A new study [I'll try to find a link] has come out stating that one half of all non-violent crime arrests are made due to marijuana, either possession or use. That prompted me to bring this debate back [we had a LONG, GOOD old debate last year]...So...Should we legalize pot, why, why not?

CP

Not only do I not believe that pot should be made illegal, but I also believe that the punishment for growing, possessing, and smoking it should be made far more severe.

Half the people in prison are there for drugs? Great. Build more prisons and put more of those people away.

Those who smoke this "victimless drug" support, in part, a vast criminal underworld that costs our society tremendously in both human and financial capital. The same people who sell, distribute, grow, and import pot are the same nefarious characters who deal in harder drugs like cocaine and heroin.

The only way to defeat drugs in the US is to attack the demand, not only the supply (as is primarily done now).

Frankly (and I admit this idea has no support in the US), I support the Singapore style of "caning" for those convicted of pot related crimes.

That should put a damper in the use of that illegal substance.

That's why I would support the legalization of harder drugs like cocaine and heroin. There is really no legitimate reason to keep it [pot] ilegal. It's not worse than alcohol, and even if it was, the government has no right to legislate what people do with themselves. If some cokehead OD's because cocaine is legal, who was harmed?

Defeat drugs? Why do you think it is necessary to have a "War on Drugs" anyway, just curious.

Holy cruel, unusual and way too much punishment Batman!

CP

Let's turn around what you just posted....., if a "legal" substance like alcohol can get you equally high as "pot", then why do you need to bother with an illegal substance that helps fund and support a huge illegal enterprise?

Who was harmed? I suppose that the treatment that the "cokehead" will demand will be paid for out of their own pocket? Doubtful. What about the innocent child killed in a traffic accident after a person under the influence of coke, pot, or any other substance ran into them? As I stated earlier, the notion that using illegal drugs is a "victimless crime" is a huge myth.

The entire issue of pot is silly anyway. It's a throwback to the hippy days of the 1960's in my view. I find it ironic that at the same time society scorns on smoking in general that a few still won't stop their obsession with getting high from smoking a plant. Give up it, already.

Should we legalize pot, why, why not?


Absolutely we should. There are too many uses for it:

http://www.hempcar.org/hempfacts.shtml#one




If even five percent of these are true, keeping hemp illegal or too hemmed in with legislation to grow it is far more damaging to America than legalizing it.

Besides, it's hypocritical to ban some drugs but not alcohol. If it's bad, dangerous, and irresponsible to get high, then anything that gets you high chemically should be illegal. Hand over the cigarettes, coffee, and alcohol, folks.


Here is Canada's Hemp Traders' take on it:

The whole reason pot supports an illegal enterprise is because it IS an illegal enterprise. The War against Drugs, as an impractical crusade, only increases crime.

> The government prohibition of pot has artificially reduced the supply faster than the demand, thus increasing the price and thereby the profitability. And the only organizations that can profit from it are criminal syndicates.

> The war on drugs, in artificially increasing the price of drugs, makes it so addicts have to take up real crimes such as theft in order to support their habits.

> The war on drugs diverts police from their primary task - protecting against crimes with victims.

> And of course, the war on drugs is inherently unjust. The pot-smoker hurts himself, and the police arrest him for it. It punishes the victim!

I don't think we should turn this around, I think we should put some logic into this: if we legalize pot then I'm sure some companies would start growing it and the various plants and styles to grow it (not to mention just selling THC butter for brownies). Next thing you know: yay for capitalism, more jobs! More cars in garages and more chickens in pots! More pot in chickens? Who knows!? Then the government puts a sin tax on it and we've got a huge amount of income.



Exactly, so to help get rid of these unsavory people we could attack their supply and take it right out from under them. If pot is legalized then a huge part of their income is gone and they have to work only with the hard stuff. Then it would be the real junkies who support this underworld.



Smoking cigarettes is much different than smoking marijuana. Smoking cigarettes is being looked down upon in society today, smoking marijuana has always seemed like it's been looked down upon (more or less).


UCLA Study by Dr. Donald Tashkin:

Marijuana Article

National Academies Press:

National Academies Press

So we make smoking pot while driving illegal, just like drinking and driving. It seems to me that people won't hesitate to denounce pot, but when the comparison comes to drinking (which is also addictive and impairs abilities) people defend it. Is it because there is any difference between the two and what they do to our bodies, or is it because one is more socially acceptable?

Should we legalize pot, why, why not?

No, we should not.

The first question one should ask yourself in this discussion is: would you allow your children to smoke pot?

I heard on the radio just today a guy who called in and said that smoking pot had not affected his life negatively. When asked if he would allow (or condone) his teenage son to smoke it. he replied that he would definitely be against it. He could not articulate a reason why.

As the only one of five brothers who does not smoke marijuana, I can personally attest to the effects that smoking pot has on one's ambition, drive, and motivation. I am the only son in my family to go to college, indeed the only one to graduate high school. Marijuana numbs people, it makes them uncaring. It subtly ruins lives.

For those who are posting here, I have no doubt that marijuana has not ruined your life. Indeed, I believe that the vast majority of our posters here are exceptionally talented individuals and for such individuals perhaps pot merely takes off the edge. I don't know and I don't care to know. For your everyday Joe, however, pot often becomes an obsession (although "it's not addictive" ).

I do think that marijuana has medical uses. In many cases, the pain reducing effects are just as good as pills, without some severe side effects. As with any drug, I would strictly regulate its availability. Of course, that's a separate debate.

Would you want your children to drink alcohol or smoking cigarettes? Of course not, that's why there's an age limit on such things, which I think would be appropriate for marijuana.

I really don't believe that's the role of government. The government isn't a parent and citizens aren't children.

If an adult wants to smoke marijuana, that's their choice. Sure, it may be a bad choice but it's their choice. Bob smoking marijuana doesn't hurt Jim. It may be a foolish choice but the role of the government isn't forcing people to make the right decisions in life.

