Who cares? It still isn't the job of the government to tell me I can't do something because it's unhealthy, that's not the job of the government. If I wanted to drink nothing but Tylenol starting right now, the gov't has no place to stop me.

And I argue that A: It wouldn't be...And B: So what? God forbid we have people in this country excercising their right to screw with their bodies!

Think about all of the crap the government can do in the name of having a plausible benefit to our society? You'll find nowhere in the Constitution of this fine country anything that gives the government the power to A: Prevent people from doing what they'd like to their body and B: Criminalize something because it doesn't add to society.

When deciding whether or not to legalize pot, consider the following:

1. Who is harmed from pot?
2. What Constitutional authority does the gov't have in fighting the "War on Drugs"?
3. Does the government have any Constitutional authority to keep it's civilians from harming themselves?

CP

You have some interesting constitutional questions, conservpat. I will avoid them, however, in leiu of your questions of right and wrong.





I reiterate my earlier argument, that marijuanas access to wide distribution markets, convenance stores, for instance, would in fact increase demand for marijuana (by industry). I feel that this argument is irrefutable, because if businesses buy marijuana, it will mark an increase in demand.

As for the demand for marijuana (by people), I argue that increased exposure to the product, marketing encouraging people to buy the product, and the elimination of the marijuana taboo, will increase the demand. I feel that this argumentnt is also irrefutablele, because the rules of economics dictate that exposure and marketing increase public demand for the product. I feel that the taboo argument is an opinion, that I stand by, that you are free to dis-agree with.

For a moment, we will assume that (legalized) marijuana would cause 8,000 highway deaths, and shave an average of 1 year off of every persons lifespan. Thesee are conservative numbers. You may say that they are too high if you wish, but surely you cannot deny that marijuana causes car accidents and cancer.

If you want to tell me that you feel that some small personal freedom is so important as to render pointless the deaths of 8,000 persons, than we will have reached a conversational roadblock*. If you tell me that you feel differently than this, we will have reached a conversational dead end. Either way, can we conclude that the final chess move is in your hands, that the decision to check or be checkmated is firmly in your hands?

*Because I am close-minded and incapable of agreeing with this.

I don't wish to speak for the other members participating in this discussion, but I am finding this sort of talk extremely frustrating. Obfuscation does NOT replace proof or citation. You say that marijuana definitively causes car accidents? So, prove it. if you are right, then surely a study or research paper exists that will back you up. If you invest the time to present your opinions in a scholarly and comprehensive way, instead of quickly patching together an obstinant and terse denial, then your argument gains instant credibility. For example...



So lets look at this statement... I CAN in fact deny that marijuana causes car accidents. How can I do this? I've actually done some research. This is from the conclusion of a study (citation below) published in the journal of Pharmacology.



The same study also goes on to explain how it is that marijuana users may be able to compensate for the physiological effect of THC:



This is an idea that people in this discussion (and earlier ones on this site) have brought up, only to receive derision. I've yet to see a refutation with any sort of academic credibility however; especially from you Lord Warbuck.

You have also made several positivistic statements about price and demand; once again providing no proof whatsoever, apparently hoping that we will be equally lax is making our case. However...



So, lets go into this study a little more. So supposing the price drops (which is by no means a given.) Below is a little statistical explanation, followed by research into Marijuana real prices:



But lets look at price. You suggest that legalization would result in a massive price decrease, as have others. From the same study:



It gets even better...




1. Liguori Anthony, Catherine Gatto and David Jarrett. "Separate and combined effects of marijuana and alcohol on mood, equilibrium and simulated driving." Psychopharmacology. 163, (2002): 399-405

2. Grossman Micheal, Frank J Chaloupka, Kyumin Shim. "Illegal drug use and public policy." Health Affairs. Mar/Apr 2002.Vol. 21, Iss. 2; pg. 134

So if you're so sure that this is going to happen (and I agree, there probably would be an increase in demand) then found a company and or buy some stock in companies that would sell marijuana. I don't see why it matters if it becomes more prevalent because it's already quite pervasive in todays society and yet we still manage to function quite well.



