Marijuana Poll!! Legalize? Or Punish?

[QuarkMoon]

Ha, I've been known too. You keep it to the lower 80mg-ish doses that the kids are doing today rather than the 300mg and upwards of the 60s, and it's actually usually a very pleasant experience - you're aware of your surroundings still, it's not a complete psychedelic freak out, and you're not particularly likely to do anything particularly stupid.

This kind of argument is useless. Alcohol consumed in moderation is also relatively harmless when it comes to inebriation, but do people do it? It is well known that drunk driving is dangerous, how many people still do it?

One more thing that needs to be stressed, marijuana is harmful to one's health whether it is used in moderation or not. It's medicinal properties outweighs it's cancer causing health effects for many people who are in constant pain, but to legalize it for recreational use is both immoral and detrimental to society.

 

[Mystech]

One more thing that needs to be stressed, marijuana is harmful to one's health whether it is used in moderation or not. It's medicinal properties outweighs it's cancer causing health effects for many people who are in constant pain

Cancer causing health effects? On who? I think you're thinking of Tobaco.

This isn't even a health issue - cigarettes are total garbage, twinkies will make you fat and stop your heart, but they're both legal. We've got a double standards for some drugs and not others, and being largely in favor of personal freedom and not living under the rule of a repressive government who thinks it needs to be our mommy and daddy and tell us what we can and can't put in our mouths, let alone lie to us like we're idiots, I'm very much against criminilaztion of drugs like Marijuana LSD or MDMA, or hell any drug for that matter, really.

The simple fact is that prohibition doesn't work, for anyone who wants these illegal drugs they are available, and usually for very reasonable prices - prices which have in fact actually been going down since the 70s, and the DEA and drug scheduling and Nixon's lousy drug war.

All we're doing is making it more dangerous and encouraging criminal behavior by keeping such substances illegal. We should decriminalize possession, license manufacturers and distributors, regulate them like tobacco and alcohol. Then we should get rid of the DEA entirely, take the money that would have gone to fund them and pump it even more into public outreach campaigns, rehab centers, and youth programs to educate young people on the real health risks, and not just that you're a bad person for smoking a joint and a big police man with a club will bash your head in if you do it and then you'll be raped in the ass for years and years in prison.

but to legalize it for recreational use is both immoral and detrimental to society.

Immoral and detrimental to society, how? I'd say that it's detrimental to society to have our government waging a war against our own people. Why criminalize an entire class of non-violent people who create no victims and which, through our public policies we are forcing into dealing directly with gang members and dangerous black-market types - furthermore why are we giving this sort of economic power to the low-lives rather than taking it for ourselves so that we can bleed the cartels and the gangs dry?


As for immorality, that's an extremely weak argument, hardly worth touching. You could be coming at it from so many screw-ball angles that it's pointless. Just try to understand that some people feel that there's nothing more morally right than freedom.

 

[leopold]

most of the myths about marijuana stem from crap like this
http://www.archive.org/details/The_History_of_Marijuana

there is also the fact that the cia and other covert operations depend on drug money

 

[Athelwulf]

whats wrong with it? i think it accurately portrays the situation.

More or less, yes. But the poll ignores the arguments the people against legalizing marijuana use. In fact, the arguments for legalization are built in, and thus the poll is very biased. This example poll is also biased:

:- Yes. I want to put tar in my lungs and spend my hard-earned money on fueling my psychological addiction.
:- No. Take weed off the streets.

 

[duendy]

N one...i repeat NO ONE has ANY right to make a plant/vegetation that grows from the earth illegal. got it? dontcare if you argue till your blue in face. it is W>R>O>N>G!

 

[Sci-Phenomena]

I am pleased with the outcome of this thread, and I thank all those who posted in it.

CONCLUSION: Marijuana is best used in moderation, that way it doesn't fog your mind while you aren't smoking it!

NEGATIVE: Ive had a horrible cold for about a week, I stopped smoking for a few days and Im almost better, so if you get sick, lay off the pot. (not so with the flu however, but don't pass the pipe to your non-sick friends)

(another possibility is that the cold virus can mutate alot from person to person, so when you were sick with "cold virus A" you gave it to your friend while smoking, the virus mutates in him and becomes "cold virus B," and then you get that since you aren't immune, thus having multiple colds and extending your sickness, making it that much harder to become healed)

 

[QuarkMoon]

Cancer causing health effects? On who? I think you're thinking of Tobaco.

