Don23 16. November 2024 a 09:14 1
Moin,
I’m not that active here, but more in the area of commenting on articles, watching delegates and in real life…
In this topic, please only cover and discuss lines of argument for the legalization of cannabis. Feedback on how the arguments can be improved is particularly important.
The goal: Anyone can look here and find arguments for cannabis that everyone can easily use in discussions.
Important: Please ensure that the arguments can be verified by sources that are as generally accepted as possible and link the sources… Why: In (public) discussions, the sources are usually questioned first and objectivity is the distinction from Union etc…
So let’s get started…
Greetings
4 “likes”
Don23 16. November 2024 a 09:31 2
Moin,
Placeholder my favorite argument on the subject of “internal security”:
Classification of the importance of the (possible) increase in the need for cannabis vs. another source of income for the org. Criminality (e.g. cocaine).
This has already been asked by MPs Watch and the (intentional) misunderstanding of T. Frei is blatant…
I’m currently gathering data and sources and will expand the argument and then post my suggestion here…
Greetings
The most important arguments are in the Basic Law.
All other discussions are smokescreens.
1 like
Don23 16. November 2024 a 09:54 4
Moin,
Don’t understand the topic or don’t want to understand it? Or just throw something up?
Just leave it!
Greetings
Don23:
Classification of the importance of the (possible) increase in the need for cannabis vs. another source of income for the org. Criminality (e.g. cocaine).
What is that supposed to mean?
Would you like to discuss the business model and the distribution of profits according to product groups with politicians?
Just think top down.
1 like
3 minutes…
“The application of the principles of freedom and equality of the Basic Law to the handling of substances such as cannabis, alcohol and nicotine raises questions that are both legal and socio-political in nature. Here is an analysis of the two principles in this context:
1. Principle of freedom
The principle of freedom guarantees every individual the right to shape their own life independently, as long as the rights of others are not violated.
Reference to substances:
- Freedom of consumption: People could argue that consuming cannabis, alcohol or nicotine is a personal decision and should therefore be protected by general freedom of action (Article 2(1) of the Basic Law).
- Self-determination and personal responsibility: The principle of freedom respects that adult citizens can make decisions on their own responsibility, even if they are potentially harmful to health. Restrictions, such as those with cannabis, could be seen as an interference with this freedom.
- Limitations due to the common good: The state is entitled to limit freedom in order to protect the common good, e.g. B. through regulations such as age restrictions or advertising bans to protect young people from addictive substances or to reduce public health costs.
Problematic aspects:
- Unequal treatment: Legal access to alcohol and nicotine contradicts the criminalization of cannabis. Critics see this as a restriction of personal freedom that is not backed by understandable health or social reasons.
2. Principle of equality
The principle of equality requires that the state treats all citizens equally and does not create arbitrary inequalities.
Reference to substances:
- Unequal treatment of substances: Alcohol and nicotine are legal and socially accepted despite their proven health risks, while cannabis was criminalized for a long time, although studies sometimes show lower or comparable risks.
- Prohibition of discrimination: Treating users of these substances differently could be seen as unequal treatment. The principle of equality requires an objective justification for these differences.
- Stigmatization: The criminalization of cannabis users can have socially discriminatory effects, e.g. B. through a criminal record that affects professional and social opportunities.
Problematic aspects:
- Social and economic consequences: The state benefits from tax revenues from alcohol and tobacco, while cannabis users are penalized, leading to unequal treatment.
- Health equity: State funding for prevention and education should be given equally to all substances.
Merge:
The current regulation of alcohol, nicotine and cannabis can be assessed in the light of the following principles:
- Principle of freedom: The criminalization of cannabis places greater restrictions on personal freedom than alcohol and nicotine. Legalization with clear regulations could better implement the principle of freedom without affecting the rights of others.
- Principle of equality: The legal difference between cannabis, alcohol and nicotine could be seen as an unjustified difference in treatment, especially if the health risks of these substances are comparable. A uniform regulation of all substances, e.g. B. through regulation instead of prohibition would be more consistent with the principle of equality.
Political and legal implications:
- Legalization and regulation of cannabis, similar to alcohol and nicotine, could take greater account of both the principles of freedom and equality.
- Awareness campaigns and youth protection measures should apply the same strict standards to everyone, regardless of the substance.
- The state could finance social and health prevention programs through equal tax models in order to reduce the negative consequences of consumption.
The principles of the Basic Law provide arguments for reviewing the legal treatment of cannabis and finding a balance between individual freedom, equality and protection of the common good.”
Don23 16. November 2024 a 10:15 7
Moin,
everything is right and when I stand at a CDU election campaign event and talk about internal security, the threat posed by cannabis and distribution fights. When it comes to talking about the additional need, everyone has a “P” in their eyes, I am convincing with this argument…
Is that your opinion?
Greetings
What does it mean to have a “P” in your eyes?
The CDU wants to take away our basic rights, but things would be different if it were about modifying the law.
Line of argument 1
Grundgesetz
Line of argument 2
Studies
Line of argument 3
Experiences from the past
Line of argument 4
Path to practical application
This is how you could build something like this.
Nice WE.
1 like
Don23 16. November 2024 a 10:19 9
Moin,
„P“ = Panic…
So how do you want to reach these people in an argumentative way at this moment?
Greetings
At a CDU election campaign event, I wouldn’t argue at all.
That’s just not the right format for it.
It is better to use channels where written answers are produced.
If I had to choose a victim after yesterday in the Bundestag, it would be the Badenbergs from Berlin and the Oellers from Heinsberg.
The content of their argument was really bare.
2 “likes”
Don23 16. November 2024 a 10:50 11
Dr Beaumont Livingston:
I wouldn’t argue at all at a CDU election campaign event.
That’s just not the right format for it.
I just want to collect arguments that everyone can bring up in everyday life and wherever else, that respond to counter-arguments, debunk claims and, in the best case, make you think…
If YOU think that is wrong, then that is your right. But everyone can decide for themselves. I would be happy if you gave me and others who feel the same way the right and the space to discuss this…
So please stay on topic or please stay out of it.
Greetings
Exactly, do your thing. But please leave your assumptions behind. Or do you want to narrow the corridor of opinions here?
1 like
Here you will find entry information after yesterday.
German Bundestag – Emotional debate about the effects of…
In another emotional parliamentary debate, critics and supporters discussed the effects of legalizing cannabis. While speakers from the former…
Hopefully the plenary minutes will be available soon.
” Dr. Silke Schwanzert (CDU/CSU) said that the traffic light coalition had extended an invitation to criminals by legalizing cannabis and had not considered the consequences. She referred to the so-called Mocro drug mafia, which operates in the Netherlands and has long since found its way to Germany. This mafia stands for brutal gang wars and shootings in public spaces. She accused the then traffic light coalition members of ignoring police warnings about this expected problem.
It was also not possible to dry up the black market with this “messed up” law. “The drug market is bigger than ever.” The coalition has opened the gates to the Dutch drug mafia. Schwanzert called for a decisive fight against drug-related crime, and all available instruments must be used to achieve this.”
Dr. Schwanzert seems to be a scientist who tries to achieve different results with the same experimental constellation.
Here you could quote Einstein (You can never solve problems with the same way of thinking that created them.) or simply list past statistical data.
The Schwanzert is currently getting a lot of polish on Facebook.
“Instead of addressing the real alcohol problems of young people, they exaggerate non-existent cannabis problems in adults.”
1 like
