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 922 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    I agree with you mostly but generally drugs arent completely victimless.

    1. It can take quite a toll on families, children that may not have the ability to leave or care for themselves.

    2.  Unfortunately due to welfare, ect those that abuse drugs also will most likely take a toll on the tax payer.  What makes me angry is that people want the ability to make bad life choices but then ask others to pay for it when things turn badly.
    piloteer
  • @MayCaesar
    I am of the opinion that victimless crimes,  or even victimless offenses, should not be a part of a legal system.

    In order to establish the most perfect union of justice and liberty, we must search out all united state as grievance which appears before our courts of law. The higher republic will always address all courts of law and not just their own nation.

    Selling heroin to people, for example, should be fully legal, as well as using it. 
    In America, it is legal to sell, but must be sold by way of a Doctor and not directly to a person by manufacture which is a legal precedent, it must be designed as a medication, it may not be a medication that has been filed for certain protections under the law named differently.

    Now, the first is morally questionable, and the second is self-destructive - but as long as everything is done on a mutually consensual basis, it really is none of the government's business how individuals choose to interact with each other.
    I understand why this is something a person feels should be a basic principle, yet Justice is the business that is described verbatim in the American constitution which states the government business as a united state.

    Basic principle MayCaesar
    A person that smells like marijuana, like the person who might smell of cologne, is not the smell of marijuana while or during use a declaration of independence can be assigned or claimed in order to form a more perfect union of tranquility, justice, and so on.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1442 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    My apologies, but you will need to show me examples of these "basic principles" you are referring to for me to have a saturated understanding of what you're saying.      
  • piloteerpiloteer 1442 Pts   -   edited July 22
    @MichaelElpers

    I agree that some drugs are too dangerous to allow the public to use freely, or at all. But I do believe marijuana should be decriminalized at the federal level.     
  • piloteerpiloteer 1442 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    I am of the opinion that victimless crimes, or even victimless offenses, should not be a part of a legal system. If someone's action does not infringe on anyone else's rights, then no one else has the right to respond by infringing on their rights.

    It seems to me that simply writing it in the Constitution as an amendment is going to solve the problem radically and, hopefully, permanently. Something along these lines:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting actions that do not constitute violation of any other person's constitutional rights".

    Selling heroin to people, for example, should be fully legal, as well as using it. Now, the first is morally questionable, and the second is self-destructive - but as long as everything is done on the mutually consensual basis, it really is none of the government's business how individuals choose to interact with each other.
    For your argument to work, you would need to argue that hospitals should not function as any sort of emergency management facility for people in need of immediate medical attention in any manner.  
  • piloteer said:
    @John_C_87

    My apologies, but you will need to show me examples of these "basic principles" you are referring to for me to have a saturated understanding of what you're saying.      
    What is the most basic way to say apple, grape, cherry, and orange as they are being held as a united state?
    Would you agree fruit is the simplest way to say all four flavors, colors, and fruit?
  • @piloteer
    I agree that some drugs are too dangerous to allow the public to use freely, 
    No there is not any drug too dangerous to use in public freely. A person is subject to loss of liberty for not holding a drug without a price or value when a claim is made to be free. 
    An FYI moment can be seen as lethal force is a high cost placed on marijuana or narcotic created by the undertaking of another cost placed on them distribution control. These are basic principles that are being held as a united state by criminals who have created a series of legal precedents by showing up in criminal or civil court.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 922 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    Im generally not fan of doing things at a federal level, I would rather it be left up to the states.

    I am OK with states legalizing marijuana, however private industry should still be able to ban employees from use.
    I think it could help create more legitimate businesses and regulation ensuring the drug was not laced with anything.  Admittedly I'm not sure how big of an issue that is with marijuana.  Im also not sure you should be able to use and receive gov. Assistance while using.
    piloteer
  • @piloteer

    Im generally not fan of doing things at a federal level, I would rather it be left up to the states.

