The Instigator
TKDB
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Has the public in general maybe reached a saturation point with weed legalization?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 531 times Debate No: 113179
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)

 

TKDB

Con

Has the public in general maybe reached a possible saturation point with the weed legalization conversation?

The magazine covers, newspaper articles, and the polls, studies, or surveys that have been done in regards to recreational weed legalization?

The legalization of weed conversation is in a sense almost a decade old?

I've lost count of how many times the term (weed legalization) and the words (poll, study, and or survey,) have been used and expressed in conjunction with each other?

In the last few years, you can go into a book store, or a grocery store, and see a magazine cover with the a picture of a marijuana leaf printed on the front of it, along with some sort of weed dialogue accompanying the picture?

A very common place point of view theme is (medical weed legalization. I haven't heard many who have an issue with medicinal weed legalization, but the apparent catch that some have pointed out when it comes to the medicinal weed dialogue is when that dialogue is apparently being used as conversational platform by some of the casual recreational weed users to maybe help get recreational weed legalized?

You can look up (weed legalization,) and see how many articles become available? (They have almost, it would seem become a daily occurrence?)

You can look up the words (poll, studies, or surveys) in regards to weed legalization, and see how many have been conducted?
Sonofcharl

Pro

My garden's surely saturated with weeds. Dandelion, Ground Elder, Convolvulus and Hogweed to name but a few.

Buggered if any of the newspapers and magazines that I read ever mention the legality of these nuisances though. You must subscribe to a lot of horticultural publications.

Ten years! That's a long time to stand around chatting. I hope they were being sponsored. Could be regarded as a waste of time otherwise.

I've counted the word "weed" 12 times, in your first round alone! Never noticed many pictures in the supermarket though, usually just pictures of bananas or nice thick juicy slices of sirloin.

Next time I go to the surgery I'll pay closer attention to conversations. It's usually just varicose veins, surgical stockings and blood pressure monitoring.

You're starting to get obsessive now!

Anyway. I'm of out with Boddy, my scruffy little Cairn, Jack Russell cross. The woods are bathed in beautiful late spring sunshine and the verdant fields are awash with the golden heads of darling dandelions.

Let's lie back, chill out, roll a spliff and forget about the troubles of the world.

P.S. Just checked. 13 times if you include your opening proposition.
Debate Round No. 1
TKDB

Con

Has the public in general maybe reached a possible saturation point with the weed legalization conversation?

The magazine covers, newspaper articles, and the polls, studies, or surveys that have been done in regards to recreational weed legalization?

The legalization of weed conversation is in a sense almost a decade old?

I've lost count of how many times the term (weed legalization) and the words (poll, study, and or survey,) have been used and expressed in conjunction with each other?

In the last few years, you can go into a book store, or a grocery store, and see a magazine cover with the a picture of a marijuana leaf printed on the front of it, along with some sort of weed dialogue accompanying the picture?

A very common place point of view theme is (medical weed legalization. I haven't heard many who have an issue with medicinal weed legalization, but the apparent catch that some have pointed out when it comes to the medicinal weed dialogue is when that dialogue is apparently being used as conversational platform by some of the casual recreational weed users to maybe help get recreational weed legalized?

You can look up (weed legalization,) and see how many articles become available? (They have almost, it would seem become a daily occurrence?)

You can look up the words (poll, studies, or surveys) in regards to weed legalization, and see how many have been conducted?

Sonofcharl:

This is from "Parents Opposed to Pot: Marijuana And Pedestrian, Cyclist Deaths

"http://www.poppot.org...

Here are some of the excerpts from that article:

Ramming into People at Bus Stops, on Sidewalks,

Cyclists Also Killed by Stoned Drivers."

Sonofcharl: This is your commentary on my words: "My garden's surely saturated with weeds. Dandelion, Ground Elder, Convolvulus and Hogweed to name but a few.

Buggered if any of the newspapers and magazines that I read ever mention the legality of these nuisances though. You must subscribe to a lot of horticultural publications.

Ten years! That's a long time to stand around chatting. I hope they were being sponsored. Could be regarded as a waste of time otherwise.

I've counted the word "weed" 12 times, in your first round alone!"

Sonofcharl: Are you going to count how many times the word Marijuana was used in their article as well as long as carry on with the same commentary as you did with my words?
Sonofcharl

Pro

Sorry if I was a bit to satirical in round 1.

