Because alcohol and tobacco are legal. Tobacco doesn't really have any place in my argument but alcohol is destructive enough, we don't need to add another impairing substance to the list. Is marijuana less destructive or impairing than alcohol? I don't know and I'm not going to bother reading yet another biased study so don't bother digging one up. My point however is that since alcohol is already legal we really don't need to legalize yet another impairing substance and add to the risk of car accidents or other accidents caused by marijuana. Sure it's hypocritical but with good reason, I'd vote to ban alcohol before I vote to legalize marijuana. Marijuana is nothingmore than a symbol of indulgence anyway, it serves no use other than medicinal purposes and, call my crazy but, I'm guessing the vast majority of marijuana users don't suffer glaucoma or something of the sort that can be treated with marijuana. Stop hiding behind arguments of incarceration numbers and taxes, you just want to get high, get over yourselves.

I know the whole "legalize it because alcohol and tobacco are legal" argument doesn't really mean squat as an argument.

But laws ought to be consistent. Not everyone likes to drink. Most people hate tobacco, and it doesn't even fuck you up like drinking or smoking. (hookah = awesome however)

I think alcohol is more dangerous to the body and can be a lot more addictive than smoking.

We want to get high, and our getting high doesn't hurt you or anyone else. You, on the other hand, seek to regulate what goes on within other people's bodies to suit your tastes. One of us, surely, needs to get over ourself. . .

As if you need my, or more importantly the government's, approval to get high. If you want to do it then go ahead and just do it. Anyone who can't find someone to buy weed off of isn't even trying. Leave politics out of it.

I think it should be legalized. For many reasons, chiefly so that its not laced, and so that its distribution is somewhat regulated.

Lol but think about where will it be distributed? Pharmacies? Grocery Stores? Liquor Stores? Or will there be new stores opening with varieties of pot in them?

So, if I want to get high, you're fine with it. But it should still be illegal. . .

but politics is already in it, when they tell the cops to arrest us...

If you want to get high then waste your own money and time, you don't need it to be legal. I'm saying trying to waste the government's time by changing it is pointless. All you want to do is get high, so do it. The government has better things to worry about than a bunch of chronic-smoking hippies. It it immoral, probably not. Is it dangerous, debatable. Is it worth the time in Senate, hell fucking no.



That's the risk you have to take. Don't want to worry about it? Get drunk like everyone else.

Spoken like true cattle. Your government would be proud.

I've been trying to avoid this topic, but it's fruitless. There's a reason why drugs like alcohol are legal and drugs like THC aren't. Our government wants subdued, polite cattle on the range, doing what they're supposed to be doing and not questioning anything. They'll be so pleased to know that they've hooked another one, willing to take their laws at face value and attempt to demean those that undermind them.

Don't believe me? Type in the word "subdued" into Google and take a look at the Google ads on the right. What do you see? Why, nothing other than the U.S. Army.

EDIT: Medications and addictions cost money. To get money, you have to work. When you work, you pay taxes. See how it works? Giving people a way to see that the entire system is nothing but bullshit would destroy everything they've worked for for the past 220 years. It's much better for them to have a nation of lushes and pill-poppers too cross-eyed to read the news right.

but i shouldn't have to worry about it. That risk shouldn't be there.

srsly

Whats the ratio of Drunk driving accidents to Weed caused driving accidents?

I haven't a clue, but I'm curious though

Those who agree with the law are not "cattle".
Banning THC has nothing to do with keeping the population subdued. Some people are rowdy as fuck when they're drunk.
I can find army links when I search for a lot of things.
You are full of shit.

Most of this post has nothing to do with why marijuana should be legalized, it's just a bunch of vague bullshit that says the government uses drugs to control us, and that THC is banned because it would magically make us question the government and destroy everything America has become in the last 220 years. You don't make much sense. You're just using some pseudoemotional appeal to everyone who enjoys marijuana. Who belongs with the "cattle": someone who agrees with a law, or someone who blindly argues against it without a clue?

I can use this stupid fucking smiley and look like I have a convincing argument, too.

