Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2008-03-14T02:40:25Z

Watchman: /* Comments */

==Yes==
Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.
If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml].
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.

Totally! Not only for medical reasons...people will stop drinking and driving and move onto smoking and flying...one other thing though:
What about the smoking ban, I mean, will people be able to smoke in public places or will there be special areas in cities, or will we have the same rules that we do about smoking cigarettes.
Also, one question, does the smoking ban include cigars 'cos they are P.I.M.P whereas cigarettes are rather townie.
Just a wondering :) [User:bealecr] 15:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

It should be legalized, because it's none of the government's damn business what I do on my own property so long as it stays on my own property, and does not make me violent or suicidal or such.... That differentiates marijuana from cocaine, heroin, opium, pcp, lsd, even perscription drugs of abuse.... Plus, if it's legal it can be regulated more effectively - people smoke pot now and they go to drug dealers to get it, dealers who also want to sell them more dangerous drugs.... but if it is legal, people will go to the corner drugstore to get it from someone who won't even sell cigarettes to a 17-yr old. So I say make it legal for persons over 21 to buy, and if a handful do irresponsible things because of it, punish those irresponsible things, not all of society!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 23:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

By outlawing drugs, we have effectively turned over a huge section of the economy to criminals. Because they operate outside effective regulation, they pursue unethical marketing practices that are not allowed by legitimate businesses. They operate a multi-level marketing system where new users are recruited through free samples and peer pressure, and the victims can be any age. Once regular users, the victims then have an incentive to recruit other victims to pay for their habit. When new drugs arrive they use the distribution systems which are already set up, which is why cocaine penetrated the US market so quickly in the 1980s. The result is that outlawing drugs leads to higher usage. That is why the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have higher rates of drug use and addiction than the Netherlands.

In addition to the damage that drugs cause, the activities of drug dealers have created an even greater crime problem as they battle for control of this profitable business. And of course many drug users turn to crime to support their habits.

Furthermore, it is a huge waste that the United States keeps one percent of its population in prison, mostly for drug-related offences, let alone the huge financial costs of law enforcement.

All of these are the unintended consequences of the failed War on Drugs.

Unfortunately it is easier to follow perceived common sense than to accept the evidence. Drugs are banned because they are harmful, but the ban is not working, merely making a bad situation worse. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 21:36, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Yup IMO ,hey btw [[DrDaniel]]

==No==

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cigarettes are patriotic, because they have a rich history in America and the government approves of them. Marijuana is unpatriotic and evil, because the money goes to terrorists and, even worse, Illegal Immigrant aliens. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 23:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:Wait, are you serious Joe? I don't mean to bash on what you believe, but I find that to be a tad...."silly". [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

Cigarettes are the result of slave labor and 400,000 American's deaths each year. Marijuana is one of the ingredients of Christ's anointing oil, know in the bible as kaneh bosm. Marijuana has also resulted in zero deaths from OD or even cancer, look it up if you don't believe me, the truth is out there.[[User:Independentthinker|Independentthinker]] 14:15, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug. If it were legalized, there would be awful consequences. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:24, 9 November 2007 (EST)

I'm a noob at this editing thing so please go easy on me.
NO, marijuana should not be legalized just as I believe alcohol shouldn't being legal either. But, our government has too much to gain from the legalization of alcohol and as a result it will never become illegal. I'm well aware they tried it once before during the Prohibition and it simply didn't work. Marijuana is another drug just like alcohol and will only add to the many problems we already see in our society as a result of alcohol related injuries, deaths, illnesses, and public intoxication. Why add fuel to the fire? I believe too many people are already addicted to alcohol because it is so easily accessible to the general populace. I know of at least a handful of people that are alcoholics by definition. Should marijuana become legal we will only see more addictions and ultimately more problems associated with it. Last but not least, I don't want my tax dollars supporting yet another unnecessary item should marijuana become legal, not to mention the medical costs associated with it. Federal funding of abortion and the NEA are already more than I can stand to waste my tax dollars on. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:07, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==Comments==
But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK
:Banning a product ''does'' make it go away—most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be ''some'' around, but surely ''some'' is better than ''a lot''? I mean, you might as well "regulate" rather than "ban" things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently ''wrong''.
:Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And "regulation" also means "banning" in limited ways. For example, if you "regulate" it, you probably still ''ban'' it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on [[Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement|The U.S. Prohibition Act]], in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning ''may'', ''in theory'' cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
::: That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said "given suitable enforcement". One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it ''did'' make it go away (for the most part)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the ''theory'' that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

::::You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that causing a subset of the American population to suffer thusly, all the while funding organized crime, could possibly be a good thing. If you look closely, you can see that this situation resembles the modern marijuana situation significantly. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

:::::The U.S. Government didn't repeal Prohibition; it was the people, via a referendum (okay, there would have been an associated act involved). But by your logic, (a) why would the people have voted for prohibition in the first place, if it was so bad, given that quite a few states already had it (i.e. the "experiment" was already tried) before it went national, and (b), why did the people vote for a pro-prohibition presidential candidate ''after'' it came in, if it was so bad?
:::::The answer, as I understand it, is that powerful media groups (i.e. newspapers; there was no TV then) (perhaps they were [[liberal]]?) campaigned for an end to prohibition because the media owners wanted to ease their tax burden by creating another source of revenue for the government, by taxing alcohol. Their propaganda campaign of disinformation was so successful that to this day most people think that prohibition was a failure.
:::::I was also citing U.S. history, so we are on an equal footing there. I understand that it ''did'' work—the theory ''did'' "hold water" when applied.
:::::Yes, alcohol was still available (one of the flaws of the legislation was to ban the sale of it, not the manufacture of it!), and the ''desperate'' alcoholics could still get it. But most people—they had voted for it, remember—weren't that desperate, and most simply gave it up, so the use of alcohol dropped to a tiny fraction of what it had been. The ''relatively'' small amount of bootlegged grog of dubious "quality" was far outweighed by the vast majority no longer imbibing this poisonous depressant drug.
:::::Yes, it does have similarities with the modern situation with marijuana. Which is one reason why marijuana should stay banned.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::At this point, our disagreement seems to be largely a debate on whether or not the history we have been taught is accurate. I am no historian, and cannot argue on this level. That said, I offer a different point: assuming that you are accurate in saying that substance banning is ''mostly'' effective, and is good for ''most'' people, we have still confessed that it is an imperfect and expensive solution. What I suggest is that there may well be a more effective alternative: education. Translating "given suitable enforcement" to "given suitable funding", my experiences lead me to believe that ''properly'' educating kids to the pitfalls of substance abuse (and by educating I don't mean 'Marijuana is bad, okay?') we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:33 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
:::::::I agree with the education angle, but educating people that it's bad, and legalising it, sends contradictory messages. Both education and banning are needed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Philip - using that logic, presumably you'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned then? As far as I can see from the evidence, the harm caused by these substances is, if anything, more than the harm caused by marijuana. And yet we deal with the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco by educating people into knowledge of their harmful effects, and acknowledging that (with alcohol at any rate) there are positive benefits to be gained from a moderate and rational use of it.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: Yes, I'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned. The only qualifier I'd put on that is that ''politically'', you would not get away with banning alcohol at present, and perhaps not tobacco yet, although we are probably getting close to that (in Australia at least). To put it another way, banning them might be a slow process of erosion of availability and education before the actual banning, but banning them ought to be the goal.
::::::::: I'm not convinced of many of the claims that there are benefits from using moderate amounts of alcohol, for three reasons:
:::::::::* Reported studies (in newspapers) claiming to show benefits from drinking wine fail to mention whether the benefit would still be achieved by drinking non-alcoholic wine. That is, is the benefit in the alcohol, or something else in the drink?
:::::::::* Apparently at least some studies claiming to show benefit from drinking wine were done by comparing the health of drinker with non-drinkers, and the latter groups frequently include people who used to drink heavily, but have become teetotallers because of how it was affecting their health.
:::::::::* Reported studies usually fail to mention whether the benefits outweigh the problems. Alcohol is both a dependence-forming drug and a depressant (unlike caffeine, for example which although mildly dependence-forming is a stimulant), which is a dangerous combination, and also makes the drinker thirsty! How much more diabolical can it get? More, actually, because it's also poisonous! (The [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] here in Victoria buys (or used to buy) pure alcohol to use in education programs, and were restricted to buying small quantities per year because of its classification as a poison. Yet it is freely available mixed into drinks!!) So are the reported benefits so great that it's worth putting up with all the problems?
:::::::::With regards to tobacco, I probably don't need to explain the problems with that, except to point out acceptance of tobacco 40 years ago was at similar levels to acceptance of alcohol today, in my opinion.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Marijuana is more dangerous due to physcodelic effects [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:24, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
You mean psychedelic? Can you explian how this makes it dangerous?

