Marijuana Legalization - Why Not?

[Asher]

Why isn't Marijuana legalized? Really?

People who want to smoke it still smoke it. But they do so via the government-created black market. Having it illegal actually hurts the government in a few ways: Lost revenue from potential taxes, the cost to enforce the anti-drug laws, and by branding everyday citizens as criminals for doing something no worse than drinking. Then to take it a step farther, the money generated on this black market usually ends back up in the hands of gangs or other cartels, which use it to fund real illegal activity, which in turn raises the cost to the government (as well as crime rate).

If alcohol is legal, why is Marijuana illegal?

[Provost Harrison]

I agree, the thing between alcohol and marijuana comes down to one of social acceptability. However the tables are turning on this one, and the current laws are unworkable. In the UK they have deregulated marijuana down to a lower class, so it is slowly sliding down as the government just don't assign the same priority to it now. Perhaps they will eventually legalise it, it has significant support within the house of commons (and probably the lords as a lot of them would smoke it )

[Buck Birdseed]

Yes, the difference is indeed social acceptability. There's no way the government can get away with banning alcohol- so many people use it anyway that the system would collapse. This, however, is not the case with weed. Here, a ban shows the government as a socially responsible entity, an arm of society as a whole, which strongly condemns the use of a known harmful substance. And it works. Sweden has the biggest public support for strong anti-pot laws (93% in recent polls) and some of the lowest usage in the western world (10% or thereabouts). So, quite simply- stronger laws reduce Marijuana usage through sending a negative message, weaker laws increase it by sending a positive message.

And surely a reduced Marijuana usage is something worth fighting for.

[Giancarlo]

I have to agree with snapcase on this one, legalization you might think would reduce consumption would actually increase it in my opinion. So I think extremely tough laws against the use would be the only way to curb it. In the US there isn´t support for the legalization of marijuana. Plus, if it was legalized the DEA wouldn´t have a point to exist and I don´t think government would want to do away with the DEA.

[SlowwHand]

Legalize, and tax, marijuana.
Rather than the government wasting millions, why not make millions?

Do something besides talk about it here.
Join N.O.R.M.L. www.norml.org
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

[Goingonit]

Here in Ontario for alcohol we have the LCBO (liquor control board - it sells alcohol for retail) and the LLBO (liquor licensing board - it licenses restauraunts). We should make the MCBO and the MLBO for marjuana and tax it to hell.

[CB2034]

I am not against pot however im gonna try to argue a counter proposal.
First of all, from a Christian perspective,
You are suppose to treat your body as a temple, smoking pot destroys your body.
You are suppose to obey the laws of the land, if the law says dont smoke it, then you dont smoke it.
Second of all, from a crime statistic.
People who smoke pot more often then not move into more hardcore drugs.
Someone under the influence of pot still suffers from delayed reaction time and becomes more clumsy (i know this from experience) and more likely to not be able to control motor vehicles, while this can also be said of alcohol, it is much easier to tell if someone is under the influence of alcohol then it is pot (i.e. breathalyzer)
And lastly,
Smoking one joint is like smoking a pack of cigarettes at once when comparing the amount of damage it does to your lungs, one might argue that it is ones choice whether or not to destroy your own body, however in the long run the entire populace have to pay for ones medical bills.

Just a counter-proposal, nothing more, nothing less

[SlowwHand]

Except that you're wrong.
If you want to take a creationist's viewpoint, make it accurate.
God created all on earth, to include plants.
This includes marijuana in it's natural state.
When you get into man altered substances, including the ingredients in alcohol, then you have a point.

[Juggernaut]

Smoking one joint is like smoking a pack of cigarettes at once when comparing the amount of damage it does to your lungs, one might argue that it is ones choice whether or not to destroy your own body, however in the long run the entire populace have to pay for ones medical bills.

D'uh. There's actually less tobacco in a joint, due to that the substance is mixed with cannabis. Plus, people commonly share joints with 3-4 others. On a lung perspective, smoking one joint is thus like smoking 1/4 of a Marlboro Light. There's yet to be one single death victim due to cannabis usage. How many lives have alcohole taken? Millions?

I also disagree with cannabis banning from a philosophical perspective. People have the full rights to their own bodies. What they do with them is noone else's business.
It's all about cultural conservatism.

