Should marijuana be legal?

[daytimeninja]

I personally am a NORML (national organization for the reform of marijuana laws) supporter, and think marijuana should be legalized.

To me, I just mainly don't understand why it is illegal. I think it's safer than being drunk, it doesn't cause alcoholism and the other troubles that come with alcohol, and it allows a different perspective on life.

I'm not saying that you should be allowed to smoke and drive, or operate machinery, because that in itself is a bad idea, as well as many other things while high. Smoking marijuana takes responsibility as does alcohol.

I think that if marijuana is legalized, it would stop many of the dangers of drug trafficking, it would lessen the sale of marijuana to children, and would lessen drug crime in communities.

I would like to know your thoughts....

 

[blazedaces]

I personally am a NORML (national organization for the reform of marijuana laws) supporter, and think marijuana should be legalized.

To me, I just mainly don't understand why it is illegal. I think it's safer than being drunk, it doesn't cause alcoholism and the other troubles that come with alcohol, and it allows a different perspective on life.

I'm not saying that you should be allowed to smoke and drive, or operate machinery, because that in itself is a bad idea, as well as many other things while high. Smoking marijuana takes responsibility as does alcohol.

I think that if marijuana is legalized, it would stop many of the dangers of drug trafficking, it would lessen the sale of marijuana to children, and would lessen drug crime in communities.

I would like to know your thoughts....

The problem isn't with the reasoning... because there simply aren't good reasons against legalizing it. The problem is that no politician can actually make a case for legalizing marijuana that would pass. No one would support him. No one would vote for it amongst the people he needs to convince.

As such, the resources required to even make such a stand is simply not worth it right now...

-blazed

 

[daytimeninja]

The problem isn't with the reasoning... because there simply aren't good reasons against legalizing it. The problem is that no politician can actually make a case for legalizing marijuana that would pass. No one would support him. No one would vote for it amongst the people he needs to convince.

As such, the resources required to even make such a stand is simply not worth it right now...

-blazed

Yes, that is a very good point, but the question is, do YOU think it should be? I don't think it will be fully legalized anytime soon sadly...

 

[dj_pwn1423]

there is a reason they call it "gateway drug." Its because people eventually grow "bored" of it and go for the stronger drugs. This would actually cause an increase in the trafficking of other drugs.

Its true legalizing marijuana could decrease the sales to minors, but that would actually be a BAD thing. Teenagers wouldn't need to worry about coming up with the money to buy marijuana anymore. They could just get it for free from their parents. Do you have any idea of how easy it is to obtain alcohol or cigarettes from your own house if your parents drink/smoke?

Also, just like blaze said, theres isn't really a good reason for marijuana to be legalized.

 

[daytimeninja]

there is a reason they call it "gateway drug." Its because people eventually grow "bored" of it and go for the stronger drugs. This would actually cause an increase in the trafficking of other drugs.

Its true legalizing marijuana could decrease the sales to minors, but that would actually be a BAD thing. Teenagers wouldn't need to worry about coming up with the money to buy marijuana anymore. They could just get it for free from their parents. Do you have any idea of how easy it is to obtain alcohol or cigarettes from your own house if your parents drink/smoke?

Also, just like blaze said, theres isn't really a good reason for marijuana to be legalized.

Marijuana isn't a gateway drug. Dumb kids just see how good it is, then think that other, more dangerous drugs will intensify the effect. Anyone who gets "bored" of marijuana is very...different.

 

[dj_pwn1423]

Marijuana isn't a gateway drug.
Dumb kids just see how good it is, then think that other, more dangerous drugs will intensify the effect.

Anyone who gets "bored" of marijuana is very...different.

Addiction is not a manner of free will as you seem to think. It has more to do with biochemical reactions inside our bodies.
People consuming drugs eventually receive less chemical stimuli and as a result look for stronger drugs, thats why I put apostrophes around the world bored.(and yes the stronger drugs do intensify the effect)


edit: You didn't address some of the points in my previous post.

 

[Kur]

This is a tough one.

Legal marijuana would probably lead to less drug trafficking and all those things you mention, but it would also lead to an increase in underage users as well. If marijuana is legal then what is to stop kids from just snagging a few joints from their parents the same way they do regular cigarettes?

And I am glad you know driving while smoking is dangerous, but will that stop people from doing it? Even now when it is illegal, people still smoke and drive all the time. And when you are high, your judgment is impaired just as it is when you are drunk. This is why normally responsible people do stupid things when they are drunk or high. They simply do not know better, or think they are not impaired. This leads to drunk driving and driving under the influence.

"and it allows a different perspective on life" No. It doesn't. What it does is alter your mind and not in any good way. You simply become desensitized and intellectually suppressed. You basically see things the way a ****** does. There is nothing good about this.

There are also long term mental effects to this drug that most if not all supporters simply deny. I know these effects are real because there are two adult members of my family, each has been using for more than 25 years, that are at a point now where they can no longer take care of themselves. They used to be pretty smart people but now have trouble paying attention, holding a job, or even thinking clearly. These effects might take 5 years, 10 years, or 30 years to take effect, but they do.

From a purely "basic human rights" point of view, yes, everybody has the right to do whatever they want with their own body. BUT, that right stops as soon as it begins to infringe on somebody elses rights. Smoking pot very often becomes an infringement on others right because people will drive while high, causing accidents and deaths. People will leave joints out on the table for not only their own children, but their childrens friends to find and use. People will become mentally damaged from years of abuse and will be no longer able to care for themselves or their families.

And yes, marijuana is a gateway drug. You know as well as I do that eventually the high becomes less intense, you need to smoke more often for the same high the longer you use. Eventually some people try a different drug their body is not so used to. My brother started with pot and ended up on cocaine. One of my cousins started on pot and ended up on heroine. Another of my cousins started on pot and ended up on meth.

Thankfully my brother managed to clean up after almost losing his daughter and my two cousins are now in rehab. But it is to late for my aunt, my uncle (now dead) and my father (homeless in another state).


I believe everybody has the right to do what they want with their bodies. But certain things like marijuana, other drugs, and alcohol, cloud the mind leaving people unable to make responsible decisions. For this reason alone they should all be illegal.

If the drugs didn't affect the ability to make decisions, then fine, smoke until it kills you for all I care. One less idiot in the world to bother me. And yes, you have to be an idiot to willingly take into your body such a dangerous substance.

 

[blazedaces]

there is a reason they call it "gateway drug." Its because people eventually grow "bored" of it and go for the stronger drugs. This would actually cause an increase in the trafficking of other drugs.

Its true legalizing marijuana could decrease the sales to minors, but that would actually be a BAD thing. Teenagers wouldn't need to worry about coming up with the money to buy marijuana anymore. They could just get it for free from their parents. Do you have any idea of how easy it is to obtain alcohol or cigarettes from your own house if your parents drink/smoke?

Also, just like blaze said, theres isn't really a good reason for marijuana to be legalized.

Excuse me, I said there isn't a good reason not to legalize it.

The only reason it's anything close to a gateway drug today is because it is illegal. If it was legal this would not be the case. It's the same problem with making the drinking age 21. It's socially acceptable all over the country to drink once you're 18 (at least) and so people do it anyway despite the fact that it's legal because the law is quite literally stupid.

Then we have people already committing illegal acts so they do not have any respect for the law or for breaking it again. It's the same thing with marijuana. People who try marijuana sometimes try other drugs because they group them all together under the umbrella of "illegal substances".