All I can say about marijuana is this... may God have mercy upon the person that I catch ever trying to sell marijuana to my kids. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2008-03-14T02:37:22Z

Watchman:

Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articals( the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practiclly no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1

: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi

:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.

:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007

:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)

It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased

I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and now it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.

Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool.
Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed "invented" by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him? Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.

If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Did God create evil?

2008-03-14T02:33:16Z

Watchman: /* No */

Of course God made everything, but man sinned and that means evil came into the world by one man. Actually [[Satan]] sinned first but you could say that God created the opportunity for him to sin. Why do you think an omnipotent, omiscient God allowed Satan to rebel in the first place?
Better yet, why do you think God didn't just start over after Adam and Eve ruined his plans for a perfect society? [[User:StevenM]] Oct 20 2007 18:10

In terms of Adam and Eve you really have to ask where was god when they were talking to the talking snake. Also the basic logic being that if god made man and man sins then it would be the biproduct of god. [[User:Concretemuncher]]

One of the greatest gifts God gave his intelligent creations (angelic or human) was the capacity of free will ... the ability to make choices and to serve Him out of love and desire. Blaming God for the choices made by intelligent people would be like blaming parents who provide the best environment for their child, including an abundance of love and ensuring that nothing is lacking - including a positive purpose in life, and whose child then becames a criminal. The problem is not with the parent ... it is with the child. James 1:14-15 warns that sin is the result of someone allowing an improper desire to develop. Satan wanted the worship of humans, Eve wanted to be like God (able to independently decide what is good and bad), and Adam valued being with his wife more than obedience to God.

* God himself acknowledges his ability to foreknow the future. (Isaiah 46:10) Apparently He chooses to be selective when he uses the ability as is evidenced in other Bible accounts (e.g.., the test of Abraham's faith re: Isaac (Genesis 18:19; 22:11, 12)) and the fact that He extends the opportunity to ''all'' mankind to be reconciled to Him. (Acts 17:30, 31) It would be grossly unfair of God to invite ''all'' mankind to repent if He already ''knew'' which ones would not succeed.
** By selectively using his foreknowledge, God dignifies each of us with the opportunity to prove ourselves loyal to Him and provide an answer to Satan's challenge (Proverbs 27:11) and has the ability to find joy in His own life. Consider how boring your life would be if you knew every facet (the good, the bad and the mundane) of how others would treat you. What might seem advantageous to begin with would quickly grow dull.
* Why not start over after the rebellion in Eden? Satan called God a liar and challenged God's sovereignty (His ''right'' to rule), implying that mankind would be better off without God's rulership. Wiping out the three rebels at that time would not have answered the questions raised by Satan in a setting viewed by millions of angels.
** So God has allowed both Satan and mankind the opportunity to prove whether or not they can successfully rule independently of His guidance. (Jeremiah 10:23) At the same time he has made arrangements to allow those that want to serve Him an opportunity to learn about him (the Bible), to come into an approved relationship with him (the sacrifice of Christ Jesus) and enjoy the prospect originally offered to Adam & Even (eternal life in paradise on earth).
** Not to be overlooked is the fact that God immediately provided a means by which he would undo the effects of this rebellion. In the Bible's first prophecy (Genesis 3:15) God foretold that he would provide a Seed that would crush Satan (Romans 16:20). 1 John 3:8 tells us that Christ was made manifest to break up the works of the Devil. In short, there is no evil act that has been done or can be done that will not be undone. Isaiah 65:17 foretells that the "former things will not be called to mind" and Revelation 21:1-5 promise an end to tears, death, mourning, outcry and pain.
[[User:Brentleigh]]

I believe God ALLOWED evil to exist but did not CREATE it. He allowed Satan to rebel and for evil to exist in order that God be glorified. It's hard for mere mortal man to fathom such a concept. Without evil, Christ would not have needed to come to earth and die on the cross for the salvation of man. But in the end, God will become the ultimate victor, Satan will be destroyed, and God will be glorified for all eternity. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

This is the biggest issue with the whole bible, and christianity.
If you say that God is all powerful, and that there isn't anything he can't do..
Why did he then (if he created everything) create men on earth which were evil in their nature (at least after a while) and began to both destroy themself and everything else on earth, if god was allpowerful, he should have been able to create humans who did not have any hate in them and nothing of evil at all.

But since thats not the case, that only leave's us with two possible answers:
1) Good isn't allpowerfull and was newer able to create a perfect world, and the statement's in the bible most is obviously wrong.
2) The worst one, God is evil.
If God had all the powers in the world to create whatever he'd wanted, why did he create a humanity which has so many bad sides about them, like killing each other, killing other animals, torture, rape and everything like that.
If God truly is allpowerful and have the abilty to create whatever he want,
then God must, without no denying be the biggest sadist in the enitire world. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 06:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== No ==
...but he created [[Liberal|Liberals]]. (poor attempt at fun by [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 14:51, 10 December 2007 (EST))

Debate:Did God create evil?

2008-03-14T02:32:54Z

Watchman: /* No */

Talk:George Washington

2008-01-27T22:17:09Z

Watchman: /* Discussion on George Washington Article */

==Discussion on George Washington Article==

Just because something is silly, does not mean that it is not true. An encyclopedia is supposed to be about the truth and while sometimes the truth is very silly, it still is important. The canonization of George Washington, while silly, is an issue that is important to many Catholics. By deleting this section, you are not living up to your own standards (e.g. Biases of Wikipedia). You claim to be Pro-Christianity and Pro-America, yet you delete a section about one of our greatest leaders as a result of anti-Catholic bias. Shame on you, sir.

In the end, there was never a way that he ''could be'' canonized. It was proposed that he should be, but George Washington was not Catholic - as you stated in the article. If he were canonized, there would be grounds for keeping this section. Nothing came out of this topic. It ''was'' truly useless information. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:39, 21 February 2007 (EST)

I have several images taken by my own camera of several landmarks related to George Washington. I have a photo of the historic Christ Church Episcopal church in old town Alexandria that George Washington regularly attended. A photo of the very pew in which he and his family sat in during services. I also have a photo of his tomb taken at his Mt. Vernon property. How can I post these onto the Conservapedia site? --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 17:17, 27 January 2008 (EST)

==George Washington's expenses==

What, no mention of his expensive expense account? Washington was magnanimous enough to lead the Revolutionary Forces against Great Britain for free, saying:

<blockquote>''Sir, I beg leave to assure the Congress that as no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to have accepted this arduous employment, I do not wish to make any profit from it. I will keep an exact account of my expenses. Those I doubt not they will discharge, and that is all I desire.''</blockquote>

However over eight years his expenses came to nearly $500,000 – well over $4 million in today's money. He also gave loans to his friends that were never repaid, he bought limes by the crateload (400 at one point), and he treated himself to every "sundry" good available. From July 21-22 1775, he bought a pig, an unreadable number of ducks, "1 dozen pigeons, veal, 1 dozen squash, 2 dozen eggs, hurtleberries, biscuit and a cork cask."

From September 1775 to March 1776, Washington spent over six thousand dollars on booze.

Once President, Washington made the same offer to exchange a salary for an expense account. He was politely rebuffed and given a modest $25,000-a-year salary. [http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/washington/] [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 16:01 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Giving up power==

The British Empire in 1936, when Edward VIII voluntarily abdicated, giving up worldly power to marry the wife of his choice, included India, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and many other nations right around the globe - Edward was the Head of State of all of them. Washington's stepping aside after two terms as US president was trivial by comparison. --[[User:Burke|Burke]] 12:02, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:By 1936, the King was merely a figurehead. This was amply demonstrated by the events just prior to World War II. He had essential no power.

:Also, the abdication was to obtain something else that King Edward VIII wanted (marrying a woman). It was like resigning one position to accept another one. Had the British allowed him to marry the woman and remain King, he would have done so.