I, for one, completely agree with igotit4cheap. Maybe not with the way he presented his arguments, but if I get the essence of what he's saying, and I think I do, it goes something like this:

Marijuana is a drug with psychedelic properties, and it induces a different mindset which is mostly incompatible with the 'sober' mindset. Neither better nor worse, just different. But these differences create fractures, binaries in society, which erode our stability--look at the endless war between the right and the left, causing heated debates and discord in our country. If marijuana is legalized, the war between pot smokers and non-pot smokers would be just as divisive.

Most of the pro-legalization posters in this topic smoke weed, and obviously feel that it is a good idea. I do not, and though I think legalization is ultimately ideal, I think that it would only serve to create more fractures and binaries in society, and since pro/anti marijuana legalization does mostly run along the same poles as the right/left ones, it would create internal discord and conflict beyond what we are already facing in these contentious times.

Basically, marijuana legalization is not as simple as 'it has less health risks than alcohol,' and our country just is not ready for the political, ethical, and philosophical baggage that comes with its approval, not to mention the fallout that would ensue from the government admitting to decades of propaganda, lies, inprisonment, wasted tax dollars, wasted man-hours. Not to mention that marijuana impairs the ability to perform many work-related activities at a rate far beyond anything alcohol can provide, in regards to its lingering effects post-consumption. Not to mention that there is no easy way to create a line of demarcation for 'highness,' apply it to driving while intoxicated, and provide a means of measurement for police officers the nation over. Not to mention that marijuana is demotivating for many, running in opposition to the drive for excellence we hold as one of our national ideals. Not to mention that there is a false assumption made by most weed advocates, that the government is okay with the legality of alcohol, rather than that the prohibition of alcohol simply did not work in any way, while the prohibition of marijuana, while inefficient, is still working on a fundamental level. Not to mention that the majority of people want it to remain illegal, and that there is no reason for the government to attempt to sway them otherwise.

(if you want to smoke it, smoke it. you're safe in your own home, and alcohol consumption is banned in most public places, so it serves to reason that marijuana consumption would be as well, anyway. so what's the difference? you can't get high in bars? hop off.)

Guess i upset someone "important."

It's not aabout needin the governments approval to get high. It's about doing something people enjoy and wanting it to be legal. You're saying anyone can find weed, you'd be surprised how much of a hassle I have seen people go through just to get weed. Politics are already in it when we can get arrested for it. It's a pain to have to find a "drug dealer." not to mention I would personally hate to have a drug dealer, the connotations with drug dealer are bad enough as it is.

You make it seem like any chum can get weed when they want. Most drug dealers aren't willing to just open their business to anyone, and if they are, they are probably idiots and those are the drug dealers that will get you in trouble with the law.

Don't argue that you shouldn't need the gov'ts approval to get high. We don't need their approval after all we are breaking the law, we are asking for a more simple, regulated, safer way to do something in our leisure time.

Your argument against legalization is that it would waste the government's time? If the government has better things to do than worry about people smoking pot, should it not logically then stop spending all the money and time it currently is spending to try to stop people from smoking pot?

As for Bolt, I got nothing.

How much time? How much money? Sure if a cop pulls someone over and they fine pot on whoever then they'll probably charge them but how many marijuana busts have you heard of? I may hear of one once a while in the news but those are always tied to cocaine and other more serious drugs. Besides, that's police enforcement, not Washington.

1.2 Billion dollars spent in a single year as a direct result of marijuana being illegal. And that's only on the costs of imprisoning those people.

Some people are rowdy when they're drunk? No shit, what does that even try to prove?

He was implying that alcohol somehow makes everyone subdued, when in fact, it makes some people the opposite.

Where's that from? I'd like to see any full article/statistics if possible. Regardless, even if they weren't in jail you'd still have to pay the same taxes. I can't remember any specific "marijuana incarceration" tax. Let them free and we'll still be paying the same thing for the other 96.7% prisoners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for...ition#Economics


-Legalizing it to save money isn't a valid argument, because the government would just waste it anyways. There's no point in trying to reduce government spending.

-Maintaining prohibition to save time is a valid argument, because the government will make good use of the time it saves.