How many deaths do cell phones cause every year for drivers? How many deaths does changing the radio cause every year? How many deaths are caused on the highway when someones contact falls out? Should we ban everything that can cause deaths while driving? Like I have said over and over again, we can impose laws and regulate how marijuana is consumed (just to be on the safe side). As UJ pointed out in one study they breaking latency wasn't affected by THC, which is important, but just to be safe there could be laws and penalties as to when someone can or can't use marijuana (much like alcohol).

I’ve been waiting for a while to post on this thread. Approximately 80% of those who have voted think that marijuana should be decriminalized.

Lord help us, but the lords seem united on this one. Lordhelmet and Lord Warbuck, seen to favor strict penalties. Lordhelmet wants to make penalties more severe, while Lord Warbuck supports the “war on drugs” but doesn’t indicate whether it should be expanded or carried on at its present level. Then another lord--Amlord--is against legalizaion for business reasons.





I think marijuana should be legalized. The problem with the “get tough” approach is that it doesn’t seem to be working. Building jails is sort of like a nightmare version of Field of Dreams—if we build them they will come.

A recent CNN report, based on U. S. Justice Department figures, revealed the following:



http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/24/prison.population.reut/

Sorry gents, but I think tax money, whether collected at the state or federal level, could be used in better ways than locking-up more low-level drug offenders.



Just out of curiosity Amlord, do you have any statistics on what percentage of “respected” businesspersons use or have used marijuana?

Edited to add:

The reason I ask is that I will submit that businesspeople are no more or less smart, wise, moral or law abiding than any other subset of society. In fact, not long ago a man with the ironic name Doug Wead released some tapes in which a rather prominent Harvard M. BA. and former businessman admitted smoking weed. While I would argue that this person’s performance has lagged throughout his life, I wouldn’t necessarily blame it on his having smoked pot.

If my guess that business types, especially those who came along in the 60s and 70s, smoked pot at the same rate as others is correct, then much of the business of drug testing is just more of the hypocritical thing about “doing as I say; not as I do.”

I don't know where you get that idea. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp, and are suspected of having been potheads; on 07-Aug-1765, Washington wrote in his diary "began to separate the male form the female plants," a harvesting technique which serves primarily to increase the potency of marijuana. During the period that Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were ambassadors to France, the use of hashish (also a cannabis product) was in vogue in French high society (no pun intended). American troops are known to have smoked cannabis during the Mexican War (significantly more so than during Vietnam), and Franklin Pierce, Zachary Taylor and Andrew Jackson are all suspected of having toked up with their troops; indeed, Pierce wrote to his family that marijuana was "about the only good thing" about that war. Use of other drugs, such as opium--particularly in the form of laudanum--was also commonplace during the 19th century. It's not that it didn't happen; it's just that nobody made a fuss about it until the mid to late 1930s, when we saw films like Reefer Madness (which had little basis in reality, and was reportedly funded by the liquor industry, supposedly to eliminate the major competing recreational drug) and the banning of marijuana under the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Now why would there have been a drive to ban marijuana if people hadn't been using before then?
Despite the oversized announcement preceding the aforegoing quote, I see no cited data to back it up, or indeed anything except bald assertion. By contrast, I would like to refer to this post I made earlier, citing studies conducted by the "Trimbos" Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction and its subordinate orgen, the Bureau Nationale Drugsmonitor. In this post, I noted that long-term use of cannabis may lead to pulmonary damage and even cancer, but noted that Dutch smokers tend to roll tobacco into their joints; it is suspected, though not yet established, that the tobacco plays a significantly larger role in the pulmonary damage than the cannabis.

As I also noted, cannabis may cause a psychological--but not physical--dependency, but this is estimated to afflict between 10 and 20% of intensive users. Moreover, intensive use of cannabis is suspected in a majority of cases to be an effect, rather than a cause, of behavioral disorders. In other words, people smoke heavily because they have problems; they do not necessarily have problems because they smoke heavily. (This is commonly the case with heavy users of other drugs as well.)
Not only are these arguments (of is it really just one?) quite refutable, they had already in effect been refuted before you made them. I refer again to my earlier post, in which I noted that the number of cannabis users in the US is proportionally higher than in the EU, despite the fact that several EU countries have decriminalized, or are in the process of decriminalizing, possession of cannabis. For over three decades, it has been possible to walk into a Dutch "coffee shop"--a private business, one of which may now be found in any medium-sized provincial town--and stroll out with several grams of one of many varieties of marijuana or hashish without fear of arrest, let alone criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, the number of cannabis users in the Netherlands is proportionally significantly lower than in the US. Thus, neither simple availability nor exposure to the product is evidently the determining factor governing demand.

By those sources, you presumably mean this page which you cited in this post. In that post, as I noted before (in my aforementioned earlier post), you attributed the quoted material to Brown University, but failed to mention that it came from a webapge of the university's Health Services site, and were not sourced to any scientific study. In my own post, I also noted that the findings of the Bureau NDM and the Trimbos institute (which are actually based on scientific study) directly contradicted the claims made on the page you cited.

Personally, I'm inclined to think workplace drug-testing is simply part of the misguided knee-jerk anti-drug attitude currently prevalent in certain areas of American society. In practice, a wide range of drugs are tested for, but marijuana is the only one people worry about because marijuana remains detectable in urine for weeks after actual use, whereas harder drugs are flushed far more quickly. If you snort a few lines of cocaine on Friday night, it's almost 100% certain that a drug test the following Monday will fail to detect any traces. You might even be safe if you take a toot on Saturday night.

By "those sources" I meant the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which I also cited in that post. It has dozens of referenced studies (in English, interestingly enough, making them a bit more useful to this debate...). It is quite well documented.

There is plenty of data out there on the negative effects of smoking pot. According to SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) :



Link These statistics indicate that long term use of marijuana results in brain damage. The earlier you start using, the worse your brain is damaged.

The statistics support that marijuana is a "gateway" drug to harder substances and that heavy pot users are far more likely to be unemployed.
Here's another report.


I will re-iterate that I have seen first-hand the demotivation that results from pot use. Marijuana is certainly addictive. I won't buy into a backwards argument that the addiction is psychological and not physical. Psychological addiction is far harder to break than physical addiction, ask any tobacco smoker who is trying to quit.

The main problem I see with legalization is the removal of the stigma to smoking pot. Less stigma leads to a greater likelihood of experimentation at an earlier age. I'm sure that advocates here will agree that as long as we set an age limit of 18 (or 21) then kids will not be able to get pot...

The other negative would be in a business' ability to "discriminate" against pot heads. Will I be able to pass over these less-productive, more risky employees? Will I even be able to test for pot use? I would hope so...the data is pretty clear about the drawbacks to hiring pot smokers.

Joseph McNamara, lol! Of course he's a darling of the left because he's a leading spokesman for Brady's anti-gun group and now a champion of legalizing drugs. He was the chief in a city that has boasted the highest average home cost in the United States. His experience is hardly "typical". He was in an elite community, during the height of the gold rush in silicon valley, and he pretends to have solutions for our country's "inner cities"?? He's also considered a flake by the vast majority within the law enforcement community. He has long inserted himself into political debates.

We won't reduce the problems in this country by legalizing drugs. We'll just have more doped up people committing crimes to further fuel their addictions.

There are plenty of ways to get high legally in this country. Why do we need more?

I can see no justification for smoking pot when scotch, gin, and vodka are widely available, legal, and socially acceptable.

Harder drugs? The reason drugs like meth, coke, and heroin are illegal is because they are too strong to be used in moderation. They are, inherently, addictive. Legalizing them would be a disaster also.