:Washington declined permanent rule over the United States despite being relative young and in good health. It was a pure declining of immense worldly power and the only similar example in world history was by Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:29, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::Jesus didn't decline worldly power; he declined sin in the Last Temptation. Also, you're patently wrong bout the "only similar example" being history. Let's start in Rome. Diocletian abdicated from his post as senior Augustus to allow his junior Caesar to take his place. He did this for no other reason than the good of Rome; to secure the balance in the tetrarchy. Also, famously, the Roman dictator Cincinattus served as unquestioned ruler for under a year before surrendering his position and returning to his farm, earning him a place in Roman legend. Washington actually followed Cincinattus' example, as all the founders sought to emulate the Roman Republic, and British poet Lord Byron caught on. In his poem, "Ode to Napoleon Bonaparte," the poet scourges Bonaparte before hailing Washington as "the first, the last, the best, the Cincinnatus of the West." http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/2001/byron0101.html.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:32, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Another person who voluntarily relinquished power was the Italian patriot, Garibaldi, who used his army to unify the country, and then gave up the power he could have assumed. Also, George Washington should probably not be compared to Jesus if you don't want to isolate conservative thinkers outside of the United States.

==Confused==

Was he a freemason cause he had a free mason burial. Or was his wife a mason? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:20, 4 March 2007 (EST)

: Washington was a Mason. There are paintings of him wearing some Mason regalia.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Yes, definitely a mason. Only a mason can receive a masonic burial. Woman cannot join freemasonry.
Also, there is much doubt as to Washington's faith, although it almost certainly had a theistic base. According to his pastor, Abercrombie, I believe his name was, he was a Unitarian. It appears that he doubted the doctrine of the trinity and Christ's divinity.
--[[User:Adon2|Adon2]] 01:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Slave Ownership ==

I find it amazing that someone so mean as to own slaves could ever be seen as a Christian. By the time of the American Revolutionary War (in itself a small side-line of a greater Franco-British War) the ownership of slaves was seen in most civilised countries as somewhere between illegal and unfashionable. Indeed, one of the points of contention between the American colonies and Britain was the ownership of slaves and their use producing goods sold at a cheaper price than goods made from non-slave labour.
Whilst it is true that Washington had his slaves released at his death, this is hardly gracious of him. To quote Voltaire "The man who leaves money to charity in his will is only giving away what no longer belongs to him"

Exuse me. Many Godly men had slaves. In fact God has several instructions about slaves in the first five books of the Bible. Slavery wasn't evil. It is mistreating those slaves that is evil. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:33, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==Quotes==
I cleaned up some of the quotes and gave them the proper cites. Some of the quotes were false (the firearms quote for example). The quote about the U.S. government not being founded on the Christian religion does exist, but it has nothing to do with Washington. It was in the text of a treaty that the U.S. signed with the Barbary Pirates in the very early nineteenth century. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 10:38, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

: That's great, but the section is still severely lacking. That second quote boggles my mind: Why in the world would you reference the Farewell Address without giving a quote related to Washington's two famous warnings: the first about factions and political parties and the second about entagling alliances. I don't have the time to read through and find simple quotes about them, but I strongly recommend the article is changed to include them. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 15:22, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Did God create evil?

2008-01-09T04:31:03Z

Watchman:

Of course God made everything, but man sinned and that means evil came into the world by one man. Actually [[Satan]] sinned first but you could say that God created the opportunity for him to sin. Why do you think an omnipotent, omiscient God allowed Satan to rebel in the first place?
Better yet, why do you think God didn't just start over after Adam and Eve ruined his plans for a perfect society? [[User:StevenM]] Oct 20 2007 18:10

In terms of Adam and Eve you really have to ask where was god when they were talking to the talking snake. Also the basic logic being that if god made man and man sins then it would be the biproduct of god. [[User:Concretemuncher]]

One of the greatest gifts God gave his intelligent creations (angelic or human) was the capacity of free will ... the ability to make choices and to serve Him out of love and desire. Blaming God for the choices made by intelligent people would be like blaming parents who provide the best environment for their child, including an abundance of love and ensuring that nothing is lacking - including a positive purpose in life, and whose child then becames a criminal. The problem is not with the parent ... it is with the child. James 1:14-15 warns that sin is the result of someone allowing an improper desire to develop. Satan wanted the worship of humans, Eve wanted to be like God (able to independently decide what is good and bad), and Adam valued being with his wife more than obedience to God.

* God himself acknowledges his ability to foreknow the future. (Isaiah 46:10) Apparently He chooses to be selective when he uses the ability as is evidenced in other Bible accounts (e.g.., the test of Abraham's faith re: Isaac (Genesis 18:19; 22:11, 12)) and the fact that He extends the opportunity to ''all'' mankind to be reconciled to Him. (Acts 17:30, 31) It would be grossly unfair of God to invite ''all'' mankind to repent if He already ''knew'' which ones would not succeed.
** By selectively using his foreknowledge, God dignifies each of us with the opportunity to prove ourselves loyal to Him and provide an answer to Satan's challenge (Proverbs 27:11) and has the ability to find joy in His own life. Consider how boring your life would be if you knew every facet (the good, the bad and the mundane) of how others would treat you. What might seem advantageous to begin with would quickly grow dull.
* Why not start over after the rebellion in Eden? Satan called God a liar and challenged God's sovereignty (His ''right'' to rule), implying that mankind would be better off without God's rulership. Wiping out the three rebels at that time would not have answered the questions raised by Satan in a setting viewed by millions of angels.
** So God has allowed both Satan and mankind the opportunity to prove whether or not they can successfully rule independently of His guidance. (Jeremiah 10:23) At the same time he has made arrangements to allow those that want to serve Him an opportunity to learn about him (the Bible), to come into an approved relationship with him (the sacrifice of Christ Jesus) and enjoy the prospect originally offered to Adam & Even (eternal life in paradise on earth).
** Not to be overlooked is the fact that God immediately provided a means by which he would undo the effects of this rebellion. In the Bible's first prophecy (Genesis 3:15) God foretold that he would provide a Seed that would crush Satan (Romans 16:20). 1 John 3:8 tells us that Christ was made manifest to break up the works of the Devil. In short, there is no evil act that has been done or can be done that will not be undone. Isaiah 65:17 foretells that the "former things will not be called to mind" and Revelation 21:1-5 promise an end to tears, death, mourning, outcry and pain.
[[User:Brentleigh]]

I believe God ALLOWED evil to exist but did not CREATE it. He allowed Satan to rebel and for evil to exist in order that God be glorified. It's hard for mere mortal man to fathom such a concept. Without evil, Christ would not have needed to come to earth and die on the cross for the salvation of man. But in the end, God will become the ultimate victor, Satan will be destroyed, and God will be glorified for all eternity. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== No ==
...but he created [[Liberal|Liberals]]. (poor attempt at fun by [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 14:51, 10 December 2007 (EST))

Debate:Did God create evil?

2008-01-09T04:27:54Z

Watchman:

Of course God made everything, but man sinned and that means evil came into the world by one man. Actually [[Satan]] sinned first but you could say that God created the opportunity for him to sin. Why do you think an omnipotent, omiscient God allowed Satan to rebel in the first place?
Better yet, why do you think God didn't just start over after Adam and Eve ruined his plans for a perfect society? [[User:StevenM]] Oct 20 2007 18:10

In terms of Adam and Eve you really have to ask where was god when they were talking to the talking snake. Also the basic logic being that if god made man and man sins then it would be the biproduct of god. [[User:Concretemuncher]]

One of the greatest gifts God gave his intelligent creations (angelic or human) was the capacity of free will ... the ability to make choices and to serve Him out of love and desire. Blaming God for the choices made by intelligent people would be like blaming parents who provide the best environment for their child, including an abundance of love and ensuring that nothing is lacking - including a positive purpose in life, and whose child then becames a criminal. The problem is not with the parent ... it is with the child. James 1:14-15 warns that sin is the result of someone allowing an improper desire to develop. Satan wanted the worship of humans, Eve wanted to be like God (able to independently decide what is good and bad), and Adam valued being with his wife more than obedience to God.