"Man Ted Kennedy, I sure am glad we didn't have to spend any time voting on marijuana legalization, now I've got a chance to go build a house for Habitats for Humanity!"
"Right you are Rick Santorum, all that debating just eats of up time I could use for, well, eating. And also drunk driving. Because I'm Ted Kennedy, and that's what I do with my life."

As much as I'd like to believe;



I can't shake the bad taste in my mouth that the last italicized part is causing. That's one hell of a claim to make without any shred of evidence whatsoever. Maybe it's pessimistic of me but I think even if they could cut taxes by 1/3 I imagine the US government would replace that third with taxes for something else, like Bush's unreasonable war budget, since they'd probably assume no one will notice if the taxes simply remain the same but just go towards something else. Like you said, arguing finances in marijuana legalization just seems like a pointless endeavor when, no matter what, we'll wind up with an ever increasing tax rate, even if it should temporarily drop.

As for your seemingly sarcastic point of view on wasting time, you're quote there is a terrible straw man fallacy. Like it or not the fact remains that Congress has more pressing matters at hand than marijuana.

Like bitching that they will have to work a full 5 days a week instead of once or twice a week.

On topic: I would like to see the government and/or the FDA release a scientifically valid and peer reviewed study one why Marijuana should be illegal. There doesn't seem to be any actual reasoning for its illegality aside from "its bad for you" or really presumptuous "facts" listed on anti-drug sites. If you look at the history of its prohibition its policy is founded in racism and fear-mongering for personal political gain. Excuses for its prohibition included reducing Mexican immigration and trying to defeat the oh-so-vile blight of jazz music. The AMA(American Medical Association) told the prohibition committee that there was not really any reason to illegalize it, and their statements were simply ignored. "The Dog Guy" told them he smoked a marijuana cigarette, turned into a bat, and flew around the room and then "proved" marijuana's lethality by injecting what he claimed was THC into the brains of dogs (this is pre WWII and THC hadn't been isolated till the late 40's) and 2 of the 300 dogs injected died, so he claimed that since dogs have similar physiology to humans that it is potentially lethal if used by humans.

I'm not claiming we could reduce taxes by a third. I was backing up my claim that marijuana prohibition is a waste of money by giving the cost of imprisoning those sent to jail due to marijuana-crimes.



The quote was in jest, but my question was serious. If why is it that it's foolish for the government to save money because they'd only waste it, when it's not foolish to try to save time? Time isn't something you can stockpile, like you can with money. Time isn't something you can give from one person to another. If we don't make the government spend the time to legalize marijuana, that time will pass regardless. Is congress, at present, unable to fulfil it's duties, or so near that point that legalizing marijuana would render them so busy they couldn't get any work done?

It would probably be distributed as joints a la cigarettes. or just weed a la pipe tobacco.

that serves no purpose in suporting your argument for the continuation of the illegality of marijuana.

Pot is a $35-Billion a year cash crop: LaTimes

11 Misconceptions about Marijuana WITH citations here

I too was staying away from this topic, but oh wellz.

Response to 2D:



I Agree. We really don't need anymore substances. In fact, we don't need any substances at all. Including fucking coffee. The fact of this policy though is that it's so hyopcritical. How can we respect the law if the law is not first respectable?



I won't, and shouldn't have to. If you think that weed is worse for you than alcohol (physically, and that includes brain physiology), you're a tool, plain and simple. Most doctors and scientists will agree that weed is better for you (or at least on par).



Once again, if we were really concerned about this, then alcohol would be illegal. But we already discovered that that doesn't work. I think we should crack down on DUIs as it is. A personal attestment that many will agree with (not using as an argument): Driving when stoned, though should remain illegal if weed is legalized, isn't as dangerous as driving shitfaced.



Symbol of indulgence? Kinda like Television? Movies? Art? Chocolate? That's a shaky attack....



I agree with you here, for the most part, people do just want to get high, but why the fuck not? People wanna get drunk, people wanna skydive, etc... We don't want to hurt anyone, just want to get high.







I think a major reason drugs are still as illegal as they are is becuase of control.