Are you serious? Perhaps you should educate yourself just a tad bit.

http://www.ukcia.org/research/EffectsOfMarijuanaOnLungAndImmuneDefenses.html

Habitual marijuana use may lead to the following effects on the lung:

* acute and chronic bronchitis;
* extensive microscopic abnormalities in the cells lining the bronchial passages (bronchial epithelium), some of which may be premalignant;
* overexpression of genetic markers of progression to lung cancer in bronchial tissue;
* abnormally increased accumulation of inflammatory cells (alveolar macrophages) in the lung; and
* impairment in the function of these immune-effector cells (reduced ability to kill microorganisms and tumor cells) and in their ability to produce protective inflammatory cytokines.

Analysis of the smoke contents of marijuana and tobacco reveals much the same gas phase constituents, including chemicals known to be toxic to respiratory tissue (Hoffmann et al. 1975; Novotny et al. 1982). Moreover, these gas phase components are present in somewhat similar concentrations in the smoke generated from the same quantity of marijuana and tobacco. The particulate phase (tar) constituents of marijuana and tobacco smoke are also generally similar, with the major exception that marijuana contains tekahydrocannabinol (THC) and scores of other llIC-like (cannabinoid) compounds not found in tobacco, while tobacco tar contains nicotine not found in marijuana. With regard to the carcinogenic potential of marijuana, it is noteworthy that the tar phase of marijuana smoke contains many of the same carcinogenic compounds contained in tobacco smoke, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, which was recently identified as a key factor promoting human lung cancer (Denissenko et al. 1996).

Marijuana is just as harmful as tobacco, and in some cases more harmful.

This isn't even a health issue - cigarettes are total garbage, twinkies will make you fat and stop your heart, but they're both legal. We've got a double standards for some drugs and not others, and being largely in favor of personal freedom and not living under the rule of a repressive government who thinks it needs to be our mommy and daddy and tell us what we can and can't put in our mouths, let alone lie to us like we're idiots, I'm very much against criminilaztion of drugs like Marijuana LSD or MDMA, or hell any drug for that matter, really.

You're a looney. So, because we made an incredibly huge mistake with cigarettes, you're proposing that we make the same mistake again with Marijuana? When cigarettes were first legalized, we were lied to about it's health affects. We were told no harm would come from it, that it was not addicting, and that it was cool to smoke them. We now know better, however because of it's addicting nature we can not outlaw it without screwing over millions of people who are dependent on them. Cigarettes cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year, and studies show marijuana can be just as harmful. Legalizing it would therefore be immoral, it would be equivalent to reliving the ignorant cigarette era of the 1850's-1950's, giving them out to soldiers and claiming they are harmless in "moderation".

The simple fact is that prohibition doesn't work, for anyone who wants these illegal drugs they are available, and usually for very reasonable prices - prices which have in fact actually been going down since the 70s, and the DEA and drug scheduling and Nixon's lousy drug war.

There are laws against murder, and yet people are still killing each other. There are laws against rape, and yet women are still being raped daily. What you just said could be applied to any law, so using your logic no law works, therefore it is pointless to continue outlawing anything. The point of outlawing something is not to completely rid it from society, that is impossible. The point is to lessen it's detrimental affects on society by punishing those who commit those acts.

take the money that would have gone to fund them and pump it even more into public outreach campaigns, rehab centers, and youth programs to educate young people on the real health risks

Reading this was actually quite entertaining. Not only are you advocating for their legalization, but you acknowledge their health affects and the fact that children will be more inclined to use these drugs, and yet you fail to make any moral connections. You're selfish persuit of "true freedom" will ruin the lives of millions of people, and yet you don't care.

Immoral and detrimental to society, how? I'd say that it's detrimental to society to have our government waging a war against our own people. Why criminalize an entire class of non-violent people who create no victims and which, through our public policies we are forcing into dealing directly with gang members and dangerous black-market types - furthermore why are we giving this sort of economic power to the low-lives rather than taking it for ourselves so that we can bleed the cartels and the gangs dry?