* God himself acknowledges his ability to foreknow the future. (Isaiah 46:10) Apparently He chooses to be selective when he uses the ability as is evidenced in other Bible accounts (e.g.., the test of Abraham's faith re: Isaac (Genesis 18:19; 22:11, 12)) and the fact that He extends the opportunity to ''all'' mankind to be reconciled to Him. (Acts 17:30, 31) It would be grossly unfair of God to invite ''all'' mankind to repent if He already ''knew'' which ones would not succeed.
** By selectively using his foreknowledge, God dignifies each of us with the opportunity to prove ourselves loyal to Him and provide an answer to Satan's challenge (Proverbs 27:11) and has the ability to find joy in His own life. Consider how boring your life would be if you knew every facet (the good, the bad and the mundane) of how others would treat you. What might seem advantageous to begin with would quickly grow dull.
* Why not start over after the rebellion in Eden? Satan called God a liar and challenged God's sovereignty (His ''right'' to rule), implying that mankind would be better off without God's rulership. Wiping out the three rebels at that time would not have answered the questions raised by Satan in a setting viewed by millions of angels.
** So God has allowed both Satan and mankind the opportunity to prove whether or not they can successfully rule independently of His guidance. (Jeremiah 10:23) At the same time he has made arrangements to allow those that want to serve Him an opportunity to learn about him (the Bible), to come into an approved relationship with him (the sacrifice of Christ Jesus) and enjoy the prospect originally offered to Adam & Even (eternal life in paradise on earth).
** Not to be overlooked is the fact that God immediately provided a means by which he would undo the effects of this rebellion. In the Bible's first prophecy (Genesis 3:15) God foretold that he would provide a Seed that would crush Satan (Romans 16:20). 1 John 3:8 tells us that Christ was made manifest to break up the works of the Devil. In short, there is no evil act that has been done or can be done that will not be undone. Isaiah 65:17 foretells that the "former things will not be called to mind" and Revelation 21:1-5 promise an end to tears, death, mourning, outcry and pain.
[[User:Brentleigh]]

God allowed Satan to rebel and for evil to exist in order that God be glorified. It's hard for mere mortal man to fathom such a concept. Without evil, Christ would not have needed to come to earth and die on the cross for the salvation of man. But in the end, God will become the ultimate victor, Satan will be destroyed, and God will be glorified for all eternity. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== No ==
...but he created [[Liberal|Liberals]]. (poor attempt at fun by [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 14:51, 10 December 2007 (EST))

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2008-01-09T04:21:04Z

Watchman:

Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?

2008-01-09T04:13:57Z

Watchman: /* Wikipedia is a biased Nightmare */

{{debate}}

'''Reply: There are some examples for you [[Wikipedia|here]]. Have a great day!
--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:23, 27 December 2006 (EST)'''

==Catch 22==
Look at the function of the Conservapedia... It was created to represent the views of Conservative America, that was being edited out of the Wikipedia.

If bias in the Wikipedia '''does not''' affect its reliability then the Conservapedia is redundant.

If bias in the Wikipedia '''does''' affect its reliability, then creating a purposfully biased "answer to the problem" will suffer from the same problem, making it redundant (and the wikipedia).

The difference between the two is, the Wikipedia strives not to be biased, whereas this site was created to represent a certain view point, so will always be biased and always unreliable. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 09:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I challange the idea that Wikipedia strives not to be biased. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 19:19, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==The Pot and the Kettle?==
I think a more valuable question to be asking here is: Should political philosophies and religious/spiritual beliefs have a place at all in deciding the content of what is supposed to ostensibly be a resource of pure knowledge? If some people here find it repugnant that Wikipedia allegedly is "liberally biased", then I find it equally repugnant that someone felt the need to create a version of it with a "conservative/Christian bias" -- especially when it openly bashes what it was created to oppose. Ideally, knowledge should be like energy (in the physics sense of the word): neither good nor bad in it's essence, it just exists.

If your political, philosophical, or religious/spiritual beliefs are driving what you're calling "knowledge" or "fact" instead of citeable and/or independantly verifiable sources, then perhaps it should be re-examined instead of posted in a tome labelled "knowledge" or "fact" -- or at the very least, have the decency to call it "belief" instead of "knowledge" or "fact". -- Duncan Blackthorne, 22 Feb 2007

--------I think that bias does at times impair Wikipedia's reliability. Truth be told I think that the same thing is beginning to occur on Conservapedia.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of the views expressed in the various entries I have seen on Conservapedia. But I think that Conservapedia has become a bit hypocritical. When I looked up 'homosexuality' it was necessary to dig through several paragraphs before I could find an adequate description of the term. What I did find however was lots of conservatively biased viewpoints on a subject which had not even been sufficiently explained.

This would be acceptable if this website portrayed itself as a place for people to simply come and state views. But considering that this is supposed to be an 'encyclopedia' many of the term definitions themselves belong in the 'debate topics' section due to their lack of information and tendency toward conservative bias.

I heard that this website was supposed to cut-down on the pointless paragraphs of garbage, and offer concise informative entries. Instead I found much of bias, which whether I agree with or not, does not belong in an encycolpedia.

For the most part I believe Conservapedia is still on the right track, and far more reliable than Wikipedia. If it simply changes its policy slightly to eliminate biased entries such as the one on homosexuality, and sticks to simply stating the facts then it will greatly increase its credablity. (Note that I would have stated a term on homosexuaity more like this: The tendency of a person towards the same sex... This does not say whether or not homsexuality is right or wrong, it merely states what it is...) JB--------

How can "A conservative encyclopedia" (see front page) '''ever''' be unbiased --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 09:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes: ==

Abso-freaking-lutely. Go here: [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]]

Any bias impairs reliability as much as it impairs respectability. Conservapedia is just as unreliable as wikipedia because of the conservative bias.

They censor non-Christian stuff. They're really, really biased. They only accept LIBERAL BIAS!

Please read this: [[Wikipedia]].

'''Question?'''
How do you define liberal bias

:*Liberal: "marked by generosity."
:*Bias: "a zero-frequency voltage combined with a signal to move the operating point to more linear response area."
:*Liberal bias = generously allowing everyone to output their signal without distortion. [[User:dpbsmith|I'd have to be crazy to sign this]] 11:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Yes bias creates a thought police mentality of patrolling articles and reverting changes of things the "thought police" do not agree with. For example, the Hugo Chavez article is patrolled by Pro-Chavez people, most of whom are administrators. Someone had added a quote with a link to a Youtube video of Chavez calling George W. Bush "El Diablo" and then wrote that since Chavez is supposed to be a Christian, than this name-calling was an unchristian thing to do. Despite the proper citation, and NPOV, the changes got reverted and the user was cussed out on their talk page by one of the article contributors. Later on it was added, but in a POV way that made Chavez look good and Bush look bad. There are many more examples of this. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 23:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:It's a good thing we don't have [[User:Aschlafly|anything like that here]]. :)

:How is it NPOV to call someone unchristian?--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 11:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== No. Not always: ==

No. Wikipedia is edited by people from all around the world (even the English language version), so obviously the average point of view expressed on Wikipedia is not going to be the same as the average point of view in the US. And it's especially not going to be the same as the average point of view expressed by American conservatives (who don't represent all Americans). And it's especially especially not going to be the same as the average point of view expressed by American-Christian-biblical-literalist-creationist-pro-war-anti-free-trade conservatives (who don't represent all American conservatives). Is representing the whole world somehow evidence of bias???

And what nuthead got the idea to call this thing "conservapedia" anyway, when it clearly does not represent conservatives as a whole??? --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 05:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Simply because they are liberally biased does not always effect their reliability.

For example: I want to know President Reagan dates. I go onto Wikipedia. They will tell me. They may also tell me he was a bad president. But simply because "they" tell me that he was a bad president does not mean they are unreliable and what they told me about his dates isn’t solid fact.

:Where does WIkipedia say that President Reagan was a bad president? The opening paragraphs of the article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan Ronald Reagan] say things like
::"He strongly opposed communism and socialism, and as president he pursued policies for fewer regulations, lower taxes, free trade agreements, and welfare cutbacks."
:and
::"His legacies include restoring America's strength and prosperity following a period of stagflation in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the withdrawal from Vietnam, reaffirming America's commitment to free market economics, large budget deficits, rejecting Détente and escalating the Cold War with the Soviet Union through a military build-up and a firm foreign policy of "peace through strength", and peacefully ending the Cold War with Mikhail Gorbachev, including a massive reduction in nuclear arms."
:and
::"In several recent ratings of American presidents, Ronald Reagan ranked high."
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:35, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Now, (still on Wikipedia) I want to know about Jesus. I look Him up in that little search engine, and what do I get? An article that gives every view point of Jesus that exists. If I wanted to know what Christians thought about Jesus I would go to a Christian web site. Why go to an encyclopedia to look for biased articles that exclude every one else's opinion just because it isn't your opinion? Because He’s controversial in today’s world.
Almost everyone has a blind side to controversial issues. This does not make Wikipedia bad, it merely shows that they are human.

