Legalization of Marijuana in California

[Riddle]

As many of you know, California is looking to possibly legalize marijuana for recreational use. California would be the first state to do so, and this has caused some controversy to spring up. Because of California's horrible economic situation since proposition 13, pro-marijuana advocates are saying that this will help the state's economy in two ways: 1) The state will not have to spend money cathing/imprisoning dealers etc. 2) The state will be able to tax marijuana which could make them an estimated $1.3 billion a year. Recently an ad-campaign was run by pro-marijuana advocates, and nobody knows what the outcome will be.

Do you think that marijuana should be legalized? I going to be neutral on this one, because I see the points of both sides. Try to convince me.

News Story is here //www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/23/BAO416354C.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

 

[pacmansays]

I personally can't stand marijuana but I have no issue with the legalisation of it: it hasn't had any evidence of causing any medicial concerns and even those suspected are less severe than what smoking does.

It also will help with the prevention of crime as people won't be pushed underground into taking the drug and so forth.

I think it should be legalised like how it is in Amsterdam: in special cafes and on private property

 

[HawaiianJigglyPuff]

Ok, I have some questions. This article is from February. Is there anything recent on this? I've looked and can't find anything past February. Is this for real? (rhetorical) Also, when would the bill be passed if successful? (estimation)

This seems huge. Why did this never hit CNN?
(I only remember hypothetical debates after the Mexican drug violence)

Anyway, I like the tax lol. 50 dollars is a lot.
I would only be in favor of this legislation if I could see into the future and know that this wouldn't cause a snowball effect. i.e. It wouldn't cause coke to be legalized in 20 years or coke to become the "new illegal drug to do."

That's the ONLY reason I'm not ok with this. I'm worried about all of the other drugs. I mean, did you see Ron Paul telling CNN, FOXNews, etc. that our country should legalize EVERY drug. Now, I know that's just Ron Paul, but he still has a lot of supporters.

So ... without looking at the aftermath, I don't see why California would turn this bill down. It would provide a lot of money where it is needed. Legalizing Marijuana is going to DECREASE crime (it's not a violent drug), and it's not nearly as dangerous, longterm, as cigarettes.

 

[Crimson King]

There is absolutely no reason we should illegalize every drug. Drugs are not something you HAVE to take, but something you choose to take. By illegalizing it, you are saying "You are not capable of making the decision that this is bad for you." Fact is, Ron Paul, like many for drug legalization, doesn't do drugs but understands that illegalizing it does nothing. All you are doing is creating an avenue and market for dealers to peddle to children and such and make it something "off-limits."

 

[CRASHiC]

There is absolutely no reason we should illegalize every drug. Drugs are not something you HAVE to take, but something you choose to take. By illegalizing it, you are saying "You are not capable of making the decision that this is bad for you." Fact is, Ron Paul, like many for drug legalization, doesn't do drugs but understands that illegalizing it does nothing. All you are doing is creating an avenue and market for dealers to peddle to children and such and make it something "off-limits."

Illegalizing it also limits the ability of people to produce it. Opium is a good example, as opium is becoming a rarer and rarer drug, after having almost desolated a country worst than alcoholism ever had done to the united states during the prohibition movement. Once countries took a strong impact on stopping the production and trade of opium, we have seen a gradual fade of opium from the world market.

In a non-illegal world, you could potentially see plantations dedicated to growing nothing but opium, but instead what we find is small farmers being convinced by the Taliban to grow the crop for them. Were opium legal, producing the drug could be much easier.

While illegalizing a drug might not stop a person from taking it, it stops the person from developing the drugs, not to the full degree it should, as the Mexican drug cartels have shown. However, the largest source of Mexican income is money coming from other countries. Now, this can also be accredited to family members sending money back home, but ignoring the huge profits the drug cartels make it neighboring countries in this number would be foolish.

You might say, Why should the production be limited in the first place, people choose to take it, no one forces them.

Because, they are, in most cases, producing something harmful for the people they are selling to, denying the customs right to be treated fairly. The constitution states that the purpose of a law is to protect the rights of the people, as long as those said rights do not infringe on the rights of others. Limiting the development of drugs is along the same line as stopping the production of a toy with lead paint.

Some might argue that the lead paint is because the consumer is aware of the danger, but how many people are fully aware of the negative effect of drugs to their fullest extent? From what I've seen, very few. The idea on giving age limits to cigs and alcohol is that by that age, the user will be educated enough to know about the dangers that these products can enduce.

So, where does Marry Jane fall into all of this? I'm not sure, there is a lot of conflicting information about the effects it causes on your body and mind. Some say it can help many medical problems, while others claim it can increase a person's likely hood to have depression. More studies by a non aligned third party need to be tested before I can make a decision on this issue.

EDIT- Hope this all came out clear, I'm really tired right now, might have to edit tomorrow.

 

[HawaiianJigglyPuff]

There is absolutely no reason we should illegalize every drug. Drugs are not something you HAVE to take, but something you choose to take. By illegalizing it, you are saying "You are not capable of making the decision that this is bad for you." Fact is, Ron Paul, like many for drug legalization, doesn't do drugs but understands that illegalizing it does nothing. All you are doing is creating an avenue and market for dealers to peddle to children and such and make it something "off-limits."

I think it's stupid when a law is made, people break it, and our answer is: ok repeal the law in that case.

Very few people actually follow the speed limit signs to the number. Everyone speeds now and again. Does that mean we should raise the speed limits in areas, or worse, take away speed limits all together? No!

If all drugs were legal, they would be incredibly easy to get.

And yes, I am saying that people can't make the decision for themselves. People are stupid and do hardcore drugs that completely **** up their minds. Teenagers are stupid and will try drugs if they're easy to get and they will be if they're legalized.

 

[CRASHiC]

Actually, many drugs are legal. Every single medication, prescription or over the counter, is a drug. Even caffeine is considered a drug.

 

[Riddle]

Heres a more recent article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/us/07arnold.html

One of my problems with this bill is its purpose.The only reason this bill might be passed is to help the economy of California. However, I do not think the solution for California is to continue to patch up the economy with bills like this, but actually fix it. As a result of Proposition 13 California could not raise property taxes above what they were for the housee in 1975/1976 if you owned it then, and they can only raise property taxes by 2% a year. This has forced cities/counties to find other sources of revenue in "special taxes" (Stuff like Obesity taxes), but also as a result of Prop. 13 these taxes have to be passed by 2/3 of voters, which they often don't (who wants more taxes?). This has put California's economy in a state of ruin, and the government has a deficit of 20 billion dollars! If California were able to repeal this and other similar bills then they could really fix their economy. (source)

My other problem with the legalization of Marijuana is that not only will it be much easier to get, but also that its price will severely drop. Consider this, an analysis (link found in the OP) stated that this would reduce Marijuana prices by 50% and increase consumption by 40%. The reason for consumption is obvious, it will be readily available. And its price will decrease, because of competition. Marijauna costs much, much more to buy than to produce. However, the lack of competition in the market (competition is illegal lol) and the fact that buyers are often caught and jailed, makes the price for marijuana deceptively high. However, all of this would end if marijuana was legalized. Competition would be pretty high and the price would greatly lower. It would actually lower by more than 50%, but the $50 an ounce taxes raise the price obviously.