I'm not a cannabis user myself, but I'm 100% pro social liberty.

[CB2034]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Except that you're wrong.
If you want to take a creationist's viewpoint, make it accurate.
God created all on earth, to include plants.
This includes marijuana in it's natural state.
When you get into man altered substances, including the ingredients in alcohol, then you have a point.

It was a counter proposal , in which I dont believe in the first place, just practicing debate, however, I will attempt to prove how your thinking is clouded my friend. Frist the bible tells us to treat our bodies like a temple, smoking anything destroys our bodies and clouds are judgement, two things in which the bible tells us not to do. Second, the bible tells us it is ok to imbibe (i dont think i spelled that right) alchohol but not to over indulge. I cant remember anytime where someone has smoked and not overindulged, one hit gives u a buzz. Yes the bible does tell us that God gave us all the seed and herb bearing plants to use, however, we are suppose to understand what that means. Does it mean that we are suppose to smoke it, I dont think so. Does it mean we should harvest hemp to make clothes and rope and paper because it is better then destroying forest for the same thing, I do think so. You must use comon sense here.

[CB2034]

Originally posted by Juggernaut

D'uh. There's actually less tobacco in a joint, due to that the substance is mixed with cannabis. Plus, people commonly share joints with 3-4 others. On a lung perspective, smoking one joint is thus like smoking 1/4 of a Marlboro Light.

Not everybody shares, I used to Bogart them

Originally posted by Juggernaut


There's yet to be one single death victim due to cannabis usage. How many lives have alcohole taken? Millions?

I can name a few. First off Toonces, the driving cat. That cat dies many times and I for one am sure that that cat was a stoner

Originally posted by Juggernaut


I also disagree with cannabis banning from a philosophical perspective. People have the full rights to their own bodies. What they do with them is noone else's business.
It's all about cultural conservatism.

I'm not a cannabis user myself, but I'm 100% pro social liberty.

Philosophical reasons, when those people get lung cancer, Its gonna be my tax dollars that take care of them. Its gonna be your tax dollars that take care of them. From personal experience, most of the people I know that still smoke pot live with their folks, live in public housing, or are barely squeaking by.
Most of these folks (that i know) dont keep a steady job and are dependant on the government to live, and then spend their own money on pot, which leads to another pet peave of mine, and this is actually a pet peave. People who use food stamps at the Grocery store and then buy beer with cash. Where do those food stamps come from. They come from my tax dollars. Im paying taxes so these trailer trash imbred rednecks can get drunk.

again, just a counter proposal, nothing more nothing less

[Juggernaut]

Originally posted by Snapcase
stronger laws reduce Marijuana usage through sending a negative message, weaker laws increase it by sending a positive message.

When they legalized cannabis in the Netherlands in 1976, the usage amongst 15-16 year olds was about 3%, same number for 17-18 yer olds was 10%. 10 years after the legalization were the numbers 2% respectively 6%. To compare with restrictive US's High School students' 59%!
I think that tell us that a more liberal aproach actually diminish the problem, not the other way round. Banning is generally bad.
The only critisiscm I have of Netherlands' Drug Politics is that they didn't went the whole way and legalized hard drugs as well. The government do give out pure needles however, this is not a way to encourage narcotica usage, but is seen as a way to save lives.

[Bereta_Eder]

I know this makes me "unpolular" but I don't think marijuana should be legalized.

It also makes me smile saddly when I see people fighting for it like it is the most important thing on earth

[Juggernaut]

Philosophical reasons, when those people get lung cancer

Like I said, there is no evidence of a connection between cannabis usage and lung cancer.
Imagine yourself, how big is the risk of attracting lung cancer if smoking one cigarrette a day.

From personal experience, most of the people I know that still smoke pot live with their folks, live in public housing, or are barely squeaking by.

Yes, and yet the drugs are prohibited. Contente: banning doesn't decrease the actual problem. People will always use escapistic substances, whether you allow them to or not. Just look at the alcohol banning in the '30's. Whole crime syndicates were spawned out of the blue. But if you wanna continue feeding the black market and criminals, that's fine with me.

Just a counter-proposal, nothing else.

[General Ludd]

People should know better then to consume any sort of drug.