In addition, (to the comment that Wikipedia censors Christian things) Conservepedia is biased against liberals and Islam. We probably censor things that we believe are wrong. Doesn't that affect our reliability?

I am not defending Wikipedia, I am just saying that it is often a reliable resource.

-this is fun!-
--[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:55, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Like any wiki will be when it is that big, wikipedia definately hase ''some'' unreliable content, yet wikipedia is still mostly reliable.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:02, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Just because they have terms on everything doesn't mean that they are unreliable. Infact I bet that people will be putting just as much stuff on Conservapedia soon.

----
WIkipedia has certain kinds of reliability problems, but they relate mostly to its being a Wiki that anybody can edit.

I don't think it has problems ''because'' of bias. In fact, I believe that in practice Wikipedia's "neutrality" policy usually results in articles that represent all points of view, at least in the sense of mentioning their existence and linking to other information.

For example, if someone goes to the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Evolution], they will see that it has section on "Social and religious controversies," which in turn links to a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy Creation-evolution controversy]. There is also a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Creationism]. Wikipedia acknowledges the controversy, even in its main article on evolution, and doesn't try to hide it.

Of course, in a controversial article, people on both sides tend to think that their ''own'' side wasn't treated fairly.

Wikipedia should not be trusted uncritically. Neither should other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is sometimes ''better'' than other encyclopedias in showing the ''sources'' where it got its information. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:26, 26 January 2007 (EST)

I just checked wikipedia and it actually uses A.D. B.C., try looking up Mesopotamia or Rome, maybe others. I'm not trying to be aginst Conservapedia, I'm just being objective.

Double Edge

Wikipedia is a tool of the reality-based community! It should be avoided by all people of Faith. -Unscrewyourhead

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. If people want want to live in a fantasy world they will come and edit this site.

It depends on how you see things. I have no clue why Liberals and Conservatives are fighting in the first place. The interior battle causes many bad apples and possibly civil war. Maybe not about the civil war but still. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 22:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I doubt wikipedia is biased; it's just wrong a lot, given that anybody who thinks they know something can edit it. That said, I'd be much more afraid of a site where anybody who thinks they know something can post, but the site itself advocates a specific ideology. A site like that could get away with outrageous claims, like it invented the question mark, or like the earth was created at 6:00 pm Saturday, October 22, 4004 B.C.--Rumple

== Never, or at most rarely: ==

[[User:Phist|Phist]]
I think the base idea of Wikipedia is that everyone in the world is bias in some way and therefor wrong, so if you get them all together you'll make something that no one agrees with, but isn't far from the truth.

All jokes aside, the ideal of Wikipedia is to contain every fact in the world while having no real opinion about them. For those of us that choose to be extremely opinionated this dispassionate viewpoint can sometimes come across as a bias against whatever we believe. Because the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia believes nothing, it is essentially nihilistic insofar as it will(in theory at least) never say something is right or wrong, good or bad. It will state the facts and if such a conclusion exists at all, wikipedia lets the user make it.

[[Crimesofthelemon|Crimesofthelemon]]

To be honest, this site is more biased than wikipedia...wikipedia puts facts before uncertainties such as the existance of God.

Well think about it religion is based on faith not fact so to use noahs ark for instance in any sort of artical is just wrong unless refering directly to the bible itself. plus wikipedia is based on fact not beleif. so that said conservipedia is way more bias then wikipedia.

The only reason people think any sort of "Liberal Media" exists is because said sources base their claims on fact, evidence, and obsective logical inquiry. Religious conservative positions are unavoidably at odds with these claims because faith-based and religious claims are claims made upon little or no evidence. Wikipedia is a neutral perspective, and having that perspective means that fact outweighs faith. It's that simple. Wikipedia isn't biased... it just doesn't favor Conservatism, a luxory that Conservative Christians have become far too attached to. - [[Crazy Mother|Crazy Mother]]

==Wikipedia is a biased Nightmare==
Dan Rather and Meredith Viera are fair and balanced compared to Wikipedia. There are many examples. Compare the Jesus as Myth article to the Intelligent Design Article. Compare the Christmas article to the Passover Article. Compare any article about anything Christian, to, say, an article on Wicca, Voodoo or Paganism. Wikipedia is on a mission to topple the dominant culture of America. Wikipedia complies strictly with "politically correct" notions such as the ridiculous belief that "Chinaman" and "Oriental" are slurs. Would someone please explain why Irishman, Welshman, Scotsman, Englishman, Frenchman and Dutchman are not slurs, but Chinaman is? The site is founded on the belief that it's important to "question" (read as undermine) the credibility of the thoughts and philosophies that made America the envy of the world, but at the same time treat every minority crack-pot theory with kid gloves.

Thank God this site exists. I'm looking forward to contributing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:10, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is my nightmare experience with Wikipedia, enjoy: I personally have contributed information to Wikipedia on subjects related to history, politics, and theology, subjects that I consider myself knowledgeable with. Most of this knowledge was gained from college and various books that I have read over the years. As a history buff, I have read many books about George Washington, an individual that I have become fascinated with over the years. I have visited his historical home in Mount Vernon and visited the church that he regularly attended in Virginia. As a result, I consider myself somewhat more knowledgeable than the average person in regards to George Washington, his life, and his accomplishments. I contributed information to the George Washington entry on Wikipedia and much of it was accepted. However, when it came to his religious background, almost all of my entries were inextricably deleted from the article and replaced with garbage implying that George Washington was not a Christian but a Deist. This is contrary to the fact that he was indeed a Christian believer, Episcopalian to be exact, based on historical documents and records. Not to mention his regular attendance at Christ Church Alexandria in Alexandria, Virginia where the very pew he regularly sat in still exists with his nameplate attached to it. I debated with the administrators for weeks, remained unbias, and provided plenty of references to my entry. In short, my information was forever stricken and I have been officially banned from editing any entry concerning George Washington. I later found out that Wikipedia is a self-proclaimed liberal community. The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, states, "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population." There you have it. Wikipedia is indeed a liberal community and therefore it is biased which makes Wikipedia a completely unreliable source for facts and information. Like the user above me, I too thank God for this site and I'm looking forward to contributing. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:13, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==It's more than bias==

Any wiki which intends to report factual information will be limited in its reliability by the individuals who edit it and the direction those individuals take. Even within a system of strict rules designed to avoid misinformation and bias creeping in, you will still have individuals who disagree with each other. Suppose for example you posted a statistic which cannot help but put the African-American community in a positive light; a white separatist editor may demand that you provide adequate citations and references to back up your numbers, or edit your contribution to sound less positive, and in either case he is still within the rules.

Since rule enforcement is also done by editors, the rules are going to be more strongly enforced in proportion to the demographic of the editors. You see this throughout history; where one group holds more political power than another in the nation, the laws will favour the powerful group unless they are also supremely fair. Any wiki will be biased in favour of the kind of people on the internet - they tend to be young men, who are well-versed in the use of technology. Young people are more likely to take traditions for granted and hold radical views, which I suspect is one source of this perceived [[liberal bias]] in Wikipedia - the conservatives there are simply just outnumbered by the young people. Technically-minded individuals these days are also less likely to be religious, so you can expect to find other editors who are openly biased against Christian viewpoints.

Ultimately, there are only so many editors, and topics that don't catch the interest any of them will fall by the wayside, while those that do will reflect the bias of any editor undisciplined enough not to take a neutral stance. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's a very interesting argument. I'd like to add another dimension to it: I think that there is a lack of consensus on what content is appropriate for an article. We'll use two examples: first is the Global Warming article. To go along with the GW article is an article called "Global Warming Controversy." Now, with this organizational structure, the most coherent way to organize the data in these two articles would be to put information pertinent to Global Warming (such as scientific staistics, history of the topic, etc) in the main article. Since there is a separate "controversy" article, any contention on points brought up in the original article should be pointed out in the second article. The structure of the "controversy" article should mirror the structure of the original article so recursive referencing can be used.

:The problem is that people think that "having the last word" wins the argument, which is why we get inappropriate discussions in articles. If things could just be split up and referenced recursively to each other, then it would be an excellent source.

:A final thing to point out - most people using Wikipedia as a serious reference don't use the actual article. They might get a summary of the topic from that article, but the articles sources will always be the direct reference, which is why it's so important to correctly and wholly source articles. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:33, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Oh, I've seen that happen. You get sections of Wikipedia entries that read like a debate in encyclopaedic form. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 12:06, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2008-01-09T04:07:56Z

Watchman: /* No */

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2008-01-09T04:07:43Z

Watchman: /* Comments */

==Yes==
Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.
If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml].
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.