Marijuana is one of the least harmful drugs in existence today. There are legal drugs attainable at your local pharmacy that do more damage (and if you're going to argue for their medicinal purposes don't forgot there are plenty of medicinal purposes for marijuana). I'm not even going to get started on alcohol and tobacco and how much incredibly more harmful they are to your body...

The argument for claiming it's a "gateway drug" is based on nothing. The evidence you might use to prove it could just as easily prove that caffeine, alcohol, or tobacco are gateway drugs. It's a made up concept used by people to argue against the legalization of the drug... that's all.

-blazed

Edit: When I posted I had not seen Kur's post yet (he must have still been typing before I clicked reply) so I'd like to address one point of his:

The entire case about driving while high is answered by the fact that we would simply have laws against driving while high just like how we have laws against driving while drunk. Unless you're going to argue for the banning of alcohol as well you can't use this as a valid argument.

 

[Kur]

Edit: When I posted I had not seen Kur's post yet (he must have still been typing before I clicked reply) so I'd like to address one point of his:

The entire case about driving while high is answered by the fact that we would simply have laws against driving while high just like how we have laws against driving while drunk. Unless you're going to argue for the banning of alcohol as well you can't use this as a valid argument.

You think having a law is going to stop anybody from driving while high? I know you know marijuana impairs judgment. People will get completely baked and drive to the circle K for some munchies. They don't even consider that driving while high is dangerous or that they shouldn't do it.

You know I am right. You just want to be able to buy weed at walgreens so you deny anything negative about pot.

And as I have said, there are serious health risks involved with smoking marijuana. But again, you simply ignore them because you don't want to hear it. Not even concerning the long term brain damage, what makes you think sucking the ash from burning plant matter and paper into your lungs, is not bad for you? Seriously, think about it... wait until the high wears off, then think about it.

 

[blazedaces]

You think having a law is going to stop anybody from driving while high? I know you know marijuana impairs judgment. People will get completely baked and drive to the circle K for some munchies. They don't even consider that driving while high is dangerous or that they shouldn't do it.

Again, this argument applied to alcohol. Alcohol has similar detrimental effects to your judgement, yet it's legal. Unless you're going to argue for the banning of alcohol as well you can't argue that the idea is a bad one. There are many laws that people might think to break, but the whole point of laws is to enforce them. We can enforce this the same way we enforce drinking and driving (ads and such plus education and awareness).

You know I am right. You just want to be able to buy weed at walgreens so you deny anything negative about pot.

How is this an argument? Grow up. I've never smoked marijuana and at this point in my life I don't think I ever will... but that doesn't change the truth at all. You can buy tobacco and alcohol at local stores... what does this have to do with the subject at hand?!

And as I have said, there are serious health risks involved with smoking marijuana. But again, you simply ignore them because you don't want to hear it. Not even concerning the long term brain damage, what makes you think sucking the ash from burning plant matter and paper into your lungs, is not bad for you? Seriously, think about it... wait until the high wears off, then think about it.

You didn't bring up any serious health risks as of yet. You don't know of any, you just assume they exist.

You can not die of an overdose on marijuana. It's literally not powerful enough. There has never been a case of it in all of medical history ever. Marijuana is also non-addictive (chemically), unlike alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana only harms because you're filling your lungs with smoke... and it's less harmful than tobacco so you still have no case unless you argue for banning tobacco/nicotine as well.

You can give me all the stories you want, I don't care about anecdotal evidence. Give me hard facts and numbers because that's the only evidence I'm going to accept. Even if you prove conclusively (which you won't because believe me I've looked up these facts before) that there's some kind of brain-damaging long-term effect of using marijuana it still won't matter because tobacco and alcohol both have harmful long term effects and are still legal.

You don't get it. Why do you think I said there are no good arguments against its legalization? Because I feel like a broken record saying these things. I don't need to think or come up with much. I just have to keep pointing to things that are far worse that are already legal and all the arguments just fall apart...

-blazed

 

[dj_pwn1423]

Excuse me, I said there isn't a good reason not to legalize it.

The only reason it's anything close to a gateway drug today is because it is illegal. If it was legal this would not be the case.

Read my second post for this please. I don't want to repost what I said

It's the same problem with making the drinking age 21. It's socially acceptable all over the country to drink once you're 18 (at least) and so people do it anyway despite the fact that it's legal because the law is quite literally stupid.

I'm curious, why do you think that law is so stupid?
You must remember, just because something is socially acceptable it doest mean it is right.
See eugenics.

Then we have people already committing illegal acts so they do not have any respect for the law or for breaking it again. It's the same thing with marijuana. People who try marijuana sometimes try other drugs because they group them all together under the umbrella of "illegal substances".

I'm assuming that you are talking about teenagers and peer pressure. I agree sometimes people try illegal substances because it is trendy. However, I think we can all agree that even if they legalized marijuana, it would still be kept out of the reach of minors. This means that teenagers like these will still take marijuana simply because they are not supposed to.

Marijuana is one of the least harmful drugs in existence today. There are legal drugs attainable at your local pharmacy that do more damage (and if you're going to argue for their medicinal purposes don't forgot there are plenty of medicinal purposes for marijuana).

Marijuana has many useful medical properties. Medical marijuana is legal in plenty of states right now. I see nothing wrong with that.

I'm not even going to get started on alcohol and tobacco and how much incredibly more harmful they are to your body...

I don't see why we should legalize a drug just because more harmful substances are available. Its like saying we should allow items in brawl tournaments just because there is already randomness involved. Thats just making things worse.

I also don't understand how you can think that alcohol is so harmful, and at the same time say that a law made to regulate its consumption is stupid.

The argument for claiming it's a "gateway drug" is based on nothing. The evidence you might use to prove it could just as easily prove that caffeine, alcohol, or tobacco are gateway drugs. It's a made up concept used by people to argue against the legalization of the drug... that's all.

But it is not just a concept. Like I said in my previous post, after a while the person will experience a lack of stimuli by marijuana. Thats the reason some people crave stronger drugs.

Edit: When I posted I had not seen Kur's post yet (he must have still been typing before I clicked reply) so I'd like to address one point of his:


The entire case about driving while high is answered by the fact that we would simply have laws against driving while high just like how we have laws against driving while drunk. Unless you're going to argue for the banning of alcohol as well you can't use this as a valid argument.

People will ignore this, just as they ignore the National Minimum Drinking Age Act.


Granted this particular drug may not be that bad, but I still haven't seen a strong reason for non medical marijuana to be legalized.

EDIT: I'm editing alot of mistakes right now so your eyes don't bleed to much. I'm sorry its pretty late.

 

[blazedaces]

Well... I did see your edit... but I noticed almost no difference so perhaps by the time I clicked reply you had made all the necessary changes? Tell me if I made a mistake somewhere...

Read my second post for this please. I don't want to repost what I said

there is a reason they call it "gateway drug." Its because people eventually grow "bored" of it and go for the stronger drugs. This would actually cause an increase in the trafficking of other drugs.

Its true legalizing marijuana could decrease the sales to minors, but that would actually be a BAD thing. Teenagers wouldn't need to worry about coming up with the money to buy marijuana anymore. They could just get it for free from their parents. Do you have any idea of how easy it is to obtain alcohol or cigarettes from your own house if your parents drink/smoke?

Also, just like blaze said, theres isn't really a good reason for marijuana to be legalized.

The first part I sort of already responded to. The second part is circumstantial and negligible. Show me some evidence that makes this number relevant. The number of teenagers who currently use marijuana is an enormous percentage. Decreasing the trafficking of the substance would be far outweigh a slight amount that teenagers can attain.

Can I ask you something? Do you know of any dealers who sell tobacco? Have you ever heard of such a thing? Do you know why? You're intelligent enough, I'm sure you understand where I'm going with this.

Even if you prove all this, I'm still going with the same is true for tobacco and alcohol, so unless you vie for their ban, you can't argue against the legalization for marijuana.

I'm curious, why do you think that law is so stupid?
You must remember, just because something is socially acceptable it doest mean it is right.
See eugenics.

Fine, I'll take it back simply because I want to stay on topic. If we want to argue the 21-drinking-age issue there was a thread for it a long time ago. Still, let's try to stay on topic in this thread.

I'm assuming that you are talking about teenagers and peer pressure. I agree sometimes people try illegal substances because it is trendy. However, I think we can all agree that even if they legalized marijuana, it should still be kept out of the reach of minors. That said, this means that teenagers like these will still take drugs simply because they are not supposed to.

Actually, even with my drinking example I was talking about people ages 18 and up. Again, I take back what I said about the drinking age, please forgive me. But to move on, what I said had nothing to do with teenagers. There's a line of legality that once people have crossed they see no difference between anything on the other side of the line. Does that explain it any better?

People group all illegal drugs together. Also, if we legalized marijuana there would be some kind of education to show how certain drugs are more harmful than others. Today, most anti-drug education programs do the same thing people do when they try illegal drugs: they group them all together. They argue against marijuana as well as cocaine, heroine, and the other "hard" drugs. They argue that they are all just as harmful and it's almost like they're trying to convince people that once you do even one of them it's just as bad as if you do all of them. Do you see why I think this is a bad thing?

I don't see why why should legalize a drug just because more harmful substances are available. Its like saying we should allow items in brawl tournaments just because there is already randomness involved. Thats just making things worse.

This isn't a good example because in brawl people really don't like the randomness (the ones who argue heavily against items) usually and so if they had it their way the randomness would be dismissed. There isn't really a choice any more... But people would argue against both, not just one.

Do you see why my argument still stands? If you're going to argue against the legalization of marijuana you have to argue against the legalization of alcohol and tobacco. If you want to take that stance it's fine by me, but you probably realize the practical implications that poses and maybe then you'll see the same practical implications apply to marijuana.

I also don't understand how you can think that alcohol is so harmful, and at the same time say that a law made to regulate its consumption is stupid.

While I'm incredibly tempted to make a comment right now I'm just going to ignore that urge and remind you again, that I refute my previous statement. Let's just stay on this topic for now...

but it is not just a concept. Like I said in my previous post, after a while the person will experience a lack of stimuli by marijuana. Thats the reason some people crave stronger drugs.

You didn't respond to the exact response I was about to give to this... Why not? The reasoning you're using here can apply to alcohol, tobacco, or even caffeine. It's not a strong argument against the legalization of marijuana. It's still only a concept because it's speculative. You have provided no evidence to show this is a reason to try a harder drug any more than just sheer curiosity.

People will ignore this, just as they ignore the National Minimum Drinking Age Act.

Which would be reasoning for why they might ignore a national minimum smoking of marijuana age act... but not good reasoning for why they would ignore driving while high/drunk laws considering (while people still do it at times) it's a fairly well respected law (the one for drinking while driving). I don't know when was the last time I heard someone joke about breaking that law...

Granted this particular drug may not be that bad, but I still haven't seen a strong reason for non medical marijuana to be legalized.

The reason is simple and economical:

-Currently, keeping it illegal causes it to be heavily dealt on the black market. If it was legal we could control it and benefit from taxing it. We could also properly educate people about it (which we currently do not).

A few reasons I'm coming up with now as well, though I think more might exist (these are just pluses):
-It's not very harmful and certainly not as harmful as other drugs already legal.
-Medicinal marijuana would be easier to obtain where currently it is not so...

 

[Kur]

Again, this argument applied to alcohol. Alcohol has similar detrimental effects to your judgement, yet it's legal. Unless you're going to argue for the banning of alcohol as well you can't argue that the idea is a bad one. There are many laws that people might think to break, but the whole point of laws is to enforce them. We can enforce this the same way we enforce drinking and driving (ads and such plus education and awareness).

I don't think you are paying attention.

I believe everybody has the right to do what they want with their bodies. But certain things like marijuana, other drugs, and alcohol, cloud the mind leaving people unable to make responsible decisions. For this reason alone they should all be illegal.

I also pointed out that these substances cloud judgment. You can't think straight while high or drunk so no amount of laws, enforcement, or education will stop an already high or drunk person from getting behind the wheel.

How is this an argument? Grow up. I've never smoked marijuana and at this point in my life I don't think I ever will... but that doesn't change the truth at all. You can buy tobacco and alcohol at local stores... what does this have to do with the subject at hand?!

The point is that most people that are in favor of the legalization of marijuana are already using it. They don't want it legal because of medicinal effects, or to reduce drug related crime. They want it legal so they don't have to go into shady back alleys and keep an eye out for cops. They don't care about anything other than being able to smoke in public without fear of being arrested.

You didn't bring up any serious health risks as of yet. You don't know of any, you just assume they exist.

You can not die of an overdose on marijuana. It's literally not powerful enough. There has never been a case of it in all of medical history ever. Marijuana is also non-addictive (chemically), unlike alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana only harms because you're filling your lungs with smoke... and it's less harmful than tobacco so you still have no case unless you argue for banning tobacco/nicotine as well.

You can give me all the stories you want, I don't care about anecdotal evidence. Give me hard facts and numbers because that's the only evidence I'm going to accept. Even if you prove conclusively (which you won't because believe me I've looked up these facts before) that there's some kind of brain-damaging long-term effect of using marijuana it still won't matter because tobacco and alcohol both have harmful long term effects and are still legal.

I assume they exist? Doctors and addiction medicine specialists confirm two of my family members are partially brain damaged as a direct result of the long term use of marijuana, and I am assuming things? Ever heard of Dr. Drew? Give him a call and ask him about it. You want evidence for the long term effects of smoking weed? Here:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

Only took 2 seconds to google it.

And marijuana is extremely addictive. Even if it is not addictive chemically, who cares? Addiction is addiction whether chemical or not. People who try to quit marijuana still have withdrawls, anxiety, irritability, and sleeplessness. My brother has been clean for over a year but to this day still really craves a joint and has taken up smoking regular cigarettes to try to curb the withdrawls.

It is also worth noting that addiction is NOT simply being hooked on drugs and unable to stop. Addiction is being unable to stop doing something in spite of negative consequences. If you are on drugs and begin to fail at school or lose your job, or you run out of money and resort to theft, yet you keep using, then you are addicted.

You don't get it. Why do you think I said there are no good arguments against its legalization? Because I feel like a broken record saying these things. I don't need to think or come up with much. I just have to keep pointing to things that are far worse that are already legal and all the arguments just fall apart...

-blazed

You keep bringing up the fact that booze and cigarettes are legal.

To that I say.. So?

Just because something bad is legal means all bad things should be legal? Are you nuts? If something bad is legal, instead of pushing for more bad stuff to be ok, we should be pushing for the legal bad stuff to be banned! If we just keep making things legal because something (arguably) worse is legal, then we are basically throwing ourselves into the crapper where anything goes and ****ed if it is bad for you or anybody else.

Again, I am going to say that the reason these things should be illegal is because once you are using them, your reason, logic, decision making ability, coordination, and motor skills go out the window. You simply can not understand that driving is a bad idea if you want to do it while high. IF those mind altering effects could be removed from the drug (making it basically useless as a drug anyway) then I would be all for letting people smoke it till they choke.

And marijuana is not less harmful than booze or cigarettes. The link I gave shows that.

 

[dj_pwn1423]

double post. please ignore this.

 

[dj_pwn1423]

The reason is simple and economical:

-Currently, keeping it illegal causes it to be heavily dealt on the black market. If it was legal we could control it and benefit from taxing it. We could also properly educate people about it (which we currently do not).

I believe that marijuana is actually better on the black market. It makes it much harder for kids to obtain (not that it is that hard, but whatever).
Of course, you can argue that these people can make money out of marijuana that can be used for other illegal activities, but they can always count on other drugs to make a profit. I doubt things would change much when it comes to the black market.

Concerning the lack of tobacco dealers anywhere. People don't feel the need to buy of dealers because there are much cheaper options. This includes minors. They can find whatever they want at their own houses for free.

For whatever reason, I see more underage kids smoking tobacco rather than marijuana.

A few reasons I'm coming up with now as well, though I think more might exist (these are just pluses):
-It's not very harmful and certainly not as harmful as other drugs already legal.
-Medicinal marijuana would be easier to obtain where currently it is not so...

I'm not at all against the use of marijuana when it comes to adults, as long as they are not driving. But the thing is, legalizing marijuana, even though not as harmful as other substances, would probably bring more problems than seemingly superficial solutions (some people just want to have a good time apparently).

Teenage drivers cause more accidents than any other group. Give them a little joint, and I think they will care just a little bit less about the law. We already have enough problems with drunk drivers. No reason we should make it worse.

It would be nice if we could ban alcohol to but thats just not going to happen. We already know where that leads. However, sustaining a ban on marijuana is much easier than suntanning a ban on alcohol. Beer is just way more popular.

 

[Ryancbigfoot]

For me I think it should be legal because most kids only do it cause they can't. And I also think that if it not legal it should not be enforced hard at all, like if you go to the airport with 50 pounds of weed in your backpack, yeah you should be arrested but if you want to destroy your lungs in your own house go right ahead.

 

[cF=)]

Why not posting in the drug topic? I already gave my arguments about that:

- Tobacco and alcohol are perfectly legal, thus illegal marijuana is a double standard hold by the government. The only reason why we're stuck in this situation is because racist remarks were done to both mexicans and blacks who came in the United-States in the beginning of the 20th century.

- The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't consume in the limits of my own liberty. Regulations done on alcohol and driving are fine the way they are, and could be applied to other substances that we decides to make legal (ie: marijuana).

- It is not legal, as of now, because pharmaceutical corporates are pushing it not to be. Around the 1930's, the cotton industry was gaining momentum but was still overwhelmed by the hemp industry already in place. To avoid fighting in a market already dominated by the strongest natural fibre in the world, an act was passed to make marijuana illegal. The profits were now all took by the cotton market.

I got much more in my other topic, go take a look.

 

[blazedaces]

Kur, a quick statement: I apologize for what I said earlier. I realize it sounded a bit harsh (edit: and by a bit harsh I mean immature, rude, inconsiderate, and downright childish) and I'm honestly very sorry for the situation your family members are currently in...

That being said, your own site argued that marijuana was just about as harmful as other drugs... and the only comparison it made is one time where it claimed that it's arguably more harmful smoked through the lungs "per puff". Yet the average marijuana user smokes much less often than the average cigarette smoker which nullifies this statement.

It also (just as I claimed) made no attempt to differentiate this drug to other ones (beside a slight percentage at the start about the number of times hospital accidents involve the drug...) that are arguably much worse (alcohol is highest on that list, nearly quadrupling marijuana in hospital-related occurrences).

Also, your site and none that you can actually find disagree with an earlier statement of mine: you can not "OD" on marijuana. It's never happened and it's literally not a strong enough drug. The harm coming from marijuana are it's side effects coupled with lack of responsibility. Responsible usage can be educated, not shoved under the rug.

On your last point if you're going to argue for the banning of alcohol and tobacco:

We all know exactly what happened during prohibition. This is my exact reasoning for making marijuana legal: economic benefit outweighs economic cost.

I believe that marijuana is actually better on the black market. It makes it much harder for kids to obtain (not that it is that hard, but whatever).
Of course, you can argue that these people can make money out of marijuana that can be used for other illegal activities, but they can always count on other drugs to make a profit. I doubt things would change much when it comes to the black market.

Concerning the lack of tobacco dealers anywhere. People don't feel the need to buy of dealers because there are much cheaper options. This includes minors. They can find whatever they want at their own houses for free.

For whatever reason, I see more underage kids smoking tobacco rather than marijuana.

Use the very site that Kur posted ( http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html )
and now compare it with the following site on cigarette rates amongst high school students: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5323a1.htm

Notice something? I was honestly a bit surprised, but I would have to say that these statistics aren't exactly comparable per say, yet still, the numbers (remember to combine male and female together) aren't too different. Even the annual usage (as opposed to lifetime) are fairly close.

Also, while I know I've been guilty of this too, it doesn't make it right. Statements like "I see..." are not valid here. Please try to back up your statements with evidence or I'm not going to accept it...

What does this tell us: marijuana usage while illegal is nearly as high as tobacco usage that is legal. Your argument is completely void. Just as many children currently obtain cigarettes. Also, the tobacco industry makes plenty of money. It's not worried about a few kids that slip through the cracks and steal from their parents. Also, you're ignoring the fact that they're not stealing from the store, but from their parents. Economy still wins.

Economically, while the numbers stay relatively the same in usage, legally we would benefit a tremendous amount economically by making marijuana legal.

I'm not at all against the use of marijuana when it comes to adults, as long as they are not driving. But the thing is, legalizing marijuana, even though not as harmful as other substances, would probably bring more problems than seemingly superficial solutions (some people just want to have a good time apparently).

Teenage drivers cause more accidents than any other group. Give them a little joint, and I think they will care just a little bit less about the law. We already have enough problems with drunk drivers. No reason we should make it worse.

It would be nice if we could ban alcohol to but thats just not going to happen. We already know where that leads. However, sustaining a ban on marijuana is much easier than suntanning a ban on alcohol. Beer is just way more popular.

I was going to think of another good argument (this assumes I could think of one, I know... ) ... but again, this argument is completely meaningless.

The numbers show that the number of teenagers doing it and smoking are nearly the same. Predictably you can't argue that the numbers would rise that much anymore.

There's a few inherent problems with keeping marijuana illegal though: both educators and people group it with all illegal activity. I have many friends who for some reason or another are perfectly willing to drive while high but would never drive while drunk... Why? Because when was the last commercial you saw against driving while high (I know they do exist).

Let's even ignore commercials. The entire education system doesn't reinforce this notion. All it does is give you reasons to stay away from all drugs (which for some reason they seclude from alcohol, even though it should be called an abusive drug). It's like sex education in catholic schools (from what I've heard, this is just an analogy, so if I'm wrong, I apologize).

You guys, I want to make this point really clear now: banning something does not necessarily stop it from happening! It's banned now and to be quite frank all attempts to slow it down have failed (anti-drug programs have been proven to fail, perhaps if they changed the way they educated from "just say no" to something a little smarter). When you guys understand that you'll agree with me...

-blazed

 

[Kitten]

EDIT: This post ended up a lot longer than I intended. Appy polly loggies.

I don't see why we should legalize a drug just because more harmful substances are available. Its like saying we should allow items in brawl tournaments just because there is already randomness involved. Thats just making things worse.

Except marijuana isn't really very bad for you. Let me go through the negative effects:

Tar in the lungs - negligible by vapouriser use or cooking.
Cancer from combustion of plant matter - negligible by vapouriser use or cooking.
All non brain related health concerns - negligible by vapouriser use or cooking.

Vapourising is easy. I have a vapouriser I made out of a light bulb that works plenty good and took about 5 minutes to make.

I would like to say before anyone says 'very few people vapourise marijuana' that this is partially due to lack of knowledge of the existence of vapourisation and also lack of knowledge of its benefits. People could easily be educated about the benefits of vapourisation were marijuana to ever become legal. And it still remains that many of the effects of marijuana only exist if you choose for them to exist. Smoking is bad for you whether you smoke lights or not, and drinking will always be bad for you too. It's optional when taking marijuana to have it increase cancer risk (though SOME studies have shown that cancer rates in marijuana smokers are comparable to those of non-smokers. link)

Now for the brain.

Links to schizophrenia. To analyse this we first have to know why schizophrenia is caused. While there are genetic reasons, prenatal reasons and social reasons (your environment, social situation), the reason marijuana can lead to schizophrenia is essentially by over-stimulating dopamine receptors in the brain over a long period of time. THC happens to release a lot of dopamine in the brain. So surely THC will increase risk of schizophrenia? Yes. THC will, but it is not the only cannabinoid in marijuana. This sounds like a cop out at first, until you learn that the second most occurring cannabinoid is CBD (up to 40 of the cannabinoids in marijuana in some indica strains). This is important, as CBD is an anti-psychotic, as potent as many of the drugs we use to combat schizophrenia (link to study). The presence of CBD in marijuana negates the risks of schizophrenia that THC causes.

So why do we see studies linking marijuana to schizophrenia? Because of the polarisation of cannabis strains over the past decades. CBD limits the effects of THC somewhat and makes the high more sedative, and so breeders set about to create strains with very low amounts of CBD and high amounts of THC to give an energetic and euphoric high. This high gained the polarised strains popularity (especially Skunk and its variants here in the UK, which have very very little CBD), and so without CBD to keep it in check, the high THC levels in the marijuana began to give a small percentage of heavy users (around 2% of heavy users) schizophrenia.

This is incredibly relevant to legalisation, as with government standards in place, such polarised strains could be either not grown, or their health risks could be taught to users. Pure indica strains such as Kush have such high levels of CBD that they could theoretically be useful in actually treating schizophrenia and depression. And on a side note, CBD has also been shown to relieve nausea, and inhibit cancerous tumour growth. Combined with a vaporiser, weed could be GOOD for you, not just a drug with little negative effect.

I will not refute that over use of the drug can have disastrous consequences. Especially in students, as while marijuana does not kill brain cells or anything of that sort, the cannabinoids that enter the blood stream from smoking are partially absorbed in to the fatty tissue in the brain. When under stress, this fat releases the stored cannabinoids, making learning, and specifically exams, difficult for users.

Legalising WOULD make marijuana harder to obtain for those who are below the age needed to buy it. Weed is notoriously easy to get ahold, and even as a minor I have much easier access to it than alcohol (a regulated drug). I smoke a lot less than I drink, too. This would cut down on marijuana use significantly in youth, making it a positive step to legalise for students, not a negative one.

Of course abuse of the drug will have bad consequences. But nothing's stopping people from abusing it now and the war on drugs has proven miserably ineffective. Not to mention, the lack of an addictive compound in marijuana reduces the likelihood of people becoming addicted. Should we ban rope because some people choose to abuse it and hang themselves with it, or use it to tie up my sister and beat her when we were kids but we're past that now? No. That would be crazy.

Granted this particular drug may not be that bad, but I still haven't seen a strong reason for non medical marijuana to be legalized.

And I haven't seen a particularly good reason to keep it illegal. Do we really need to go over all the benefits of legalisation AGAIN? I'm sure they've been mentioned in this thread. Some people like to smoke weed, it isn't particularly bad for them, so why attempt (poorly) to stop them from doing it? Quick list of benefits of legalisation to refresh your memory: economic from taxing sales, from freedom to use industrial hemp and from stopping spending millions to facilitate peaceful offenders in jails; social for cutting down use in teens, granting extra freedoms. I've probably left some out, so anyone else can add if they want.

EDIT: To whomever said that marijuana is a gateway drug. This is similar to saying we should keep cannabis illegal because of the drug trade built up around it. There are two reasons this 'gateway' effect exists. Firstly, at the moment buying cannabis brings users in direct contact with drug dealers, some of whom may sell other drugs and may push these drugs on the cannabis user. Secondly, the status of cannabis as illegal associates it with other illegal drugs, hence the mentality that anyone willing to smoke cannabis is also willing to try other illegal drugs. Without the stigmatism cannabis has developed as an illegal drug, saying it is a gateway drug would be similar to saying that someone who has tried drinking alcohol would try illegal drugs.

 

[Taymond]

People who argue against the legalization of marijuana often make the mistake of assuming that people who argue for it want to legalize it without relegation. That's just absurd. YES, it impairs judgement and all the same reasons for restricting alcohol's use apply to marijuana. There should absolutely be a minimum age of use and laws against vehicle operation under the influence.

The point of the argument is that marijuana IS in the same class as alcohol and tobacco, and that it is ridiculous to separate them. If you want to argue against the ban of alcohol as well, that's fine, but the past has shown that it's far more beneficial to legalize alcohol, and all those same reasons apply to marijuana. We're talking about controlled use, not wanton. Yes, people will break laws, but that is a problem of enforcement, not with the laws themselves.

Furthermore, the government does not have the right, as far as I'm concerned, to decide what I do with my body, to some extent, as long as it only affects me. If I want to consume a substance that is potentially harmful, and I am comfortable with accepting the consequences and view them as inconsequential, I should have that right. The government already allows the consumption of many potentially harmful substances, but makes arbitrary distinctions as to what those substances are.

Marijuana is only a "gateway drug" because of social stigma. It is incorrectly grouped with other illegal substances, by virtue of being illegal. If it were not illegal, it's only link to more harmful drugs would be dissolved. Yes, it may be possible to develop a tolerance for marijuana and become "bored" of it, but the same is true of alcohol. If marijuana was not associated with other illegal substances, they could not be looked to for further gain when this point was reached. It would be equivalent to "Marijuana doesn't cut it anymore. I need to start eating tons of Honeycombs instead, now." If no incorrect social stigma linked Marijuana to harder drugs, how could it possibly lead to their use? People who develope Caffeine tolerance don't go to cocaine, do they? People who develop alcohol tolerance don't turn to heroine, do they? How, then, could marijuana use, freed of a dangerous stigma, lead to the use of harder, completely incomparable drugs?

 

[Cat Fight]

Being that there is no real argument or reasoning as to why marijuana should remain ILLEGAL, I will just say a few things...

An interesting question is would we be okay with the government taxing marijuana?

If legalized I could see the government controlling how much marijuana is consumed by increasing or decreasing the taxes on the product. However,setting taxes too high will cause marijuana growers to sell on the black market to avoid excessive taxation.

Leading us to what I can only describe as a state of wonderment as to why we bothered petitioning (or what society contributed to the legalization of marijuana) to get marijuana legal in the US.

Basically, there would still be people growing and selling marijuana whilst avoiding taxation because the government may have their own idea of how it should be distributed, and we have another (more than likely cheaper).

 

[Kitten]

Cat Fight, during alcohol prohibition, the brewing of moonshine was common, but now we almost never see it. Growing a marijuana plant is harder than making moonshine, taking a far greater amount of time and effort. What makes you think that marijuana would be any different when legalised?