Are you so naive as to think that drug cartels will dissappear when marijuana and other drugs are legalized? Are you living in reality or just visiting? By legalizing the drugs you have just made their jobs a lot easier. They no longer would have to work in secret, they would no longer have to smuggle their product, they would no longer have any fear of being caught. Because their jobs will now become legal. As for not creating victims, when you sell crack to someone and they end of overdosing, you just created a victim.

As for immorality, that's an extremely weak argument, hardly worth touching. You could be coming at it from so many screw-ball angles that it's pointless. Just try to understand that some people feel that there's nothing more morally right than freedom.

Actually, morality is the strongest argument you have to face. Morality is the reason why we have laws in the first place, morality dictates all of our lives. Therefore, when discussin the legalization of an addicting and harmful drug, we must look at the moral implications of such an act. The fact is, legalizing something that is made to impair and harm it's users is both immoral and detrimental to society.

And if marijuana is not addicting, like some people in this thread have claimed, then why is it that in 1999, 220,000 people checking into rehab centers reported that marijuana was the drug they abused? http://www.athealth.com/consumer/disorders/Marijuana.html

Can a person become addicted to marijuana?

Yes. While not everyone who uses marijuana becomes addicted, when a user begins to seek out and take the drug compulsively, that person is said to be dependent on the drug or addicted to it. In 1999, over 220,000 people entering drug treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse, showing they needed help to stop using (12).

Some heavy users of marijuana show signs of dependence because when they do not use the drug, they develop withdrawal symptoms. Some subjects in an experiment on marijuana withdrawal had symptoms, such as restlessness, loss of appetite, trouble sleeping, weight loss, and shaky hands.

According to one study, marijuana use by teenagers who have prior serious antisocial problems can quickly lead to dependence on the drug. That study also found that, for troubled teenagers using tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, progression from their first use of marijuana to regular use was about as rapid as their progression to regular tobacco use, and more rapid than the progression to regular use of alcohol (4).

Source: National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, Inc., State Resources and Services Related to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems for Fiscal Year 1995: An Analysis of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Profile Data, July 1997.


More on Marijuana's role in cancer: http://www.ukcia.org/research/EffectsOfMarijuanaOnLungAndImmuneDefenses.html

Role of Marijuana in Cancer

The following lines of evidence suggest that marijuana may play an important role in the development of respiratory cancer.

* The tar phase of marijuana smoke, as already noted, contains many of the same carcinogenic compounds contained in tobacco smoke, induding nitrosamines, reactive aldehydes, and up to a 50 percent higher concentration of carcinogenic polycydic hydrocarbons, induding benz[a]pyrene (Hoffmann et al. 1975). Benz[a]pyrene, which has recently been shown to promote mutations in the p53 oncogene (Denissenko et al. 1996), is believed to play an important role in human cancer.
* One marijuana cigarette was shown by Wu and colleagues (1988) to deposit four times as much tar in the lung as a single filtered tobacco cigarette of approximately the same weight. The higher content of carcinogenic polycyclic hydrocarbons in marijuana tar and the greater deposition of marijuana tar in the lung act together to amplify exposure of the marijuana smoker to the carcinogens in the tar phase.
* Painting tar from marijuana smoke on the skin of mice produced lesions correlated with malignancy (Cottrell et al. 1973).
* Marijuana tar induced comparable numbers of mutations to those produced by tar from the same quantity of tobacco in a common bacterial assay for mutagenicity (Wehner et al. 1980).
* Exposure of hamster lung cell cultures to marijuana or tobacco smoke over a period of 2 years led to accelerated malignant transformation within 3-6 months of marijuana exposure compared to control (unexposed) cell cultures. Moreover, the changes in the cells exposed to marijuana smoke were more impressive than those in the tobacco-exposed cells (Leuchtenberger and Leuchtenberger 1976).
* Biopsies of bronchial lining tissue of habitual marijuana smokers demonstrated extensive cellular alterations, some of which may be considered premalignant. Effects of smoking both marijuana and tobacco on these cellular changes appeared to be additive (Fligiel et al. in press).
* Bronchial immunohistology revealed overexpression of genetic markers of lung tumor progression in smokers of marijuana (Roth et al. 1996).
* Preliminary findings suggest that marijuana smoke activates cytochrome P4501A1, the enzyme that converts polycyclic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, into active carcinogens (Roth preliminary data).
* Alveolar macrophages from marijuana-only smokers have reduced ability to kill tumor cell targets (Baldwin et al. 1996).
* Pretreatment of mice with THC for 2 weeks prior to implanting Lewis lung cancer cells (a non-small-cell immunogenic carcinoma) into the animals caused larger, faster-growing tumors, a finding that was correlated with the increased immunosuppressive cytokine produced by the tumor cells, transforming growth factor-beta (Zhu et al. 1997). These findings suggest a THC-related impairment in immune responsiveness to tumor antigens.
* Several case-series reports indicate an unexpectedly large proportion of marijuana users among cases of lung cancer (Sridhar et al. 1994; Taylor 1988) and upper aerodigestive tract cancers (cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx); (Donald 1991; Endicott et al. 1993; Taylor 1988) that occurred before age 45 years. These case-series reports suggest that marijuana may play a role in the development of human respiratory cancer. Without a control group, however, the effect of marijuana use on cancer risk cannot be estimated, nor can the potentially confounding effect of tobacco and other risk factors be controlled.