Totally! Not only for medical reasons...people will stop drinking and driving and move onto smoking and flying...one other thing though:
What about the smoking ban, I mean, will people be able to smoke in public places or will there be special areas in cities, or will we have the same rules that we do about smoking cigarettes.
Also, one question, does the smoking ban include cigars 'cos they are P.I.M.P whereas cigarettes are rather townie.
Just a wondering :) [User:bealecr] 15:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

It should be legalized, because it's none of the government's damn business what I do on my own property so long as it stays on my own property, and does not make me violent or suicidal or such.... That differentiates marijuana from cocaine, heroin, opium, pcp, lsd, even perscription drugs of abuse.... Plus, if it's legal it can be regulated more effectively - people smoke pot now and they go to drug dealers to get it, dealers who also want to sell them more dangerous drugs.... but if it is legal, people will go to the corner drugstore to get it from someone who won't even sell cigarettes to a 17-yr old. So I say make it legal for persons over 21 to buy, and if a handful do irresponsible things because of it, punish those irresponsible things, not all of society!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 23:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

By outlawing drugs, we have effectively turned over a huge section of the economy to criminals. Because they operate outside effective regulation, they pursue unethical marketing practices that are not allowed by legitimate businesses. They operate a multi-level marketing system where new users are recruited through free samples and peer pressure, and the victims can be any age. Once regular users, the victims then have an incentive to recruit other victims to pay for their habit. When new drugs arrive they use the distribution systems which are already set up, which is why cocaine penetrated the US market so quickly in the 1980s. The result is that outlawing drugs leads to higher usage. That is why the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have higher rates of drug use and addiction than the Netherlands.

In addition to the damage that drugs cause, the activities of drug dealers have created an even greater crime problem as they battle for control of this profitable business. And of course many drug users turn to crime to support their habits.

Furthermore, it is a huge waste that the United States keeps one percent of its population in prison, mostly for drug-related offences, let alone the huge financial costs of law enforcement.

All of these are the unintended consequences of the failed War on Drugs.

Unfortunately it is easier to follow perceived common sense than to accept the evidence. Drugs are banned because they are harmful, but the ban is not working, merely making a bad situation worse. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 21:36, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Yup IMO ,hey btw [[DrDaniel]]

==No==

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cigarettes are patriotic, because they have a rich history in America and the government approves of them. Marijuana is unpatriotic and evil, because the money goes to terrorists and, even worse, Illegal Immigrant aliens. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 23:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:Wait, are you serious Joe? I don't mean to bash on what you believe, but I find that to be a tad...."silly". [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

Cigarettes are the result of slave labor and 400,000 American's deaths each year. Marijuana is one of the ingredients of Christ's anointing oil, know in the bible as kaneh bosm. Marijuana has also resulted in zero deaths from OD or even cancer, look it up if you don't believe me, the truth is out there.[[User:Independentthinker|Independentthinker]] 14:15, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug. If it were legalized, there would be awful consequences. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:24, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Comments==
But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK
:Banning a product ''does'' make it go away—most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be ''some'' around, but surely ''some'' is better than ''a lot''? I mean, you might as well "regulate" rather than "ban" things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently ''wrong''.
:Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And "regulation" also means "banning" in limited ways. For example, if you "regulate" it, you probably still ''ban'' it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on [[Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement|The U.S. Prohibition Act]], in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning ''may'', ''in theory'' cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
::: That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said "given suitable enforcement". One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it ''did'' make it go away (for the most part)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the ''theory'' that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

::::You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that causing a subset of the American population to suffer thusly, all the while funding organized crime, could possibly be a good thing. If you look closely, you can see that this situation resembles the modern marijuana situation significantly. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

:::::The U.S. Government didn't repeal Prohibition; it was the people, via a referendum (okay, there would have been an associated act involved). But by your logic, (a) why would the people have voted for prohibition in the first place, if it was so bad, given that quite a few states already had it (i.e. the "experiment" was already tried) before it went national, and (b), why did the people vote for a pro-prohibition presidential candidate ''after'' it came in, if it was so bad?
:::::The answer, as I understand it, is that powerful media groups (i.e. newspapers; there was no TV then) (perhaps they were [[liberal]]?) campaigned for an end to prohibition because the media owners wanted to ease their tax burden by creating another source of revenue for the government, by taxing alcohol. Their propaganda campaign of disinformation was so successful that to this day most people think that prohibition was a failure.
:::::I was also citing U.S. history, so we are on an equal footing there. I understand that it ''did'' work—the theory ''did'' "hold water" when applied.
:::::Yes, alcohol was still available (one of the flaws of the legislation was to ban the sale of it, not the manufacture of it!), and the ''desperate'' alcoholics could still get it. But most people—they had voted for it, remember—weren't that desperate, and most simply gave it up, so the use of alcohol dropped to a tiny fraction of what it had been. The ''relatively'' small amount of bootlegged grog of dubious "quality" was far outweighed by the vast majority no longer imbibing this poisonous depressant drug.
:::::Yes, it does have similarities with the modern situation with marijuana. Which is one reason why marijuana should stay banned.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::At this point, our disagreement seems to be largely a debate on whether or not the history we have been taught is accurate. I am no historian, and cannot argue on this level. That said, I offer a different point: assuming that you are accurate in saying that substance banning is ''mostly'' effective, and is good for ''most'' people, we have still confessed that it is an imperfect and expensive solution. What I suggest is that there may well be a more effective alternative: education. Translating "given suitable enforcement" to "given suitable funding", my experiences lead me to believe that ''properly'' educating kids to the pitfalls of substance abuse (and by educating I don't mean 'Marijuana is bad, okay?') we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:33 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
:::::::I agree with the education angle, but educating people that it's bad, and legalising it, sends contradictory messages. Both education and banning are needed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Philip - using that logic, presumably you'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned then? As far as I can see from the evidence, the harm caused by these substances is, if anything, more than the harm caused by marijuana. And yet we deal with the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco by educating people into knowledge of their harmful effects, and acknowledging that (with alcohol at any rate) there are positive benefits to be gained from a moderate and rational use of it.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: Yes, I'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned. The only qualifier I'd put on that is that ''politically'', you would not get away with banning alcohol at present, and perhaps not tobacco yet, although we are probably getting close to that (in Australia at least). To put it another way, banning them might be a slow process of erosion of availability and education before the actual banning, but banning them ought to be the goal.
::::::::: I'm not convinced of many of the claims that there are benefits from using moderate amounts of alcohol, for three reasons:
:::::::::* Reported studies (in newspapers) claiming to show benefits from drinking wine fail to mention whether the benefit would still be achieved by drinking non-alcoholic wine. That is, is the benefit in the alcohol, or something else in the drink?
:::::::::* Apparently at least some studies claiming to show benefit from drinking wine were done by comparing the health of drinker with non-drinkers, and the latter groups frequently include people who used to drink heavily, but have become teetotallers because of how it was affecting their health.
:::::::::* Reported studies usually fail to mention whether the benefits outweigh the problems. Alcohol is both a dependence-forming drug and a depressant (unlike caffeine, for example which although mildly dependence-forming is a stimulant), which is a dangerous combination, and also makes the drinker thirsty! How much more diabolical can it get? More, actually, because it's also poisonous! (The [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] here in Victoria buys (or used to buy) pure alcohol to use in education programs, and were restricted to buying small quantities per year because of its classification as a poison. Yet it is freely available mixed into drinks!!) So are the reported benefits so great that it's worth putting up with all the problems?
:::::::::With regards to tobacco, I probably don't need to explain the problems with that, except to point out acceptance of tobacco 40 years ago was at similar levels to acceptance of alcohol today, in my opinion.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Marijuana is more dangerous due to physcodelic effects [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:24, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
You mean psychedelic? Can you explian how this makes it dangerous?

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2008-01-09T04:07:05Z

Watchman: /* Comments */

==Yes==
Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.
If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml].
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.