Some things to think about.

 

[Fuelbi]

well i do believe marijuana should be legal for recreational uses. Now as long as people are responsible and dont wreck their lives with it then why not make it legal. now if they do end up making it legal lets say they should make an age limit. lets say from 18-21 years of age before you should take it. because marijuana is like cigarettes. you can smoke them but they are worse for kids than they are for adults. so if you make a kid do marijuana (im sorry but can we use slang here like weed because i suck at spelling that) they'd go all crazy and ****. now about the taxes to pay for those drugs. i believe that they should lower it. if they do that to weed then they should make the taxes higher on cigarettes. they can be just as bad as weed. of course weed affects you mentally but cigarettes can affect you physically. they make your lungs bad and you will have to eventually take an operation for that. and if you dont operate that there is a chance you can die. now of course there is only like one real difference and that is that you cant take an operation for that. instead you'd have to go to rehab. so long story short make it legal but dont give to kids and if there is like a 50 dollar tax you have to pay then give it to cigarettes too.

 

[Riddle]

well i do believe marijuana should be legal for recreational uses. Now as long as people are responsible and dont wreck their lives with it then why not make it legal. now if they do end up making it legal lets say they should make an age limit. lets say from 18-21 years of age before you should take it. because marijuana is like cigarettes. you can smoke them but they are worse for kids than they are for adults. so if you make a kid do marijuana (im sorry but can we use slang here like weed because i suck at spelling that) they'd go all crazy and ****. now about the taxes to pay for those drugs. i believe that they should lower it. if they do that to weed then they should make the taxes higher on cigarettes. they can be just as bad as weed. of course weed affects you mentally but cigarettes can affect you physically. they make your lungs bad and you will have to eventually take an operation for that. and if you dont operate that there is a chance you can die. now of course there is only like one real difference and that is that you cant take an operation for that. instead you'd have to go to rehab. so long story short make it legal but dont give to kids and if there is like a 50 dollar tax you have to pay then give it to cigarettes too.

I think that the need for an age limitation is obvious, young people haven't shown that they make the best decisions. Actually, weed is worse for your lungs, because it has a good deal more carcinogens, and weed smokers tend to inhale more deeply, thus getting more smoke into their lungs.

 

[Crimson King]

Illegalizing it also limits the ability of people to produce it. Opium is a good example, as opium is becoming a rarer and rarer drug, after having almost desolated a country worst than alcoholism ever had done to the united states during the prohibition movement. Once countries took a strong impact on stopping the production and trade of opium, we have seen a gradual fade of opium from the world market.

In a non-illegal world, you could potentially see plantations dedicated to growing nothing but opium, but instead what we find is small farmers being convinced by the Taliban to grow the crop for them. Were opium legal, producing the drug could be much easier.

Do you actually research things? Opium is still in great use, but it's been modified to become heroin and other opiates.

I think it's stupid when a law is made, people break it, and our answer is: ok repeal the law in that case.

Well, why not? When a law is based on the immoral belief that the government knows what is good for us, and prosecution of the crime is ultimately based on the poor people who are the users (both poor in the sense of unfortunate and monetarily), then the law should be repealed. Consider this, to house an inmate for a year, it's, on average $45k. Considering that many states have a six-month incarceration for small drug offenses, that's $22.5k going for NOTHING. These people will continue to use drugs on their own, and they will continue to get caught and sap the money. Why not legalize the drug (since they will get it whatever way they want), and make money off the taxes?

Remember, it is our duty as citizens of democracy to dissent. Dissent is patriotic.

Very few people actually follow the speed limit signs to the number. Everyone speeds now and again. Does that mean we should raise the speed limits in areas, or worse, take away speed limits all together? No!

Horrible argument. Everyone who uses a car isn't commiting a crime that could result in jail time (depending on a number of factors). Everyone who does drugs could face jail time if caught, so it's an uneven analogy.

If all drugs were legal, they would be incredibly easy to get.

And yes, I am saying that people can't make the decision for themselves. People are stupid and do hardcore drugs that completely **** up their minds. Teenagers are stupid and will try drugs if they're easy to get and they will be if they're legalized.

First off, do you really think drugs are hard to get now? I live in a small town, and I can get pretty much anything I'd want. I am smart enough to know what most drugs will do to you, so I don't.

And on your second point: you have no right, morally, to say that people can't make decisions for themselves. If they want to **** their lives up, they can because they own their body, not the state, which is what you are advocating.

 

[CRASHiC]

Do you actually research things? Opium is still in great use, but it's been modified to become heroin and other opiates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/24/united-nations-world-drug-report

 

[Fuelbi]

I think that the need for an age limitation is obvious, young people haven't shown that they make the best decisions. Actually, weed is worse for your lungs, because it has a good deal more carcinogens, and weed smokers tend to inhale more deeply, thus getting more smoke into their lungs.

well anyways it doesnt matter what weed does is that i just hope that if weed does become legal that people will use it responisbly and not abuse of it. if you ask me drugs are just as bad as any other one and yes i mean cigs too. one question that pops into my mind about this thread is that if they make weed legal shouldnt they make other drugs like crack and heroin legal? i mean as long as we are making one hell of a dangerous drug legal why not the other just as hell of a dangerous drugs legal too?

 

[pacmansays]

well anyways it doesnt matter what weed does is that i just hope that if weed does become legal that people will use it responisbly and not abuse of it. if you ask me drugs are just as bad as any other one and yes i mean cigs too. one question that pops into my mind about this thread is that if they make weed legal shouldnt they make other drugs like crack and heroin legal? i mean as long as we are making one hell of a dangerous drug legal why not the other just as hell of a dangerous drugs legal too?

Marijuana is not really a dangerous drug: its only dangerous when it is mixed with tobacco which it often is...tobacco is what causes it to be addictive and dangerous to your body. Without it, then it doesn't. Legalisation can allow the sale of it without tobacco and without any serious health concerns...

Considering how no death has been attributed to marijuana shows how levels of drugs are different: some dangerous, some not. In lab tests mice given crack have shown to choose crack over food and would kill themselves because of the addiction. The drug crash in many places occurred because of the introduction of crack.