 

[blazedaces]

Cat fight, you're proposing a speculative scenario that would never occur. Since we know this is a danger there are people who's job it is to consider the amount of tax and the result of such a tax.

Even then, if it was legalized, many businesses would erupt which would lobby for their own cause (lower taxes). The economy would regulate itself accordingly under any realistic scenario you want to propose.

And just like Kit said about, why would this be any different from alcohol or tobacco? It shouldn't even apply only to those two. This is just macro/micro economics. The subject is well known and studied. This issue you propose is simply not at all a problem.

 

[Cat Fight]

Cat Fight, during alcohol prohibition, the brewing of moonshine was common, but now we almost never see it. Growing a marijuana plant is harder than making moonshine, taking a far greater amount of time and effort. What makes you think that marijuana would be any different when legalised?

EDIT: Nevermind. I didn't understand yr question. :"|

 

[Kur]

That being said, your own site argued that marijuana was just about as harmful as other drugs... and the only comparison it made is one time where it claimed that it's arguably more harmful smoked through the lungs "per puff". Yet the average marijuana user smokes much less often than the average cigarette smoker which nullifies this statement.

It also (just as I claimed) made no attempt to differentiate this drug to other ones (beside a slight percentage at the start about the number of times hospital accidents involve the drug...) that are arguably much worse (alcohol is highest on that list, nearly quadrupling marijuana in hospital-related occurrences).

Also, your site and none that you can actually find disagree with an earlier statement of mine: you can not "OD" on marijuana. It's never happened and it's literally not a strong enough drug. The harm coming from marijuana are it's side effects coupled with lack of responsibility. Responsible usage can be educated, not shoved under the rug.

On your last point if you're going to argue for the banning of alcohol and tobacco:

We all know exactly what happened during prohibition. This is my exact reasoning for making marijuana legal: economic benefit outweighs economic cost.




-blazed

How do you know how often the average marijuana user smokes? Sure, people who are just starting, or only smoke once or twice a month or whatever, don't smoke that often. But there are people, many people, who smoke every day. There are people who smoke weed as often as others smoke tobacco. And they need to smoke more and more often to get the same high because their body resists the effects over time.

And who cares if you can't OD on weed? That is not my concern. My concern is the long term effects, the short term interruption of judgment that makes responsible people do stupid things like drive while high. Even if a person is responsible and educated and swears they will smoke responsibly, as soon as their judgment is hindered by the marijuana, they lose that sense of responsibility. Awareness and education amount to nothing.

You said "alcohol is highest on that list, nearly quadrupling marijuana in hospital-related occurrences" Think about that for a minute. How many people in the population smoke marijuana compared to people who drink alcohol? 80% of US adults say they drink alcohol (whether binge drinking or just a few times a year) and from what I can tell, 32% of US adults say they have tried marijuana and habitual users are closer to 12%. Now you are telling me that 80% of the country accounts for about half, 48%, of the drug related ER visits and 12% of the population accounts for 12% of drug related ER visits. There was roughly 2 million drug related ER visits in the US in 2004. Also in 2004 the estimated population of the US was 292 million. Work a little math and it turns out that people who smoke marijuana have a greater chance of ending up in the emergency room than people who drink (.68% of marijuana abusers vs. .41% of alcohol abusers) it just happens that many more people drink than smoke weed so alcohol accounts for more of the ER visits in absolute numbers. If the number of people who drink and smoke weed were the same, then marijuana would account for more ER visits than alcohol.

In a perfect world I would have alcohol and tobacco banned. But no way can I or anyone convince anybody of that. They are two evils that we must now live with. But marijuana is already illegal and we can do something to keep it that way.

And yes, take a look at what happened during prohibition. Does the fact that the country wanted booze mean that booze is somehow a good thing? No, it just means that people want to get drunk.

And the rest of your argument can again be summed up as "X is legal and it is just as bad or worse than Y, so Y should be legal too." Which I have already pointed out just means that we end up with 2 bad things being legal and probably a group of idiots trying to legalize a third bad thing. Allowing more bad does not make any good. Your only hope of winning this debate is to show that marijuana is not bad in any way.

 

[blazedaces]

Edit: Apparently cat already rescinded his earlier statement so anyway you guys could also ignore this post?


Edit: Kur, I posted this when I had not seen your post yet (it must have been right after you pressed the reply button so give me some more time to respond to your post, I'm not just ignoring it... )


-blazed

 

[Kitten]

And who cares if you can't OD on weed? That is not my concern. My concern is the long term effects, the short term interruption of judgment that makes responsible people do stupid things like drive while high. Even if a person is responsible and educated and swears they will smoke responsibly, as soon as their judgment is hindered by the marijuana, they lose that sense of responsibility. Awareness and education amount to nothing.

I hate to be blunt (no pun intended), but it is becoming apparent to me that you have very little idea what you are talking about. Even the site you linked to has no mention of the interruption in judgement that you talk about. Getting stoned does not make people do dangerous things and take risks. We can easily attribute people driving stoned to people who are uneducated about the short term effects of marijuana on the nervous system, or simply stupid people who think they can get away with things, whether they are stoned or not.

And the only long term effects you have left still standing are that the drug disrupts education and over use can destroy motivation and hinder cognitive ability later in life, from what I can see. But use in minors would decrease if the drug were legalised. And heavy users do not know the long term effects of heavy use. You write off education, but give absolutely no reason why. Look at cigarette smoking rates since the discovery of more and more smoking related problems. People simply don't know the same facts about marijuana.

You are opposed to legalisation for no reason, it would seem. You say it's the health risks, but we have shown that these risks are few in number and that legalisation would not increase use (see Netherlands). If legalisation isn't going to increase use, but will stimulate the economy and knock out the drug trade, why are you still against it? You have no reason to be.

 

[Dexter Morgan]

Marijuana is more or less worse than cigarettes.

Cigarettes and Weed are both used to relax a person, such as coming home and lighting up after a hard days work. There is no harm in this on the Marijuana side, as they are in their home, unable to harm society. As to contributing to society, no, they aren't, but the smoking isn't the only thing they do, it's to relax them after their contribution. Cigarrettes still harm them during this process, while both are used in the same function.

But when there are people who all they want to do is smoke marijuana, this is different. These people set their lives around getting high, and many cease to contribute to society, as only a few people can function in society while high. People who smoke a lot are still able to function within society, and the health affects are overlooked.

Within these two, the latter overshadows the former, which is the rationalization of illegalizing marijuana. I do not agree with this, as I smoke merely as a relaxant and never excessively, but there is no middle ground to be found.

 

[cF=)]

Marijuana is more or less worse than cigarettes.

Prove it. I'm unable to read when all I see in your post is prejudices on top of each others.

 

[Taymond]

Kur, this is more than a matter of personal views of right and wrong. Prohibition demonstrated that it is best for this country not to completely ban the ingestion of some potentially harmful substances. It didn't make alcohol any less harmful, but those risks were acceptable. If those risks were acceptable, we question why the risks of other, possibly more benign, substances are not?

I'm glad your view is at least consistent, that you would see tobacco and alcohol banned as well, but the government has already shown that it doesn't feel laws should dictate what a person can and cannot ingest in certain instances, provided that person is adequately informed and of legal age of consumption. Why, then, not others?

It's all well and good that you want to ban them all, but the law doesn't. It wants to arbitrarily ban one, but allow 2 others. The only possible argument is if marijuana were conclusively more harmful than tobacco and alcohol, but it isn't.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

As a civil libertarian, it is in my opinion that people are smart enough and responsible enough to take care of themselves and should be allowed to do what that want to themselves.

