CreateDebate


Debate Info

19
32
Good idea You're a moron
Debate Score:51
Arguments:36
Total Votes:53
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Good idea (15)
 
 You're a moron (21)

Debate Creator

Awen27(541) pic



I have an idea.

I've been thinking about the issues of legalizing marijuana, or illegalizing tobacco. And I've come up with an idea: What if the government simply makes it illegal to SMOKE any substance, for the reason of secondhand smoke(which I see as the only real argument against making tobacco illegal/keeping marijuana illegal), but you can still chew your tobacco, and make your brownies and such? Now, some drugs should probably remain illegal, such as meth. But as for marijuana, and maybe other mild drugs, why not legalize, once we have the issue of secondhand smoke out of the way? Minors would still not be allowed to partake, and it would be illegal to drive while under the influence of anything(except tobacco). I think there should also be some kind of law about caring for children while under the influence of anything, although this may already be covered under neglect.

Any thoughts? Is this a dumb idea?

Part of me is actually against this idea, and part of me isn't. Yeah, I am that strange.

Good idea

Side Score: 19
VS.

You're a moron

Side Score: 32

Psh. fo shao! im diggin this idea. If you can still chew, the people who dont do drugs, would be able to hang out with their pot smoking friends without getting high from the second-hand smoke.

Side: Good idea
3 points

Well, it's interesting to see that if I disagree... that makes you a moron. but okay.

anyway, most narcotics should just be legalized, because making them illegal hurt the public more than it helps them. When harmless drugs like Pot are legalized, the underground world no longer has power over it.

Look at California, where marijuana is a medicinal drug. No one goes to a dealer who works for God knows what to get their pot, they just go to a clinic.

The simple fact is, drugs are more harmful illegal than they are legal.

And no study proves second hand smoke. Just creates a theory that creates the idea that pumping your own gas is harmful. Sure, but anything in the fuckin' world is harmful. Second hand smoke is just as bad for you as standing by a subway line... or having a microwave.

and no, you're not a moron.

Side: You're not a moron
xaeon(1093) Disputed
2 points
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
2 points

Those studies didn't prove anything... it just tried to create a correlation.

Unfortunately for them, almost ANYTHING could have caused those things to happen. The Times article didn't even dispute the statement made by the tobacco companies.

and I had to register to get to the medscape thing... so i didn't see it.

Side: You're not a moron
1 point

Very good points. And thank you for not thinking I'm a moron. It's always nice to know. ;P

Side: You're not a moron
JakeJ(3254) Disputed
1 point

"The simple fact is, drugs are more harmful illegal than they are legal."

So what? Give up on law enforcement?

'meh they're gunna break the law anyways, just make it legal'

Would driving over the speed limit be more harmful illegal than it would be legal? It would avoid some of those dangerous high speed police chases.

[not a slippery slope, just a comparison]

My point is that if it's legal more people are going to do it, period.

Side: nobody should smoke
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
3 points

The thing about speeding is that whether a cop chases your or not, there is likely to be an accident.

With drugs, there isn't likely to be a gang war over drugs or a cop killing if the drugs are legalized.

In fact, nothing bad will happen if they're legalized... more people do them? Big deal. If that's even the case (because people do drugs already, legal or not) it wouldn't be that much of a problem. Some people overdose? Too bad for them, why ruin the fun for everyone else is a responsible person?

Side: You're a moron
ledhead818(637) Disputed
2 points

The difference between smoking marijuana and driving over the speed limit is that one is terribly dangerous for you and for other people and the other isn't at all.

Side: You're a moron
2 points

Well marijuana smoke doesn't cause cancer anyway, but that's irrelevant. All that has to be done is to make it illegal to smoke something in public. Whatever you want to do in your house, you car, or a private establishment with permission is fine.

Why did you made the opposition category "You're a moron"?

Side: Not quite the best solution
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
1 point

What if someone just wants to light up IN FRONT of a house or in a parking lot?

Should smoking outside, which is a public place, be illegal?

Side: You're not a moron
1 point

All outside places are not public. Almost all parking lots are parking lots are private property. And outside of your house, but on your property is also private property. Like I said you should be able to smoke with the permission of the owner of the property.

Side: Not quite the best solution
Awen27(541) Disputed
1 point

My only issue with this is that people could smoke cigarettes around their kids...but if thepyg is right about secondhand smoke, that really wouldn't matter, would it?

I made the opposite side "you're a moron" because I figured that there would be a few who would come to that conclusion after reading my idea. x) Just a tongue and cheek way of allowing those who disagree to throw fire and rocks and such. :] But thank you for not doing so.

Side: Good idea
1 point

Yes this would lead to people being able to smoke around their kids which obviously is not an ideal situation. But if people are allowed to smoke they will possibly smoke around their kids. I'm not sure you could possibly enforce a law preventing people from smoking around their kids.

And no he isn't right about secondhand smoke.

According to the American Cancer Society:

"Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers

about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults

other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function

150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually

increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma

more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children

Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are also at increased risk of having low birth weight babies. "

Side: Good idea
1 point

If a man has a cigarette in a forest and no one is around to breath it, is it really illegal?

/Debate

Side: You're a moron
JakeJ(3254) Disputed
1 point

If the man throws the cigarette on the ground and leaves, and the grass catches on fire and nobodie is around to smell, hear, or see it. Does the forest fire really happen?

Smoking is bad, any way you swing it.