What the government could do is regulate marijuana. Make it illegal and difficult for children to obtain, put an excise tax on it and educate people about the dangers. That way children can't get it, people who choose to use marijuana do so in an informed way and everybody wins.

First of all, if anyone wants to educate themselves about the history of marijuana prohibition, i suggest you check out a 1995 speech by a Professor of Law at USC Law School. It takes a little bit to read, but it quite interesting and I have been unable to find any factual errors with it. I'm hoping an AD member can fix that problem.

Should we legalize pot, why, why not?

Of course! Pot provides many benefits, especially if you are comparing it to things like alcohol and cigarettes. If you read the speech that I provided the link to, you will find why it was made illegal in the first place (hint:mostly racism, possibly corporate interests). However, even though I feel it should be legalized, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. But it would be nice for the government to stop lying to itself, and put marijuana into Schedule II. At least this way, it would be much easier to perform research on the drug, and also Medical Marijuana patients could legally get their drug.


Because alcohol doesn't get you equally high as pot. They are completely different drugs with a set of different effects. I definitely prefer the effects of pot over alcohol, and wouldn't mind if I never had alcohol again if pot were to become legal. Basically, you are asking people to go with a "substitute", much like asking a whole milk lover to switch to skim milk. Whole milk is too unhealthy, so that should be banned and everyone should be fine with skim milk, right?

Also, I never felt that I was supporting a "huge illegal enterprise" when buying pot. As long as you aren't buying from some random guy on the street, you can usually figure out where it came from. In my experience, it's been mostly regional, so the money spent on this "huge illegal enterprise" gets reinvested in the local economy (dealers gotta have their bling).


I don't really agree with this idea, but maybe that's because I also don't agree with the drunk driving laws as they are now. I feel that swerving because you are falling asleep behind the wheel and swerving because you have drugs in your system should both be treated the same. I know some states have passed stricter laws about driving tired, but really it's all about whether you are alert/responsive enough to handle the road. If you are alert enough, fine, who cares what drugs you are on. If you are not alert, then who cares what the cause is, you are still a danger to people on the road.

Plus, there have been studies performed that show marijuana is not a significant contributor to impaired driving ability, but instead compares to the effects of many prescription drugs. For this reason, it's probably better to have an officer determine DUI using performance tests instead of using a "pot-breathalyzer" (or whatever they would use) to determine the percentage of THC in the blood.

In regards to making smoking and driving illegal: Many prescription drugs can get you pretty messed up, and you should not be allowed to drive under their influence either (I'm not sure what the law is on this). We should not let people judge whether or not they are high enough to drive, because the consequences for misjudging are too great. Sure, sleeping at the wheel is a problem, but you can't measure sleepiness. The person who was sleepy cannot make a clear decision whether or not to be sleepy, like you can with smoking pot. Neither can they easily determine if they are too tired or not, while you can easily determine if you have smoked.



I'm not sure whether or not pot should be legalized, but your arguments don't really make sense, as has been pointed out above. The above hasn't been dealt with yet though, so I just wanted to complete the criticism. If pot is legalized, then obviously cocaine and heroin could still be illegal. The best way to go after people who deal in cocaine and heroin is to go after people who deal in cocaine and heroin.

Hemp? The debate is over smoking an illegal drug, not the textile trade.

The issue is not hypocrisy, the issue is supporting an illegal enterprise. Again, I'll turn your position around. If there are other "legal" drugs such as coffee, booze, and cigarettes, why, pray tell, the obsession with taking a drug that is illegal??

What is the point? If one desires to alter one's mental state, there are other means available that do not involve violating the law. It seems to me that insisting on taking a drug that is illegal, when other LEGAL substances are freely available, is a stubborn show of immaturity. Furthermore, it directly supports an illegal enterprise that drains critical resources from our society.

I just don't get it. Sorry.

But that's because it's illegal. Since it's illegal, those growing it are criminals by default. Therefore, why shouldn't they be the ones who deal in harder drugs like cocaine and heroin? If it were legalized, legitamite growers would begin to take root on the market, and who in right mind would buy something from a black-market cocaine dealer what they could get right on main street? Even now, who do you think most stoners, with the option, are more likely to go to: a drifter with ties to organized crime or the hippie college student who has some "special ferns" in his window? It's not as though the only way to get it is to import it. My school actually has given credits for lectures on cannabis sativa!

I believe that its growth should be allowed by those of the age of majority. I believe that its sale should be allowed to those who have reached a certain age (16 or 18, take your pick). I believe that it should be allowed to be incorporated into clearly marked food products, legal to those of age. I believe that it should be allowed to be consumed on its own by those of age. I believe that it should be allowed for smoking or inhalation by those of age, in home, place of business, or the home or place of business of one who chooses to allow it, with the exception of restaurants and near the property lines.

I acknowledge that there are harmful effects, specifically, cancer risk, psychological dependency, and temporary slight intoxication. The first can be said of many things including red meat and caffeine, the second of almost any pleasurable experience, and the third of alcohol. The third would not be a sufficient counterexample but for the known consequences of banning a substance based on such an intoxication. The intoxication is not comparable to more severe intoxications, such as lysergic acid.

LH, let me try to help you get it.

You're using circular logic here: legalizing pot would be bad because such legalization would support illegal trade. However, the illegal trade exists only because pot is illegal.

If pot were to be made legal, then the illegal trade would no longer exists. We have the example of Prohibition to go by. When was the last time anyone bought bootlegged beer? It just doesn't happen any longer.

I'm assuming you have no experience with smoking pot. That's fine, and explains why you'd equate a booze buzz with a pot buzz. These two things are completely different. That's why some folks prefer pot over booze.

I won't go into the well-publicized and known differences. My main point here is that circular arguments don't hold water, and that lack of experience means that research should be done to gain understanding.

Then it'll be easier to get it. We are wasting our money going after pot.

