Why We Should Legalize Marijuana

[new coup for you]

Non-analogous comparisons. The two situations are not equal. Alcohol Prohibition failed because something was taken away. Marijuana has never been as mainstream as alcohol and has been illegal. There is no correlation of situations.

The distinction matters little when you consider the massive consumption of marijuana and the massive criminal activity behind its distribution.

Illegal liquor was distributed by gangsters.

Illegal pot is distributed by gangsters.

I don't see how social differences in demand particularly effect the methods of supply.

 

[John1234]

But one thing I have to raise issue with is the idea that marijuana is not addictive. It definitely is. People get very attached to this drug, and can't walk away from it if they wanted to. It also has spoiled their motivational drive, their work ethic, and in some cases personal relationships have deteriorated and been severely affected. It is NOT this panacea miracle peace loving oh my god this is wonderful herb some are making it out to be here. It is a dangerous drug, not nearly as dangerous as some other drugs, but none the less dangerous of causing a dependency on it and adversely affecting a person's life.

If a regular user here who wants to see it legalized wants to try an experiment, I invite them to try to stay off the drug for two weeks. Good luck.

10% of those who use Marijuana become addicted.
15% for alcohol
17% for cocaine
32% for cigarettes

These are the statistics but i would go a step farther to say that these 10% are likely just using Marijuana as a crutch or escape from an existing problem.
I have known thousands of marijuana smokers.
It is a fact that Marijuana is not physically addictive.
The mental addition is extremely low.
And the only significant addiction qualities are due to social environment.

Motivational drive - yes. Marijuana can cause one to lose motivation.
However this is not over powering to the point that it can prevent one to do something they have determination for.
Relationships - I don't see it. Somewhere around 50% of marriages break up.
For relationships the number must already be above 90% before factoring in Marijuana.
Sounds like another one of those bogus comparisons where Marijuana is not the primary factor but through association becomes another statistic.
Anyone who has been through several relationships can tell you that the reasons given are usually not the real reasons.
Such as "I cheated on him because all he did was work". Is the primary factor that she cheated or that he didn't pay her enough attention?
Work ethic is completely and utterly false - In the construction industry, there are several jobs such as painting where smokers do considerably better.
Especially if the task is very repetitive.

Coordination - Is a tricky one. There is proof that Marijuana can slow your coordination. The Law Enforcement test is based on this I believe.

The effect of Marijuana is much more intense for casual smokers than heavy smokers.
Take a look at full time Net Gamers.
A very high number of the top gamers will tell you they smoke. We're talking about mostly adults that perform in the top percentile in these games out of ten of millions of gamers.
My personal opinion is that the loss of coordination can become an increase in focus when multi tasking is not needed for heavy smokers.

Saying Marijuana is a dangerous drug depends on how you define dangerous.
Marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as cigarettes when applied to addiction or health.
Marijuana does not have nearly the effects of alcohol if you start the comparison at 3 drinks.
And unlike cigarettes and alcohol, Marijuana does have some positives.
But i do not deny that it also has some negatives.

This is a link to disproving 15 false Allegations about Marijuana.

Your Government Is Lying To You (Again) About Marijuana - NORML

 

[John1234]

Weed is the biggest cash crop in the United States for a reason, and it certainly isn't the lack of popularity of its consumption.

This is true.
The sad thing is that it will eventually become legal.
But it is unlikely that the government will do it all at once in a way that could benefit everyone through tax revenue.

Regulations have to be placed on how much can be grown.
We can not allow everyone to stop growing food.
And it has to be far cheaper than what is on the street.

All of that money would be removed from the hands of the drug dealers and placed into our economy.
There would be no significant increase in the amount who smoke it.
Even the government statistics show that it is readily available already.

Allowing all farmers the option to use a set amount of land for Marijuana would also help our farming industry whereas small farmers are hurting.
Then instead of only criminals growing it and making money, hard working families would get a share.

Instead it will become legalized slowly through medical use and then decriminalization which will end up being full of corruption and profits for illegal activity.

 

[mikhail]

The distinction matters little when you consider the massive consumption of marijuana and the massive criminal activity behind its distribution.

Illegal liquor was distributed by gangsters.

Illegal pot is distributed by gangsters.

I don't see how social differences in demand particularly effect the methods of supply.

Illegal pot isnt really distributed by gangsters except for middlemen.You could beat the crap out of most weed dealers steal all their stuff and money and they wouldnt really be able to do too much about it.

 

[new coup for you]

Illegal pot isnt really distributed by gangsters except for middlemen.You could beat the crap out of most weed dealers steal all their stuff and money and they wouldnt really be able to do too much about it.

that's true, most pot is sold by high school kids...but it still provides an entry into more hardcore drug dealing

 

[John1234]

that's true, most pot is sold by high school kids...but it still provides an entry into more hardcore drug dealing

Thats not true, and neither is the gangster theory.
You would only think about it this way if your exposure was limited or centered around these groups.

Most Marijuana smokers and dealers are middle aged and older.
Especially the age group from 40 to 60.
They simply do a better job of hiding it.
Sometimes it still amazes me how many actually smoke.
Most Marijuana smokers do not use other drugs.
Some do.
And most Marijuana dealers are doing it more as a service to their neighbors than to make money. They get an amount between 1 and 4 ounces and are not interested in pushing it or selling more.