You cannot categorise all drugs together in severity. Marijuana alone is a lot less bad for you than smoking and if someone wants to smoke it then why not?

 

[Crimson King]

well anyways it doesnt matter what weed does is that i just hope that if weed does become legal that people will use it responisbly and not abuse of it. if you ask me drugs are just as bad as any other one and yes i mean cigs too. one question that pops into my mind about this thread is that if they make weed legal shouldnt they make other drugs like crack and heroin legal? i mean as long as we are making one hell of a dangerous drug legal why not the other just as hell of a dangerous drugs legal too?

How is marijuana one "hell of a dangerous drug"? List for me how many people have died from over-consumption.

 

[CRASHiC]

From overdose, none.
From accidents under the influence, unknown, but large enough for the British government to care.

http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2003/11/02/marijuana-causes-many-deaths-reported-as-accidents.htm

 

[Fuelbi]

From overdose, none.
From accidents under the influence, unknown, but large enough for the British government to care.

http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2003/11/02/marijuana-causes-many-deaths-reported-as-accidents.htm

exactly. thats what i meant

 

[SuSa]

How is marijuana one "hell of a dangerous drug"? List for me how many people have died from over-consumption.

None, because you can't... you lose the ability to do more before you ever reach that point.

However many die from being under the influence of marijuana.

But then if using that as your argument - please state why Alcohol is legal.

1) You can die from over-consumption.
2) You die doing stupid **** while under the influence of alcohol.

 

[CRASHiC]

I find it ironic that the time alcohol becomes legal, if you start ingesting it then, you'll start to see negative side effects around the time you retire.

 

[Crimson King]

From overdose, none.
From accidents under the influence, unknown, but large enough for the British government to care.

http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2003/11/02/marijuana-causes-many-deaths-reported-as-accidents.htm

That's rather vague, and I can guarantee more people kill others while under the influence of alcohol than marijuana.

None, because you can't... you lose the ability to do more before you ever reach that point.

However many die from being under the influence of marijuana.

But then if using that as your argument - please state why Alcohol is legal.

1) You can die from over-consumption.
2) You die doing stupid **** while under the influence of alcohol.

Alcohol, like tobacco, is legal because it's harder to make from home, easier to tax, and lobbyists from Alcohol and Tobacco companies stay in Washington to keep the influence. I am for the legalization of it all anyway, because prohibition failed epically.

 

[Aesir]

From overdose, none.
From accidents under the influence, unknown, but large enough for the British government to care.

http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2003/11/02/marijuana-causes-many-deaths-reported-as-accidents.htm

Yet the British Government doesn't seem to care when it comes to alcohol? I'm sensing some bias within the British government.

Lets look at what prohibiting Marijuana has done;

It's been a huge monetary drain, as CK pointed out furthermore if you notice he only mentioned how much it costs to keep them behind bars and not any of the other resources we waste.

Doesn't deter usage the very fact that it's illegal makes kids want to do it more.

Because we incarcerate all non-violent drug offenders, and place them in facilities where they'll be met with gang members and other unpleasantness they'll be pulled into a far more damaging world then Marijuana would have ever been to them. Many people talk about how Marijuana is a gate way drug, (which it isn't btw.) but no one ever mentions how much prison is a gate way into drugs, we condemn these kids from the moment they hear their verdict of guilty.

I post a bit more then I should have, =X to close this up, unless you guys actually give us any real reason to keep it illegal other then "it's bad for you!" Then I think it's safe to assume the stuff shouldn't be illegal at all.

 

[SuSa]

I find it ironic that the time alcohol becomes legal, if you start ingesting it then, you'll start to see negative side effects around the time you retire.

Depends how much you drink. You could see dire consequences by the time you are in your 30's even....

They key aspect I feel for these things is a nice word called "moderation".

Hell, even over-the-counter medicine (still a drug) is bad for you without moderation. That's why we have doses.....

 

[pacmansays]

Yet the British Government doesn't seem to care when it comes to alcohol? I'm sensing some bias within the British government.

Ever been to Britain? Drinking is a pretty common occurrence here: I'm 18 and I've got drunk several times (first time was about aged 16-17) and for some people my age I don't drink much.

I believe there's nothing wrong with the occasional drink or so: I like to get drunk every once in a while but I also like to have a drink every so often with no intent of getting drunk.

As mentioned moderation is the key, you have to give some people the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Aesir]

That really wasn't the point but thanks for the info.

The moderation point works both ways, some people don't like getting high out of their minds and just enjoy a hit here and there to take the edge off wheres the harm in that? Where as having a drink here and there is actually more harmful then Marijuana is believe it or not.

 

[HawaiianJigglyPuff]

Horrible argument. Everyone who uses a car isn't commiting a crime that could result in jail time (depending on a number of factors). Everyone who does drugs could face jail time if caught, so it's an uneven analogy.

The speeding thing was an analogy for something that everyone does that is ILLEGAL that could endanger others. The thing with drugs is that it can't put others at harm.

You keep saying "it's the government trying to tell us it knows what's best for us."

Drugs are not fast food. Fast food makes you fat, it doesnt hurt me.
If you smoke crack, I'm running the **** away from you.

Hope you see my point there.


I'll edit this post later, with more stuff, but I need to go.

 

[Crimson King]

The speeding thing was an analogy for something that everyone does that is ILLEGAL that could endanger others. The thing with drugs is that it can't put others at harm.

You keep saying "it's the government trying to tell us it knows what's best for us."

Drugs are not fast food. Fast food makes you fat, it doesnt hurt me.
If you smoke crack, I'm running the **** away from you.

Hope you see my point there.


I'll edit this post later, with more stuff, but I need to go.

Again, you make no sense. Fast food (and the obesity from it) DOES hurt you. Fast food in excess will cause diabetes, heart issues, etc. which will proliferate the longer you indulge. If you are saying that someone else eating fast food doesn't affect you, then the same goes for drugs. With legalizing drugs, people will not be able to drive or go to work under the influence like with alcohol. It's not like legalizing marijuana will allow people to start toking up at work. You can't do it with alcohol, which will have similar effects as marijuana, so there is no likely situation where drugs will be allowed to be used anywhere but in the home and bars, if legalized.

 

[Riddle]

Again I have no problem with the drug marijuana/weed/pot itself. My only problem is the reason California might legalize it. To me the fact that the chief reason provided for legalizing marijuana is the tax money is a sign that California would be legalizing weed for all the wrong reasons. California needs to find a way to fix its economy (abolish prop. 13 etc.) and stop trying to shore it up with things like this.

 

[CRASHiC]

The level of of intoxication in MJ is far lower than Alochol and runs the chance of damaging others is far less.

Below is a chart that includes possible damage to the people around the user, labeled as social harm.