Sorry, but you haven't helped me at all. The circular logic is yours, friend.

If pot were made legal, we'd open the floodgates to MORE problems, not less. We'd have people smoking that smelly stuff all over the place. On top of the drunk driving problem, we'd have stoners running into children as well. My experience with pot? Once during college during a trip to Michigan State... the party central of my state.

I have tons of experience getting high with booze though. You can get quite wasted on that legal substance.

Again, with the variety of LEGAL means for getting high, why the obsession on the one that is ILLEGAL?

Like I said before, this is an immature obsession. Give it up!

I'll say it for the last time, growing and smoking pot is illegal for a variety of reasons. Therefore, it should not be done. Period. There are other ways to ruin your health and get high that are perfectly legal. Doing this in defiance of the law, when there are reasonable and legal alternative means available is immature and counterproductive.

Now, I'm done with this topic for now.

Should we legalize pot, why, why not?

A few months before my honorable discharge my squadron decided to take urine samples almost on a weekly basis. Someone tested positive for pot. By the time I moved out of the base a few NJP’s were handed out. Curious, I approached a friend for his perspective. Jeff was a textbook pothead of fifteen or so venerable years and dabbled in LSD and other “soft” drugs. To vouch for his credentials he was living in his parents’ basement getting by on dead end jobs.

Assured I was in good hands with Jeff I decided to try it out one Friday night at my place. We laid down a few rules like absolutely no driving. Armed with Flash Gordon, a bong, and more pizza than anyone should eat in one sitting, I giggled before taking my first puff. I was about to enter taboo territory and was fascinated. Then I hacked and coughed for half an hour. As a non-smoker my lungs weren’t as amused as I was. I could almost feel the hair-like cilia lining the airways working overtime to push the extra mucus I generated up and out.

Then it hit me. Everything took on a different feel. I felt lighter. My surroundings took on a surreal, absurd aspect and spurred on by sock puppets I laughed until my jaw hurt.

I hit the bong thrice more and never again. I don’t feel the urge to use any substance... well, except maybe coffee. I’m glad for the experience. I realized the social stigma attached isn’t directly related to pot’s properties. Instead the stigma is for the benefit of a portion of the population I believe are genetically predisposed to addiction, whether the substance in question is pain killers, marijuana, or alcohol, as is the case with my father and the latter.

Social conditioning should not completely be disregarded. There are illegal substances that are so chemically addictive I don’t think anyone has a hope against. And like cigarette smoking I don’t approve of kids smoking pot, but commerce legislation shouldn’t solely be written around people who can’t control their behavior, so I support legalizing its production, sale, and use.

You may wonder what happened to Jeff. Before I moved away he moaned his life going nowhere and was enlisting with the Army. I was certain he wouldn’t make it. He deserved kudos for disclosing his drug habit to the enlistment NCO but there was no way, I thought, he could avoid the urge to pick one up.

I “ran” into him on an online game. He still uses the same moniker. Jeff was with a tank unit. He was in Faluja, sometimes in a tank and sometimes in a hummer. He’s stateside in the midwest right now training another unit (I think they’re reservists) using simulation computers. Everything caught up with him recently. He had an emotional breakdown but he’s doing alright, though he took up cigarettes like a madman. He’s attending college trying to wrap up his philosophy and history majors and is going back with his new unit in November for a second tour.

He wasn't excusing an addiction when I pressed him to fess up he had a problem years ago. It did give him "something to do" like hitting the bottle while he drifted along, after all.

Well, I wouldn't allow my children to smoke cigarettes, drink in excess or watch pornography either. I'm not suggesting that we ban those things, although there are certainly efforts on all three fronts. Counter-productive, as shown by the experiment in alcohol prohibition. There are still "gangster tour" buses in my neighborhood, showing people where Capone and his boys gunned down the competition. And I don't need to tell you the other illicit projects illegal income ends up funding.


I'll tell you why - the kid is a teenager. Teenagers need guidance, supervision, discipline, education. They don't need pot.


Here we agree 100%. Pot can be very destructive and indeed addictive. Speaking as someone who avoided pot through my entire adolescence, I have of course smoked since then and am not a "pothead." On the flipside, I have a friend who has struggled with smoking too much and had to quit. Interestingly, he started smoking pot when he was 12 or 13. Sounds much more like a parental problem than an illegality problem.

Amlord:As the only one of five brothers who does not smoke marijuana, I can personally attest to the effects that smoking pot ha[QUOTE]s on one's ambition, drive, and motivation. I am the only son in my family to go to college, indeed the only one to graduate high school. Marijuana numbs people, it makes them uncaring. It subtly ruins lives.

I think we have two issues here. First is a directionality problem: does marijuana ruin lives by making them not care or do the people that smoke it have low ambitions to begin with? Secondly is the issue of addictiveness, which I think is at least somewhat valid as I know several people who smoke way to much and are, for all intents and purposes, addicted. So basically I think that some people who smoke it were perhaps the type of people to not achieve at a certain level. If it were a drug that seriously changed people I think we would see a much larger effect around the nation, especially among us college kids.

lordhelmet:I'll say it for the last time, growing and smoking pot is illegal for a variety of reasons. Therefore, it should not be done.

This is perhaps the worst way to rationalize something's legality. It is deemed illegal therefore it should not be done. So if we made alcohol illegal I guess one day you would be for it and the next you would be staunchly against it? I guess when segregation was legal is was correct, and slavery, and the like. Because what is law must be correct. By your reasoning one could never question laws after they were passed.

*Ok, apparently my quote button stopped working*

I personally don't even see what's wrong with smoking weed. I've seen quite a few people on various drugs, and marijuana just doesn't do to people what crack, coke or even things like Xanax or Klonapin do. Sure, it can still ruin someone's life, but without the intense physical addiction that comes with virtually every other drug, marijuana is one of the safest drugs IMO.