Totally! Not only for medical reasons...people will stop drinking and driving and move onto smoking and flying...one other thing though:
What about the smoking ban, I mean, will people be able to smoke in public places or will there be special areas in cities, or will we have the same rules that we do about smoking cigarettes.
Also, one question, does the smoking ban include cigars 'cos they are P.I.M.P whereas cigarettes are rather townie.
Just a wondering :) [User:bealecr] 15:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

It should be legalized, because it's none of the government's damn business what I do on my own property so long as it stays on my own property, and does not make me violent or suicidal or such.... That differentiates marijuana from cocaine, heroin, opium, pcp, lsd, even perscription drugs of abuse.... Plus, if it's legal it can be regulated more effectively - people smoke pot now and they go to drug dealers to get it, dealers who also want to sell them more dangerous drugs.... but if it is legal, people will go to the corner drugstore to get it from someone who won't even sell cigarettes to a 17-yr old. So I say make it legal for persons over 21 to buy, and if a handful do irresponsible things because of it, punish those irresponsible things, not all of society!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 23:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

By outlawing drugs, we have effectively turned over a huge section of the economy to criminals. Because they operate outside effective regulation, they pursue unethical marketing practices that are not allowed by legitimate businesses. They operate a multi-level marketing system where new users are recruited through free samples and peer pressure, and the victims can be any age. Once regular users, the victims then have an incentive to recruit other victims to pay for their habit. When new drugs arrive they use the distribution systems which are already set up, which is why cocaine penetrated the US market so quickly in the 1980s. The result is that outlawing drugs leads to higher usage. That is why the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have higher rates of drug use and addiction than the Netherlands.

In addition to the damage that drugs cause, the activities of drug dealers have created an even greater crime problem as they battle for control of this profitable business. And of course many drug users turn to crime to support their habits.

Furthermore, it is a huge waste that the United States keeps one percent of its population in prison, mostly for drug-related offences, let alone the huge financial costs of law enforcement.

All of these are the unintended consequences of the failed War on Drugs.

Unfortunately it is easier to follow perceived common sense than to accept the evidence. Drugs are banned because they are harmful, but the ban is not working, merely making a bad situation worse. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 21:36, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Yup IMO ,hey btw [[DrDaniel]]

==No==

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cigarettes are patriotic, because they have a rich history in America and the government approves of them. Marijuana is unpatriotic and evil, because the money goes to terrorists and, even worse, Illegal Immigrant aliens. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 23:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:Wait, are you serious Joe? I don't mean to bash on what you believe, but I find that to be a tad...."silly". [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

Cigarettes are the result of slave labor and 400,000 American's deaths each year. Marijuana is one of the ingredients of Christ's anointing oil, know in the bible as kaneh bosm. Marijuana has also resulted in zero deaths from OD or even cancer, look it up if you don't believe me, the truth is out there.[[User:Independentthinker|Independentthinker]] 14:15, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug. If it were legalized, there would be awful consequences. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:24, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Comments==
But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK
:Banning a product ''does'' make it go away—most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be ''some'' around, but surely ''some'' is better than ''a lot''? I mean, you might as well "regulate" rather than "ban" things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently ''wrong''.
:Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And "regulation" also means "banning" in limited ways. For example, if you "regulate" it, you probably still ''ban'' it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on [[Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement|The U.S. Prohibition Act]], in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning ''may'', ''in theory'' cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
::: That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said "given suitable enforcement". One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it ''did'' make it go away (for the most part)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the ''theory'' that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

::::You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that causing a subset of the American population to suffer thusly, all the while funding organized crime, could possibly be a good thing. If you look closely, you can see that this situation resembles the modern marijuana situation significantly. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

:::::The U.S. Government didn't repeal Prohibition; it was the people, via a referendum (okay, there would have been an associated act involved). But by your logic, (a) why would the people have voted for prohibition in the first place, if it was so bad, given that quite a few states already had it (i.e. the "experiment" was already tried) before it went national, and (b), why did the people vote for a pro-prohibition presidential candidate ''after'' it came in, if it was so bad?
:::::The answer, as I understand it, is that powerful media groups (i.e. newspapers; there was no TV then) (perhaps they were [[liberal]]?) campaigned for an end to prohibition because the media owners wanted to ease their tax burden by creating another source of revenue for the government, by taxing alcohol. Their propaganda campaign of disinformation was so successful that to this day most people think that prohibition was a failure.
:::::I was also citing U.S. history, so we are on an equal footing there. I understand that it ''did'' work—the theory ''did'' "hold water" when applied.
:::::Yes, alcohol was still available (one of the flaws of the legislation was to ban the sale of it, not the manufacture of it!), and the ''desperate'' alcoholics could still get it. But most people—they had voted for it, remember—weren't that desperate, and most simply gave it up, so the use of alcohol dropped to a tiny fraction of what it had been. The ''relatively'' small amount of bootlegged grog of dubious "quality" was far outweighed by the vast majority no longer imbibing this poisonous depressant drug.
:::::Yes, it does have similarities with the modern situation with marijuana. Which is one reason why marijuana should stay banned.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::At this point, our disagreement seems to be largely a debate on whether or not the history we have been taught is accurate. I am no historian, and cannot argue on this level. That said, I offer a different point: assuming that you are accurate in saying that substance banning is ''mostly'' effective, and is good for ''most'' people, we have still confessed that it is an imperfect and expensive solution. What I suggest is that there may well be a more effective alternative: education. Translating "given suitable enforcement" to "given suitable funding", my experiences lead me to believe that ''properly'' educating kids to the pitfalls of substance abuse (and by educating I don't mean 'Marijuana is bad, okay?') we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:33 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
:::::::I agree with the education angle, but educating people that it's bad, and legalising it, sends contradictory messages. Both education and banning are needed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Philip - using that logic, presumably you'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned then? As far as I can see from the evidence, the harm caused by these substances is, if anything, more than the harm caused by marijuana. And yet we deal with the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco by educating people into knowledge of their harmful effects, and acknowledging that (with alcohol at any rate) there are positive benefits to be gained from a moderate and rational use of it.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: Yes, I'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned. The only qualifier I'd put on that is that ''politically'', you would not get away with banning alcohol at present, and perhaps not tobacco yet, although we are probably getting close to that (in Australia at least). To put it another way, banning them might be a slow process of erosion of availability and education before the actual banning, but banning them ought to be the goal.
::::::::: I'm not convinced of many of the claims that there are benefits from using moderate amounts of alcohol, for three reasons:
:::::::::* Reported studies (in newspapers) claiming to show benefits from drinking wine fail to mention whether the benefit would still be achieved by drinking non-alcoholic wine. That is, is the benefit in the alcohol, or something else in the drink?
:::::::::* Apparently at least some studies claiming to show benefit from drinking wine were done by comparing the health of drinker with non-drinkers, and the latter groups frequently include people who used to drink heavily, but have become teetotallers because of how it was affecting their health.
:::::::::* Reported studies usually fail to mention whether the benefits outweigh the problems. Alcohol is both a dependence-forming drug and a depressant (unlike caffeine, for example which although mildly dependence-forming is a stimulant), which is a dangerous combination, and also makes the drinker thirsty! How much more diabolical can it get? More, actually, because it's also poisonous! (The [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] here in Victoria buys (or used to buy) pure alcohol to use in education programs, and were restricted to buying small quantities per year because of its classification as a poison. Yet it is freely available mixed into drinks!!) So are the reported benefits so great that it's worth putting up with all the problems?
:::::::::With regards to tobacco, I probably don't need to explain the problems with that, except to point out acceptance of tobacco 40 years ago was at similar levels to acceptance of alcohol today, in my opinion.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Marijuana is more dangerous due to physcodelic effects [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:24, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
You mean psychedelic? Can you explian how this makes it dangerous?

I'm a noob at this editing thing so please go easy on me.
NO, marijuana should not be legalized just as I believe alcohol shouldn't being legal either. But, our government has too much to gain from the legalization of alcohol and as a result it will never become illegal. I'm well aware they tried it once before during the Prohibition and it simply didn't work. Marijuana is another drug just like alcohol and will only add to the many problems we already see in our society as a result of alcohol related injuries, deaths, illnesses, and public intoxication. Why add fuel to the fire? I believe too many people are already addicted to alcohol because it is so easily accessible to the general populace. I know of at least a handful of people that are alcoholics by definition. Should marijuana become legal we will only see more addictions and ultimately more problems associated with it. Last but not least, I don't want my tax dollars supporting yet another unnecessary item should marijuana become legal, not to mention the medical costs associated with it. Federal funding of abortion and the NEA are already more than I can stand to waste my tax dollars on. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:07, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2008-01-09T04:03:15Z

Watchman: /* Comments */

==Yes==
Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.
If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml].
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.