 

[Crimson King]

The level of of intoxication in MJ is far lower than Alochol and runs the chance of damaging others is far less.

Below is a chart that includes possible damage to the people around the user, labeled as social harm.

Not sure where that chart is from, but this site says Cannabis is a class B drug: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drugs-law/Class-a-b-c/ (This is in the UK). Reading that, it says Cannabis USERS, can face up to 5 years in UK prison and unlimited fines. How much does 5 years cost the state?

According to this site, http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061201115214AADGrfi, one year is about £37,500, which when converted is around $61k per year. At the max for a class C vioalation, 2 years, the state is paying $122k for a person to be housed who just possessed pot (I believe to get to this level it has to be a lot of pot, but it's still just weed). Now, if the chart I found is right, that's $305,000 that the state has to pay PER OFFENDER for the max term. That's wasted money and space considering weed users are usually more mellowed out.

 

[FearTheMateria]

There is absolutely no reason we should illegalize every drug. Drugs are not something you HAVE to take, but something you choose to take. By illegalizing it, you are saying "You are not capable of making the decision that this is bad for you." Fact is, Ron Paul, like many for drug legalization, doesn't do drugs but understands that illegalizing it does nothing. All you are doing is creating an avenue and market for dealers to peddle to children and such and make it something "off-limits."

Crimson King. In all honesty, some REALLY ARE NOT capable of making that decision for themselves. When they get addicted, some can't stop. At least while it is illegal, some prevention methods CAN BE TAKEN to ensure that not too many people have complete access to extremely powerful and/or addictive mind altering drugs.

Now, as a native Californian, I am going to base my entire argument on the crumbling economic conditions of the state itself.

Will the legalization of Marijuana really carry that much money back into the weakened California?

My response sits on the fence as a maybe.

For those of you who don't know, there are two economies, with sub-sectors, in America. There is the Market Economy, and the Black Market economy.
The Market Economy is the exchange of all legal goods in which the transaction consists of money gained by legal means and spend on a legal product.
The Black Market Economy is and exchange in which either the gain was from illegal means, the purchase is of illegal means, or both.

When someone uses money that was gained legally on something illegal, the money "disappears" from the Market Economy and adds to the Black Market economy, and vice-versa if the money that is illegal is use on a legal purchase. Also, Black Market transactions (illegal money AND product) continue to flow in the Black Market as two legal purchases flow in the Market.

With that explained I can get into my points. (If you misunderstand, read it over until it gains clarity.)
California has an INCREDIBLY HUGE BLACK MARKET. Let's face it. Several Californians (not me, mind you) are drug users. Particularly using marijuana. It's in every click (Gangs, punk rockers, everyday stressed out people, medical marijuana users, metal heads, etc.) and can be easily found in many cities across the state (And quite easily might I add). There are several people who sell and push these drugs across to a great extent. They take the money they get from their "illegal drug sales" and spend them on illegal things (i.e. Stolen cars, stronger drugs to push, prostitutes, unregistered weaponry, you name it; its spent) and sometimes on legal objects (i.e. Alcohol, cigarettes, legal cars, snacks, game consoles, or whatever else). This money (on legal objects) flows back into the economy and everything flows as normal.

With California's marijuana policy, they are trying to pull some of the money that is illegally spent on marijuana and force it to go into the proceeds of the Market Economy.
This concept seems like a idea, get more money flowing, and improve spending. Aside from potential inflation, this may be what California needs to get back on track.
However, one drawback:
It's drastic effect on the Black Market.

If there are legalized forms of marijuana, stores will set a price for them. Depending on the price, some people may leave their drug dealer and start buying them from the store. That stops some of the flow of the Black Market. And, believe it or not, the Black Market is what helps to support the Market Economy by the money that leaves it.

It's sketchy, but all there would have to be a compensation for the potential "New Users" who are now interested due to it's new legal stature. The true question is, will the amount of new marijuana user be enough to compensate for California's dragging economy.

This argument is from an economic point of view, not moralistic. I am morally against it's passing, however, that has less to do with it than it's economic effect. Morality is only a factor when discussing the potentiallity of the "New Users". If they don't want it, they won't buy it."

To me the fact that the chief reason provided for legalizing marijuana is the tax money is a sign that California would be legalizing weed for all the wrong reasons. California needs to find a way to fix its economy (abolish prop. 13 etc.) and stop trying to shore it up with things like this.

This issue MAY POSSIBLY be a way to fix its shortcomings. Billions of dollars a year is spent on marijuana, and it can possibly make up for the shortcomings. If California shouldn't pass it just because YOU DON'T THINK SO is not a valid argument.

 

[Riddle]

Crimson King. In all honesty, some REALLY ARE NOT capable of making that decision for themselves. When they get addicted, some can't stop. At least while it is illegal, some prevention methods CAN BE TAKEN to ensure that not too many people have complete access to extremely powerful and/or addictive mind altering drugs.

People who aren't capable of making a thoughtful, responsible decision often do drugs anyways. Drugs are very easy to get legal or not, and peer pressure/other factors often results in these kids getting addicted to drugs.

California has an INCREDIBLY HUGE BLACK MARKET. Let's face it. Several Californians (not me, mind you) are drug users. Particularly using marijuana. It's in every click (Gangs, punk rockers, everyday stressed out people, medical marijuana users, metal heads, etc.) and can be easily found in many cities across the state (And quite easily might I add). There are several people who sell and push these drugs across to a great extent. They take the money they get from their "illegal drug sales" and spend them on illegal things (i.e. Stolen cars, stronger drugs to push, prostitutes, unregistered weaponry, you name it; its spent) and sometimes on legal objects (i.e. Alcohol, cigarettes, legal cars, snacks, game consoles, or whatever else). This money (on legal objects) flows back into the economy and everything flows as normal.

Sure, the money flows back into the economy if "illegal" money gets spent on legal things, but this "illegal" money was taken from thge Market economy in the first place. If I give you a dollar, and then you spend your dollar on something I'm selling then we are at the same point we started at and nobodies gained any money. (this is obviously over-simplified)

With California's marijuana policy, they are trying to pull some of the money that is illegally spent on marijuana and force it to go into the proceeds of the Market Economy.
This concept seems like a idea, get more money flowing, and improve spending. Aside from potential inflation, this may be what California needs to get back on track.
However, one drawback:
It's drastic effect on the Black Market.

You forget, not only does this get money flowing in the market economy, but theres also the very high taxes. This adds even more to the Market Economy.

If there are legalized forms of marijuana, stores will set a price for them. Depending on the price, some people may leave their drug dealer and start buying them from the store. That stops some of the flow of the Black Market. And, believe it or not, the Black Market is what helps to support the Market Economy by the money that leaves it.