But besides that, marijuana should be legalized just based on pragmatic reasons. Primarily, the fact that marijuana's illegality empowers gangs that sell and smuggle drugs. People get shot over pot deals, and if all marijuana was grown and sold legally, those shootings simply wouldn't happen. If you bought from the local convenance store instead of Slim G, it's safer for everyone involved. Then there's the whole issue of the huge court and incarceration costs associated with arresting people for smoking or selling pot, which is money that could be much better spent on something that actually matters, like sending people to college for free.

Let's just face it: people are going to smoke weed forever. You're never going to get rid of it. As the original hippie Wavy Gravy said: "Herb's a weed, man." It just grows. Even if you arrested everyone smoking and selling right now the seeds aren't illegal but are readily available, so the trade would get started right up again next year. America should just learn to deal with marijuana realistically and come to terms with the fact that it's here to stay, so that we can move forward and start dealing with things that are much more important.

I get a kick out of the use of anecdotal evidence against pot. Oh yeah, everyone knows someone who wasted his or her life, and it was all due to pot!

Huh. Well, I know that mixing pot with beer/booze doesn't work. I also know that some people do quite well even with smoking or ingesting (brownies/tea) pot. I also know that it is very rare to feel a high the first time, unless the pot was spiked with something else. Driving drunk is way dangerous; driving stoned isn't nearly as dangerous, if at all. While drunk, a person is stupid. While stoned, afraid (paranoia) -- the driving slows way down, sure sign to aware cops to pull that vehicle over. What, you're driving ten miles *under* the speed limit? What is wrong with you? Must be stoned.

My experience? Went through college with a B+ GPA while stoned. Taught myself guitar while stoned. Changed careers while stoned (working class to white collar). Worked several non-dead-end jobs while stoned. Moved from being a tech writer to systems programmer stoned. Then I just quit around 1985. I had lost interest and felt fine without pot -- natural high. No withdrawal symptoms, as opposed to the DTs for booze and the awful withdrawals from narcotics.

There are no reliable studies that attribute the dangers of other drugs, including alcohol, to pot. That's been known since the 1970s, but it was also known that street dealers will spike inferior pot with other substances. My college had a free testing deal to make sure your stash was clean. I guess that doesn't go on any longer, and maybe, just maybe, all these stories about pot ruining lives point to how dangerous spiked street pot is these days. Who knows what's in there? Crystal meth?

The bottom line is that nobody knows. Street dealers are out to make fast, big bucks. They have no reason to not spike their product, and so, because pot is illegal, it has also become dangerous. Not because the pure product is, but because of the other junk added to it for increasing its demand.

Legalize it, control it. That's how to handle pot. As opposed to the lack of evidence for keeping it illegal, other countries have legalized pot without problems. And here we sit, snug as bugs in rugs, thinking in circles and moving nowhere while wasting millions of dollars on a bogus campaign.

Oh well, carry on. I really don't care, and I guess wasting millions of dollars is a small potato these days.

According to Brown University:







For those who don't believe that THC affects motivation, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has a fact sheet with the latest research (as opposed to the undocumented "we've known since the 1970s...")



I will stand by my claims and observances that marijuana ruins lives. AM, why don't you cite how successful Keith Richards and Mick Jagger as despite being addicted to cocaine and every other drug under the sun for years? The fact that someone can still succeed while under the influence of drugs is not evidence to the harmlessness of those drugs. It is a testament to the overcoming of adversity. Just think what might be accomplished had someone remained clean.

So does not getting enough sleep, yet I don't see a strong movement to mandate 8 hours/nite for everyone.



Yet cigarettes are legal, thereby indicating that this should have no effect on whether or not to legalize marijuana.



Does marijuana ruin lives....or do sometimes people with ruined lives smoke marijuana? I think it would be difficult to do a study that shows actual casuality....how would you control for people who would have many of the same symptoms/characteristics without marijuana, especially when those might be the very people most attracted to the drug (ie, does marijuana cause lack of motivation, or is it people with low motivation who smoke marijuana)? Not that it doesn't have the properties you listed....just that those properties probably only tend to have a high negative influence on those who would exhibit the same symptoms with or without using it. Certainly, it is difficult to show that marijuana is more adverse in its effects on someone than alcohol is...yet alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't. The reasons for this are purely social, and don't have any other science behind them. Marijuana is considered a *drug*, while alcohol doesn't have that social stigma.

Also, it must be discussed that, even if marijuana really did have strong negative properties, is that reason to make it illegal? Cigarettes have all sorts of bad effects on both those who smoke them, and even those merely around smokers....yet cigarettes are still legal. Again, this is not rooted in logic, but in social acceptance. Cigarettes and alcohol are OK, drugs are not. So, the arguments for or against it should be framed on social acceptance, not on effects.



Car & Driver actually did a test on this some years back (don't have the date, think it was in the mid 80's). They set up a series of driving and reaction tests, and had testers do them normally, and then again when high. The results were interesting. They found that reaction times remained about the same, or in some cases even improved, but that drivers sometimes simply didn't react because they didn't feel like it. For example, one test simulated a sudden turn. Lanes were set up with cones, and the passenger would tell the driver when to turn, and measure the reaction time. One driver, while high, turned the opposite way, just because he wanted to see all the cones bouncing over the hood, and laughed the whole way while doing it. So, their conclusion was that while marijuana had no direct physical impairment on driving like alcohol would, they strongly recommended that those on it not drive

Ah, but the question is not should we make marijuana illegal, it already is. The question is whether we should legalize it. There is a subtle but distinct difference.

Certainly, when alcohol was made illegal, the ramifications were not anticipated. The stuff was too ingrained in the social fabric to be so easily dislodged.

Should we legalize a substance which is known to have negative effects on those that use it for its intended purpose? This flip side of the alcohol question has much different possible consequences. The hurdles that need to be crossed in order to legalize something that is perceived to be such a detriment to society are high indeed. Rightfully so. Would you like to convince Muslims that it is ok to drink alcohol or to eat pork?