But Pro clearly has an obsession with what they refer to as "weed legalization".

Quite frankly, if you're going to propose a fairly serious debate on a contentious subject, then make sure the correct terminology is used and not slang expressions.

"Has the public in general maybe reached a saturation point with weed legalization". Well no, the public hasn't even got the slightest bit damp.

I can honestly say that not once this year have I heard the subject mentioned or referred to in any publication that I have read.

Not in the grocery store, not in the book store.

Certainly I could "look up weed legalization" and count the articles. But there again I could repeat the self same exercise with a million other topics.

If you're obsessional about something, then you will go out of your way to seek out evidence.

Me personally, I'm probably just like the majority of the population, Far to busy to spend my time researching articles regarding "weed legalization".
Debate Round No. 2
TKDB

Con

"Certainly I could "look up weed legalization" and count the articles. But there again I could repeat the self same exercise with a million other topics.

If you're obsessional about something, then you will go out of your way to seek out evidence.

Me personally, I'm probably just like the majority of the population, Far to busy to spend my time researching articles regarding "weed legalization".

Sonofcharl: What, no commentary on the Parents Opposed to Pot article or website?

Sonofcharl: Did you read this article?

(Parents Opposed to Pot: Marijuana And Pedestrian, Cyclist Deaths)

(Ramming into People at Bus Stops, on Sidewalks,

Cyclists Also Killed by Stoned Drivers.")

Sonofcharl: Are you pro weed Sonofcharl?

Sonofcharl: Are you pro weed user supporter?

Sonofcharl: "Far to busy to spend my time researching articles regarding "weed legalization"

Shouldn't the public EDUCATE itself on both sides of the legalization of weed conversation?

The drugged drivers who drove while HIGH on weed and then apparently harmed people, changing those peoples lives, and the lives of the families that they affected as well?

When the adult weed users use weed around the youth and the families, shouldn't the public get to be educated on how the weed users weed use around the youth and the families have affected their lives as well?

Sonofcharl: Or should the public just take it at the face values of the pro weed crowd and the weed users that they have the public's best interests at hand via weed legalization for the weed users?

When the weed users are getting high on weed in their home or at a stores parking lot and then they go about driving while high on weed, and then they go to work high, or they are illegally driving while high on weed, how are those actions by the weed users (an example of having the public's best interests at hand via weed legalization for the weed users?)

Sonofcharl: Or might the legalization of weed be a way to amplify those situations?
Sonofcharl

Pro

For the Record.
I have never used or had the inclination to use marijuana.
I have no specific opinions as to whether or not, the use of marijuana should be legalized.


Not only does Con appear to have an obsession concerning "weed legalization", they also appear to have an obsession with stoned cyclists. This begs the question, in what sort of environment does Con reside. In all fairness, maybe their neighbourhood has reached a "saturation point" .

But has the "public in general maybe reached a saturation point"? Certainly not where I come from and I'm a member of the public in general. Where I come from, weed legal stoned cyclists never get a mention.

Drugged drivers, drunk drivers, same principle, similar social problems and considerations. Both legislated upon and dealt with appropriately.
The only difference being, alcohol is legalized. What is Con's stance on this issue?
Make alcohol use illegal. It's been tried before and proved to be impossible to implement.
Isn't it actually proving impossible to prohibit the use of marijuana? So therefore wouldn't it be sensible to legalize it and adopt the lame legal approach to marijuana abuse as we do to alcohol abuse.

Drugged drivers and cyclists, will inevitably have a higher propensity to cause and be involved in harmful road traffic incidents. Once again the same principle can be applied to other groups such as, drunk drivers, tired drivers, drivers on legally prescribed medication, drivers using hand held devices, drivers arguing with their kids in the back seat not paying attention to the road ahead. The list can probably go on and on. In fact it's probably fair to say that roads and vehicles. can be particularly dangerous places to frequent.

Particular people have particular axes to grind, especially those who have been aggrieved by others. Some people are prepared to go to great lengths to air their grievances. But nonetheless the sub-categories of these pressure groups, in this instance "Parents Opposed to Pot" only represent a fractional percentage of the "public in general". Not a saturation point.