Money won't be flowing from the black market, because it will never get in there in the first place. A lot more of the money will stay in the market. True money will not flow as well from the black market, but it will also not flow from the market into the black market.

It's sketchy, but all there would have to be a compensation for the potential "New Users" who are now interested due to it's new legal stature. The true question is, will the amount of new marijuana user be enough to compensate for California's dragging economy.

I have no doubt that the tax on marijuana and the new users will help California's dragging economy for a while, but this result will not be permanent. California's economy can not support itself without a major overhaul. Temporary fixes like this are not what the state needs.

This issue MAY POSSIBLY be a way to fix its shortcomings. Billions of dollars a year is spent on marijuana, and it can possibly make up for the shortcomings. If California shouldn't pass it just because YOU DON'T THINK SO is not a valid argument.

My opinion on this is the same as above. I realize the fact that I dont think so isn't the best argument, so heres a fact for you. It is estimated that legalizing marijuana will bring in 1.5-2 billion dollars a year. California's budget deficit is 42 billion. Legalizing this will help, but not fix California's economy. Ecen if you subtract the cause of marijuana-related drug enforcement, you still fall short. (Here's the source)

 

[CStick]

As far as I'm concerned, they might as well legalize it. I think the whole country should. The only can of worms that will be opened up is finding ways to catch people driving under the influence and so forth. There will also still have to be laws against growing and selling - kind of like how there are still standards for legal prostitution; the same would be so with how one comes across possessing marijuana.

I think we should also find a way to legalize heroin and cocaine as well. The vast majority of the crime in this country is related to those drugs (three-fourths of all murders are either criminals killing other criminals in drug-related disputes, or drug addicts robbing and killing people when looking for things to trade and sell for drugs). That way, you can take the tax money off of things like that and build/fund rehab clinics instead of just locking them away in prison and having the taxpayers take the burden of both their incarceration and their rehab. You will free up prison space and be able to actually keep felons in jail for the full amount of time they should be there, instead of letting double-armed robbers sentenced to 15 years in prison only get convicted for five years and let out in one year on parole due to 'overcrowding'. Plus, it would pretty much bring an end to drug violence in the entire hemisphere.

 

[FearTheMateria]

People who aren't capable of making a thoughtful, responsible decision often do drugs anyways. Drugs are very easy to get legal or not, and peer pressure/other factors often results in these kids getting addicted to drugs.

That's why certain drugs should not be legal. Even if it is still easy to get, the government has every right to attempt to regulate it so that those who make poor decisions will have that much less access. Even if only one less person is not on an addictive drugs (And has an addictive personality) because it is illegal, I say the government has done it's job right.

Sure, the money flows back into the economy if "illegal" money gets spent on legal things, but this "illegal" money was taken from thge Market economy in the first place. If I give you a dollar, and then you spend your dollar on something I'm selling then we are at the same point we started at and nobodies gained any money. (this is obviously over-simplified)

Make it too complicated, and people who don't know how the economic system works will be lost in confusion. Make it too simple, and people who already know it will feel like they are wasted their life reading the paragraphs. My apologies to you Riddle, for I was trying to reach the crowd who doesn't understand the basic concept of the underground economy.

You forget, not only does this get money flowing in the market economy, but theres also the very high taxes. This adds even more to the Market Economy

.

Yes, a very good point! Taxes generate revenue and, much to the peoples' frustration, allows our local/federal governments some spending room. That reason is why our favorite Governator had decided to raise taxes recently. (But another cent to a dollar on sales tax really seemed ridiculous. And don't get me started on gas prices.) But, yes, the taxes they may charge on a newly legal drug can really add to its economic impact which is what California may be hoping for.

Money won't be flowing from the black market, because it will never get in there in the first place. A lot more of the money will stay in the market. True money will not flow as well from the black market, but it will also not flow from the market into the black market.

Not true. ANY illegal purchase that was bought from money made by legal means has just flowed from the Market into the Black Market.

Any illegal money used in a legal purchase goes from the Black Market to the Market. I mean, really. How many drug dealers and such buy alcoholic beverages? A lot of them! Do they go to a local alcohol dealer to get it? No, they go to the Liquor Store. So the $5-$10 dollars that they got from illegal means flows back into the market from whence it was taken from.

I have no doubt that the tax on marijuana and the new users will help California's dragging economy for a while, but this result will not be permanent. California's economy can not support itself without a major overhaul. Temporary fixes like this are not what the state needs.

Perhaps a temporary fix like this is what is needed to assist certain programs.
This example is from personal experience, you can read about it Here

The CSUs immediately acted upon the budget cuts, so me, and a few of my others friends who were previously accepted, were then told we were being dropped from the school. Then, to make it worse, they decided to stop accepting applications for Winter of 2009 and Fall of 2010, the conditions also affected the UCs.

Could this money fuel the educational systems? Maybe.

My opinion on this is the same as above. I realize the fact that I dont think so isn't the best argument, so heres a fact for you. It is estimated that legalizing marijuana will bring in 1.5-2 billion dollars a year. California's budget deficit is 42 billion. Legalizing this will help, but not fix California's economy. Ecen if you subtract the cause of marijuana-related drug enforcement, you still fall short. (Here's the source)

To counter that, view this chart from the California government Here, on Page 5

Yes, but with at least that much revenue that is EXTRA (Wasn't there before, but now is), and adding the profit from the new users/subtracting that of the enforcement that is no longer necessary, it can POSSIBLY help to make a good impact on the debt so maybe we (California) can drag schools out of the dirt.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

If they legalized marijuana, the budget may not be saved, but to at least help it would be a plus for the Californian government.
Why are tobacco prices higher in America? Because their government has one of the worst economies in the world right now, and they put sales taxes on the tobacco in order to gain more money from it.
If they legalized marijuana, which I'm sure many people already have in California, the government could use that legalization to throw the sales tax icing on the marijuana products that are being sold.
As stated in those charts by CRASHiC, marijuana is probably one of the least dangerous drugs to be dealt with.

Pros of legalizing marijuana:
- Government able to put sales tax on the products, helps (but does not solve) economical problems
- Not such a dangerous drug like cocaine, heroine, or methamphetamines, thus people would not be as dependent on it
- May lower the violence of some cities and at the Mexico/North American border
People who attempt to get through the border sometimes smuggle marijuana (from what I've heard), if they are caught, they can sometimes call friends or start to rebel against the police.
- Some prisons in America are already at full capacity, some of those prisoners may be ones who attempted to smuggle marijuana. If marijuana was legalized, then they may not have to be prisoners. Free up some space for those wretched murderers and real wrong-doers.
http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed0503200.cfm, this site may not focus at all on marijuana legalization, but it is at least proof to say that American prisons are full (I am doing that because I have been criticized in the past for not backing up with evidence).
- To legalize it would also mean to have medical benefits to the people. Isn't marijuana used as a sort of painkiller for nausea and also to get one's appetite going?