Yes, this is true.



The key point here I think is the difference between the statement 'known to have negative effects' and 'perceived to be such a detriment to society'. I think it is the latter, ie the perception, that is the main hurdle to legalization. We have plenty of examples of products with known negative effects which are legal...that isn't the issue. It all comes down to the simple fact that changing the perception towards legalizing any *drug* is something no politician has or will spend his political capital doing. Basically the same thing as prostitution. How many votes would a pro-prostitution campaign get? The social stigma for both is simply too great, at least currently, to overcome, regardless of the realities of its effects on people or society. Your example of Muslims and alcohol is particularly apt. It is widely known that the best stocked liquor cabinets in the world are in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern oil states....yet there is no drive to legalize it. The political capital required to change the social perception is just too great.

It is interesting that you bring up the example of prohibition, and its repurcussions, because THAT is the same argument which many people make for the legalization (or "decriminalization" in some cases) of marijuana. Lets not forget that the widespread growth of organized crime was one of the chief reasons why prohibition was ended. Now, we have hundreds of thousands of people in jail just for smoking a substance that may, if used heavily, impair their motivation and attention span. And lets not forget the hundreds of millions of dollars that are being dumped into the hands of drug cartels, biker gangs, and street thugs.

Simple question: simple answer. No. You wish to know why? Because I do not want my children to be hit by some high college kid driving and the police have no legal grounds by which to handle the case. Granted this is speculative but should illegal narcotics like Marijuana become legal we'd see corner stores opening like ice cream parlors offering different blends of the substance. I do not want drugs to become any more sanctioned than they already are because people abuse substances.

If my child were ever to get into something in an age where Marijuana were legal I would be on my knees day and night praying it would be be tobacco or alcohol. The negative effects of drugs are far too dangerous and risky for the good of the whole public. Personally I sleep much better knowing at night commercial airline pilots aren't huffing/smoking drugs on their way to Dallas. There are too many qualities making Marijuana perilous to the public.

People can argue and say it's natural and pure and all sing that song but it is the biggest lie. Refineries take a pure plant and mutilate it into something far more dark and hideous: drugs are not natural, drugs are not safe, and drugs are far too useless to a healthy person.

From JS Mill's "On Liberty"

Really? Why? This seems to be a perfect example of the societal stereotype of *drugs*. What about marijuana is more harmful to your child than tobacco or alchohol? Your child is certainly much more likely to be hit by a drunk driver than a stoned one, or to be in an accident him/herself. The negative effects of tobacco are well documented and clearly have more health issues than marijuana. Marijuana even has some known beneficial uses...ever here of a national movement for medical tobacco or alcohol use? I suspect that you have the typical societal taboos against drugs...which is precisely what would have to be overcome for any legalization movement to succeed.

Also, it is worth considering whether, given societal perceptions which are very similar IMHO to yours....would marijuana, if legal, really become commonplace at every corner store? Those stores would likely be boycotted by a large segment of the population, making the selling of marijuana a money-losing proposition even if legal. Basically, even if marijuana were legalized, I don't think it would be any more *public* than it is currently, due to societal pressure against it, legal or not. Which is something to consider in the argument for/against legalization of it, as I don't think the doomsday scenarios with marijuana on every street corner is a plausible outcome.

Society has four "methods" for control:

1: The Market
2: Social Norms
3: Architecture
4: Law

I know this is an oversimplification, but lets consider for a moment. Right now, as an illegal substance, social norms (to a degree) and law are the only controls that are in place, and even so they can only be so effective because marijuana moves in an underground market.

If it were legal, all four controls exist. Now, I've seen nothing to indicate that legalization would result in more people using. Everyone I know who wants to smoke pot can and does, and the people I know who don't smoke feel that way because of health concerns; not legal issues. So unless you can demonstrate that legalization would result in more widespread consumption, I'm inclined to believe that legalization would in fact INCREASE society's control over marijuana.

Often these types of discussions revolve around the concept that such laws restrict freedom, whereas I tend to believe the opposite, that some laws are necessary to promote a free society.

Freedom is not lawlessness. Neither is freedom oppression. Freedom is the consequence of laws principled in goodness and fairness. For example, when I talk about the 'Free Market' I am not referring to a market of lawlessness. I'm referring to a market made free by laws founded in honesty, truth, and fairness.

So good law promotes freedom. Bad law diminishes freedom.

Do people have more freedom with or without marijuana? Does the legalization of marijuana promote freedom? I am inclined to say that it doesn't, especially if the studies cited by Amlord from Brown University are true. Does anybody have scientific evidence to show otherwise?

First of all, you need to define "good law" and "bad law." Good and bad are very, very vague terms.

Secondly, the war against drugs IS a reduction of freedom. To argue otherwise is tantamount to madness. Freedom is based on the right of individuals to control their own lives. As a corollary to this, individuals must have the right to control their own bodies. And as a corollary to that, individuals have the right to use marijuana, if they so choose.

You're stating this as if it were a fact...But there is nothing backing it up to make it one.

Sounds like you're talking about cigars to me...Cigarettes stink too...So does beer...And...

There are sooooo many things that can impair your driving in this country, yet most are legal, why not marijuana?

With so many more dangerous legal means of getting high, why are we keeping a less dangerous one illegal?

CP

So the rational for making pot legal is essentially this....

1. Drunk driving is already a bad problem so what's the difference if the problem gets a little worse?

2. There are plenty of ways to get high, so what difference is it if one more is added?

3. Cigars and cigarettes are smelly too (and legal). So, what's the big deal to legalize an illegal smelly substance? Of course, we'll just conveniently forget that smoking is outlawed in a growing number of places....

4. A lot of people break the law, so the law should be changed so that people don't have to live with the stigma of being criminals.

I reject that way of thinking. Sorry.