Many people think that the government should have the power to tell us what we can and can't do to our own bodies. But then you get the problem of how does the government know what's good for us when it is just made up of people.

 

[Kur]

I hate to be blunt (no pun intended), but it is becoming apparent to me that you have very little idea what you are talking about. Even the site you linked to has no mention of the interruption in judgment that you talk about.

I would not join a debate if I had very little idea what I am talking about. And I would hate to be equally as blunt in claiming that you have difficulty comprehending what you read. The site I linked did mention the interruption in judgment only not in those words.

The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate.

If a person has problems with memory and learning, difficulty problem solving and even thinking, then how could they possibly exercise any good judgment?

In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning - http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html

There, a link which directly states that marijuana causes impaired judgment.

Getting stoned does not make people do dangerous things and take risks. We can easily attribute people driving stoned to people who are uneducated about the short term effects of marijuana on the nervous system, or simply stupid people who think they can get away with things, whether they are stoned or not.

Yes you could easily attribute that to uneducated people but where is the science in that? Show me some numbers or a study or something. It seems you are just making semi-logical guesses and hoping I buy into them.

And the only long term effects you have left still standing are that the drug disrupts education and over use can destroy motivation and hinder cognitive ability later in life, from what I can see. But use in minors would decrease if the drug were legalised. And heavy users do not know the long term effects of heavy use. You write off education, but give absolutely no reason why. Look at cigarette smoking rates since the discovery of more and more smoking related problems. People simply don't know the same facts about marijuana.

There are many long term effects. Please re-read the link I posted and this other one I posted in this post to remind yourself of what they are. And simply claiming that use in minors would decrease if pot were legal is an arbitrary statement. Legalized alcohol is consumed in great quantities by underage people as is tobacco. Legalizing a substance only makes it easier to get a hold of.

You are opposed to legalisation for no reason, it would seem. You say it's the health risks, but we have shown that these risks are few in number and that legalisation would not increase use (see Netherlands). If legalisation isn't going to increase use, but will stimulate the economy and knock out the drug trade, why are you still against it? You have no reason to be.

I am against legalization for more than just health risks, of which there are many. A high person can be extremely dangerous behind the wheel of a car, on a job site, or even in an office making decisions that affect many others.

This is an obvious fear tactic here but it is valid because it is resoundingly true: Would you be comfortable going into surgery knowing your doctor just smoked a fatty 15 minutes before the operation? You probably wouldn't mind if he smoked some tobacco, but what if he was drunk or high? Even if doctors are not likely to do that, airline pilots do sometimes fly drunk. Heavy equipment operators might be smoking a joint instead of a cigarette while they are lifting heavy objects over other workers.

As a civil libertarian, it is in my opinion that people are smart enough and responsible enough to take care of themselves and should be allowed to do what that want to themselves.

Many people think that the government should have the power to tell us what we can and can't do to our own bodies. But then you get the problem of how does the government know what's good for us when it is just made up of people.

Yes, most people are smart enough to take care of themselves and be aloud to do whatever they want to themselves. However this right does not extend to purposefully clouding your own judgment and coordination and then climbing into your car, or trying to make decisions which affect others.

I am a firm believer that the less government there is in our lives, the better. But the one responsibility of the government is protection. This means making and enforcing laws. The government is made up of elected officials so anything they decide is illegal is the will of the people. By putting those people into that power, you bestow upon them the right to decide what is good for us.

Kur, this is more than a matter of personal views of right and wrong. Prohibition demonstrated that it is best for this country not to completely ban the ingestion of some potentially harmful substances. It didn't make alcohol any less harmful, but those risks were acceptable. If those risks were acceptable, we question why the risks of other, possibly more benign, substances are not?

Because two legal bad things is worse than one legal bad thing. The prohibition of alcohol lead directly to a period of some of the worst crime in history. The prohibition of marijuana is NOT having the same effect. Most people are against the legalization of marijuana unlike there opinions of alcohol. And I have shown repeatedly that marijuana is not more benign than alcohol.

I'm glad your view is at least consistent, that you would see tobacco and alcohol banned as well, but the government has already shown that it doesn't feel laws should dictate what a person can and cannot ingest in certain instances, provided that person is adequately informed and of legal age of consumption. Why, then, not others?

It's all well and good that you want to ban them all, but the law doesn't. It wants to arbitrarily ban one, but allow 2 others. The only possible argument is if marijuana were conclusively more harmful than tobacco and alcohol, but it isn't.

Actually the government would love nothing more than to ban everything from booze to salt. But the people just will not stand for it. I am all for your right to ingest whatever you want. If you want to eat a pound of rat poison, be my guest. But there are intrinsic properties to alcohol and marijuana that cause a person to lose their judgment and ability to function and that puts other people at risk. Nobody has that right.

And again. I have shown that marijuana is at least as harmful as alcohol and tobacco. Read the links. And again, I ask you, what good is education and information going to do when the substance clouds judgment? And what good will it do when the person becomes addicted?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Yes, most people are smart enough to take care of themselves and be aloud to do whatever they want to themselves. However this right does not extend to purposefully clouding your own judgment and coordination and then climbing into your car, or trying to make decisions which affect others.

We already have laws against driving under the influence. When your right to get high clashes with others rights not to get run over, we create laws that minimally limit your freedom. IE: You can get high, but if you do you can't operate machinery. These laws already exist.

I am a firm believer that the less government there is in our lives, the better. But the one responsibility of the government is protection. This means making and enforcing laws. The government is made up of elected officials so anything they decide is illegal is the will of the people. By putting those people into that power, you bestow upon them the right to decide what is good for us.

It isn't the governments job to protect us from ourselves. The Constitution talks about common defense and general welfare, but nothing about limiting our freedoms.

The rest if those quotes were not mine.

 

[cF=)]

Just to tell you, the website you're referring to as an all powerful argument cites sources which are no longer available (in most cases, I did 5 and they were all down). Instead of blocking everything with a paper shield, could you really provide anything valuable in terms of sources?

The rest of your argument revolves around "it's fine like it is, it should stick that way", which wouldn't condemn stoning homosexuals, slavery or animal sacrifices. Mentality evolve the further we see what we have the right to do and remove social stigmas surrounding what was previously frowned upon for no particular reason. The scenarios you speak about are only hypothetical scare tactics and serve absolutely nothing in the format of a debate.

 

[Taymond]

Actually the government would love nothing more than to ban everything from booze to salt. But the people just will not stand for it. I am all for your right to ingest whatever you want. If you want to eat a pound of rat poison, be my guest. But there are intrinsic properties to alcohol and marijuana that cause a person to lose their judgment and ability to function and that puts other people at risk. Nobody has that right.

And again. I have shown that marijuana is at least as harmful as alcohol and tobacco. Read the links. And again, I ask you, what good is education and information going to do when the substance clouds judgment? And what good will it do when the person becomes addicted?

Wrong. Nobody has the right to endanger others with Marijuana, Alcohol, or Tobacco use, but in the privacy of one's own home, I do and I should have the right to ingest harmful substances, even judgement impairing ones, if I so choose. What I do with my body alone is NOT the government's business. If what I do with my body affects others, then it's the government's business. That's why laws exist to moderate and control their use in dangerous situations.

You can't just brush aside some laws and not others. You can't say "Who cares if there's laws, everyone will still drive under the influence" but not, in kind, realize that there's no point in discussing it, then, if the laws are no deterrent whatsoever. The laws need to be followed through proper education on the matter and enforced when they're not followed.

