|
Dementous
Journeyman




Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 197
Loc: Subconscious
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate
#10096461 - 04/02/09 06:57 PM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Hey everyone. Today I got involved in an argument with another student about whether to Legalize & Tax Marijuana. Of course I was Pro-Legalization and he was Against. During our little argument I was able to spout of logical reasons while he parroted the same Anti-Drug Rhetoric we're taught by dare. Eventually he lost his cool and began yelling at me and cursing until he decided to walk away. My teacher caught wind of our little argument and decided that I should lead a Production Project to be aired on my County's Public Access Television on whether to Legalize, Tax, & Regulate Marijuana. We're filming on Monday, but I want to be sure I have a solid argument that even Ron Paul would be proud of. The following ideas are examples I may incorporate into my argument:
- Medical Marijuana & Politicians refusing to listen to Medical Professionals.
- Money spent on Drug War
- Number of Americans incarcerated due to Marijuana charges
- Prohibition putting our childrens' safety in the hands of gangs and shady dealers.
- $1,000,000 in taxes made by California off medical marijuana
- Cash crop for U.S., Export, Production, Jobs.
- Alcohol vs. Marijuana / Belligerent Drunk & Happy Stoner
- Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
- Drug War Victims/Illegal Raids
- Violation of States' Rights
- Debunked Marijuana Myths
- Availability
- Revenue for Law Enforcement
- War on own citizens
- 1 in 3 adults have tried
- Corporations put out of business, such as Chong's Bongs
- Similar smoking/drinking laws if legalized
- Regulation/Taxation
- George Washington & Thomas Jefferson
- Reason marijuana was originally made illegal
- Abuse of power by law enforcement
- California & Massachusetts Bill to legalize & tax
- 95% in favor or legalizing in CNN poll
- Majority of people in rehab to avoid criminal charges
- No physical addiction
- Safer than cigarettes
- FDA Monitoring
- DEA to "find more dangerous substances"
- Past 3 presidents have used including list of celebrities
- Drugs don't ruin people, prohibition ruins people. (Criminal Records)
- 4000 years of use
If you guys could help me out so this debate being aired on television proves Legalization/Taxation is the best route, I would greatly appreciate it! Thank you.
--------------------
|
mr.bixby
Routine waxes cold


Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 1,246
Loc: The West is the Best
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Dementous]
#10096553 - 04/02/09 07:15 PM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Looks like you have a good list there, just pick some of those points and go into more detail about them and back it with evidence, polls, and experience. If your a bit tech savy post it on Youtube when you do it as I'd love to see it.
|
Dementous
Journeyman




Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 197
Loc: Subconscious
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: mr.bixby]
#10096729 - 04/02/09 07:42 PM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Most likely I will be editing the Production so I'll be able to get a completed copy onto my Flash-Drive and post it up.
--------------------
|
Green_T


Registered: 10/02/08
Posts: 4,042
Loc: UK
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Dementous]
#10096969 - 04/02/09 08:18 PM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Good list 
What you want to be careful of is the order of what you say. You cant make it seem all about money and personal freedom, because thats not why people want marijuana illegal. You want to show people that prohibition is an answer to the drug problem, but a wrong one.
If I were doing it, I'd state that as an anti-prohibitionist, I want the same things that everyone else wants: less underage use of drugs, less drug abuse, and less harm done to society. But I think these goals are best achieved not through prohibition, but through regulation. Id then go on to say how prohibition acts counter the above goals, and how regulation would bring about these goals, and also save some money in the process.
Prove your opponent wrong.
--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" - Thomas Jefferson Legalize Meth | Drug War Victims
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Green_T]
#10098949 - 04/03/09 05:11 AM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
i think it is more like 1 in 2 adults have tried it
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Jako
Stranger


Registered: 09/10/08
Posts: 156
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Dementous]
#10099232 - 04/03/09 08:45 AM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
"Safer than cigarettes"
What do you mean by this? If you say MJ is less harmful then cigarettes, I'm guessing you are comparing smoking MJ vs smoking cigarettes, and I'm pretty sure MJ(+ tobacco) is more harmful then just tobacco when smoked.
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Jako]
#10099524 - 04/03/09 10:14 AM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
silly europeans mixing tobacco and MJ
do you have any source to back up your claim that this is more harmful than MJ alone?
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Yrat]
#10099726 - 04/03/09 10:52 AM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Jako
Stranger


Registered: 09/10/08
Posts: 156
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Yrat]
#10103896 - 04/04/09 05:36 AM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yrat said: silly europeans mixing tobacco and MJ
do you have any source to back up your claim that this is more harmful than MJ alone?
Well logic tells me that smoke = 'big' particles, bigger than air, if that gets into your lungs it certainly won't benefit the state of your lungs, seeing that weed is harder to inhale than tobacco (and air, of course) the particles must be bigger thus more aggresive towards your lungs.
Here is a source: - http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/gca?allch=&SEARCHID=1&FULLTEXT=cannabis&FIRSTINDEX=0&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&gca=erj%3B31%2F2%2F280
The thing I'm trying to say is: I'ill agree with the fact that weed can have healing/pain supressing abilities, but smoking it WILL damage your lungs, you need to be fair and honest about that. So it makes more sense to me if patients that need weed to supress pain or whatnot would get the THC into their system by eating/drinking it in some way. If you're already sick it would suck to get lungcancer from smoking (weed), don't you think?
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist


Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,392
Last seen: 2 days, 23 hours
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Jako]
#10104613 - 04/04/09 10:54 AM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Other studies show no correlation between lung cancer and weed smoking, I think that study is an anomaly. Kind of a small sample size too, they only look at 79 cases of lung cancer.
Cannabis does cause bronchitis (coughing) but it does not cause emphysema or many of the other serious lung ailments that tobacco causes.
If you eat a little tobacco it burns your tongue, its not nice stuff.
Regardless, the fact that you can eat cannabis is a good counterpoint to any lung-related arguments the opposition may have.
|
axl
Stranger
Registered: 12/02/08
Posts: 94
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
#10104775 - 04/04/09 11:34 AM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I would throw in a constitutional liberty argument as well.
|
Green_T


Registered: 10/02/08
Posts: 4,042
Loc: UK
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: axl]
#10104840 - 04/04/09 11:44 AM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
the trouble with using the "liberty argument" is, sadly, people don't think that is a good reason why drugs should be legal. Once you mention "freedom" they tune out. They use the same logic when it comes to things like seatbelt laws: They believe the harms from drugs trumps personal liberty, it is the duty of the government is to protect people from themselves, and the best way to do this is by prohibition.
People don't want drugs to be illegal because they want less freedom for people. They want them illegal for other reasons, and see loss of freedom as an acceptable price. Thus the best argument is to see WHY they want drugs illegal in the first place, and show them prohibition is a poor means to achieving their goals - and regulation is the better way.
Therefore, the freedom argument is moot.
--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" - Thomas Jefferson Legalize Meth | Drug War Victims
|
axl
Stranger
Registered: 12/02/08
Posts: 94
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Green_T]
#10104981 - 04/04/09 12:07 PM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
true. I just like to force them to make the argument. It might be better to leave it out and refrain from giving them any argument at all though, like you say.
|
Jako
Stranger


Registered: 09/10/08
Posts: 156
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
#10105501 - 04/04/09 02:18 PM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alan Rockefeller said: Other studies show no correlation between lung cancer and weed smoking, I think that study is an anomaly. Kind of a small sample size too, they only look at 79 cases of lung cancer.
Cannabis does cause bronchitis (coughing) but it does not cause emphysema or many of the other serious lung ailments that tobacco causes.
If you eat a little tobacco it burns your tongue, its not nice stuff.
Regardless, the fact that you can eat cannabis is a good counterpoint to any lung-related arguments the opposition may have.
Yes, you're right, many other studies come to a completely different conclusion. But if you put the argument of 'eating it doesn't damage your body' on the table, the most logical thing for them to say is: 'okay then, we prohibit smoking it, because we need to protect you from cancer and whatnot, and you can eat all you want'. I don't think I want to eat a cake all the time to get high because I'll be high for longer periods and 'higher' than with a simple joint.
In general I think people are hoping for too much when thinking of legalizing MJ. I mean, distilling your own alcohol is also illegal, as growing pot will still be illegal when it's legal because you would be taxe-dodging. And personally I'm not too keen on allowing widespread public use of pot either, it may not kill you but it still gets you high and I don't need stoned people driving. Or walking on the street, for that matter. Imagine a 100% sober driver hitting a stoned person who isn't fully aware of what he's doing, crossing the street. In a world were MJ is legal, the driver gets the blame... Home-use and certain exceptions like coffee-shops, festivals etc are acceptable and realistic.
|
Dementous
Journeyman




Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 197
Loc: Subconscious
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Jako]
#10106930 - 04/04/09 07:47 PM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Thank you everyone for your in-put. I am taking these suggestions to heart, and forming an argument. Jako not to be rude but I do believe there are studies that have shown that individuals under the influence of THC are actually better at driving (just as "Stoners" are better at video games) because it causes them to be more cautious, to focus, and to perceive high speeds faster than they are. I cannot cite a source to this, but this is something I have heard.
--------------------
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist


Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,392
Last seen: 2 days, 23 hours
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Dementous]
#10107033 - 04/04/09 08:06 PM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Here are several studies that show that marijuana consumption does not raise the car accident risk and in fact may lower it:
http://www.cannabisconsumers.org/rpt_view.php?rec_num=17
|
Jako
Stranger


Registered: 09/10/08
Posts: 156
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
#10109080 - 04/05/09 05:18 AM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Hmm ok, I'm going through these studies in the afternoon and will report back with what I think of it. But a quick glance over the summary of sources tells me all studies are older then five years, some going back more then 20 years. Also the site with the article can't really be called objective.
To be honest, even if all the studies prove me wrong, I wouldn't use it as an argument in your debate. The perception of speed and cautiousness are definately plusses, but when you are skyhigh, blurry vision and all that I can't imagine you driving better. And I don't really see a way to control the amount of THC taken in by a driver...
|
Dementous
Journeyman




Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 197
Loc: Subconscious
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Jako]
#10117097 - 04/06/09 02:12 PM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Went into class today in a suit and tie, 5 sheets of research in hand, ready for the debate... and the student who was my opponent (dressed in a football jersey and shorts) requested more time to prepare from the teacher... Damnit, I was ready!
--------------------
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Dementous]
#10117108 - 04/06/09 02:14 PM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
well you've clearly got the upper hand. seems as if he wasted his time and doesn't have squat to support his base. use the additional time to add even more ammo to your argument.
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Glenners
Rhymenosaurus


Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 1,933
|
Re: Need Help Forming Pro-Legalization Argument for Televised Debate [Re: Yrat]
#10117881 - 04/06/09 04:31 PM (15 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
If your opponent tries to argue that smoking pot makes you stupid or bad in school, then be happy to point out you were the one who was prepared and on time, while the drug free student clearly is unmotivated.
|
|