 

[QuarkMoon]

N one...i repeat NO ONE has ANY right to make a plant/vegetation that grows from the earth illegal. got it? dontcare if you argue till your blue in face. it is W>R>O>N>G!

When that plant is harmful to your health, outlawing it is justified.

 

[leopold]

You're a looney. So, because we made an incredibly huge mistake with cigarettes, you're proposing that we make the same mistake again with Marijuana? When cigarettes were first legalized, we were lied to about it's health affects.

you are forgetting something quarkmoon
and that is marijuana is not physically addicting
there is really no comparison between the two

 

[leopold]

And if marijuana is not addicting, like some people in this thread have claimed, then why is it that in 1999, 220,000 people checking into rehab centers reported that marijuana was the drug they abused? http://www.athealth.com/consumer/disorders/Marijuana.html

i am positive that marijuana is the drug all drug users started with

marijuana is not physically addicting

anybody that says it is is either misinformed or outright lying

 

[Athelwulf]

QuarkMoon, I've done marijuana a few times, and I'm not addicted. Sure, I would like more of it, but for me it's comparable to wanting more ice cream when you're out. Weed may get addicting if you smoke it regularly, which one of your links says, but that's most likely a psychological addiction.

 

[QuarkMoon]

i am positive that marijuana is the drug all drug users started with

marijuana is not physically addicting

anybody that says it is is either misinformed or outright lying

That source was not talking about whether or not marijuana was that addicts gateway drug, it is talking about people who are checking into rehab to kick their marijuana habit. However you want to spin the facts to save what little credibility your argument has, it is indisputable that marijuana is harmful, and some people can develop a psychological addiction. Physical addiction has not yet been proved, however studies on animals have shown some physical dependence.

Physical or psychological, the affects are just as dangerous and the conclusions remain the same. People can get hooked on marijuana.

 

[QuarkMoon]

QuarkMoon, I've done marijuana a few times, and I'm not addicted. Sure, I would like more of it, but for me it's comparable to wanting more ice cream when you're out. Weed may get addicting if you smoke it regularly, which one of your links says, but that's most likely a psychological addiction.

I also use marijuana, so it's not like I'm speaking from total ignorance. But I'll say this, a psychological addiction can be just as bad as a physical addiction. Many psychological addictions, like food addiction that causes people to become morbidly obese are just as powerful and just as hard to kick as a physical addiction.

 

[leopold]

. . . and some people can develop a psychological addiction. Physical addiction has not yet been proved, however studies on animals have shown some physical dependence.

this is my point quarkmoon
nicotine is physically addictve, withdrawal symptoms are always moderate to severe

marijuana is not physically addistive, withdrawal symptoms are light to moderate

there is also plenty of evidence that shows marijuana serves as a gateway drug

 

[leopold]

http://www.athealth.com/consumer/disorders/Marijuana.html

from the above mentioned site:

In one study conducted in Memphis, TN, researchers found that, of 150 reckless drivers who were tested for drugs at the arrest scene, 33 percent tested positive for marijuana, and 12 percent tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine (2).

the above is misleading
you can test positive for marijuana use long after the effects have disappeared

it wouldn't be at all uncommon to test positive a week after you used marijuana

also, alcohol use is not mentioned and it has to be at least 50% or more of the drivers involved

 

[Clockwood]

I figure legalize... but have it illegal to drive under the influence of it, smoke or move around under its influence in public places (anywhere other than inside your own home), anyone under 21, and a half-dozen other restrictions.