    I am OK with states legalizing marijuana, however private industry should still be able to ban employees from use.
    I think it could help create more legitimate businesses and regulation ensuring the drug was not laced with anything.  Admittedly I'm not sure how big of an issue that is with marijuana.  Im also not sure you should be able to use and receive gov. Assistance while using.
    I agree, but not in the same way...
    In trying to preserve the constitutional principle behind legislation I would simplify your statement say it a different way. States do not make marijuana legal the person who is using marijuana makes it legal and always has...The person using marijuana also is the one who makes it illegal and always had been that way. It is the state's requirement to govern a united state of safety as it has been made a legal precedent by them and the system of justice they serve as a United State in order of law.

    The Judicial system basically works on principles of a well-regulated military. The chain of command is in a direction above the first position of rank in order and the lowest rank maintains a burden to provide relief of command or be relieved of command moving up the command process. This is done through the trial and appeal process in our justice system.
    States in the constitutional union write laws congress shapes the constitutional guidelines which help states perfect legislation. F.O.I. For Our Information, it is in the job description of the American United States Constitution We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,"look it is the first task assigned to everyone based on the simplest, making it the largest united state, Are you a part of the people? At what place in society is your position with the people in a governing process?
  • piloteerpiloteer 1442 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    Im generally not fan of doing things at a federal level, I would rather it be left up to the states.

    I am OK with states legalizing marijuana, however private industry should still be able to ban employees from use.
    I think it could help create more legitimate businesses and regulation ensuring the drug was not laced with anything.  Admittedly I'm not sure how big of an issue that is with marijuana.  Im also not sure you should be able to use and receive gov. Assistance while using.
    Decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level would be more harmonious with your sentiments about leaving it up to the states. Decriminalization doesn't legalize marijuana on the federal level (which technically cannot be done anyway), it just makes it not a crime on the federal level so to allow states to legalize marijuana without putting their citizens in jeopardy of being charged in federal court for using a drug that is totally legal in their state. As of right now, I live in a state where marijuana is legal for personal use, but everybody in my state, and all the other states that have legalized marijuana are not free from federal charges of possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal use. 

    I totally agree that private businesses should be allowed to disallow employees from using marijuana, even subject them to drug tests if need be. 

    As far as laced marijuana goes, I'm sure it does happen sometimes, but not enough to warrant serious concern, and I tend to agree that legitimate marijuana business causes that issue to be even less concerning. 

    I don't think I will be able to agree with you that cutting any government assistance for marijuana users is a prudent idea, especially since many people who are physically disabled need marijuana for medical purposes because it may be the only drug that can alleviate their suffering, which happens quite often. I would say that government assistance should be limited for only those who absolutely need it, but there shouldn't be any subjective moral constraints barring people who actually do need the assistance. Since anybody who gets a home loan through a bank does so through government assistance programs for the banks to be able to give out those loans, and for the potential homeowners to be able to get 20 or 30 year loans, they are also recipients of government assistance. And since that form of government assistance can be proven to actually be economically harmful for America, I would say ending those types of government assistance programs would be better than cutting assistance on people who use marijuana, because their marijuana use does not as readily put an economic hardship on taxpayers whereas home buying programs do. I would venture to also argue that tobacco use is FAR more harmful to users than marijuana, and the cost to taxpayers because of tobacco use is definitely more economically harmful for American taxpayers than marijuana use.           
    John_C_87MichaelElpers
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4153 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    I agree with you mostly but generally drugs arent completely victimless.

    1. It can take quite a toll on families, children that may not have the ability to leave or care for themselves.

    2.  Unfortunately due to welfare, ect those that abuse drugs also will most likely take a toll on the tax payer.  What makes me angry is that people want the ability to make bad life choices but then ask others to pay for it when things turn badly.
    1. You are talking about potential consequences of bad choices people make, when the choices themselves are victimless. If you get behind the wheel and hit someone, then it is the act of you hitting someone that constitutes an offense, not you getting behind the wheel in the first place. And the pedestrian is not a victim of your act of driving, but a victim of your bad driving.
    If you shoot heroin and then go on and beat up your child, then, of course, the child is a victim - but the child is a victim of beating, not of you shooting heroin, from the perspective of a sensible legal system.

    2. Again, it is important to separate issues. Existence of some bad laws should not be used as an argument in support of other bad laws. This is how legal systems get out of control, with hundreds thousands pages in codes of regulations.
    I do not think that state-funded welfare should exist at all. But even if it exists, it is hardly an excuse to infringe on people's freedoms.
    Would you be in favor of alcohol prohibition? The government spends a lot of taxpayers' money treating people's alcohol abuse.