No...Not at all...

The rational is:

1. There is NOOOOOO reason to believe that driving under pot's influence will rise as a result of pot's legalization.

2. Yes, there are plenty of ways to get high, and there's no reason why one more shouldn't be added.

3. What you said for your #3 doesn't really make sense. By telling me pot stinks and people will have another stinky substance in public...didn't YOU forget that there is smoking outlawed in a growing number of places?

4. What? I don't care about stigma's and any of what you said...It should be legal because other than more bad drivers, which isn't a fact and society may have to pay more, which isn't a fact, you've given no legitimate reason not to legalize it.

CP

1. I have a good reason to believe that driving under pot's influence will rise if it's legal. It will be marketed and widely used. More people will use it and more people will drive after using it. I can just see "mothers against stoned driving". And who will the trial lawyers go after when people start cracking up their cars? They already go after "big tobacco", the alcohol companies, the health care industry, and gun manufacturers. Will they sue individuals who grow pot? Legalizing pot would be a target rich environment for trial lawyers always looking to expand their markets.

2. Why stop with just pot then? Why not cocaine and heroin and meth? Why not incrementally just allow all drugs to be used? Why don't we just become a nation of drugged out zombies? Actually, we already have too many drugs in this society. Adding them is going in the wrong direction.

3. That one is going nowhere.

4. It should be illegal because it already is and because neither you (or anyone else) has given a compelling reason WHY it should be legalized. But, I believe in democracy. I say put it to a vote nationwide. And when it fails miserably, then the debate is over. If the people want it (more than 50% of voters that is), then you'll get it legalized. Until then, too bad.

Now, what do the nationwide poll numbers say about legalizing pot?

Why is everyone so worried that this is exactly what will happen. It's as if the only two things people associate with smoking pot on this board is driving. Driving under the influence of many things is illegal and I don't see why this would be any different. Driving drunk = arrested; driving high = arrested/fine/whatever the law would state. People can drink and most people don't drive after they have had a certain amount because of the repercussions. I swear, it seems like people think that if you smoke pot you go blind and lose all abilities to drive. I've never driven with a high person, though I'd trust them over someone who was drunk. We can legalize it and regulate it at the same time.



These drugs are on a completely different level than pot. They are much more addictive and detrimental to ones health and life in general. Not to mention it's very very difficult to OD on pot, where as heroine and other drugs is relatively easy.



Behavioral Pharmacology Journal

Research shows that only at high dosages does it produce effects on motor behavior, which reminds me of something else that should not be consumed in high amounts because it affects motor behavior: alcohol. Does this mean we should ban alcohol, again? Hardly, it means people should be responsible, like they should be with anything else.

Well, actually, Amlord wasn't citing an actual study; he was citing Brown's Health Services' webpage. However, in response I can offer some material, though unfortunately it's in Dutch. It's "Cannabis: Facts and Figures 2003", published by the Dutch Bureau Nationale Drugmonitor, which conducts research on the behalf of the Dutch health and justice ministries. A number of selected bullet points from the summary, translated from the Dutch:

• The relative number of cannbis users in the Netherlands falls roughly in the middle compared to other EU countries. The number of users in the US and Australia is comparatively higher than in the EU.
• Youths generally experiment with first tobacco and alcohol, and some later also try cannabis. A small number of cannabis users later try other drugs. This shouyld not be taken to indicate that cannabis is a stepping stone to the use of harder drugs.
• Heavy users of cannabis are usally also heavy smokers and drinkers. This group displays an above average incidence of behavioural disorders and other behavioural problems, which, as a rule, precede the use of cannabis and are not a result of it.
  Sometimes, (heavy) use of cannabis may cause psychotic phenomena.
• Intensive users of cannabis may become dependent on the drug. This probably occurs among 10-20% of regular users.
  Dependency on cannabis and dependency on alcohol or tobacco often go hand in hand.
• In high doses, cannabis affects the ability to operate motor vehicles, albeit only mildly. Driving ability deteriorates significantly more if cannabis is consumed in combination with alcohol.
• Cannabis by itself (i.e. not in combination with alcohol or behavioural disorders) has at most a light, transitory effect on mental functions such as attention span and memory.
• Scholastic performance may be affected somewhat detrimentally by use of cannabis, but in the case of serious consequences (being held back, dropping out), a wider behavioural problem is usually the underlying cause.
• Criminal justice policy regarding cannabis has little effect on cannabis use. Police in western countries tend to place little emphasis on tracing possession of cannabis, and when they do, this is at a considerable expense in manpower and judicial capacity.

Emphases in bold mine. It should be noted that the "Trimbos" Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, of which the Bureau NDM is part, states (on its general information page regarding cannabis) the following:

• Dependency on cannabis is entirely psychological, not physical, and tends to be minor (though as intensity of usage increases, so does the likelihood and severity of dependency);
• there is no build-up of tolerance;
• fear, panic and loss of consciousness may occur with use, but only in high dosages;
• long-term effects may include pulmonary damage and even cancer, but I should point out that most Dutch users tend to smoke cannabis in combination with tobacco;
• the main thing to watch out for is that cannabis intensifies the effects of alcohol.

As you can see, the claims made by Brown U's Health Services department are flatly contradicted on a number of salient points. Now, at the risk of "poisoning the well," it might be argued that Brown U's Health Services department has an interest in deterring students from using cannabis, lest they get into trouble with the law and possibly harm the university's image. By contrast, the Dutch government is already under heavy pressure from other governments which frown on the Netherlands' policy towards drugs, and it really can't afford to sugarcoat the effects of cannabis.

Should Pot Be Made Legal?

Yes, I believe it should be and the reasons why are numerous. We are clogging our prison system and wasting millions of dollars trying to "police" pot. It's an utter waste of taxpayer dollars. Prohibition didn't end drinking did it? It just drove it underground, led to crime, violence and filled jails. We have SEX offenders roaming our streets, we have other types of violent offenders on our streets as well, in large part due to the overcrowded prison system caused by jailing people for possession and distribution of pot. Lemme see, who do *I* want in jail, the pedophile, the person that robbed a store at gunpoint, the person that beat the stuffing out of his girlfriend orrrrrrrrrrrrrr the pot smoker? Well let's just say the pot smoker comes in DEAD LAST in my assessment.

I know drinkers and smokers and there are REAL differences between the effects of these substances on the user and society as a whole. The effect of pot wears off after about an hour, the effects of drinking DO NOT.

There is a VERY real correlation between alcohol and violent behavior. This does NOT exist with pot.

Drunk drivers kill thousands on our roadways yearly. They destroy families (the alcoholics OWN family) and those of their victims on the roadways. There are so many negatives relating to the abuse of alcohol, be it in road fatalities to the consequences within families who live with an alcoholic (violence, neglect, verbal abuse and overall family instability). I have seen NONE of that with pot smokers. The smokers I know go to work everyday, pay their bills, take care of their families and contribute to society in a productive way. They aren't killing people behind the wheel, abusing their family members, assaulting strangers in drunken altercations etc....Yet alcohol is legal and Pot is not?

I've also seen people taking legally sanctioned FDA approved drugs and seen the negative effects of those "legal" drugs. People taking mood altering medications that leave them so screwed up they don't remotely resemble who they were before taking those medications.

So for *me* I see the war on drugs as futile and a huge waste of taxpayer money on a war they will NEVER win against a drug that is far less harmful than many legal substances. A war that is forcing early releases of more serious offenders in many states (and please don't say "Then we need to build more prisons") we have more people incarcerated in American that any other developed nation on Earth. We create criminals with laws on substances that are no worse (and often better) than substances that ARE legal. Our tax money could be better served in so many more productive ways.

This is an assumption, which I disagree with. Pot would still have a social stigma, and I think most corporations would be reluctant to market it, and most people not already using it would be reluctant to start. Do you have anything to base this claim on? If not, I don't think it can be used as an argument.



Because the arguments for pot don't carry over to the other drugs.



First, following that line of logic, the world would still be flat, the sun would rotate around the earth, and America wouldn't even exist. Defending something purely on the basis of it being the status quo merely avoids the debate. Compelling reasons have in fact been given, whether all here agree on them or not. The basic gist being that marijuana is less hazardous than a great many substances that are legal, so the grounds for keeping it illegal are rendered invalid. However, your idea of the nationwide vote is, indeed, the ideal solution. Even statewide, or perhaps even more locally than that.

The Prohibition made us give up good beer for cheap gin. This was due the the economies of smuggling. We're barely getting back to making good beer, and that's only the 'micro' breweries. Nothing like what the belgians or germans produce.

The Prohibition of Marijuana makes it more lucrative to sell 'hard' drugs than Marijuana, and generally puts the salesman of both in contact with the consumer of Marijuana. Legalizing it and regulating it keeps the hard drug dealer out of of 90% of his market.

If Marijuana were legalized, we'd have no reason to prohibit industrial hemp. Industrial hemp would give us cheaper and stronger paper, building materials, and fabrics, as well as some products currently based on petroleum.

The ill effects of smoking marijuana can be minimized by ingesting it in food or drink.

As for social norms: some 30% of adults admit to having tried marijuana. Most people see a distinction between marijuana and other drugs. Drawing the line in the sand between Marijuana and harder drugs, rather than between alcohol and marijuana, makes it easier to investigate, interdict, prosecute, incarcerate, and control players in the hard drug market. It also makes it easier to educate youth on the dangers of drugs. When they are told drugs are evil, and then they see their friends, family, and neighbors using marijuana with no apparent ill effects, the message on more harmful drugs is weakened.

I would support an end to the Federal ban on marijuana, and leave it to the states to choose their own legislation.

Pass that crystal ball when you're done with it please . Seriously though LordHelmet, you've presented now data to back that up with. You just keep saying you know more people will use it...No facts. The only historical context we can put this in is to compare it with what happened after alcohol was re-legalized...after that, less people drank! So you're going to have to do more than "I'm sure more people will drive stoned".

Right! Why not? I've already stated I'm pro-drug legalization.

Is the fact that I have the divine right to do what I want with my body not compelling enough? If I want to smoke, let me smoke [I wouldn't but it's the principal] that's that...The government has no place telling me not to.

CP

The Prohibition period taught--or rather, should have taught--an important lesson regarding what happens when you criminalize a recreational drug in an attempt to stamp out its use. A "vast criminal underworld" of the kind of which LordHelmet speaks came about as a direct result of Prohibition. As the NRA might have put it, "when booze is outlawed, only outlaws will traffick in booze." We're all well familiar with the results: turf wars (organized crime is no respecter of the concept of free market economies), absence of quality control, increased peddling in and consumption of more concentrated forms of the product (which are easier to conceal), organized crime bribing or intimidating police and the judiciary, etc. The "War on Drugs" has had very similar effects, only with the MAC-10 taking the place of the Thompson, and crack cocaine and crystal meth taking the place of bathtub gin.

The most fundamental argument for controlled legalization of drugs is that prohibition has been shown to be ineffective, and have many downright harmful side-effects. As the Dutch government data I cited indicates, the number of pot smokers in the US is proportionally higher than in the EU, even though a growing number of EU countries have chosen to decriminalize cannabis and focus on "harm reduction." This even while the US spends a staggering amount of money in a effort to suppress drug use, accompanied by the erosion of its citizens' civil liberties and the militarization of its law-enforcement agencies, both to a terrifying extent. Even before 9/11, many American police forces routinely possessed military-grade hardware, including assault rifles, grenade launchers and armored personnel carriers. Between 1995 and 1997, the DoD supplied 1.2m pieces of military hardware to law-enforcement agencies. Joseph McNamara, formerly the chief of police in Kansas City and San Jose and now a research fellow with the Hoover Institute, described the militarization of civilian police forces as a "disaster." According to Peter Kraska, professor of criminology at Eastern Kentucky University, the 1990's saw "a fundamental shift in American policing, away from the traditional civilian ethos to a militaristic mentality." Because police--especially members of the growing number of SWAT teams--increasingly see themselves as soldiers fighting an enemy, rather than civilians protecting their fellow citizens, the use of levels of force which in the past would have been considered scandalous has become almost routine, even while the threat to law-enforcement officers (as measured in LEO deaths) dropped. Since police forces are now allowed to keep money and other assets confiscated in the course of drug busts, there is also serious concern that law enforcement agencies' zeal in pursuing the "War on Drugs" may be motivated less by a concern for public safety than by a desire to pad their budget.

In short, the drawbacks to prohibition very likely outweigh the drawbacks of legalization except in the most paranoid scenario. Cannabis in particular has no adverse effects which outweigh those of alcohol and tobacco, the legal (though regulated) status of which most countries in the world take for granted. Unlike tobacco, alcohol or even aspirin, cannabis has not been established as directly causing a single death. There really is no good reason for cannabis to remain illegal.

Yes, we should. First, the United States is supposed to be a free country. It clearly isn't, therefore, I say that any push to further freedom is a good idea. Second, its my body, therefore, it is up to me to decide what to do with it. Third, keeping it illegal creates secondary crimes related to its illegality, often violent crime. Fourth, the beneficial effects of marijuana outweigh the negative ones. Fifth, other methods of altering one's mental state are legal (alcohol, pills, cough medicine, etc.), so why is marijuana kept illegal? Sixth, it would contribute to the national economy by generating significant tax revenue for the gov. and profits for business.

Should we legalize (marijuana), why, why not?

No, I don't think we should. When you look at the prohibition period, you have to acknowledge that alcohol was a part of human society at the time. Human cultures had been brewing intoxicating drinks for thousands of years. Marijuana is not a part of human culture, but rather a recent phenomenon, Indeed, "pot culture" has grown separately from human culture.

When I look at something that is 4 times deadlier than a cigarette, causes severe brain damage, stands next to alcohol in causing driving accidents, something that supports a dangerous industry, I have to ask myself if letting humanity try this new toy will really be worth it.

What are the benefits of legalization? We would, indeed dry up a dark a dangerous business, and better the gang situation in inner-city schools. But when I see the damage alcohol inflicts upon our society, I can see all too clearly the damage marijuana would cause. Were marijuana publicly available, I argue, it would be more widely used.

So, the final question is, can we stop people from using marijuana? And, based on my culture argument, I am inclined to answer yes. The war on drugs is expensive in money and lives, but having already seen the damage that alcohol has inflicted, we can see that keeping marijuana illegal, tough to get, and extremely taboo, will have plausible benefits to our society.

Your fallacy here is that you assume that if something is legal, then many people will do it. Currently it is legal to jump up and down all day long, but you don't see many people doing that, do you?

You may argue that marijuana is "harmful," but you must remember that the definition of "harmful" is based solely on individual preferences, and is therefore inseparable from self-ownership. If you destroy self-ownership, you destroy the right of individuals to help themselves, to live according to their own preferences. In this case, you deny the right of the pothead to live according to his own preferences, and thus you bring harm upon him.

Actually, humans have consumed marijuana for several thousand years (in the Middle East, for example). It is in no way a "recent phenomenon."



Can you prove any of this? Where do you get "4 times deadlier" and upon what evidence is that based? Also, marijuana does not, in fact, "case brain damage." And nothing except barbituates and fatigue stands next to alcohol in causing driving accidents. And what "dangerous industry" are you referring to here?

Lord Warbuck Defends his argument

Cancer-Marijuana contains 4 times the tar contained in cigaretteses. "Tar" can lead to many cancers, lung cancer most prominently among them.

Brain Damage-Marijuana is addictive, and brain science dictates that when the brain is addicted to something it courupts it normal coding to send chemicals out into the body, creating an intense desire for the drug it is addicted to. When somebody becomes addicted, they experience cravings for the thing they are addicted to, as they are flooded with images of it in their mind. Addiction can cause problems with concentration, and require lifestyle changes. The higher echelons of addiction will begin to strain a persons budget, as they spend more and more of their money exponentialy increasing the use of the said product.

Culture- Defending my argument will require a closer observation of what I said:

QUOTE

...Marijuana is not a part of human culture, but rather a recent phenomenon, Indeed, "pot culture" has grown separately from human culture...

...Were marijuana publicly available, I argue, it would be more widely used...

...So, the final question is, can we stop people from using marijuana? And, based on my culture argument, I am inclined to answer yes. The war on drugs is expensive in money and lives, but having already seen the damage that alcohol has inflicted, we can see that keeping marijuana illegal, tough to get, and extremely taboo, will have plausible benefits to our society.

First, we will connect the second section totheethirdd section. In the second section, I (the author), argue that public use will increaseMarijuanaa use. In the thirdd section, I argue that Marijuanaa use is taboo. Therefore, I (the author) argue that Marijuanaa being taboo decreases its use. A closer inspection of the third section reveals that I (the author) have failed to adequately connect a critical thought to my argument. Tied to the paragraph, by a string, is the argument that Marijuanaa being illegal is what makes it taboo.

People can smoke, for instance, in public, but do not enjoy privilegesriveleges with Marijuanaa. Marijuana enjoys no advertising campaigns, adorns no convenience store shelf, and remains hidden in peoples homes. The legalization of Marijuana would follow a massive increase in demand by distributers, which would subsequently lead to a more or less large demand from consumers, which would lead to a sharp increase in Marijuana use, which would lead to a legitimization of Marijuana use, which would lead to an increase in demand, which would amount to an increase in deaths and addiction resulting from Marijuana use.


Confusing numbers-