I have no problem with you lowering your own IQ and spermcount.

 

[QuarkMoon]

this is my point quarkmoon
nicotine is physically addictve, withdrawal symptoms are always moderate to severe

marijuana is not physically addistive, withdrawal symptoms are light to moderate

Semantics. The withdrawal symptoms of marijuana are severe enough so that hundreds of thousands of people seek professional help to kick the habit.

there is also plenty of evidence that shows marijuana serves as a gateway drug

Yes, I know, however the information I posted was not referring to marijuana being an individuals gateway drug, it was referring to people who have checked into rehab for the sole purpose of kicking a marijuana addiction.

Also, the fact that marijuana does serve as a gateway drug is another argument against legalization. Not only is it harmful and addicting, but it can push people to try "harder" drugs that can kill you.

 

[QuarkMoon]

I figure legalize... but have it illegal to drive under the influence of it, smoke or move around under its influence in public places (anywhere other than inside your own home), anyone under 21, and a half-dozen other restrictions.

I have no problem with you lowering your own IQ and spermcount.

That would be the only course I could accept. Put heavy restrictions on it, as well as numerous safe-guards to make sure children are not getting their hands on it. Right now, we are having a terrible time with underage drinking, before we had a problem with underage smoking of cigarettes, the last thing we need is a problem with underage marijuana tokers.

 

[Mystech]

Are you serious? Perhaps you should educate yourself just a tad bit. (reguarding the alleged link between pot and cancer)

Well I have, actually. I'll see your old study and raise you two new ones supported by a few more decades of research.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1106/a09.html?275821
http://www.springerlink.com/(moembt...l,79,123;linkingpublicationresults,1:100150,1

Both of these recent studies suggest that there is in fact no positive correlation between long-term cannabis use and lung cancer, and in fact, seems to suggest a slight negative correlation.

As for other various other negative health effects of marijuana why not just swing by wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis#endnote_Tashkin2

It's not the most professional or well respected source, I'll admit, but it's been shown to be as accurate on matters of science and math as most text-books - besides this article in particular is well cited, so it's a good jumping off point for a look into the actual risks of smoking pot - which are less in both number and severity than smoking tobacco.

Marijuana is just as harmful as tobacco, and in some cases more harmful.

I don't blame you for thinking that. I used to believe the same things before I actually looked into the matter, back when inaccurate public school programs like D.A.R.E. were the only sources of info I had. I'm still willing to believe their vaunted positive correlation between marijuana use and increased risk of police brutality and violent anal rape, but really we have the power to put an end to that if we can just turn this nation's backward social policies around.

You're a looney.

Wow thanks, sweetheart, I'm really keen on you, too.

So, because we made an incredibly huge mistake with cigarettes, you're proposing that we make the same mistake again with Marijuana? When cigarettes were first legalized, we were lied to about it's health affects. We were told no harm would come from it, that it was not addicting, and that it was cool to smoke them. We now know better, however because of it's addicting nature we can not outlaw it without screwing over millions of people who are dependent on them.

Right, a really ugly situation that says the worst about corporate America and some of the things that people can get away with in the name of Capitalism. Thanks, however, to the fact that cigarettes are legal and have a lot invested in doing above-the-board business in this country we've got a lot of leverage over them. They can't use cute cartoon characters to reach out to kids, are restricted greatly in how and where they can advertise, and even have to put a health warning right on the box. And to boot the number of smokers has been steadily decreasing, while the adverse health effects are known well by nearly every child and adult in the country, especially smokers themselves. And to boot the price of a pack has been rising faster and harder than oil. Smoking has never been so unattractive!

That's what I'd call a successful campaign against a drug - the effect that we've been able to have on tobaco in this country is far greater than we've seen with any single drug that we've simply prohibited entirely. The price of Heroin, for instance has dropped astoundingly in price since the 1970s. Marijuana, too is a lot cheaper today than it was back in it's hey-day in the 60s.