I would suggest that, criminalizing or legalizing makes little difference to rates of use and consequent misuse of marijuana, as long as we continue to educate society in an appropriate way. Of course there will always be people, who come what may, will always ignore best advice and continue to abuse both themselves and society through their thoughtless actions.

I think it's also fair to suggest, that there could be a nett fiscal gain to be made to society if marijuana was legalized.
A substantial reduction in spending on policing plus a substantial input into the economy from import revenue and revenues imposed on homeland producers and retailers.
Debate Round No. 3
TKDB

Con

Sonofcharl: "But you are personally making great efforts to accumulate this information. Whereas the average working family man has neither the time nor inclination to worry about these things."

Sonofcharl: You appear to be trying to label me as an axe grinder?

Sonofcharl: The information that "Parents Opposed to Pot has accumulated on its website, (Might you maybe view their provided information as axe grinding?)

What about MADD/ Mothers Against Drunk Driving? (Might you maybe view their provided information as axe grinding?)
(I mention this because in Colorado, apparently there are drivers who are driving under the influence of both alcohol and weed?)

Drugged driving is on the rise in some places and in some places has surpassed drunk driving in the incidences involving drivers who are illegal driving under the influence of either intoxicant.

WebMD: Goes into detail about the negative affect of weed use. (Might you maybe view their provided information as axe grinding?)

NBCnews.com: "Drugged Driving on Rise, Passes Alcohol Alone in Fatal Crashes, Study Finds" (Might you view the information provided in this article as axe grinding?)

CALMca.org, Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM)

Sonofcharl: Might you view the information on their website as axe grinding?

Sonofcharl: When a drugged driver is illegally driving under the influence of weed, who might he or she be grinding an axe against as they illegally drive while high on weed, or maybe high on weed and drunk at the same time? (Who could that weed user or drunk driver possibly have to grind an axe against?)

The legalization of either weed or alcohol? (That wouldn't make sense would it, a drunk driver driving drunk in the face of the law making drunk driving illegal? Or a drugged driver driving drugged up on weed in the face of the law making drugged driving illegal?)

Sonofcharl: "Isn't it actually proving impossible to prohibit the use of marijuana? So therefore wouldn't it be sensible to legalize it and adopt the lame legal approach to marijuana abuse as we do to alcohol abuse."

Sonofcharl: Maybe some are and have been condoning the weed users illegal drug use for decades?

Sonofcharl: When some are driving while high on weed and there are other passengers in the car with them, (Curious question, why isn't anyone bothering to call 911 to report that the driver of the vehicle that they are in has a weed user illegally driving the vehicle that they are riding in?)

Sonofchar; Whats the likelihood the "legalization of weed" and the "law making drugged driving illegal" will get trashed, just as much as the law that made alcohol legal after being illegal has been getting trashed for decades?

Sonofcharl: How many innocent people have been killed by the drunk drivers since the legalization of alcohol took place? (A million plus innocent people have.)

Sonofcharl: "I think it's also fair to suggest, that there could be a nett fiscal gain to be made to society if marijuana was legalized.A substantial reduction in spending on policing plus a substantial input into the economy from import revenue and revenues imposed on homeland producers and retailers."

Sonofcharl: Are maybe you referring to the taxation and revenue talking point in regards to the legalization of weed?

Sonofcharl: "A substantial reduction in spending on policing."

Sonofcharl: If the police are dealing with the illegal actions of the drugged driver or drivers more now instead of the drunk driver, how is that a substantial reduction in policing?

Sonofchaerl: If the drugged drivers are still harming innocent people even after the law making drugged driving illegal, was created to address their law breaking action, how is that a gain to the public?

Sonofcharl: If the weed users are still exposing the youth around them to their weed use, how is that a gain to the public?

Sonofcharl: When a weed user uses weed prior to going to their job, how is that a gain for their workplace?
Sonofcharl

Pro

What would it take to make the World a completely safe pace for people to live in?

Perhaps we should sit on comfy chairs all day, in padded rooms. Being drip fed nutrients, whilst being hypnotised with subliminal music and safety information.
Doesn't sound like much fun to me. In fact I'm pretty certain that this lifestyle would come with it's own negative health side effects.

The fact is, the World is fraught with all sorts of potential hazards and life threatening possibilities and if we spent all day worrying about such things we would probably end up in a mental health institution.