 

[Kur]

Wrong. Nobody has the right to endanger others with Marijuana, Alcohol, or Tobacco use, but in the privacy of one's own home, I do and I should have the right to ingest harmful substances, even judgement impairing ones, if I so choose. What I do with my body alone is NOT the government's business. If what I do with my body affects others, then it's the government's business. That's why laws exist to moderate and control their use in dangerous situations.

You can't just brush aside some laws and not others. You can't say "Who cares if there's laws, everyone will still drive under the influence" but not, in kind, realize that there's no point in discussing it, then, if the laws are no deterrent whatsoever. The laws need to be followed through proper education on the matter and enforced when they're not followed.

Is it so hard to understand?

Let me put it to you like this.

1. You have the right to ingest or smoke harmful substances as long as doing so poses no danger to others.

2. Some harmful substances affect judgment, logic, coordination, and many other mental faculties.

3. There are laws prohibiting driving vehicles and operating machinery while under the influence of these substances because doing so puts others at risk.

4. Now this is the important part, pay attention. If you are under the influence of a mind altering substance, you likely no longer have the ability to recognize you would be breaking the law by driving. You no longer have the judgment, logic, or reason to understand you are not in a condition to operate a vehicle. The very fact that you are drunk or high means you can not distinguish whether or not you are too drunk or high to drive.

Haven't you ever seen a completely plastered person grab their keys and stumble out the door saying "I'm not drunk, I'm good to drive home." Or in the case of marijuana it is very often that a high person will get "the munchies" and jump in the car to go to the local circle K and get some nachos.

That is why laws and education simple will not work. The only people it will work on are those who do not drink to the point of being drunk, or people who do not smoke weed to the point of being high. But honestly, who smokes weed but not enough to get high?

Just to tell you, the website you're referring to as an all powerful argument cites sources which are no longer available (in most cases, I did 5 and they were all down). Instead of blocking everything with a paper shield, could you really provide anything valuable in terms of sources?

The rest of your argument revolves around "it's fine like it is, it should stick that way", which wouldn't condemn stoning homosexuals, slavery or animal sacrifices. Mentality evolve the further we see what we have the right to do and remove social stigmas surrounding what was previously frowned upon for no particular reason. The scenarios you speak about are only hypothetical scare tactics and serve absolutely nothing in the format of a debate.

I have already offered 2 different links. If you are that interested you can do your own search.

And my argument is NOT "it's fine like it is". My argument is "let's not make things worse than they are."

And if you honestly believe that stoning homosexuals is somehow not illegal, or that the government condones slavery, or animal sacrifices, you are a sad sick person.

The legalization of pot in no way affects any of those things.

And if your argument is that I am being 'old fashioned' or unwilling to change, then you are completely missing my point.

Just because something comes up that some people want to change does not mean it should be changed. Some things are better left unchanged.

The FACTS I have provided are not scare tactics. They are the real, studied, results of the use of marijuana. I know these things are real because unfortunately my family has a long history of drug and alcohol abuse. I have personally seen these effects which is what prompted me to study the facts for myself in the first place. Trying to claim that marijuana is somehow safe, or that it does not cloud judgment, is just wishful thinking.

And for the 10th time, I am not concerned with the health risks of marijuana. I could care less if it is harmful or not. MY concern is the effects it has on the brain which puts other people at risk.

 

[Taymond]

You can't dismiss the laws and proper education as meaningless, or there's no point in MAKING laws. Yes some people break law and some would break those laws but by far, not everyone would. Everyone who smokes and drinks doesn't drive. I never have, and I never will, because I'm properly educated to the dangers. Even under the influence, I know NOT to drive. And so will the large majority of properly educated users. That's why proper education is necessary, the issues can't just be swept under the rug. Since marijuana is legal, we put less effort into education about its safe use. That's a problem. There's much better education for alcohol consumption.

You're completely exaggerating the matter. These substances impair judgement, they don't abolish it! I've been drunk and high plenty of times, and plenty of times with the opportunity to drive while so impaired and I never have. It doesn't work the way you want to pretend. Drunk people don't just FORGET that driving drunk is bad. People who do so are irresponsible or not properly informed of the reality of the dangers.

Laws don't exist to deprive law-abiding citizens of privileges they have never done anything to deserve the removal of, they exist to discourage and to punish violations. Car accidents kill people, but I'm still allowed to drive. People who drive dangerously are punished, even to the point of having those privileges revoked. Maybe there should be drinking licenses, actually, so that people who prove unable to control themselves are not allowed to indulge. But there is no reason EVERYONE should lose a privilege because some people abuse it.

The fact that some people violate laws is no reason to stop making laws. If we did that, we'd never make ANY laws. Some people are still going to murder, so what's the point of making it illegal? To emphasize that it is wrong and that conscionable, law-abiding good people should not do it, and to discourage it through the threat of prosecution. Nothing is different here.

You have misattributed that second quote to me. It was cF=), not me.

 

[cF=)]

The FACTS I have provided are not scare tactics.

Just read the "should drugs be illegal thread" if you want links, studies and moreover, facts. I don't really care if your sad family perished because of drug abuse, alcohol is still legal and laws about drunk driving are enforced. If you do not realize illegal marijuana is a double standard, why should I even debate?

 

[Crimson King]

I would love to see an extensive study done on Marijuana usage on the brain vs. Alcohol usage on the brain. I mean I've seen burn-outs and people who have smoked way too much weed, but I have never truly seen someone so gone to alcoholism they cannot function.

Also on that token, I would love to see a study on the damage marijuana causes to the actual body other than the brain. I have a sneaking suspicious that it'll be slightly less than that of cigarettes or alcohol, which leads to the question: why is it illegal and alcohol and cigarettes are not? Simple. The government can control the manufacture, production, and sale of alcohol and cigarettes MUCH easier than marijuana and thusly it can tax alcohol and cigarettes easier. I am sure all of you have heard various weed stories were, such as one of these guys I knew planted weed in the potted plant at the office where he worked that he was going to quit so the owner would get busted with weed, etc. The plant can grow in a lot of different habitats, making it next to impossible to regulate. Alcohol has this same ability, but the difference is there is a lot more needed to make drinkable, quality alcohol. Cigarettes are next to impossible to make at home because you need more than just tobacco. With weed, you realistically just need seeds. Now, I personally see nothing wrong with brewing your own alcohol, but I can see how people, like the government would.

 

[Dexter Morgan]

Personally, I could care less about what other people think about marijuana because I really am neutral on the subject. If some people think it's harming, awesome. If some people think it's a cure-all, more power to them.

I have a friend in school who's a major marijuana-user. Seriously. I can only recall two instances where he hasn't been completely stoned. He brings up the "all-natural" argument and compares it to harder drugs/alcohol/tobacco, citing Wiki pages and random encyclopedias/magazines, along with marijuana-supporting philosophers/scientists, but he's not really fiery about the subject. He doesn't even really talk about it a lot and seems to be rather reluctant to argue about it. I have no problem being friends with him because he doesn't offer any to me and he doesn't think that everyone who doesn't smoke marijuana is stupid, though that mentality is common from what I've seen at my school.

My oldest sister is a psychiatrist and she's brought up the subject a few times when there have been programs on TV about it, etc. and she actually brings up some good points and cites some legit research regarding the mental effects of marijuana. Apparently, according to her, it can cause schizophrenia in some people, + eating disorders, and a ton of other things.

She always starts talking about a bunch of specific chemicals and processes in the brain in medical-ese after a few minutes and I start really not being able to follow her, but I trust her facts/opinions on the subject. Hell, she's got a PhD/doctrine in the field so she's got to know something.

Once again though, I neither protest nor advocate the using/legalization of marijuana.