An experiment for the kids: Tell your parents what you're paying your dealer for one oz. of pot today, and watch their jaws hit the floor. If those dirty unemployed hippies were paying today's prices for their wacky tobacky they might have lasted a little longer before imploding and everyone going yuppie. Yeah, hey if the DEA and drug scheduling got started earlier, maybe we'd all be wearing flowers in our hair today.

Cigarettes cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year, and studies show marijuana can be just as harmful.

Again, the opposite of this is true. The effects of marijuana on long-term smokers are fewer and less severe than for tobaco users, but hey, don't just take my word for it.

Legalizing it would therefore be immoral, it would be equivalent to reliving the ignorant cigarette era of the 1850's-1950's, giving them out to soldiers and claiming they are harmless in "moderation".

There are laws against murder, and yet people are still killing each other. There are laws against rape, and yet women are still being raped daily. What you just said could be applied to any law, so using your logic no law works, therefore it is pointless to continue outlawing anything.

You couldn't have missed the point by a wider margin, have you? Try and actually listening to the argument rather than just thinking I'm a madman with a vendetta against law itself. Prohibition laws are quite different from laws prohibiting crimes with actual victims.

The authoritarian nature of locking up a non-violent "Criminal" simply because what they put in their body may not be the best thing for them is far to extreme for my tastes, and I would argue far to extreme for any free society, especially a democratic republic. Furthermore, if the idea is to reduce drug usage or drug crime, then, as we can see from the state of the drug war today, it most often has a reverse effect. That's the nature of prohibition and we've seen it again and again, it's a bit of a shame that our policy makers haven't woken up to this yet.

The point of outlawing something is not to completely rid it from society, that is impossible. The point is to lessen it's detrimental affects on society by punishing those who commit those acts.

Finally you're talking a bit of sense. However what you aren't acknowledging is that the war on drugs has had the exact opposite effect.

Prohibition of drugs has created a vas black market - drugs are still available cheaply and in vast quantities to whomever wants them. What prohibition of drugs does give us, though, is unsafe drugs, cut and sprayed with whatever the dealer wants - there's no recourse to the law here if you wind up smoking some dust in your weed, or snorting a compound that's made mostly of baking soda. Worse still, it makes it so that people already largely outside the bounds of the law will have control over trafficking and distribution - cartels from south America, Mafia, street gangs and what have you.

So along with a lack of reduction in actual drug usage or availability we're also throwing legitimately bad people, like los vatos locos over in Guadalupe a source of income great enough to keep them in mac-11s and AK-47s so that they can bust down the door of a house in a residential area over in Mesa that they know is used for storage for the ninos varrio, and spray the whole area with gunfire and make off with a few bales to sell themselves.

Top it all off with prisons over-crowded with non-violent offenders who get longer parallels terms than one would for raping a child, and you have all of the supposed social benefits that the drug war is supposed to bring us. I don't think anyone's previously looked into the possibility of keeping a young boy with them when smoking pot so that they could shove their stash up his ass if the cops come knocking, but in this climate it's probably a pretty good idea.

Not only are you advocating for their legalization, but you acknowledge their health affects

Haha yeah, health affects seems to be pretty appropriate when talking about pot - but as for the effects, I think I've already made it clear that I don't agree with what you've put forward, and neither really does the legitimate research done on the matter. I also feel that a person's health is their business.

A big-mac has been proven time and again to be just awful for your health (i'd wager much worse than a joint) but I'll be damned if I'd let the government tell anyone that they can't have one. The appeal to freedom is my own self-indulgent moralistic argument, but at least it's founded in good judicial and legal philosophy.

and the fact that children will be more inclined to use these drugs, and yet you fail to make any moral connections. You're selfish pursuit of "true freedom" will ruin the lives of millions of people, and yet you don't care.

Wow, what a bold claim. No, you are incorrect in trying to divine what I think will happen to children if pot is legalized - though you would have done better to think along the lines of common sense (or at least good economic sense) instead of thinking I want to hurt the poor innocent children.

First off I resent the implication that I want kids to smoke pot. Quite the opposite is true, but this is mostly for selfish personal reasons, I hate pot-heads, I think they're terribly dull and even a bit degenerate, and don't like to be around anyone who's noticeably inebriated.