The main thrust of Con's argument is clearly centred around the issue of motoring and cycling whilst under the influence of "weed". Undoubtedly a problem and a problem that society has to address. But as I have already stated, narcotic use is just one of many ways that driving ability can be impaired and potentially become a risk to the "public in general".

Statistics show a greater number of fatal road accidents are related to prescription drug use rather than marijuana use. Alcohol accounts for a greater number of road fatalities, but the misuse of mobile phones and in car devices is reckoned to be the major cause of road traffic accidents.

If "the public in general has maybe reached a saturation point with weed legalization". Then the public in general must surely have also reached a saturation point with alcohol, prescription drugs, and mobile phones and in car devices.

Therefore., will Con propose with equal conviction. The criminalization of alcohol, prescription drugs and mobile phones.
Will they champion the causes of Aunts Against Alcohol, Parents Opposed to Prescription Drugs and Mums Against Mobiles.

The demonization of marijuana has been a Middle Class agenda for a long time, so much so that it is now a cultural norm in certain societies. I would suggest, that it is not a demonization of the substance itself, but rather a demonization of the assumed character of the substance users. People regarded to be anti-social and sub-cultural. Regard generated by assumption rather than factual knowledge.

Alcohol, prescription drugs and mobile phones however are generally regarded as social norms and necessities. So demonization therefore is hypocritically regarded (when compared to marijuana use) not to be in the public interest.

Society is fickle, it apparently picks and chooses it's friends and enemies at random and without equal consideration.
Debate Round No. 4
TKDB

Con

Sonofcharl: "What would it take to make the World a completely safe pace for people to live in?
Perhaps we should sit on comfy chairs all day, in padded rooms. Being drip fed nutrients, whilst being hypnotised with subliminal music and safety information.
Doesn't sound like much fun to me. In fact I'm pretty certain that this lifestyle would come with it's own negative health side effects.
The fact is, the World is fraught with all sorts of potential hazards and life threatening possibilities and if we spent all day worrying about such things we would probably end up in a mental health institution."

Sonofcharl: Who are you addressing with this point of view from you?

The people who have maybe lost loved ones to the drunk drivers over the years? (There are 1.6 million of them.)

Or maybe to the recent family members who have lost loved one to the drugged drivers? (The statistics for the drugged drivers and their negligent and law breaking ways have been and are slowly accumulating via each one of their illegal and irresponsible actions.)

Sonofcharl: Or are you maybe addressing the rest of the public that hasn't been affected by the actions of the above?

Sonofcharl: Or are you maybe comfortable with sharing the roadways of this country with either one of those intoxicated drivers, maybe with an unspoken provision that they don't do anything around you, while on the same roadways with you?

Sonofcharl: "What would it take to make the World a completely safe pace for people to live in?

(I'm looking at you comments and you STILL haven't expressed any comments in regards to them? Why is that?

Sonofcharl: Here are those questions again, please provide a counter argument for them?

Sonofcharl: You appear to be trying to label me as an axe grinder?

Sonofcharl: The information that "Parents Opposed to Pot has accumulated on its website, (Might you maybe view their provided information as axe grinding?)

What about MADD/ Mothers Against Drunk Driving? (Might you maybe view their provided information as axe grinding?)
(I mention this because in Colorado, apparently there are drivers who are driving under the influence of both alcohol and weed?)

Drugged driving is on the rise in some places and in some places has surpassed drunk driving in the incidences involving drivers who are illegal driving under the influence of either intoxicant.

WebMD: Goes into detail about the negative affect of weed use. (Might you maybe view their provided information as axe grinding?)

NBCnews.com: "Drugged Driving on Rise, Passes Alcohol Alone in Fatal Crashes, Study Finds" (Might you view the information provided in this article as axe grinding?)

CALMca.org, Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM)

Sonofcharl: Might you view the information on their website as axe grinding?

Sonofcharl: "Therefore., will Con propose with equal conviction. The criminalization of alcohol, prescription drugs and mobile phones. Will they champion the causes of Aunts Against Alcohol, Parents Opposed to Prescription Drugs and Mums Against Mobiles."

Sonofcharl: An answer to your cause questions : "MAPDA: Mothers Against Prescription Drug Abuse.
There isn't an Aunts Against Alcohol, but there is this: TADA: Teens Against Drugs and Alcohol.
There isn't a Mums Against Mobiles, but there is https://www.ghsa.org....
GHSA: Governors Highway Safety Association.

