Why is weed illegal?

[LarsINTJ]

 

[Ganreizu]

Perhaps because you implied that there's an issue with marijuana as a plant then failed to clarify.

"These issues really don't have anything to do with weed itself."

I assume you're implying that the topics concerning addiction and its causal factors are irrelevant.

Whatever it is you just did, you probably shouldn't do that with me. (FYI, i am also INTJ)

There isn't an "issue" with marijuana as a plant. Unless transforming the paper/clothing industry in positive ways (for society, not for big business) is an issue. I was commenting on other issues that you and i agree on.

88% of Americans thought it should be illegal.

Because of one dude who had personal agendas relating to the industries that hemp endangered. Why they thought that is because of the same reasons people today think ebola spreading in the united states is a real threat.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Posting this for relevance.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Whatever it is you just did, you probably shouldn't do that with me. (FYI, i am also INTJ)

There isn't an "issue" with marijuana as a plant. Unless transforming the paper/clothing industry in positive ways (for society, not for big business) is an issue. I was commenting on other issues that you and i agree on.

OK then. So addiction is a very important issue as it relates to marijuana, just a plant which can be abused like any other mind-altering substance.

 

[Ganreizu]

OK then. So addiction is a very important issue as it relates to marijuana, just a plant which can be abused like any other mind-altering substance.

o_o

Put whatever spin on it you want, marijuana still isn't addictive by itself.

 

[LarsINTJ]

o_o

Put whatever spin on it you want, marijuana still isn't addictive by itself.

Yes, that's what I alluded to initially.

 

[Claire Diviner]

o_o

Put whatever spin on it you want, marijuana still isn't addictive by itself.

It really isn't, and I actually would know.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Weed don't need no op-position
Weed needn't be ill-legal
So much pot smoke in my room
Officer, leave ganja alone

HEY! OFFICER!

LEAVE GANJA ALONE!

All in all, just want a
nother hit of my bong

 

[Thor]

It really isn't, and I actually would know.

Oreos aren't addicting either - I would know, I have had them at parties and with milk and they just don't do anything for me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-cocaine-an-unusual-college-research-project/

...

People can develop psychological dependence at the very least. Stating that "I would know because I've done something therefore it isn't addictive" would also be a hilariously inaccurate statement if that person had once taken heroin - that doesn't mean it's not addictive, that just means the person didn't have the right brain chemistry to be addicted after a single use.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Oreos aren't addicting either - I would know, I have had them at parties and with milk and they just don't do anything for me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-cocaine-an-unusual-college-research-project/

...

People can develop psychological dependence at the very least. Stating that "I would know because I've done something therefore it isn't addictive" would also be a hilariously inaccurate statement if that person had once taken heroin - that doesn't mean it's not addictive, that just means the person didn't have the right brain chemistry to be addicted after a single use.

Okay, fair point made, and I can't say I have a real counterpoint against that. Still, if one has to choose between a marijuana addiction and - say - an alcohol addiction, research shows alcohol to be harmful, unlike marijuana. I'd post a citation, but Jon Stewart already stated this research in the first video I posted in the previous page.

 

[pants the terrible]

i have a dextromethorphan addiction. its easily obtainable and legal. weed is pointlessly illegal and because it is illegal has driven myself and plenty of others into getting high in slightly more physically dangerous ways. if weed were as easily obtainable and legal as dextromethorphan, it would benefit us who have severe anxiety and depression.

why can't we just legalize? what is in the way?

 

[LarsINTJ]

i have a dextromethorphan addiction. its easily obtainable and legal. weed is pointlessly illegal and because it is illegal has driven myself and plenty of others into getting high in slightly more physically dangerous ways. if weed were as easily obtainable and legal as dextromethorphan, it would benefit us who have severe anxiety and depression.

why can't we just legalize? what is in the way?

Talk therapy is a far more sustainable solution to anxiety and depression, though it does require a considerable amount of simultaneous introspective self-work and you must be prepared to make significant changes to your lifestyle in response to potentially harmful social interactions.