PEROSNAL THEORY: Take a look at all the people you know who do illegal drugs. They're typically against what the government is doing, and other forms of control. They're usually undereducated, and more apt to commit other crimes. These people may not all fit the description. Why do you think LSD was made illegal? There were very few deaths with it, and not a lot of accidents. It was however, associated with the new left and the counter culture of the time, which was going against the grain of everything mainstream. Illegal drugs are like targets placed on lower class people to keep them down there. A way to control the "rebels of society."



He doesn't mean "calm, cool, and collected." Like Goat says, it keeps you unhappy, controllable.




Agreed, if the government can create a large, throughouh UNBIASED study of marijuana, and still find it as a schedule I drug, (no medical use and high addiction potential), then so be it. But we've been caught up in a massive snowball of bullshit, outdated policy, and its been a long fucking winter.

he government doesn't want control, it wants MONEY. Money that comes from lobbyists. Lobbyists like DuPont. Say, do you know what substance waas invented by DuPont....coincidentally..around the time marijuana was banned (the so-called "Reefer madness" period?)

Nylon.

Now think about it. What use would such a fucking inneffectively produced substance have in a world where hemp is legal and easy to mass-produce (it IS a weed after all)?

NONE.


Put THAT in your conspiracy theorist pipe and smoke it.


Fun fact : Because of their accepted medical use, HEROIN AND ITS DERIVATES are Schedule II.

The government is telling you they think it's better to shoot up with MOTHERFUCKING SMACK than to smoke a joint.

Yeah, I've heard a lot of theories about pot becoming illegalized because of synthetics and lumber industries. Hemp apparently makes really good fabric, rope, and paper at much less cost than the other stuff does, but since its dirt cheap to produce and you can't really patent it or the processes to produce things out of it, its competing industries probably lobbied the shit out of Anslinger and crew so that they could gain exclusive control of those industries.

Also as far as the scheduled drugs go. Heroin is schedule I, but meth, coke, and opium (i know heroin is pretty much opium) are schedule II. Opiates and Amphetamines do have legitimate medical uses though, morphine and benadryl for example. But I'm not sure why Coke is still only schedule II. Also, as was said earlier, many schedule I drugs are symbols of heavily anti-government counter-culture movements (LSD, Ecstacy) where as most schedule II drugs were the ones that caught suburban and rural housewives (Bennies, Meth) or are associated with the lower classes (PCP, Coke (except in the 80s when it was yuppies delight)). Unfortunately its very rare that drugs are rescheduled because the DEA considers the schedule assignments pretty much writ in stone (plus if pot were legalized, the DEA would have to lay off a bunch of officers)

But what does that have to do with today? I've seen many hemp products on the market, from rope to lotions. If hemp were as good as people claim it to be, why are producers unable to put it into the mainstream as a cheap, efficient new product? No, the government isn't to blame for that. Perhaps people are reluctant to use something that is closely associated with a drug that many dislike?

As for the schedule two thing, heroin is more dangerous than marijuana, no doubt. However, any medical product made from THC is far inferior to that of heroin. So...it's not really about what's more dangerous, it's about what's used more in the medical field for a legit purpose, and what's used more by some jackass dregs who just want to get high.

And for the record, I'm all for marijuana being legalized...I just know that all of the reasons people give are absolute garbage.

Hemp production is illegal in the US.

Medicinal Marijuana and Heroin aren't used for the same things. Marijuana stimulates the appetite and reduces nausea, which is why it's commonly suggested as a way to combat the loss of appetite/nausea in patients with AIDS. Heroin is a super-potent painkiller, prescribed in some countries (But not the US), for terminal cancer patients, etc.

It just seems illogical to have weed illegal to me.

I think about all the stuff I have done when I'm drunk compared to what people do when they smoke.

Think about how people act...so much more random hooking up when they are drunk, fights, and vandalism.

People who are high...let's see what they do...watch tv, play video games, listen to music, and purchase many pounds of food.\

without reading the topic at all and just answering the original question...



this is a matter of "natural" rights. some liberties as spawned are "innocent until proven guilty" while others are first seen as the opposite. the morality of the marijuana is wholly dependent on personal ideologies.

it's a pointless debate because most people have beliefs regarding psychoactives based on laws which existed before their own conception. those who only have opinions on the matter are apt to side with, in this case, legalization of marijuana, as they haven't let their minds be swayed by the "authorities".

god forbid the government gives its people the right to have fun in their own homes by whatever means they please [pursuit of happiness anybody? being able to live by MY beliefs is necessary for that happiness]...