The practical issues surrounding drug legalization are immense. Any pragmatic person cannot fail to see the huge downside associated with such madness.

Or maybe this means that people that are able to obtain marijuana from an earlier age comes from environments that are more conducive to developing a mental illness. I think all these statistics indicate is that if you have access to marijuana an an earlier age, then you are probably growing up in a bad neighborhood, or your parents are not really raising you well, or some other factor that could also easily make you more susceptible to a mental illness.

Really, how is your conclusion any more valid than what I just stated? It's not, because these are just educated guesses extrapolated from this study. Can you please find a study that explicitly backs up your claims?

Are you really saying that growing up in a poor neighborhood makes you more likely to have a serious mental illness? Or that parenting skills are involved? It seems to me that mental illness is a brain function and not a function of non-brain affecting environmental factors. Now, inhaling a foreign substance (which then deposits in the brain) seems a bit more relevant as to why these people have a much higher risk of serious mental illness.

I believe high use of marijuana comes from either a bad household, or poverty stricken neighborhoods. I realize there are many well-off pople that still use some sort of illegal drug, but once again, it is recreational use. Marijuana is not as bad as alcohol, nor is it as addictive as harder drugs. I simply dont see the reason why it is illegal. Our government wastes away millions of dollars on the "war on drugs" every year, just as the government could be reaping the goods of a legal, taxable marijuana yearly. The problem isnt the drug itself, it is the enviroment in which people grow up. I know so many good people that smoke, and its not hindering them from doing anything. They all have at least A GPA's, are going to great colleges, and have their life on track. Now i know i dont have any statistics here to back up my statements or anything, but i am positive the root of drug ABUSE is a sense of hopelessness among that certain individual. That is the problem here. It always comes down to money, and the thing is, our government isnt using the funds available for the right things. Just because they make a major sting in new york or something and get 5 tons of pot, it doesnt matter, cuz theres plenty more where that came from.

Legalize marijuana and use the funds saved from the war on drugs, and the funds recieved from actually selling it, to help battle poverty. The true "war on drugs" lies in battling poverty and giving people reasons to excel in life. If they feel hopeless, what else can they do?


And the argument about other "socially acceptable" recreational drugs such as vodka and other alcohol is nonesense. You sound totally hipocriticle, as you allow one drug to be legal, and the other must be illegal for the reason that its ALREADY illegal. By that persons argument, either all drugs are illegal, or they are legal ( im not talking about hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin, as i believe those should stay illegal).

Why is my argument nonsense? Because you say so? Are you saying that sitting in a restaurant and enjoying a cocktail is NOT socially acceptable? One can sip a G&T and not bother anyone else. You can't say the same for that smelly joint not to mention the financial support to a vast criminal conspiracy that act results in.

Yes, I'm against legalizing pot because it's already illegal. Exactly!! And BECAUSE it's already illegal, those using it, growing it, selling it, and importing it are CRIMINALS.

Why should we allow criminals to dictate what the laws of our nation should be? They've already shown that they don't respect the rule of law. Why reward their criminal activities by just shifting the bar of justice to accommodate their selfish desires to get high on an illegal substance?

Why stop there? Why not legalize embezzlement since armed robbery is "far worse"? Then, white collar criminals won't have to feel the shame of being "criminals"?

At some point, we need to draw the line. There is no prohibition in this country so that's the argument that is bogus. We have a clearly defined line between legal substances and illegal substances. Why can't you live with this line given the VAST choice of substances that can be legally obtained?? Don't like vodka? Drink wine. Don't like wine? Drink beer. Pot is over the legal line. Sorry.

My challenge to you is this. Prove why we should add MORE drugs to the legal category. We already have too many in my opinion. Adding another, albeit a very offensive smelling one, is NOT moving in the right direction.

Why do you need to smoke pot when you can get high legally using other substances? Why??