My perfect world probably looks very similar to your own, I wanna' see fewer kids doing pot, and really the market for hard drugs dwindling (compared to current levels). Let's be honest, though, the war on drugs isn't going to get us there. As things stand it would be very difficult for Marijuana to achieve higher market penetration among young people than it already has - which is to say I don't think that there's much that could get even more kids trying pot than already do. Have you been to a public high-school lately? You're going to have to search high and low for a kid who hasn't at least tried a joint or taking a hit from a bong.

Contrast that with how many kids smoke tobacco cigarettes, however, and I think you might be surprised - tobacco is flat out harder to get, more expensive and less appealing for kids today than marijuana. If we had the same control over marijuana as we did over tobacco, were able to put a surgeon's general warning on it, artificially drive the price up, and make it harder to get through a minimum buying age (necessitating that kids get it from an otherwise law-abiding citizen willing to break the law just for a group of bratty kids) we could really see a sharp decrease in marijuana usage among youth. As for adults - they're adults, let self determination, and good solid education which we will cram down their throats, just like tobacco, do it's work; you can lead a horse to water, etc. . .

Are you so naive as to think that drug cartels will disappear when marijuana and other drugs are legalized?

Yes, I would characterize myself as being so naive, though I would call it economic awareness, rather than naiveté.

Let's look, for a minuet, at Nevada, a state where, in many cities and counties prostitution is legal. You'll still find a fair number of prostitutes in Nevada (Clean, government regulated, brothel working, regularly tested, safe prostitutes who don't get smacked around by a violent john, because they're free to turn to the police), but unlike the rest of the country, when you find a prostate in Nevada you won't find a Pimp. That's right, there's no big fuzzy hat wearing, cane wielding guy with a .22 tucked into the waistband of his pants - he doesn't hit his girls, and doesn't get 'em hooked on coke, and doesn't take a cut - why not? Because in an economic model where prostitution is legal its big legitimate brothel owners that the girls work for, and if he tries to make them chemically dependant of him, or intimidate them by beating them then he can very easily be thrown in jail.

If we legalize drugs, we'll see the exact same thing happen, only in this case our own existing pharmesutical tobacco and alcohol industries will be the ones taking the place of the brothels (the cartels, and street gangs would be the pimps, and of course we're stuck as the whores). What we'd see is legitimized over-the counter trade of drugs, people would no longer have to deal with undesirable color-wearing ghetto dwellers or risk being sprayed with gunfire, or even bother ever heading down those scary parts of town at night, and so they wouldn't. There's no way a street gang can compete with corporate America, not when it comes to price and convenience. What we'd see is a major source of income lost for street thugs - they cant' buy their shiny pearl handled Desert Eagles, and I'd go so far as to predict that with without the income that the drug trade provides many gangs would just evaporate all together, a dying breed just like pimps and street walkers in Nevada.

This is simply the nature of a Black Market - you shine the light of legitimacy on it and the undesirable elements have to turn to dust - With the economic incentive structure that allowed their violent existence to occur in the first place utterly destroyed they're going to have to find new work quick.

This is what I mean when I say we need to give corporate America (and through it's normal regulatory powers) the US government control over the drug trade rather than leaving it in the hands of guys for whom a "hostile takeover" involves automatic gun-fire.

By legalizing the drugs you have just made their jobs a lot easier. They no longer would have to work in secret, they would no longer have to smuggle their product, they would no longer have any fear of being caught.
Because their jobs will now become legal.

Well again, I'm glad you have such faith that Los Vatos Locos can stand up and compete against Wal*Mart if it were put to that, but even if they could, they'd now have to do so in an above-the-board way. We could set whatever rules we like, the FDA would be able to put forth purity standards for the drugs so that consumers could be more certain of what they're actually ingesting - we could license sellers if we want, limit advertising, tax it of course, slap surgeon's general warnings on there and artificially inflate the price to astronomical levels just like a carton of cigarettes. The market will bear all of that, because the fact is that consumers will want to go get their pot (or any other drug) down at the local convenience store or pharmacy rather than in the bathroom of a nightclub, or on a street corner in a nasty part of town where they might be shot or raped either in relation to the purchase or on their way there or back.