The only reason marijuana is still illegal is to save face, and rake in money from anti-drug lobbyists. But you have to wonder how they look anymore, as marijuana is still widely popular and readily available. Plus all the time and manpower spent punishing stoners really makes it hard to make money off fellow politicians.

In short they fucked us and then fucked themselves.

Is it possible for the United States Government to tax marijuanna?

If it was grown and distributed the way tobacco is, then yes.

Drugs policy is one of the few areas where I can really see myself agreeing with libertarians to any real extent.

If marijauna were to be made legal, it would need to have a "trial run" - perhaps legalise it in one place and then set up some government-funded studies (to keep any corporate interests out as much as possible) then look at the statistics to see how many people die from it, how it effects car accidents and so on. If these stats are not dire, legalise it nationwide (as everybody does it anyway), if they are, don't. This would resolve a common complaint about drug legalisation in general, namely "We don't know the side-effects!". These tests will provide the true facts about how dangerous these drugs really are and will provide VALID data to decide whether they are so dangerous that they should remain illegal. There's a lot of misinformation floating around on both sides for this, with the fear-mongers claiming that cannabis will give you brain damage instantly and the druggies claiming that there are fewer deaths from ecstacy than from peanuts (which is true, but there are more people who eat peanuts than take E, presumably).

These tests are absolutely vital to find out the truth about how dangerous these drugs are, and if the drugs ARE shown to be very dangerous, then a swift reillegalisation may be an idea.

The advantages for the government would be additional tax income, as they can tax the hell out of the legalised drugs and still be below street prices (I gave a presentation on the chemistry and pharmacology of the opioids at one point, and medical prices for opioids (including heroin where it is used medically) are SIGNIFICANTLY less than street prices.

The advantage for business is that they could sell this stuff and make money off it, obviously.

The advantage to the users is that they know they're getting the actual pure drug (a particular problem with synthesised drugs, your Es and LSDs, where if something goes wrong in production...) and they can get a uniform dose each time and not risk having nasty ODs (this doesn't really apply to cannabis, but it does for others). Essentially, there would be quality controls, which would make the whole exercise of taking narcotics a lot less dangerous.

The advantage to society is that these drugs are no longer gateway drugs and cannot lead people onto more destructive habits, as you don't have to get your weed or E from the guy who offers you a free first dose of crystal meth.

The advantage to the sick is that these drugs can now be used for their medical uses as well, which is something which doesn't happen now. Look at America, hospitals cannot use practically any drug which is commonly used recreationally (except possibly ketamine? I don't know if that's still used medically). But the fact is that most of these drugs have legit uses too. Marijuana is, obviously, an analgesic and can ease the symptoms of glaucoma. LSD is a very powerful drug (in terms of the dose needed, not the effects, although it's powerful in that respect too) and apparently is showing promise as an analgesic at sub-psychedelic doses (i.e. really tiny doses). Both heroin and cocaine are used in hosptals in the UK (heroin is an analgesic, cocaine is an anaesthetic and a vasoconstrictor). Ketamine was used as an anaesthetic.

The problem is the anti-drug lobby, who don't realise that most of the problems to do with MOST illegal drugs are because they're illegal. They're these guys who make it so that the media has to say "diamorphine" when referring to heroin in the medical sense unless they want to face a shit storm. The people who claim that E is a mixture of heroin, LSD and whatever else they claim is in it.

So, yes, not only should marijuana be legal, but so should most of the currently illegal narcotics, if the legalisation is handled right. (for instance, E is mostly harmless if taken correctly, but it can become dangerous if it's not used right, for this reason, I think that having a license to be able to take psychoactive drugs (including the currently legal ones) is a much better idea than just a minimum age, as proper education is vital. It'd also mean that companies would spring up to supply this education, like driving schools have. Plus the government can milk this cash cow even more that way, which will provide more of an incentive.)

Even heroin would (POSSIBLY, I'm not at all sure myself on this, to be honest) be better legalised, as the main dangers of it are withdrawal and overdose, the risks of both of which are reduced if it is legal. Cocaine and crystal meth, however, should not.

Realistically, I think that marijuana will be legalised, first in Europe, later in the rest of the world, but most of the other drugs probably won't in the forseeable future.



These are giant companies and it's just as easy for them to profit massively from it as it is for them to lose profits from it.

Looking at pulp to start off with. There are three possibilities:

i) Some of the companies discover that cannabis plants grow quicker than trees and also gets them brownie points with environmentalists. They start to use cannabis in favour of trees, they make more money and their opponents follow suit.
ii) Cannabis turns out to be inferior to what is currently available, so there is minimal impact on the profits of the companies.
iii) Some start up company starts to grow cannabis for this purpose, they are succesful and this impacts negatively on the profits of larger companies. So a bigger company buys them out and the situation is resolved.

Textiles - a similar story, but replace "trees" with "cotton", though I think that ii) would be more likely here.

Alcohol/Tobacco - they just start selling cannabis themselves.

Pharmaceuticals - if they don't start selling cannabis (perhaps in tablets to emphasise the medicinal aspects, or maybe just normally - the company GlaxoSmithKline sells sports drinks on the side here, so not everything is strictly medical-related) then they lose a potential source of income which they didn't actually have to begin with, so no actual loss here. If they do, they sell stuff, they make money. People might grow their own plants which would reduce their potential profits, but that's just reduced profits rather than an actual loss, they still gain money over all. Or they could lobby to have home-growing made illegal.

Any half-competant businessman could find a way to turn a situation like that into his advantage.

The point of the matter is, the government is afraid of what legal hemp and marijuana can do to the economy without massive restrictions. Sure, they could tax the sale and distribution of marijuana...only under certain conditions. If street sales and personal cultivation remained illegal they could make money off of cannabis. But what's to say that there isn't still a gigantic black market for people who don't WANT to buy weed from the government, or don't WANT a product that has much more of a chance to be altered or tampered with, with nothing to hide under, apart from their own ungodly powers of mass manipulation.

And if they legalized every aspect of marijuana...get real. How many of us would spend the money to buy government marijuana if we could simply grow it in our own homes? Even under a trial and error basis we would still save money that we would spend buying regulated joints.........and we'd have more fun and satisfaction doing it on our own. The problem is that marijuana is indeed a weed; it grows anywhere and everywhere, and I'm willing to bet many of us would rather endure smoking some shitty schwag we grew in our backyard to funding the government that so many stoners have learned to mistrust over all these years.

No, I don't think it should become legal.

Thread over people, this argument defeats everything.


You don't even need that. It was (and iirc, still is) taxed even as a illegal substance, because that way traffickers get nailed for tax evasion too, resulting in bigger sentences.

Yeah, that post kinda loses it's luster when it's this far into the topic, no?

No.

Yes.

But it's way too easy to obtain seeds and grow it.


What I know is getting drunk gives me a headache, gets me angry, and isn't all that fun. Smoking weed makes me like John Coltrane a 1000x more than I already do and makes me hungry.

Which one is illegal? The answer is pretty silly.

(Of course both happen to be illegal for me)

What it was is (if I remember right, I can't look it up now because there's some czech dude waiting to use this computer), it used to be illegal to possess without a tax stamp, but due to the way the law was written, if you were to say "hey, United States Goverment, can I get a tax stamp for this marijuana?" They'd be like "you mean that marijuana that you possess without a tax stamp? which is illegal? Well, why would you need a tax stamp, when ur in jail, lolz"

But then that law got declared unconstitutional because of some 5th amendment self-incrimination business, to instead they were just like "alright, marijuana is just illegal now"

at least, that's how it would be if the government were just some guy talking about stuff, instead of, you know, a bunch of guys, writing laws about stuff.

Sorry if this doesn't make any sense. . . little too much cider

I suppose the best argument against 'But it will destroy the economy!' is citing countries that have legalized it.
In Holland, for example, marijuana use stayed the same before and after legalization, as did their economy.