Legalize marijuana, and you have all of these benefits to you.

EDIT: Gah! I posted in an old thread. This is such an interesting topic, why has no one posted here for a while?

 

[Smoke and smash]

You know, there already are counties in California in which the cultivation, selling, buying, and smoking of marijuana is legal. They even have colleges dedicated to the study of growing marijuana. If you haven't seen it, watch the CNBC documentary, it may still be available on youtube.

I don't think I have to list all the reasons why the legalization of pot should happen and will happen, as I noticed a lot of the good points were covered already, although if wanted/needed I will gladly break everything down for you guys.

I will say this for now:
The only somewhat decent reason for the opposition of the legalization of grass was that if you make it easily available, people will be prone to get behind the wheel of a car and put lives in danger. Although this is true, that really shouldn't make any difference, because there is a plethora of things that can put people's lives in danger while driving a car. I can get behind the wheel of a car while reading a book, while eating food, even while intoxicated with alcohol (something which happens to be legal even though for numerous reasons it has far greater negative effects on it's users). All of these things will put people's lives in danger, but we aren't going to make books illegal are we?

I am obviously for the legalization, as if my name and avatar didn't give me away=p. And I am pretty well versed in defending my opinion, and will provide more explanations (on anything from the fact our founding fathers smoked weed to how it will lower the populations of youths using harder drugs) if anyone wants to debate more on this topic.


Oh, just throwing this out there. All drugs should be legal period. Nobody should be able to tell me what I can and cannot do to my body. As long as I don't harm others, I should be allowed to pursue my individual happiness.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Oh, just throwing this out there. All drugs should be legal period. Nobody should be able to tell me what I can and cannot do to my body. As long as I don't harm others, I should be allowed to pursue my individual happiness.

You have generally done exceptionally better than me in debating on that Atheism topic, but legalizing all drugs? Including heroine and methamphetamine?

I thought that both of the above mentioned drugs have extremely high addiction rates, people may become too dependent on these drugs, thus violence may break out in order to receive more. Then again, violence already does break out when attempting to obtain these drugs.

Also, heroine and methamphetamines are dangerous if taken for too long; death rates may climb if these drugs are legalized. Although the apparent 'black market' does sell these drugs, many more people would become addicted to them should they be legalized, more deaths could follow. People who are addicted and who attempt to drive or operate machinery would crash/break/cause an accident of some other sort, that would harm others, not just themselves.

The government may be able to make money off of these drugs, but at the possible cost of human lives?
I could be wrong, but I am giving my quick thoughts on it.

 

[Smoke and smash]

Here's a little conversation between me and Susa. Read it if you like.

SUSA:

"Oh, just throwing this out there. All drugs should be legal period. Nobody should be able to tell me what I can and cannot do to my body. As long as I don't harm others, I should be allowed to pursue my individual happiness."

Except many of those drugs influence your brain in a way that you may not even know you are hurting others.

I'm against Hallucinogens, and I know drugs like Cocaine tend to raise your level of violence. Haven't actually looked much into the effects of cocaine.

Me:

Hallucinogens like shrooms and cid are great, and have changed my life in positive ways.

But man, people are going to get their **** whether it's legal or not. I would love to converse about this more openly on the discussion topic if you don't mind; however if you don't feel comfortable I will continue here I suppose.

Susa:

I can't post in that topic, I'm a debater. :x

They may have influence your life in positive ways. I know people who have been killed because of them. I wouldn't consider that positive.

Also people react differently, and maybe people can have serious side-effects from taking drugs. (IIRC, Cocaine has a much larger risk of cardiac arrest)

Yes, people are going to get it whether or not it is legal. But should that mean that we make it legal? No. Hell no. Think of it like this:

"Child predators are going to molest children whether or not it is legal. So we should just legalize it."

While not 100% true, neither is people getting their drugs whether legal or not. (Although that holds true for a large portion of people)

ME:

I don't get it. You're a debater and you can't debate in the topics?

You don't know anybody who has been killed by mushrooms or acid, I guarantee you...unless there was poisons of some kind secretly added in, which can happen in the "black market". But think about this, if drugs were legalized, everything would be government regulated and people wouldn't have to deal with the "black market" altogether. Everything would be 100% legitimate, and the government would be held accountable to the contrary.

Quite true, people react differently to substances. I have allergic reactions to a lot of anti-biotics, for example. I don't use the ones that my body reacts negatively to, it's common sense. I'm not sure what point your getting at there. About your cocaine having bad side effects statement: I can overdose and kill myself on an over the counter medicine that I can obtain legally from a pharmacist with a degree, some of which are extremely addictive. I'd say dying is a pretty bad side effect, no? I know, lets make sleeping pills illegal, and Aspirin while we're at it.
Comparing child molesters to drug users is laughable, to be honest. Child molester's attack a victim, drug user's do not attack anybody (you can argue they attack themselves health-wise if you like, but so does a fat *** at McDonalds) Child molesters inflict negativity and harm upon their victim, the drug user once again has no victim, only his/herself. The constitution claims a right for individuals to pursue happiness, so if they can justify self-inflicted "harm" with happiness, they shouldn't be in the wrong at all.

SUSA:

I can't debate in the proving grounds.... only a select few can.

I guarantee you, I have. They did not die due to what the drug did to their body, but because of what it did to their mind. They weren't all there due to the effects of the drug.

My point is you never know until you do it. Some people have "bad highs". My cousin had one such that he had to have myself, and 3 of his friends hold him down because he wanted to kill himself. Also not to mention the crashes when coming off the drug (such as heroine, I happen to know an ex-addict. My best friends aunt, who is currently living with him and his family so they can keep watch over her for a while).

Drugs are far more addictive then over the counter medicines. They also have a far larger amount of people affected negatively then legal drugs. Also again, tell me what cocaine or PCP treats? I know sleeping pills help with insomnia which is a real, and terrible condition. (I should know, I am an insomniac. But I also don't take pills for it, because I don't take pills for anything unless I'd day if I didn't)

Also you can die from everything. You can die in your sleep, you can die from a heart attack, you can die because someone ran a red light, you can die because you were at the wrong place, at the wrong time. You can die because you slipped and fell and hit your head the wrong way. The government can't honestly make everything that can kill you illegal. You'd literally have to not exist. Staying inside your house can kill you, and leaving only increases those chances.

Ok, different comparison this time. I would personally love to not go to school, I see little purpose in it. (I can learn anything I can learn in school, online) however if I don't show up. I'm breaking the law. Is it better for my happiness? Yes. Is it better for society as a whole? Arguably not. Although it is beneficial in some ways.