 

[_Magus_]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wJXBUfcIOE

 

[STRIFE_NY]

Cause the man is trying to keep us down man

 

[Sucumbio]

i have a dextromethorphan addiction. its easily obtainable and legal. weed is pointlessly illegal and because it is illegal has driven myself and plenty of others into getting high in slightly more physically dangerous ways. if weed were as easily obtainable and legal as dextromethorphan, it would benefit us who have severe anxiety and depression.

why can't we just legalize? what is in the way?

Sounds like therapy would be better. If its clinical depression thebn ssri work better than weed. Though it can take a long time to find the right combination to correct your brain abnormalities.

 

[pants the terrible]

Sounds like therapy would be better. If its clinical depression thebn ssri work better than weed. Though it can take a long time to find the right combination to correct your brain abnormalities.

definitely a good suggestion. its the fact that therapy is expensive in my state, and i don't receive any benefits in order to receive treatment.

i find it better to just focus on my work, smash, and try to get out.

 

[Cammed Z28]

Physical addiction to the? No not true.

Psychological addiction? Yeah, some people develop these. However it's typically only those who smoke heavy all day everyday for long periods with absolutely no sobriety that do. I was at that stage a long time ago .... if I couldn't get my smoke I would be on edge, grumpy, no appetite, no motivation until I got high.... everything would be put into hold and I would not be able to eat or relax until I managed to get some bud. That being said, now after growing up I still enjoy smoking after a long day of class and or work... but it is not a priority in my life any longer. I never drink alcohol these days, I don't care for it and have also abstained from all hard drugs. There is nothing wrong with smoking a little bud if all your other stuff is in check. If I'm not employed, or have too many bills and not enough to put away in savings... guess what? I don't get to smoke. Because I developed self discipline.

I am all for the state's constitutional rights and believe they should be left to themselves and their citizens when it comes to legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. The feds should strike the current legislation and penal code. Let the state's decide. Colorado and Washington have already lead the way and so far the federal government has not interfered. However the federal government still defines marijuana as a.schedule one narcotic that has absolutely zero medicinal value or benefits whatsoever. They have not taken any steps to repeal federal code or banking laws when it comes to the growing distribution and selling. It's still federally illegal. Businesses in CO and WA are having issue finding banks and other financial institutions willing to accept their profits from the selling of marijuana and are unwilling to accept their deposits, will not provide access.to safe deposit boxes or any other services for fear of potential federal reprisal. So while these two states have made significant headway there still lies a long and complicated road before this becomes legitimate and even respectable industry. One thing is not in question however.... America's demand for marijuana and unfortunately many other drugs as well. We will not go there atm. However it is a good thing to consider...... Do we want foreign drug cartels and other dangerous criminal enterprises to continue their profiting from our citizens? If marijuana was no longer illegal to grow sell and possess.... smuggling it would no longer be profitable. Obviously this is not as simple as it sounds and again it will take time for all the pros and cons to become fully apparent.

It is safe to say that so far CO and WA with their experimental legislation have been positive steps in the right direction. Prohibition never works, it is a doomed policy and an antiquated one at that. People should have the freedom to do what they wish, so long as their freedom and actions do not infringe on any other citizens self, their safety or property.

 

[DunnoBro]

Oreos aren't addicting either - I would know, I have had them at parties and with milk and they just don't do anything for me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-cocaine-an-unusual-college-research-project/

...

People can develop psychological dependence at the very least. Stating that "I would know because I've done something therefore it isn't addictive" would also be a hilariously inaccurate statement if that person had once taken heroin - that doesn't mean it's not addictive, that just means the person didn't have the right brain chemistry to be addicted after a single use.

To be fair, the claim was "On it's own"
Psychology of the person is another variable entirely.


Personally, I'm on the fence. I don't like the idea of legalization but I'm failing to justify that opinion with facts. Yes, there's some bad assigned to marijuana but generally they can safely be considered the responsibility of the user. Similar to cigarettes, and alcohol. So as it stands, if there were a yes/no vote for legalization, I could only be honest with myself if i voted yes.

Really over the years the main reason I've been weary of it is not by any fault of it's own, just the arguments and personalities of it's proponents have been rather distasteful and less than objective.

 

[Cammed Z28]

, just the arguments and personalities of it's proponents have been rather distasteful and less than objective.

This has been a huge problem, thankfully in recent years weed has been viewed as less than taboo by more and more people, those who smoke or who used to smoke in their young days no longer have to pretend that they never smoked and that marijuana when used responsibly is actually safer in countless ways when compared to alcohol or any other drug or mind altering substance.

 

[Kriven]

Every person I know who regularly uses marijuana has memory issues and cognitive problems. I've seen people who were awesome before MJ start smoking and slowly degrade into slackjawed morons. On days where they don't smoke, they are all kinds of jittery and unfocused and in generally foul temperaments. When asked, they all say:

"Sorry, I'm just not normal without my weed."

That is an addiction. This is the majority of frequent smokers I've met. Naturally, there are people I've met who smoke sometimes and do not exhibit this behavior. They didn't get addicted for whatever reason. I didn't get addicted for whatever reason. But claiming that weed addiction does not exist is a gigantic crock of ****.

But I don't think it should be illegal. I don't think any drugs should be illegal if you're a legal adult. Put whatever you want in your body, I don't care. It is more prudent to set limits on what people can do while on drugs and in public than to prohibit them completely. Public intoxication... that shouldn't be allowed. But what a person puts in their own body in their own home is on them. Don't sell it to kids, don't do it in public, don't operate anything dangerous while you're on it. That's what we as a society should be concerned about: what people are doing with the drugs and while on the drugs, not if they have or use the drugs.

 

[Cammed Z28]

Every person I know who regularly uses marijuana has memory issues and cognitive problems. I've seen people who were awesome before MJ start smoking and slowly degrade into slackjawed morons. On days where they don't smoke, they are all kinds of jittery and unfocused and in generally foul temperaments. When asked, they all say:

"Sorry, I'm just not normal without my weed."

That is an addiction. This is the majority of frequent smokers I've met. Naturally, there are people I've met who smoke sometimes and do not exhibit this behavior. They didn't get addicted for whatever reason. I didn't get addicted for whatever reason. But claiming that weed addiction does not exist is a gigantic crock of ****.

But I don't think it should be illegal. I don't think any drugs should be illegal if you're a legal adult. Put whatever you want in your body, I don't care. It is more prudent to set limits on what people can do while on drugs and in public than to prohibit them completely. Public intoxication... that shouldn't be allowed. But what a person puts in their own body in their own home is on them. Don't sell it to kids, don't do it in public, don't operate anything dangerous while you're on it. That's what we as a society should be concerned about: what people are doing with the drugs and while on the drugs, not if they have or use the drugs.

You are right on here buddy, except for the fact that after completely cleaning your body and mind out the moodiness and feeling weird when not high vanishes and you go back to normal. The amount of time this takes varies greatly on the potency of the weed that the person used to smoke and the frequency of use, however all the things you listed completely vanish once the body is 100% purged and clean. Marijuana in of itself is not the problem, the problem is when the substance is abused and used too frequently. Mankind has always and will always abuse whatever mind altering chemical that is readily available. Alcohol is a drug that is used responsibly as well as recklessly every single day.... drinking 6oz of red wine with most every dinner is actually healthy for your body. However if your decide to finish the entire bottle of red wine then not only could you potentially make some decisions you come to regret during your intoxication but the next day you will be hungover sick. Those are just the immediate side effects of binge drinking after just one night. Long term chronic use of anything is never a good or healthy thing to do regardless if you are eating cheeseburgers, smoking blunts, drinking cocktails, blowing lines, shooting h, or popping prescription pills that your drug dealer, i meant doctor sorry, strongly recommends you take... lol somehow the fact that these men and women went to med school and swore an oath before practicing medicine distracts people from the fact that just because the pills you are polluting your body with are manufactured in a controlled and regulated environment owned and operated by a large pharmaceutical company who spends billions upon billions pushing their latest miracle pills, offering incentives and even money to hospitals, pharmacies, doctors, pain clinics, etc for prescribing the patients/customers Big Pharm's legal dope. Oxycontin percocet lortab and many other much stronger pain medications are literally opiates and do the same exact thing as heroin does to you...... opiate withdrawl is one of the worst things a human can suffer through, unfortunately too many doctors immediately throw patients pain pills for almost every kind of physical ailment and injury that exists, when the patient would be better off experiencing a few more days of pain rather than a week at least of puking, diarrhea, aches, sweating, body tempature is either always tooo hot or tooo cold, no sleep will be had... and if the person manages to fall asleep they will be waking up in no longer than 45 minutes if they are extremely lucky before waking up and repeating the same tiresome process again and again before the sun rises and sleep becomes a futile effort. I know I went waaaay off topic.... it just boggles my mind the amount of harmful or dangerous medicines,alcohol, and other substances that happen to be legal yet one of the safer drugs happens to be not only illegal, but incorrectly labeled as possessing absolutely no benefits whatsoever, which is just nonsense.

 

[Kriven]

Marijuana in of itself is not the problem, the problem is when the substance is abused and used too frequently.

That's why my last comment about not persecuting the drugs themselves, but what's done while on them. The problem really boils down to abuse for all substances, like you mentioned, which is why it makes more sense to set restrictions about where these substances can be used and what can be done while under their effects than it does to make laws against using them at all.

 

[Cammed Z28]

That's why my last comment about not persecuting the drugs themselves, but what's done while on them. The problem really boils down to abuse for all substances, like you mentioned, which is why it makes more sense to set restrictions about where these substances can be used and what can be done while under their effects than it does to make laws against using them at all.

I agree wholeheartedly with legislation along the lines of what you just said, allow American citizens to use whatever drug drink or substance they desire in the confines/comfort of their own home.

 

[Facading]

The government is like Mr. Krabs. If they can't make money off it then they sure as hell don't want it around

 

[Kriven]

The government is like Mr. Krabs. If they can't make money off it then they sure as hell don't want it around

The government could totally make money on currently illegal substances via sales tax or manufacturing/distribution licensing fees. Making things legal automatically grants a governing body access to that revenue stream, keeping it illegal does not.

Legalizing weed would actually be a bad thing for a fiscally conscious user.

 

[Thor]

The government could totally make money on currently illegal substances via sales tax or manufacturing/distribution licensing fees. Making things legal automatically grants a governing body access to that revenue stream, keeping it illegal does not.

Legalizing weed would actually be a bad thing for a fiscally conscious user.

Problem is the enforcement of new laws and new medical bills would generate massive problems and cost the government way more than leaving it illegal, at least for most substances (I do not know how numbers look on marijuana, but that may be a unique case, and I can say I have seen numbers that look similar to the ones I am about to present). For the record, the numbers on tobacco are this [at least for Minnesota, where I'm from]:

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/facts_issues/toll_us/Minnesota

(Feel free to counter with other sources - I didn't read a ton of them, but every study I've seen says the same thing more or less):

Tax cost to taxpayers via healthcare: 2.51 billion. Number of packs bought by kid smokers: 15.6 million. Number of adult smokers: 778,000.

Now let's assume that normal pack of cigarettes is $4 and there is a $6 tax [and unless the number changed dramatically in the past 2-ish years, this number is grossly inflated (http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/sscigtax.pdf) but let's run with it]. With 15.6 million cigarette packs smoked by kids and 778,000 *365 smoking adults (we'll assume pack-a-day for everyone - I think the actual number is lower but whatever), that adds up to 1,797,420,000 dollars, or less than 2 billion dollars. That means in addition to lives lost to tobacco and all the stress, etc. caused by tobacco use (on friends and family members who care), Minnesota taxpayers lose over 500 million dollars to tobacco use every year (assuming the $6 tax that I think is way too high an estimate).

I know the hypothetical statistics for various other drugs are similar - yes some money is pulled in from taxes, but that revenue is more than offset by medical costs and the enforcement of new laws. I have seen some numbers (don't remember where) that shows that legalizing heroin (or many other drugs, in any combination or alone) would not ever be profitable to the state (and if it was based on numbers that assumed the state sold all of it, cartels could smuggle it in at lower prices and undercut the state, thereby cutting out tax revenue - and when a product is legal in some form, detecting the illegal product is often much harder - forgery and not knowing where someone using the drug got it). I think I have seen similar numbers for marijuana, but as I said before I can't remember where for the life of me.

I don't know what the drug war costs, but legalizing it still puts a dent in the wallet - it may be most cost-efficient to cease the war but keep most drugs illegal, but it is definitely not profitable to legalize and tax.

 

[Ganreizu]

claiming that weed addiction does not exist is a gigantic crock of ****.

Legalizing weed would actually be a bad thing for a fiscally conscious user.

I disagree completely.

 

[Kriven]

I disagree completely.

Okay.

Problem is the enforcement of new laws and new medical bills would generate massive problems and cost the government way more than leaving it illegal, at least for most substances (I do not know how numbers look on marijuana, but that may be a unique case, and I can say I have seen numbers that look similar to the ones I am about to present). For the record, the numbers on tobacco are this [at least for Minnesota, where I'm from]:

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/facts_issues/toll_us/Minnesota

(Feel free to counter with other sources - I didn't read a ton of them, but every study I've seen says the same thing more or less):

Tax cost to taxpayers via healthcare: 2.51 billion. Number of packs bought by kid smokers: 15.6 million. Number of adult smokers: 778,000.

Now let's assume that normal pack of cigarettes is $4 and there is a $6 tax [and unless the number changed dramatically in the past 2-ish years, this number is grossly inflated (http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/sscigtax.pdf) but let's run with it]. With 15.6 million cigarette packs smoked by kids and 778,000 *365 smoking adults (we'll assume pack-a-day for everyone - I think the actual number is lower but whatever), that adds up to 1,797,420,000 dollars, or less than 2 billion dollars. That means in addition to lives lost to tobacco and all the stress, etc. caused by tobacco use (on friends and family members who care), Minnesota taxpayers lose over 500 million dollars to tobacco use every year (assuming the $6 tax that I think is way too high an estimate).

I know the hypothetical statistics for various other drugs are similar - yes some money is pulled in from taxes, but that revenue is more than offset by medical costs and the enforcement of new laws. I have seen some numbers (don't remember where) that shows that legalizing heroin (or many other drugs, in any combination or alone) would not ever be profitable to the state (and if it was based on numbers that assumed the state sold all of it, cartels could smuggle it in at lower prices and undercut the state, thereby cutting out tax revenue - and when a product is legal in some form, detecting the illegal product is often much harder - forgery and not knowing where someone using the drug got it). I think I have seen similar numbers for marijuana, but as I said before I can't remember where for the life of me.

I don't know what the drug war costs, but legalizing it still puts a dent in the wallet - it may be most cost-efficient to cease the war but keep most drugs illegal, but it is definitely not profitable to legalize and tax.

I can't post links because mobile, but a little Googling suggests the US spends $51b annually in the war on drugs. Even assuming legalizing it wouldn't create a revenue stream, it puts that other 49b back into other projects/circulation.

You're also conflating taxpayers with government, which isn't really the case... This is more about the corporate heads that would benefit (and whichever politicians are on their payroll) more than it is about actual governing bodies.

 

[Thor]

claiming that weed addiction does not exist is a gigantic crock of ****.

I disagree completely.

I can also disagree with someone who claims that World War II happened or that black people are not different than white people beyond skin color, but believing lies doesn't somehow make them true.

Okay.

I can't post links because mobile, but a little Googling suggests the US spends $51b annually in the war on drugs. Even assuming legalizing it wouldn't create a revenue stream, it puts that other 49b back into other projects/circulation.

You're also conflating taxpayers with government, which isn't really the case... This is more about the corporate heads that would benefit (and whichever politicians are on their payroll) more than it is about actual governing bodies.

First and foremost, those are statistics for Minnesota alone, NOT every state in the US. While I don't know numbers, if Minnesota is "Above average" (by double), and every state is the real average, the US would still lose 51 billion to smoking (49*1 + 2). IF smoking were part of the drug war, AND half the money went to smoking ALONE (and the total drug war price tag was $102 billion), then if it were legalized the US would break even in dollars (since $102 billion/2 = 51 billion, tax revenue off every state - state costs is -$51 billion dollars, 51 + -51 = 0).

If we take it back to the $51 billion on the drug war being saved, that means legalizing EVERYTHING... heroin, methamphetamines, cocaine, and a laundry list of other drugs, each which have their own harms to society in lives lost via drug use, lives lost via drug use impacting others (driving while intoxicated, fights, etc.), addiction cases to treat (various models suggest that the number of heroin users would anywhere from double to triple if it were legal), and [there would likely be] even greater focus on drug education. These are all costs associated with legalizing drugs, and the costs exist for legalizing each individual drug (they might technically be individually shrunk slightly as more are legalized since some might use different drugs in place of others, but many people who use drugs use more than one...) so the costs as shown far outweigh the benefits.

To do simple math with round-ish numbers, attempting underestimates - US spends 51 billion on drug war. Minnesotans who have a smoking addiction cost Minnesota .5 billion per year (net). If we just assume 3 drugs (heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine), AND assume each actually only costs Minnesota 333 million a year in health costs relative to taxation, Minnesota still loses about 1 billion more dollars per year to legalization - and this must be multiplied across every state somehow...which means the US still breaks about even (+1 billion), ASSUMING tax dollars from revenues would be enough to make the lost 1 billion for those 3 drug AND $0 for all other drugs that are targeted in the drug war - which most data doesn't seem to support (for instance, LSD is also tracked down, as is crack, ecstasy, roofies, ...).

The most cost effective method may be to stop the drug war but not legalize based on those statistics, but I don't know how the lower prices due to easier-to-evade enforcement would affect total users (since many use something because it is cheaper). Legalization still would bring a massive amount of costs to the government (and taxpayers, who have to fund this stuff).

I don't fully understand the second half of your statement (about benefiting corporate heads), but I think you are arguing that legalization would profit them? I was stating it costs taxpayers the money because taxes go up to fund healthcare programs, etc., though I do see that legalization might benefit some bigwigs (at the expense of the state and the general populace).

 

[Kriven]

Our government as a fiscal body is itself governed by the whims of the corporations. Whether the actual citizenry benefits or suffers is of little consequence to them. When someone says "The government won't do anything if they can't make a buck," as the post I replied to did, the conversation isn't really about the US populace and their representatives... it's about Marlboro.

How can we stop the war on drugs without legalizing them? Part of the war, actually the biggest part, is making their very existence illegal.

 

[Cammed Z28]

The cost of marijuana once taxed and regulated will be the same as it currently is on the illegal market, if not slightly cheaper. Colorado and Washington have already shown this to be true. The cost of an 1/8 of quality bud is already inflated due to the fact that since it is illegal the risk of prosecution, cost of transportation and smuggling, and greed all contribute to a price that "fiscally conscious users" ARE ALREADY PAYING. A legitimate, fiscally responsible weed smoker would in all likelihood purchase their weed from neither legally sanctioned dispensaries or illegal dealers.....they would grow their own product for personal use. I do not think that you can say anyone who spends 40-60 dollars an 1/8th (3.5 grams) of marijuana is "fiscally responsible" ...regardless of how much the person makes or wether they can easily afford it. The purchasing of a plant who's selling/buying price happens to be exponentially higher than its true material worth is inherently irresponsible to begin with LOL So to argue that legalization would in turn lead marijuana to become "unaffordable" is laughable at best. It is already too expensive. Difference being that all the profit and wealth created by marijuana sales currently end up in the pockets of criminals, gangs, cartels, criminal enterprises, terrorist groups and other extremist crusades......I have little faith in our government and yet I would still prefer the profits of marijuana to be enjoyed by our own fellow citizens and see the money put to work for the betterment of towns cities state's.and the country as a whole

 

[Kriven]

I've heard the costs of keeping a plant in proper lighting outweigh the costs of purchasing already-grown stuff.

Does anybody have first or second-hand experience that can weigh in on that?

 

[Sehnsucht]

As a Canadian who knows nothing about anything, it seems to me that marijuana could be treated comparably to alcohol. Look at how alcohol is treated in the West (to my knowledge, anyway):

-[Alcohol] alters your state of mind and body;
-[Alcohol] affects motor function, sensory reaction, and other physiological and mental functions;
-[Alcohol] is legalized, decriminalized, regulated, distributed, and taxed by the government;
-[Alcohol] may only be legally sold to those at or over the age of maturity in one's jurisdiction;
-Whether or not it's illegal, youth will engage in underage [drinking];
-It's illegal to drive in an intoxicated state, and legal penalties ensue for those who drive over the limit;
-Public antics as a result of [alcoholic] intoxication are generally frowned upon, and can be liable to legal penalties;
-Taking [alcohol] in moderation is perfectly fine, and can even have some health benefits;
-[Drinking] in excess, however, can negatively impact health, especially over time;
-There are those who are prone to developing dependencies (i.e. [alcoholism]);
-Such people can undergo rehabilitation, or get other aid for their dependency;
-Having a couple of [drinks] with friends is a sure way to have yourself a good time.

If you were to replace [alcohol] with [weed] and related synonyms (e.g. [smoking] vs [drinking]) in the above list, is there anything that would be out of place or unreasonable from a practical and/or legal and/or economic and/or ethical standpoint?

I realize there may be factors specific to the US, or to Canada, or to any specific local jurisdiction. But this is just a general question for the floor. I may be uninformed, but in a vacuum, I can't really think of any reason why cannabis should be illegal/banned/prohibited, if we treat it the same way as any currently legal drug (alcohol, cigarettes, medication, etc.).

 

[Sucumbio]

Its not any different. In fact it's arguably safer. Driving While Intoxicated or DWI formally DUI cases that involve alcohol are far more prevalent than weed alone though yes weed mixed in is common but that is also due to the half life of weed markers in the body's fatty tissue (i think it's 30 days or something before you can piss clean).

 

[Thor]

Our government as a fiscal body is itself governed by the whims of the corporations. Whether the actual citizenry benefits or suffers is of little consequence to them. When someone says "The government won't do anything if they can't make a buck," as the post I replied to did, the conversation isn't really about the US populace and their representatives... it's about Marlboro.

How can we stop the war on drugs without legalizing them? Part of the war, actually the biggest part, is making their very existence illegal.

Instead of aggressively seeking drugs out (I believe there are checkpoints dedicated solely to finding drugs), we combine them with other general anti-illegal-activity activities.

To be honest, that last statement was not as well-thought-out as it should have been, but the point remains - the numbers suggest the drug war is cheaper than the alternatives.

 

[Sucumbio]

Now that Colorado and others went the legalize route the drug war is antiquated. More revenue cam be generated through legal sale than by criminal fines. But the drug war will remain so as to provide more excuses to arrest blacks and minorities.

 

[tm730]

Because prisons need to be filled in order for examples to be made out of people so it looks like we got our ish together

 

[LightlyToasted]

Well since we are quoting South Park....

"The truth is, marijuana probably isn't going to make you kill people. Most likely isn't going to fund terrorists, but pot makes you feel fine with being bored and it's when you're bored that you should be learning a new skill or some new science or being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you're not good at anything." -Randy Marsh

Obviously it's not 100% true, but it is an interesting thought. It does indeed make unmotivated people more unmotivated.

 

[Lichi]

You could just say that weed drew the short straw. Alcohol is arguably the substance, that influences you and your behaviour in more harmful ways, but it enjoyed world-wide use and acceptance for thousands of years. It has been refined and some sort of brewing may be considered more than just simple craftmanship. It has been socially acceptable to drink (up to a certain degree), and weed never achieved this privilege on a wide spread basis.
It appeared later on the stage and now is 'the devil', though it is practically no worse than alcohol. Though, I'd dare to say it is completely harmless.

Regarding that 'pot makes you accept being bored': alcohol can do just the same. I do not see a big difference in getting high for funsies or people opening up a bottle of whatever because they don't know what to do.

 

[LightlyToasted]

One theory is that a lot of its negative connotation comes from its association with the jazz and blues culture, and it being labeled as a "black drug," caused a larger uproar when people were less accepting. I don't know much about it though.

And it does kill your lungs with regular use, though arguable inhaling any foreign smoke does that.