But, there is a difference of opinion on this and many other issues in this country. We do have a remedy. A vote. We settle disputes on issues like this all the time.

When your side loses 60-40% (or worse) will you finally drop this insanity?

No, what I'm saying is that I don't really know, I'm just throwing some guesses out there. Maybe if you have access to marijuana at an earlier age, then you have access to other drugs that definitely cause mental illness over long term use (such as crystal meth).

All you can conclude from this is that if someone has used marijuana at an earlier age, then they are more likely to get a "serious mental illness" (SMI) as that study states. This study does not state that marijuana causes SMI, period. Nowhere does it state that "long term use of marijuana results in brain damage".

The only thing the article does say is this (my emphasis added):

Association does not equal cause. This is like the study that found that people living near high-voltage power lines were more likely to get cancer. You've probably heard this bandied about before. Some people still believe this to be true and refuse to live right next to the high voltage lines. Know what the cause was? It was because high-power lines are found more as you get closer to urban areas, and pollution is higher closer to urban areas, thus it was the pollution causing the cancer.

This is why I don't listen to any press releases coming from ONDCP anymore. Too often, they do the same thing you did and make it seem like these drugs are causing problems, when a lot of the time they are merely just associated with them. Grrrr.

There have been plenty of things in the past deemed "socially unacceptable", and were argued to be kept illegal because of that...Interracial marriage springs into my mind first. Not that I'm comparing pot legalization to interracial marriage in terms of how big of an issue they are, but the "it's socially unacceptable" arguement was used for both of them.

Since when is it the job of the government to care about whether someone wants to "be selfish" and get high? Selfishness isn't a crime...And if that's part of the reason why pot should be illegal, it holds no ground.

This analogy is fallacious. The whole point that we're making about pot is that it doesn't harm anyone else. Embezzlement does.

I understand pot is currently over the line...but why? Why not question the status quo? Why is pot illegal when more harmful drugs aren't. Why is is that the gov't can control ANYTHING I do to my body? Why not question the status quo?

Because:

I. The Government has no right telling me what to do with my body.

II. More harmful drugs [alcohol, tobacco] are legal, illegal pot=a double standard.

III. There is no Constitutional justification for the War on Drugs.

IV. Because there is no Constitutional provision allowing for the War on Drugs, at the very least, states should be left to decide what drugs are legal under their jurisdiction.

You're right about one thing, in an up or down vote, pot legalization would lose...Thank heavens that we don't live in a democracy. Our Republic was set up to protect the rights of the minority...and as trivial as it sounds, one of those basic rights is to do what one wants with one's body.

CP

So the concept of democracy means nothing in this country? Why do we hold elections? Why not just appoint a group of people, who hold views that the majority of people don't agree with to set policy without any democratic process whatsoever?

Oh, I forgot. That's what our judicial system does right now. I'm surprised that you're endorsing this concept since you have labeled yourself a "conservative".

Protecting the rights of the minority does NOT mean giving the minority view superiority over that of the majority!

Sorry but the arguments of pot smokers just doesn't cut it with me. Smoking that illegal substance makes one a criminal, not someone championing breaking a ban on "interracial marriage".

I've not seen any compelling argument that convinces me that people who want to use illegal drugs can't fulfil their vice in some other (legal) way. It's not a matter of "what you do to your body". You are free to become an alcoholic, smoke until you get lung cancer, or eat fast food until you look like Michael Moore.

But the line has been drawn. And if the majority don't want legalized pot (and they don't), I suggest another hobby for the pot smokers out there.

That's not what I said at all, I said we don't live in a democracy...which is accurate...And that the representative Republic was set up to ensure the rights of the minority...which is accurate...Yeah, we vote for the Prez...but do we have referendums on laws like...oh, I dunno, Pot legalization [with the exception of a few ballot initiatives]? Of course not, my point is, that in our political system an up and down vote on an issue is not compatible. We are not a direct democracy.

First things first...I haven't labeled myself a "conservative", hence my independent description next to my post...Second, I'm not endorsing a judicial tyranny, i'm endorsing an action that promotes freedom, which doesn't take it away.

I guess I'll repeat myself...I even went out and said that pot legalization is not on the same level as inter-racial marriage...Right here...They aren't on the same level, but interracial marriages were "socially unacceptable" as well, that's no excuse.

So if I can do all of those things, my question is why not pot? Because there are so many other ways to kill myself? So what? I still have the ultimate choice. And of course it's a matter of "what I do to my body", that's the reason why the gov't doesn't have any right to criminalize it. And I'll say again, there is no Constitutional justification for the criminalization of pot, therefore, at the very least, the states should decide, not the Federal government.

So the majority doesn't want it legalized...The majority is infallible and cannot possibly lead the country astray into a path that would sacrifice the liberties of Americans? Just a thought, but if you don't like pot...DON'T SMOKE IT! It's that simple...But to say, no, I don't like it, therefore no one should be allowed to smoke it is by definition, tyranny of the majority.

CP

Majority rule is not "tyranny". Imposing a minority view on a majority who don't want it IS.

At some point, our society needs to draw lines. Those lines are called "laws". Laws are required to have a society that is based on the "rule of law". The rule of law is required for a society to be a "civilization". A civilization is required to have "peace and prosperity".

So, they way I see it, pot smokers are not only criminals, they are advocates of anarchy and the end of civiliation.

That explains why I believe they should be caned as people are in Singapore.

Does that make sense?

I know a couple of guys on the front side of currency who may disagree with you there. The whole prinicipal of our government is to protect the minority from the majority. This is a fact, and doesn't require me to say any more.

So in order for us to stay civilized, pot has to be illegal? Don't pull a muscle stretching...

Wow...I don't know how to respond. Other than to say that generalizing a group of people based on one act that they do is incredibly unfair.

There are little to no ways that you can explain your position that would allow me to say that caning people for pot smoking makes sense. Caning people for pot smoking would be equally as illegal as having the Federal government tell the states what drugs are legal in their homes.

I'll ask again, is there a Constutional basis for the criminalization of pot?

CP

The concept of "protecting the minority" is not the same concept as "letting the minority do whatever the heck they want in spite of what the majority believes". Saying otherwise distorts and subverts that basic concept. I know it's self serving for those advocating pot legalization or the filibustering of judicial nominees. But, what's popular these days doesn't make it "right".

Of course, the civilization line and the caning argument are done in jest (partially anyway).

But the fact remains that the pot-advocates still confuse the "burden of proof" issue.

I say, as does the majority, that the burden of proof is on the pot-smokers to prove why their current illegal vice should be made legal. It's not up to the majority to prove why the current law is not "consistent". Like I said, we could take that standard in a whole host of unexpected and dangerous directions. For example, what if a 10 year old girl actually said they "enjoyed" being sexually molested by an adult? Should we not de-criminalize that behavior then? Who are you to tell her what she can "do with her body"??

Such ethical questions are why unfettered libertarianism is both impractical and inconstant with "civilization".

Like I said before, when pot-heads can prove why their vice can't be fulfilled in a legal (and readily available way), we should look at that issue. Not before.

Lordhelmet I think you are getting a bit rambunctious with this statements like this. In fact, calling people “pot heads” could be considered inflammatory. You are assuming that it’s the marijuana growers/sellers/users against everyone else—the majority. Not everyone who favors legalization smokes pot.

Except for a few brief experimentations in the 60s, I haven’t used marijuana and don’t today. In fact, from my limited experience, I didn’t even like it. Yet I support legalization because I think, as my post last night suggested, that funds used prosecuting and jailing low-level drug offenders could be better spent.

Me? Rambunctious? No!

The funds use to pursue criminals could certainly be better spent if the criminals involved (in this case the pot smokers) weren't obsessed with their single-minded and selfish desire to continue to break the law.

That, of course, is another way of looking at the exact same issue.

Seems to me that, on those grounds, Lordhelmet, we really ought to ban fast food, caffeine, promiscuity (spreads disease you know), daycare (spreads disease, you know), coal burning power plants (spreads disease, you know), and alcohol, and cigarettes (kills people, you know, and costs us a bundle in healthcare). We should also ban the outsourcing of jobs (selfish outsourcers cause unemployment, you know), SUVs (selfish drivers waste oil, you know), and dancing. I don't know why dancing is bad, but I'm sure someone can think of a reason at least as good as the reason pot is illegal.

I bet if adults nationwide were allowed to vote on the issue tomorrow, weed would be legalized the following day. And I'd hold my nose (literally, because I hate the way the stuff smells), and vote to legalize right along with the majority!

Actually, this is wrong. People have voted in favor of marijuana. From:http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1103-11.htm



However, because federal law prohibits marijuana, the majority vote in these states is null.
From:http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/06_09_04mmjfactsheet.cfm



Im not sure what all the fuss is about when it comes to legalizing marijuana (or any drug for that matter). Not only is it an issue of autonomy, but there are legitimate medical needs for the drug. The argument that marijuana users are criminals seems a little silly, because obviously if the laws that made them criminals were removed, then users wouldn't be criminals. Marijuana does not in and of itself lead to criminal activity, except for the criminal activity of smoking it...Yeah, thats makes a lot of sense.

As to the point about other forms of legal intoxication...This is absurd. I don't even know if I should qualify it with a proper response. Some people prefer some things to others, and they should be able to do what they prefer. If someone doesn't like alcohol, but they like marijuana, so be it.

I also think that saying pot is a demotivater is a little silly. I know people who have no motivation who don't smoke weed at all, and I know people with 3.8 GPAs who smoke pot on a more than regular basis.

Fast food, caffine, etc., are LEGAL. Those using those substances are not criminals and are not supporting a vast criminal enterprise.

The nilly-willy mixing and matching legal choices with illegal ones just serves to cloud the issue. It doesn't make any point.

I ask again, why is smoking pot just SO important when there are so many alternative, and readily available ways to get high?

Smoking pot for "medical" reasons is not what this thread is about. Legalizing pot is what it's about and there are zero polls that indicate a majority in favor of legalizing it beyond a very limited scope for "medical" reasons. Legitimate medical use of pot effects a handful of people nationwide and these are NOT the people clamouring for this substance to be legalized.

I'm sure that there are many criminals out there with 3.8 GPA's. What's the point other than it shows that they are book smart and not very smart when it comes to leading productive lives.

Smoking pot is illegal. Period. Trying to say it's "not as bad as alcohol" completely and totally misses the point.

Lordhelmet, I think a lot of us are having trouble understanding your view here. Do you believe that all illegal things are "bad", and all legal things are "good"? If you commit a felony is that worse than a misdemeanor? I'm looking for your moral views of "good and "bad" here, not which ones are considered by the law to be worse.

As for my views, I feel that whether or not the illegal activity affects other people is the main determining factor that tells me if one crime is better than another. For example, I feel that speeding is worse than pot smoking, even though pot smoking is currently the more serious crime. I feel this way because by speeding I can directly affect multiple people's lives by losing control of my car and killing other people on the road, but by getting high in my room I only directly affect myself.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Your main argument is that it is illegal, so it's bad, right? So, why don't we just make it legal then? After that, there would no longer be this "vast criminal enterprise" supported by pot smokers, and people would no longer be breaking the law by participating in this activity.

If you can clear this up then I think you will have less trouble getting your point across in this thread.

Then, why not just making speeding legal then? But, why stop there? Why not shoplifting as well? It's not as "bad" a crime as armed robbery after all. If an individual thinks that their shoplifting is not "hurting anyone" out of some misguided notion that it only hurts a nameless and faceless "corporation", should they be allowed to do it?