Also drug users do affect those around them, thinking that they do not means you live in a perfect world. Again, drugs such as cocaine increase aggressive behaviors.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But if you truly understood why it says such, it is because the government could not promise property. It was a slightly changed point of view from John Locke's own "Life, liberty, and property". Considering we cannot promise land to everyone, we can promise them the pursuit of such land.

It depends how you infer the statement "pursuit of happiness", as there are several arguable and "correct" ways to view it.

ME:

You're friends dying of drug use..you aren't being specific and I understand if you don't feel comfortable telling me, but I can't help but suspect you saying that to strengthen your argument, not because it's true. Unless you can specifically explain to me what happened, I'm going to assume lack of knowledge on your part.

The incident with your cousin, same thing, you are being very vague.

Drugs are more addictive than otc medicines? That's an extremely vague, general, and only partially true statement at best. Marijuana, for example, isn't physically addictive what-so-ever, which is something I can't say about Codeine, for example. People end up in rehab for things like that, there are very addictive otc's.

Here's a story for you, I was diagnosed with ADD when I was younger, and I received Adderall, which is more or less SPEED (something I'd be ****ed for possessing on the street). I had a legitimate connection to speed, so to speak, and I began abusing. If you don't know, speed can be quite addictive. I stayed up for 4 days straight, and on the fourth day I crashed my car and totaled it. And this is something my DOCTOR was giving me LEGALLY.

The "you can die from everything" thing... I think if you were to apply that to what we are talking about, it would actually help my cause more than yours, although it relates very little to our argument. Did you know more people die from toaster ovens every year than weed? You can't stop stupid people from making stupid decisions.

The going to school comparison is just wack because you CAN learn from home, legally, even if it were a valid comparison to begin with.

"Also drug users do affect those around them, thinking that they do not means you live in a perfect world. Again, drugs such as cocaine increase aggressive behaviors."

The people of whom the user is affecting can always choose to dissociate with the user if they want. That's their choice, just like it's the user's choice to use.


And your "life liberty" rant is completely void of anything resembling an argument. You didn't really say anything at all here.

SUSA:

Then assume lack of knowledge, I dislike speaking about it. However cases of such incidents are not hard to research.

I'm not against Marijuana, I'm actually for the legalization of it.

That is only supporting my view of "don't legalize it". Also I'm against medicines for ADD because I honestly don't see it as a life ruining disorder. You don't see (AFAIK) anyone taking pills for OCD. If you did such a thing on a legal drug. What makes you think an illegal drug wouldn't do the same? And what would have happened if you crashed the car and killed someone in the process?

(That being said, I don't know why alcohol is legal as a drink...)

People don't die from weed, they die from the decisions they make while under the influence. (Try to overdose on weed and you'll lose the ability to even light up before you did). If you can argue strongly that drugs do not influence decisions, then yes my argument helped you.

You can, but not while enrolled, and currently (from what I researched) you are far more limited in further choices in life by doing so.

And if you care for said user? Self-inflicting harm may be bad for you, but it also affects those who care for you. I don't feel enough people realize this.

The rant was showing that "pursuit of happiness" may not be taken as quite literally as you think it is.

ME:

That's fine, I won't push you to talk about something you don't want to (even though you kinda already did).

"What makes you think an illegal drug wouldn't do the same? And what would have happened if you crashed the car and killed someone in the process?"

That is just it though, I am trying to show you legal drugs are just as bad as illegal drugs, only safer to obtain. Judging whether a substance is good or bad based on it's legality is dumb, that was the point I was trying to get across.

Lol, about your weed statement. I have smoke a ****load of herb in my lifetime, and I can get some of the best strains in existence. It's physically impossible to overdose on weed, as you would have to smoke your body weight's worth in an absurdly short amount of time. People have never died from weed, or the decisions they made while on it. People die from the decisions they make while mixing weed with other substances, but never weed alone.

If you were to legalize all drugs, then you just treat it like alcohol. Possessing the drugs shouldn't be illegal, but making bad decisions while under the influence should be, just like how alcohol works. IE: drinking and driving, drinking in public, are both against the law. People who are able to enjoy something in the comfort of his/her own home in a setting satisfactory to keeping the user and others out of harm, should be able to. And the people who cannot do things responsibly should be viewed upon as criminals, just like with alcohol.

SUSA:

Yes, but even then the risks are generally on a smaller proportion of society. Generally those who get addicted to something simply have an addictive personality. It's not specifically anything in the drug (such as Nicotine in cigarettes) that causes the addiction.

I hope you realized that is exactly what I said.... It is physically impossible to overdose on weed. Also that last statement is extremely difficult to argue for either side.

I'm actually against alcohol being legal.

ME:

I am going to post this conversation on the topic thread, and by the way I am against alcohol being legal more-so than almost any other drug in existence, so I'm with you on that one dude. It's a double standard in my opinion.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Me:

Hallucinogens like shrooms and cid are great, and have changed my life in positive ways.

But man, people are going to get their **** whether it's legal or not. I would love to converse about this more openly on the discussion topic if you don't mind; however if you don't feel comfortable I will continue here I suppose.

Again, how exactly did it change your life in positive ways? Gave you good hallucinations?
All drugs wear off after a while of continuous usage; they could do the same to you. When their effects become less and less, the addict wants more and more in order to stimulate his or herself, thus you may keep running for more.

Quite true, people react differently to substances. I have allergic reactions to a lot of anti-biotics, for example. I don't use the ones that my body reacts negatively to, it's common sense.

It is true that people react differently to substances, in your case, apparently mushrooms did you well. That may not be for other people; they could get sick or have an allergic reaction.

SUSA:
Also drug users do affect those around them, thinking that they do not means you live in a perfect world. Again, drugs such as cocaine increase aggressive behaviors.

This is true... Why do you state that drug users only affect themselves? It does increase aggressive behaviours.

SUSA:
People don't die from weed, they die from the decisions they make while under the influence. (Try to overdose on weed and you'll lose the ability to even light up before you did).
You can, but not while enrolled, and currently (from what I researched) you are far more limited in further choices in life by doing so.

By doing drugs, Smoke and Smash, you are limiting your life choices. Should you get a job, love life, or anything else, these drugs will surely interfere; problems shall arise. Also, smoking too much may cause lung problems. They may not appear now, but wait until later in life, they will possibly endanger your life.

SUSA:

Yes, but even then the risks are generally on a smaller proportion of society. Generally those who get addicted to something simply have an addictive personality. It's not specifically anything in the drug (such as Nicotine in cigarettes) that causes the addiction.

It seems many people have this 'addictive personality', and once these drugs are consumed, they need more and more. Again, losing your life chances for something actually positive to happen. Should they legalize all of these dangerous drugs, so many people with the addictive personality will strive for large amounts of this drug, which may result in more deaths. Again, legalizing drugs for money and profit at the possible cost of human life!? It seems appalling.