If the cartels and gangs could adapt and actually compete in that sort of market, then God bless 'em for being such crafty entrepreneurs, but something tells me that Marlboro will have 'em beat by a mile the minuet pot is de-scheduled.

As for not creating victims, when you sell crack to someone and they end of overdosing, you just created a victim.

Well this is a hard one to argue. You're right, Crack is awful and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, and it's a vile scourge, and if I could I'd evaporate it all, or throw it into the sun like Superman and get it out of our cities and our schools never to be heard from again.

In a feel-good touchy feely sort of way that's just what this war on drugs aims to do - unfortunately in a practical real-world hard economic real world the war on drugs is entirely impotent to do anything at all but make the problem even worse by driving the problem underground, out of our control out of our power to regulate, and letting some very bad people make the rules to the game.

With legalized drugs available to consumers, and black-market drug traders squeezed right out of business we could tax the living hell out of any drug we want, and put that money toward greater community outreach programs, education programs, and rehabilitation centers in order to discourage drug use, socialy stigmatize it, educate people about the real risks they're taking with their own health and lives if they decide to take up the crack pipe even once, and fun rehab centers as a safety net for those people who do fall down that precipice.

Considering the way our federal government has been funding education since the 70s though (ie not) I don't think we're ever going to see that sort of social program unless we perhaps can create a new industry spacificaly to draw new taxes from.

As for our existing drug education programs well. . . all I ever learned from D.A.R.E. was how to shoot smack, snort blow and that it's really fun to fuck while tweaking (Oh, that and cute street slang to make it sound as if I already am a junkie to go along with my new knowledge of how to do drugs).

Actually, morality is the strongest argument you have to face.

Again, you're correct, though the implications of that are rather grim. This same argument is exactly why the drug war needs to end - while it may feel good, in terms of practical hard economics it's an utter disaster and only getting worse. The detriment to our society is nearly incalculable, but our puritan ethics, and wealth of politicians who are unwilling to cut through the happy haze of feeling like we're doing something and actually talk straight to get real results have us handicapped.

Somewhere the ghost of Nixon is laughing at us, his drawn-out face contorted in a gruesome smile while jowls flap and the devil stands beside him, patting him on the back for a job well done.

Morality is the reason why we have laws in the first place, morality dictates all of our lives.

Maybe in a theocracy, but it's sort of impractical in a democracy. Especially when dealing with commerce a law needs to be designed to attain a certain effect, some real measurable difference in the way we trade or transfer money. If the drug war's aim is to make drugs less available or cushion their impact on our society then it has failed completely and achieved an opposite effect.

If, however, it is about taking a stand and feeling good and turning our backs to the real consequences of our policies, well then, Mission accomplished.

The fact is, legalizing something that is made to impair and harm it's users is both immoral and detrimental to society.

Sad but true: “Supposed to” and “Actually does” are separated by a vast gulf when it comes to the war on drugs.

And if marijuana is not addicting, like some people in this thread have claimed, then why is it that in 1999, 220,000 people checking into rehab centers reported that marijuana was the drug they abused?

There is a difference between chemical addiction and psychological addiction. Marijuana is not chemically addictive like tobacco or alcohol, but it, like anything else, especially things that make you happy when you do them, can create a psychological addiction. Aside from that, the numbers you're reporting could simply be a tally of how many people who were checked into that rehab center were also doing pot regularly in addition to some other substance which they might have formed a chemical addiction to. There are, however no known chemically addictive substances in cannabis.

Some people really like the whole "gateway drug" argument, but something tells me that if you polled how many users of black tar heroin started on tobacco cigarettes and beer we'd have a good case for implying that these two are "gateway" drugs, even though we know full well that people who smoke and drink are not necessarily at greater risk to begin using black tar heroin - which is to say that there is no real causal relationship between the two - the link is in the heroin user's propensity to abuse substances, not in beer or cigarettes to drive people toward harder drugs.

 

[Sci-Phenomena]

Pot isn't all that harmfull, its been in use for over 2000 years, and it serves as a source of income for the criminals who have friends in high places, the friends who keep it illegal, the friends who drive the price WAAAAAAAAY up.... thus CREATING a pot market through its illegal status.

The truth has been placed before your mind, since the above is truth, it says a great deal about the current STATUS of things.