Totally! Not only for medical reasons...people will stop drinking and driving and move onto smoking and flying...one other thing though:
What about the smoking ban, I mean, will people be able to smoke in public places or will there be special areas in cities, or will we have the same rules that we do about smoking cigarettes.
Also, one question, does the smoking ban include cigars 'cos they are P.I.M.P whereas cigarettes are rather townie.
Just a wondering :) [User:bealecr] 15:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

It should be legalized, because it's none of the government's damn business what I do on my own property so long as it stays on my own property, and does not make me violent or suicidal or such.... That differentiates marijuana from cocaine, heroin, opium, pcp, lsd, even perscription drugs of abuse.... Plus, if it's legal it can be regulated more effectively - people smoke pot now and they go to drug dealers to get it, dealers who also want to sell them more dangerous drugs.... but if it is legal, people will go to the corner drugstore to get it from someone who won't even sell cigarettes to a 17-yr old. So I say make it legal for persons over 21 to buy, and if a handful do irresponsible things because of it, punish those irresponsible things, not all of society!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 23:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

By outlawing drugs, we have effectively turned over a huge section of the economy to criminals. Because they operate outside effective regulation, they pursue unethical marketing practices that are not allowed by legitimate businesses. They operate a multi-level marketing system where new users are recruited through free samples and peer pressure, and the victims can be any age. Once regular users, the victims then have an incentive to recruit other victims to pay for their habit. When new drugs arrive they use the distribution systems which are already set up, which is why cocaine penetrated the US market so quickly in the 1980s. The result is that outlawing drugs leads to higher usage. That is why the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have higher rates of drug use and addiction than the Netherlands.

In addition to the damage that drugs cause, the activities of drug dealers have created an even greater crime problem as they battle for control of this profitable business. And of course many drug users turn to crime to support their habits.

Furthermore, it is a huge waste that the United States keeps one percent of its population in prison, mostly for drug-related offences, let alone the huge financial costs of law enforcement.

All of these are the unintended consequences of the failed War on Drugs.

Unfortunately it is easier to follow perceived common sense than to accept the evidence. Drugs are banned because they are harmful, but the ban is not working, merely making a bad situation worse. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 21:36, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Yup IMO ,hey btw [[DrDaniel]]

==No==

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cigarettes are patriotic, because they have a rich history in America and the government approves of them. Marijuana is unpatriotic and evil, because the money goes to terrorists and, even worse, Illegal Immigrant aliens. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 23:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:Wait, are you serious Joe? I don't mean to bash on what you believe, but I find that to be a tad...."silly". [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

Cigarettes are the result of slave labor and 400,000 American's deaths each year. Marijuana is one of the ingredients of Christ's anointing oil, know in the bible as kaneh bosm. Marijuana has also resulted in zero deaths from OD or even cancer, look it up if you don't believe me, the truth is out there.[[User:Independentthinker|Independentthinker]] 14:15, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug. If it were legalized, there would be awful consequences. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:24, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Comments==
But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK
:Banning a product ''does'' make it go away—most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be ''some'' around, but surely ''some'' is better than ''a lot''? I mean, you might as well "regulate" rather than "ban" things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently ''wrong''.
:Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And "regulation" also means "banning" in limited ways. For example, if you "regulate" it, you probably still ''ban'' it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on [[Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement|The U.S. Prohibition Act]], in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning ''may'', ''in theory'' cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
::: That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said "given suitable enforcement". One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it ''did'' make it go away (for the most part)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the ''theory'' that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

::::You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that causing a subset of the American population to suffer thusly, all the while funding organized crime, could possibly be a good thing. If you look closely, you can see that this situation resembles the modern marijuana situation significantly. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

:::::The U.S. Government didn't repeal Prohibition; it was the people, via a referendum (okay, there would have been an associated act involved). But by your logic, (a) why would the people have voted for prohibition in the first place, if it was so bad, given that quite a few states already had it (i.e. the "experiment" was already tried) before it went national, and (b), why did the people vote for a pro-prohibition presidential candidate ''after'' it came in, if it was so bad?
:::::The answer, as I understand it, is that powerful media groups (i.e. newspapers; there was no TV then) (perhaps they were [[liberal]]?) campaigned for an end to prohibition because the media owners wanted to ease their tax burden by creating another source of revenue for the government, by taxing alcohol. Their propaganda campaign of disinformation was so successful that to this day most people think that prohibition was a failure.
:::::I was also citing U.S. history, so we are on an equal footing there. I understand that it ''did'' work—the theory ''did'' "hold water" when applied.
:::::Yes, alcohol was still available (one of the flaws of the legislation was to ban the sale of it, not the manufacture of it!), and the ''desperate'' alcoholics could still get it. But most people—they had voted for it, remember—weren't that desperate, and most simply gave it up, so the use of alcohol dropped to a tiny fraction of what it had been. The ''relatively'' small amount of bootlegged grog of dubious "quality" was far outweighed by the vast majority no longer imbibing this poisonous depressant drug.
:::::Yes, it does have similarities with the modern situation with marijuana. Which is one reason why marijuana should stay banned.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::At this point, our disagreement seems to be largely a debate on whether or not the history we have been taught is accurate. I am no historian, and cannot argue on this level. That said, I offer a different point: assuming that you are accurate in saying that substance banning is ''mostly'' effective, and is good for ''most'' people, we have still confessed that it is an imperfect and expensive solution. What I suggest is that there may well be a more effective alternative: education. Translating "given suitable enforcement" to "given suitable funding", my experiences lead me to believe that ''properly'' educating kids to the pitfalls of substance abuse (and by educating I don't mean 'Marijuana is bad, okay?') we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:33 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
:::::::I agree with the education angle, but educating people that it's bad, and legalising it, sends contradictory messages. Both education and banning are needed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Philip - using that logic, presumably you'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned then? As far as I can see from the evidence, the harm caused by these substances is, if anything, more than the harm caused by marijuana. And yet we deal with the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco by educating people into knowledge of their harmful effects, and acknowledging that (with alcohol at any rate) there are positive benefits to be gained from a moderate and rational use of it.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: Yes, I'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned. The only qualifier I'd put on that is that ''politically'', you would not get away with banning alcohol at present, and perhaps not tobacco yet, although we are probably getting close to that (in Australia at least). To put it another way, banning them might be a slow process of erosion of availability and education before the actual banning, but banning them ought to be the goal.
::::::::: I'm not convinced of many of the claims that there are benefits from using moderate amounts of alcohol, for three reasons:
:::::::::* Reported studies (in newspapers) claiming to show benefits from drinking wine fail to mention whether the benefit would still be achieved by drinking non-alcoholic wine. That is, is the benefit in the alcohol, or something else in the drink?
:::::::::* Apparently at least some studies claiming to show benefit from drinking wine were done by comparing the health of drinker with non-drinkers, and the latter groups frequently include people who used to drink heavily, but have become teetotallers because of how it was affecting their health.
:::::::::* Reported studies usually fail to mention whether the benefits outweigh the problems. Alcohol is both a dependence-forming drug and a depressant (unlike caffeine, for example which although mildly dependence-forming is a stimulant), which is a dangerous combination, and also makes the drinker thirsty! How much more diabolical can it get? More, actually, because it's also poisonous! (The [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] here in Victoria buys (or used to buy) pure alcohol to use in education programs, and were restricted to buying small quantities per year because of its classification as a poison. Yet it is freely available mixed into drinks!!) So are the reported benefits so great that it's worth putting up with all the problems?
:::::::::With regards to tobacco, I probably don't need to explain the problems with that, except to point out acceptance of tobacco 40 years ago was at similar levels to acceptance of alcohol today, in my opinion.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Marijuana is more dangerous due to physcodelic effects [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:24, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
You mean psychedelic? Can you explian how this makes it dangerous?

I'm a noob at this editing thing so please go easy on me.
NO, marijuana should not be legalized just as I believe alcohol shouldn't being legal either. But, our government has too much to gain from the legalization of alcohol and as a result it will never become illegal. I'm well aware they tried it once before during the Prohibition and it simply didn't work. Marijuana is another drug just like alcohol and will only add to the many problems we already see in our society as a result of alcohol related injuries, deaths, illnesses, and public intoxication. Why add fuel to the fire? I believe too many people are already addicted to alcohol because it is so easily accessible to the general populace. I know of at least a handful of people that are alcoholics by definition. Should marijuana become legal we will only see more addictions and ultimately more problems associated with it. Last but not least, I don't want my tax dollars supporting yet another unnecessary item should marijuana become legal, not to mention the medical costs associated with it. Federal funding of abortion and the NEA are already more than I can stand to waste my tax dollars on.