Sonofcharl: "The criminalization of alcohol," if alcohol was remade illegal tomorrow, who do you believe might have an issue with that? The individuals who chronically drink alcohol each day?

Sonofcharl: "The demonization of marijuana has been a Middle Class agenda for a long time, so much so that it is now a cultural norm in certain societies. I would suggest, that it is not a demonization of the substance itself, but rather a demonization of the assumed character of the substance users. People regarded to be anti-social and sub-cultural. Regard generated by assumption rather than factual knowledge."

Sonofcharl: Taking what you just expressed above, there are some situations below, would you please "Define" them based upon your word usage from above, on how you view them?

Sonofcharl: When a weed user illegally uses weed around their kids and families? How might you define that action?

Sonofcharl: When a parent is coaching or teaching the youth around them how to use weed, how do you define that action?

Sonofcharl; When a weed user is illegally using weed while driving their vehicle, how do you define that action?

Sonofcharl: When a weed a user has mixed weed and alcohol and is illegally driving under the influence of both, how do you define that action?

Sonofcharl; When an alcohol using adult enables a kid with alcohol in the states where that activity is illegal to engage in, how do you define that action?

Sonofcharl; There are some kids on college campuses across the country who apparently experiment with both weed and alcohol, how do you define their actions?

Sonofcharl: When a drunk or drugged driver illegal drives while under the influence e of either, how do you define that action?

Sonofcharl: Let me make a guess, are you maybe pro "freedom of choice?"

Sonofcharl: Or are you maybe pro society?

Sonofcharl: "Society is fickle, it apparently picks and chooses it's friends and enemies at random and without equal consideration."

Sonofcharl: Definition of fickle: adjective: 1.
likely to change, especially due to caprice, irresolution, or instability; casually changeable:

Sonofcharl: I disagree, Society isn't fickle, but individual can choose to be fickle.

Sonofcharl: When a driver of a vehicle is driving down a roadway erratically, is the vehicle being fickle, or is the driver being fickle?

Sonofcharl: When a weed user is smoking weed in a vehicle and then drives off to merge into the traffic while high on weed, is the weed user being fickle, or is the car being fickle because the driver is illegally driving the vehicle into traffic?

Sonofcharl: "Alcohol, prescription drugs and mobile phones however are generally regarded as social norms and necessities. So demonization therefore is hypocritically regarded (when compared to marijuana use) not to be in the public interest."

Sonofcharl: The word demonization in your statement, are you using that word in the right context of your statement?
Sonofcharl

Pro

In conclusion.

Con is extremely verbose.
Verbose in repetition, of not just their words but of mine too.
Remove all unnecessary repetition from Con's argument and little remains.

Con is stereotypically opposed to marijuana use and is keen to beat the drum for the associated minority pressure groups.
But of course minority groups are not representative of the "public in general". Some people may feel "saturated by weed legalization". But as I have attempted to point out this is not the case for the "public in general".

I do not have a strong opinion with regard to "weed legalization". I am happy to accept the status quo.
Society legislates, based on current thinking and rationale and should not automatically bow to the pressure of a minority voice. That voice should always be listened to, but in the end there should always be a collective decision.

Nonetheless, there is undoubtedly an obvious imbalance of judgement to be found when comparing causations of road traffic incidents, (this being the main thrust of Con's argument). Inappropriate use of mobile phones and in car devices is said to be the greatest cause of road traffic accidents and yet such devices have rapidly been deemed to be of great social importance and necessity. The same can be said for prescription drugs and to a lesser extent alcohol.
All three examples are acceptable to the "public in general" whereas marijuana use is not.

Of course, legislation exists which prohibits the use of phones, prescription drugs and alcohol whilst driving. But as we are all to plainly aware there are always people (from all sectors of society) who continually ignore the law. It's therefore fair to say that the same set of circumstances would also apply, whether or not marijuana use was legalized.

I would suggest that, in order to achieve a parity of legislation, the voice of the "weed legalization" lobby should be given the same consideration as their opponents.

"Has the public in general maybe reached a saturation point with weed legalization".
No. The majority of the public will pay little regard to this issue.
Concerned and interested lobbies on either side of the fence should be allowed the freedom to make their voices be heard and legislators should listen with equal diligence.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TKDB 3 months ago
TKDB
Sonofcharl: "In conclusion.