Again, the burden of proof is on the people who want pot legalized to show why, given all of the other legal alternative mind altering substances available that this ONE, and this one ONLY has to suddenly become legal in spite of the numerous practical issues surrounding its legalization.

The burden of proof is not on those who want to retain the status quo and who think it's wrong to break the law, even if those who participate in this illegal activity believe that they're "not hurting anyone else".

We have laws for good reasons. For the rule of law to succeed, people need to obey the laws, not just pick and choose which ones they personally believe in. Pot is one example.

I reject the notion pushed by the pot-smokers that "I want the law changed and you need to prove to me why It can't be changed.... and in the meantime, I'll continue breaking the law all I want!". That sort of defiance seems to me to be indicative of a permanent state of adolescence. Our society, and our rule of law, should not be defined by "defiant teenagers".

When 50% + 1 of the US voters believe drugs should be legal, then perhaps our society will accept changing the law. As far as I can tell, the supporters of pot legalization have nowhere near that level of support. To date, the only issues that have passed are very narrowly defined and were passed in areas with liberal representation way above the national average. If you think you have 50%+ support, put it on the ballot in 2006. If you thought that the gay marriage issue brought conservative voters out of the woodwork to defeat Kerry, just go ahead and push this issue on a national level. In fact, I BEG you to do this. The entire issue of judicial filibusters will become moot when the GOP gains a veto-proof majority.

Pot is not only illegal, but causes lung cancer and potentially has far worse second-hand smoke characteristics than tobacco, a substance that ironically liberals are trying to squash everywhere.

The issue is not my ability to make my point. I've made it repeatedly. The issue is the pro-pot people justifying why this issue is so important given the reasonable and available alternatives.

Lordhelmet, other people have made this point but I will reiterate it for you. Not everyone who supports legalization of marijuana is a user (or abuser) of marijuana. I can't stand the stuff, but I support decriminalization and legalization in my own country, and in yours. My reasons are not selfish, but inherently pragmatic. Every year in the United States BILLIONS of dollars are spent trying unsuccessfully to restrict marijuana use, hundreds of thousands of people are thrown in jail, and hundreds are people are dying: and none of that would happen if pot were legal. Sure, there would be some repurcussions if it were legalized; but since you are diametrically opposed to actually providing any sort of factual or evidentiary basis to your claims, I see nothing to indicate that the price for legalization would be worse on hte whole than the price already being paid to keep it illegal.

You are listing crimes that directly affect other people, so I feel that they should be illegal. Also, I don't feel that you really answered my question here, but I'll move on anyways because you seem to feel that you are having the same problem (questions not getting answered). Maybe if I can answer your questions, then you can answer mine?


Because for some people, it is a better drug in both mental and physical effects than these legal "alternatives". Also, what does "numerous practical issues" have to do with whether or not we make something illegal? Maybe we should make the entire internet/web illegal too, because that has presented lots of "practical issues" in this new century (such as mp3 filesharing).


When the government can actually follow it's own rules/laws, then I might be more willing to obey the law. As it stands now, marijuana is listed as a Schedule I drug. If you look at the criteria for Schedule I, you will see that there is no way that pot fits this category. The government has known this since sometime in the '70s, but refuses to change the scheduling.


Prove it. I have studies saying that THC (the main active chemical in pot) shrinks tumors, not causes them. Just use the search "thc shrink tumor" on Google. I'd give you a direct link to the study, but a lot of the search sites link to medical marijuana sites, so I don't want to seem biased, and I don't have time to search for a good one. I'm sure you can find at least one unbiased site in the many search results that will be returned.


Simply because the alternatives are not reasonable. Can you please tell us why you think the alternatives are reasonable? They definitely do not have the same effects as marijuana...

Maybe you should also look into the link about the history of drug prohibition I gave in the first post I made in this topic. If you look at the history of marijuana, there wasn't much good reason in the first place to make it illegal. Maybe that's the reason some of us feel that you need to explain why it should be kept illegal.