I found this whole conversation interesting, yet I saw some things that I might want to give my opinion on.

Also, this topic is for the legalization of marijuana itself, not the other, more threatening drugs.

 

[Smoke and smash]

Yes I know our conversation was a little off topic, but I posted it because I hoped it would spark some conversation, or at least controversy.

Omnicron: I'm really glad that you asked about my experiences with psychedelics. Every time I take mushrooms, after my peak towards the end of my trip, I get out a pen and paper. I begin to heavily reflect upon myself and my thoughts, and I begin to write down whatever spontaneously feels important enough to write, or sometimes my mind is perplexing over a certain topic, and basically I express my mind on to the paper. While on mushrooms, my mind becomes very analytical. I also seem to gain a lot of depth as far as perspective goes. Anyway, I write down my thoughts in case I cannot remember them later, and so far this has benefited me. It has helped me discover myself in a whole new way, and above all it has taught me great philosophical wisdom. I still have the original paper that I used the first time I tripped on shrooms, and some of the more outstanding things on it are :

"Gain perspective" - This was important for me as I finally realized how narrow minded I used to be (and probably still am). I wake up everyday and look at that phrase and I always keep it in mind. It has become an essential part of my thought process now.

"Comfort In Repetition" - I had no idea that I behaved this way. But after taking mushrooms, it became very clear that I am a creature of habit. I still am hehe but I am working on breaking down this mental wall I developed.

I just wanted to share those two things in particular, as a lot of the other things I wrote down are very personal to me.

These things aside, after I had taken mushrooms, I had felt "mentally cleansed". I can't describe this to you very well, and I'm not sure what I have been cleansed of exactly. But I definitely felt that I was a better person after having taken mushrooms, and to this day that feeling persists.

When I said mushrooms have affected me in positive ways, I didn't mean the hallucinations. The hallucinations were amazing and I enjoyed my experiences thoroughly, but there is greater good in all of it.
By the way I only take mushrooms a few times per year at most, one eighth each time. The "spirit world" is a place (or perhaps state of mind) that should be reserved for a few select occasions, as I feel moderation is key for getting the most out of your trip.


Yeah some people don't handle certain substances very well. I know people who freak out and get overly paranoid to the point of an anxiety attack while on THC. I on the other hand, I love my THC and treat it like vitamins haha.
I'm also willing to bet there's people out there who wouldn't do well with shrooms. If they have a weak stomach for example, they are most likely going to vomit and end their trip early. I even bet there's a group of people who would suffer bad allergic reactions if they were to ingest mushrooms. People can be allergic to **** near anything.

Moving on...I never actually said that drug user only affects himself, and if I did somewhere I apologize because that isn't always true. But my point about this issue is this : if you know a drug user and his/her drug use is somehow affecting your life in a negative way, feel free to disassociate with that individual, as that is a choice you are perfectly capable of making, JUST like the user chooses to use. If this person is close to you and you feel you want to help them, that is also your choice. Also, please note that I believe if any drug user abuses his/her substance(s) of choice to the point where other people's lives are danger, then that should be a crime. Not just a crime, but a crime with a severe penalty. Certain people's dumb actions shouldn't ruin it for the rest of the population, and by making strict laws it will be easy to punish those deserving it.

By doing drugs, I am not limiting my options at all. I happen to personally know very successful people and also people with extreme potential for success, some of the smartest people you'll ever meet who smoke weed and partake in other illegal activities. Some of them, like my dad fore example, I happen to look up to and have massive amounts of respect for.

And for the record, smoking CIGARETTES causes lung problems, but as far as marijuana is concerned, there has never been any serious studies that concluded it causes cancer. http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer
In fact, new studies are revealing that marijuana is actually anti-cancerous, and can even reduce tumor size. http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy_main/2007/apr/18/cannabis_doesnt_cause_cancer_but
Oh, and I hope you don't believe smoking weed kills brain cells because it most certainly doesn't.
Get this, marijuana has actually been found to promote new brain cell growth! http://news.healingwell.com/index.php?p=news1&id=528519

You can find many, many more sources to confirm what I am saying here if you'd like.


And lastly, yes some people have "addictive personalities". This is not the result of drug use, but in fact vise-versa: their drug use is the result of their personality or perhaps other mental/psychological problems. People who possess this type of personality are going to vent and express their personality one way or another, be it drugs or something else. The solution is not to hide drugs from them (believe me, they will find what they want one way or another, and it would be better to just avoid the black market), but to seek mental guidance or some kind of therapy perhaps. I am not a psychologist, so I can't help much in that area, but there are probably people who can.




Way, way, way off topic, but not completely ; why am I being told my avatar can't have drug references in it?

We can converse about drugs, but we can't see pictures of them? Smash players post videos with music that some people would consider "obscene". They obtain curses, sexual references in the lyrics, etc. So what's the problem with me?

 

[-ACE-]

Actually, weed is worse for your lungs, because it has a good deal more carcinogens, and weed smokers tend to inhale more deeply, thus getting more smoke into their lungs.

This argument would hold more water if we weren't typically comparing one or two joints to approximately 10-20 cigarettes (or more).

I certainly don't think that we are ready to legalize all drugs. In fact, at the current time I cannot see myself ever supporting such a decision. With regard to the effects of overdose, dependence, and withdrawal, marijuana is in a completely different class than drugs such as heroine, methamphetamine, and even alcohol (the list goes on). It is virtually impossible to take in a fatal dose of marijuana, and with the exception of cases involving extreme consumption, marijuana's worst effects are temporary. Typically, high doses of marijuana lead to increased appetite, bloodshot/watery eyes, increased goofiness (for lack of a better word), a temporary decease in motivation, and the existence of creative (yet perhaps highly impractical) thoughts. Although no list of side effects is unabridged, I believe that the consequences of casual marijuana use are far exceeded in severity by those linked to (but not limited to) the drugs I have mentioned above.

One very important point which CStick lightly brushed upon was regulating marijuana use while driving an automobile. How exactly will it be regulated? With alcohol, a very accurate and practical method of testing one's level of intoxication is used. Could the same be done for marijuana intoxication? Are road-side sobriety tests enough? How much marijuana is too much, and more importantly, how can we measure this amount effectively? How easy would it be for a police officer to claim that you are "high" and feel that this is reasonable suspicion to search your vehicle? I'm not trying to steer this thread in several directions at once, but this is one issue that is a cause for concern. One thing is certain: if marijuana were to be legalized, people would be driving while intoxicated regularly (and by this I mean more often than they already do), which in my opinion is a large speed bump in the path of the legalization of marijuana.