    People use a similar argument in support of restricting immigration: "In the ideal world, we could have open borders. But in the real world, we have a welfare system, and people from all over the world would come in here and abuse it". Well, if that is the problem, then get rid of that welfare system. It makes little sense to put one bad law on top of another trying to contain the damage, does it not?

    I believe that all victimless offenses should be discarded by a legal system, full stop, without any additional considerations. That means fully open borders, fully unrestricted economical transactions, fully unrestricted substance use, etc. As long as your actions do not violate anyone's consent, it really is no one's business what you do. I have lived my whole life by this motto and have never seen any issues with it, honestly.
    John_C_87
  • @piloteer
    Decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level would be more harmonious with your sentiments about leaving it up to the states. Decriminalization doesn't legalize marijuana on the federal level (which technically cannot be done anyway), it just makes it not a crime on the federal level so to allow states to legalize marijuana without putting their citizens in jeopardy of being charged in federal court for using a drug that is totally legal in their state. As of right now, I live in a state where marijuana is legal for personal use, but everybody in my state, and all the other states that have legalized marijuana are not free from federal charges of possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal use. 

    To place the issue in a constitutional context for you as an example...Hoping I am not out of place.
    A constitutional Federal Government would be required to charge a person in a state that has immunity for marijuana with criminal charges as they relate to pollution. As pollutions issues are the largest legal precedent states and Federal agencies hold together. Also, know as being held as a united state between court systems, the united states of America explained by the use of basic truth. Truth whole truth are a basic principle

    Have to go will read over both comments later...

    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 1442 Pts   -   edited July 23
    @MayCaesar

    On the federal level, there technically should be no laws regarding drug use, but they most certainly can be outlawed by individual states, and most have a deep incentive to keep certain drugs from being freely distributed and used by the public.

     Among those incentives is the overall health of the public which can be demonstrably diminished when highly addictive and dangerous drugs are allowed to be used freely. China became so impoverished by opium they could not even muster a fight against the British when Britain forced them to keep allowing opium to be sold in their country. 

    Another incentive for making sure certain drugs are barred outright is because of the need to not allow medical resources and personal at hospitals become overwhelmed by drug users. A hospital cannot function properly when it is needing to use resources for drug addicts.        

    Highly addictive and dangerous drugs are most certainly something a state can prohibit, and they are well within the legal confinement of the constitution if they choose to do so. 

  • China became so impoverished by opium they could not even muster a fight against the British when Britain forced them to keep allowing opium to be sold in their country. 
    Are you sure China's issues addressing British forces didn't go back to the many years of outlawing material arts and the punishments the almost left the Chinese people helpless to defend themselves? Keep in mind the many dialects of language within China itself also had complicated issues?

    Highly addictive and dangerous drugs are most certainly something a state can prohibit, and they are well within the legal confinement of the constitution if they choose to do so.

    In basic principle, only states that are in a united state of constitutional legislation can hold a right to express grievance of such matters. States sell dangerous drugs and the highest addictive as well it was a constitutional issue to legislate chemicals involved in pharmaceuticals it the way many states oversaw by a governor had. The basic principle of a dangerous drug is murder and that has not changed in the past 2,000 years.
  • @MayCaesar

    1. You are talking about potential consequences of bad choices people make, when the choices themselves are victimless. If you get behind the wheel and hit someone, then it is the act of you hitting someone that constitutes an offense, not you getting behind the wheel in the first place. And the pedestrian is not a victim of your act of driving, but a victim of your bad driving.

    A pedestrian does not hold a united state as a victim.
    The issue of common defense to the general welfare also plays a role in the person must show a level of not being allowed to get out of the way, or on the other side willingness to be observable. There are a number of people in the bike lanes of roads who do not carry insurance to justify a place on the road. There are number of people who do not follow simple traffic laws while riding a bike on the road.

    This is how legal systems get out of control, with hundreds thousands pages in codes of regulations.
    They are unconstitutional in the most basic way in that the law had not been set properly in a united state with basic principles.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch