I'm fed up with the ever-increasing support for the legalization of this extremely toxic substance.
Words have meanings. Despite all of its well-documented detrimental effects on physical and mental functioning, cannabis is not
toxic as the fact that its LD 50 is well beyond the limits of even the most experienced recreational smoker attests. It does not cause more than marginal damage to any bodily tissues directly. You simply cannot kill a person with any reasonable quantity of THC or any of the other chemicals within cannabis.
Alcohol is toxic. Nicotine is toxic. MDMA and other methamphetamines are toxic. Cocaine can wreck your brain and your heart and kill you quicker than anything, but it's non-toxic. Heroin's one of the most addictive substances on the planet and it's easy to overdose, but it's non-toxic. Cannabis will turn you into a drooling retard and possibly give you cancer... but you can't overdose on it and you can't kill yourself with it. It's non-toxic.
Ridiculously overblown rhetoric will not serve your purpose here. Indeed, it's the excesses of rhetoric and the outright-- and shameless-- lies perpetrated by politicians seeking to justify failed policies that have, in part, led so many children and young adults to reject
all claims about the detrimental effects of cannabis and misguidedly believe that it is a harmless and even beneficial drug.
Since it's impossible for any non-smoker to support legalization and since marijuana is extremely addictive and cancer-causing, I have no doubt in my mind that everyone in favor of legalization is a druggie wanting to smoke legally.
First clause is a false assumption. It is possible for non-smokers to support legalization for a variety of reasons-- most of which are the standard libertarian issues of bodily sovereignty and minimal government. Personally, I support legalizing the filthy stuff because it costs too much money-- directly and indirectly-- to enforce the current policies and I believe that most people, even if they flirt with it in their youth, simply grow out of smoking cannabis when they reach an age of responsibility unless they identify with and glamorize criminal lifestyles.
Second clause is demonstrably false and is not supported by any research that has not been thoroughly discredited. Cannabis is not addictive in any pharmacological sense-- it does not cause physical dependency and does not cause withdrawal symptoms. Any "addiction" to cannabis is, like gambling addiction or sexual addiction, the result of pre-existing psychological defect.
Of course, it does cause cancer. Rather like tobacco and tanning beds, the only two personal vices-- aside from self-pity and casual sex-- that I allow myself to indulge in. Shall we ban those as well, or is your position as hypocritical as it is hysterical?
If you non-smokers are just as fed up as I am over these liberal hippies getting their way in society, please join me in speaking out against marijuana and all it stands for.
Personally, I'm quite happy to speak out against cannabis, though I don't think it "stands for" anything-- except perhaps for misguided and pointless rebellion against equally misguided and pointless laws. I'm certainly happy to speak out against liberals and hippies and everything they stand for.
I'm just not willing to support the government wasting extravagant amounts of my money tilting at windmills, or creating a permanent criminal underclass in our society, and those are the only effects of the failed collection of policies that are collectively known as the "War on Drugs."