Side: nobody should smoke
Bradf0rd(1431) Disputed
1 point

--------------------------------------

I think you've missed the point.

--------------------------------------

Side: You're a moron
1 point

I could think of better solutions; perhaps you could only smoke in private, or you could smoke in designated areas. It would be really hard to regulate- how do you make sure someone was putting their pot in a brownie, not smoking it? How do you regulate? I do think marijuana should be legalized, but not if you put even more unenforceable regulations on it.

Side: Not quite the best solution
1 point

When you think about it, the kind of drugs that you smoke are the not-so-bad ones. I know, tobaccy kills like a bajillion people every 2.36 seconds, but that's just because soooo many people do it. The less common drugs but worse like heroin and meth are only sometimes smoked, and they're already illegal, so delegalizing smoking would probably just make those that are addicted to tobacco be more susceptible to the harder drugs.

Finally, why not just do less sweeping and more selective legislation? Tobacco is too big to ban, sadly, so delegalizing it is just foolish. And non-smoked tobacco can be just as bad. Second-hand smoke is a problem, but why not just crack down on it? Really broad laws are almost never good because there's always exceptions.

Side: You're a moron
1 point

I agree that something needs to be done about tobacco. I propose we make it illegal to add poison and other non-essentials to cigarettes. I smoke pure tobacco cigarettes (pre-rolled) and while they're not healthy, they are at least real. I doubt if most smokers even know half of what's in a cigarette.

I also agree that we make marijuana legal, but not just for eating. It should be up to people what they want to do with their own bodies. It should be up to the government to regulate what can be sold to ensure it is absent of additional substances that cause hidden harm. (Same with food)

Side: Not quite the best solution
1 point

Well, you're not a moron,

but the second hand smoke thing is just an easy excuse for making things you smoke illegal.

eliminating the possibility of second hand smoke would in no way shift the debate.

The illegality of marijuana has 0 basis on health or anything else, it's just a puritan relic introduced by a powerful news conglomorate and a power hungry Senator a couple hundred years ago because they didn't like competing with marijuana growers for the hemp needed to make the newspapaer (no seriously, look it up, that's why. They started the whole "reefer madness" bs, and scared all the old people into making it illegal)

As for tobacco, it's actually just as safe as marijuan, maybe even safer if possible, it's all the stuff they add that gets you addicted and kills a bunch of people.

Side: You're a moron
1 point

Haha, I saw that on family guy. xD

Even though I consider you to be pretty intelligent, you are a dude on the internet, so...sources? x)

Side: You're a moron
1 point

NP

link

Start with the heading Harry J. Anslinger about a quarter of the way down.

Side: You're a moron
1 point

i think you were misinformed about the marijuana/tobacco health thing. marijuana is much worse for you than tobacco. do you know why there isnt filters at the end of joints? the moment you took a drag off a joint, the filter would clog with tar. there is around ten times more tar in a marijuana cigarrete than in a tobacco cigarrete. it has been growing unhealthier over time, cause planters are finding ways to increase the THC content in marijuana, so maybe your info was obsolete.

Side: You're a moron
ledhead818(637) Disputed
2 points

1) How is marijuana much worse for than tobacco?

2) How does an increase in THC concentration make marijuana more unhealthy considering that the lethal dose of THC is impossible to achieve? If anything it would make it more healthy because you can smoke less to get the same effect.

Side: Good idea

okay... THC IS BAD FOR YOU! It kills your memory, dulls your pleasure receptors, and KILLS THE BRAIN CELLS!

anyway, im sorry i should have specified on this, but it isnt the THC that has the tar, its the other 500 chemicals used to enhance the THC. i dont believe i said it was the THC that has the tar. and i believe i specified that marijuana has a lot more tar in it than tobacco (when ignited)

Side: You're a moron
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

Sure, but there's a bit more to it than that.

First, lighting any plant on fire, then inhaling the smoke, is gonna be basically equally harmful to your lungs unless it's some kind of poisnonous plant or something, which neither of these are in and of themselves.

The fact is, you're not really supposed to inhale smoke period.

But it's not that bad in and of itself, and many feel the benefits outweigh the risks, so there ya go, I think adults should be allowed to choose to do whatever the hell they want if it's not hurting anyone else, which it doesn't.

To your point though,

I don't doubt at all, taken head to head tobacco is likely safer than marijuana.

But tar is not the only thing in a cigarette by any stretch of the imagination.

If you take all the stuff in a joint, and all the stuff in a cigarette you buy in a pack (as apposed to one you roll)

I think you'll find it quite shocking just how much more bad junk is in a cigarette.

Listen, I smoke cigarettes waaaaaaay more often than weed, and I wish to god that you were right, but unfortunately it just isn't the case.

Even if it were the case that a single joint < a single cigarette,

who the hell smokes one cigarette? It takes my monumental willpower to stick to my half-a-pack a day rationing :) it sucks.

Meanwhile, I can smoke a joint at a party maybe once a month, and have 0 desire to have another until the next time I'm in a situation where it's going around.

Even the most hardcore stoners don't smoke nearly what would be the equivalent of what just an occasional tobacco smoker inhales in an average day.

That's where the problem is, the constant and long term use.

If every tobacco smoker only smoked as much as an average pot-head, you probably wouldn't see many long term health problems at all.

But cigarettes are hella addictive, and marijuana at least chemically is not the least bit addictive.

Side: Good idea