Con is extremely verbose.
Verbose in repetition, of not just their words but of mine too.
Remove all unnecessary repetition from Con's argument and little remains.

A response to your verbose commentary: The illegal weed use that has been going on for decades, would you label the illegal drug use by the drug uses as being verbose as well?

The drunk drivers who illegally drive drunk year after year, would you not view those illegal actions by the drunk drivers as being verbose as well?

Sonofcharl: Instead of having an apparent verbose focus on me, you did very little to provide a counter argument for this specific debate it would appear?

Sonofcharl: Where are your souces to back your point of views at?

I provided websites that were both pro recreational weed oriented and anti weed oriented.

In my conclusion:

Sonofchsarl: You mentioned "alcohol, prescription drugs, and cell phones" as norms and necessacities I believe?

Sonofcharl: Alcohol use is a norm and a necessity? Where did you get that point of view from?

Sonofcharl: Prescription drug abuse, is that maybe an issue with the prescription drugs, or is that maybe an issue with the individual who might be abusing them?

Sonofcharl: Cellphone abuse, I provided a website that discussed that.

Tell me something, is drugged driving or drunk driving a norm?

Is illegal weed use a norm?

Is weed use mixed with alcohol use a norm?
Posted by TKDB 3 months ago
TKDB
Sonofcharl: These websites are apparently pro weed oriented.

NORML

the Cannabist

Herb.com.

High Times

These same websites were referred to by some of the pro recreational weed oriented crowd who support weed legalization and the weed users, and in some instances, the weed users themselves?

These very websites are where some of the pro weed individuals and the weed users get their pro recreational weed oriented talking points from?

Sonofcharl: Might you maybe suggest, that the accumulated information on these websites have axes to grind?
Posted by TKDB 3 months ago
TKDB
Sonofcharl: I have addressed you by your given name that you chose for yourself for this website, my chosen name is TKDB and not Con as you appear r to have chosen to address me as?
Posted by TKDB 3 months ago
TKDB
Sonofcharl: My position, I'm pro society.
Posted by TKDB 3 months ago
TKDB
In the US, there are roughly 323 million people.

At one time, there was said to be 30 million weed smokers?
(I'm going to guess that given today,that that number is maybe around 40 million?)

What's odd, is when you have some who reference some of these polls that were or have been conducted in regards to weed legalization?

(That this, or that poll states that anywhere from 47-61 percent of the US population states that weed should be legalized for recreational weed use?

(First question, were any of these poll participants drug tested for recreational weed use prior to participating in this or that legalization of weed polls?)

Second question, how do some of these polled participants get to speak for the rest of the country? (500, 1000, or 1200) individuals get to SPEAK for the other 283 million people in this country via a poll about the legalizing of an illegal drug?
Posted by TKDB 3 months ago
TKDB
Sonofcharl: Do you have a comment for this question?

When it comes to weed legalization, should the public just take it at the face values of the pro weed crowd and the weed users that they have the public's best interests at hand via weed legalization for the weed users?
Posted by Sonofcharl 3 months ago
Sonofcharl
Yes.
But you are personally making great efforts to accumulate this information. Whereas the average working family man has neither the time nor inclination to worry about these things.
Posted by TKDB 3 months ago
TKDB
Sonofcharl: Another news article from today.

From KOMONEWS.com:

"Report: Legal marijuana boosts government revenue - a little"

Sonofcharl: Neither one of these articles were looked up, they were both available to the public being a part of the news.
Posted by TKDB 3 months ago
TKDB
Sonofcharl: A news article today from NJ.com:

New Jersey Marijuana:

"Are hopes dimming for passing N.J. legal weed law this year?"
Posted by TKDB 3 months ago
TKDB
Sonofcharl: Google "weed leaf magazine covers," and see how many magazine covers have the leaf printed on the front cover?

It appears that Time magazine has a few covers?

"Marijuana goes main street"

"The United States of Amerijuana. "

Newsweek: "Weed Nation"

Newsweek: "Women In Weed"

National Geographic: "Weed The New Science of Marijuana"

Life: Marijuana

High Times: They have a number of covers?

Weed World: They have a number of covers?

Fortune Magazine

Sonofcharl: What say you?
No votes have been placed for this debate.