"Gangsters" do not center their efforts around Marijuana because there is not a lot of money in it without buying in mass and selling in small quantity.
This takes up a lot of effort and space.
Compared to hard drugs which can be hidden easily and turned over for tremendous profits on all levels.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'm gonna have to disagree as to the relevance of the analogy. You are right that marijuana has never really been taken away in the same sense that alcohol was, this is because the illegality of weed has always been largely a sham. Weed is the biggest cash crop in the United States for a reason, and it certainly isn't the lack of popularity of its consumption.

In an economic sense the two are identical. The bottom line is that the government, for whatever reason, isn't doing enough so as to push the equilibriums to the point where the quantity consumed is 0 or less. The distinction you point to is immaterial, as it is taken into account in economic analysis and it does not alter the identical nature of the two forms of prohibition.

I disagree. The legality and overall social acceptance of alcohol made it's prohibition a guaranteed failure. The widespread disregard for Prohibition far exceeds the disregard for marijuana's illegality. But, though this is only mildly relevant, the most relevant factor is human nature. It is far more difficult to deal with something being taken away, than to deal with never having something in the first place. We don't know what would happen if weed was legal. We knew what happened when alcohol was. With marijuana, there is no frame of reference.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The distinction matters little when you consider the massive consumption of marijuana and the massive criminal activity behind its distribution.

Illegal liquor was distributed by gangsters.

Illegal pot is distributed by gangsters.

I don't see how social differences in demand particularly effect the methods of supply.

These issues are not relevant. The fact is that alcohol was prohibited, and as such was widely used in legal ways. It was a lifestyle. Towns had bars and liquor stores that were closed. Marijuana is not legal; it's continued illegality does not have the same impact.

 

[Hatuey]

However, I agree with WI. I can not stand people that drone on about the legalization of Hemp to power cars, make pants, or do all sorts of other things...when you know from talking to them, listening to them, watching them, or just knowing them that those are only token issues that they're using to try and convince people because they can't come out and just say "I want to get high without worrying about it."

When people say hemp they're talking about the kind that has industrial ussage. Not the entire cannabis family. That being said, you can smoke industrial hemp(which is the one you're talking about) for 40 years non-stop and you'll never get high. Trust me. I know people who have tried. It's simply not possible to get high from the hemp you're talking about. The THC levels in most hemp don't get higher then 0.5%. Furthermore there IS a legitimate argument in the usage of industrial hemp. The U.S. is the only country in the world where it is prohibited. It's ludicruous to be missing out on such a large industry simply because of ridiculous anti-drug radicalism that isn't grounded in logic but the demonization of everything even remotely related to weed.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It was by no means a guaranteed failure. If the penalty for a single beer was immediate execution, you can be damn sure drinking would've stopped.

Sure, but since this did not happen nor was going to happen, it's not pertinent.

When a government makes a commodity, ANY commodity, illegal, the resulting disincentives (including the disincentives of violating social norms associated with breaking that law) reshape the market environment, shifting the supply and demand curves, thusly forming a new equilibrium. If the new equilibrium has value less than or equal to zero, the prohibition will be successful. If not, a black market will be created at the level of the new equilibrium. The metaphor is apt.

I'm not completely certain, but I think you are agreeing with me, here. This is why making a commodity illegal, that was previously legal and a major part of society, impacts the market and society, far more significantly, than a product that was never legal, and is either a non-entity or a minor part of society. Consider the difference between making cars illegal vs. keeping child porn illegal. Doing the former would have a huge impact because change is occurring. Keeping the latter would not have a huge impact because the status quo remains.

Alcohol Prohibition in the early 20th Century and current marijuana prohibition are not congruent.

 

[Thorgasm]

I disagree. The legality and overall social acceptance of alcohol made it's prohibition a guaranteed failure. The widespread disregard for Prohibition far exceeds the disregard for marijuana's illegality. But, though this is only mildly relevant, the most relevant factor is human nature. It is far more difficult to deal with something being taken away, than to deal with never having something in the first place. We don't know what would happen if weed was legal. We knew what happened when alcohol was. With marijuana, there is no frame of reference.

I disagree. Marijuana wasn't always illegal. It was taken away as well. The thing is, the people that it was taken away from didn't have a voice.

I have often stated that legal status has little effect on use of any substance. What would have a bigger effect on usage would be employment drug screens to stop penalizing people for having cannibinoids in their system. There are smokers that abstain for their job, not the law. We do have a frame of reference for that.

Also, can't we look to other nations as a frame of reference?

And regardless of the psychology of having something taken away, it is no reason to support the draconian prohibition of marijuana.

 

[Thorgasm]

It was by no means a guaranteed failure. If the penalty for a single beer was immediate execution, you can be damn sure drinking would've stopped. When a government makes a commodity, ANY commodity, illegal, the resulting disincentives (including the disincentives of violating social norms associated with breaking that law) reshape the market environment, shifting the supply and demand curves, thusly forming a new equilibrium. If the new equilibrium has value less than or equal to zero, the prohibition will be successful. If not, a black market will be created at the level of the new equilibrium. The metaphor is apt.

I disagree. The death penalty isn't a deterrent. Most people don't get caught. It is like drinking and driving can result in a non-governmental death sentence, yet people still do it. People take risks. Addicts take irrational risks. Would the government really execute that many people? :shock:

Making things "more illegal" hasn't worked. Look at the madatory minimum failures in the drug war.


I do agree with your economic argument though.

 

[new coup for you]

These issues are not relevant. The fact is that alcohol was prohibited, and as such was widely used in legal ways. It was a lifestyle. Towns had bars and liquor stores that were closed. Marijuana is not legal; it's continued illegality does not have the same impact.

weed isnt' a lifestlye?

 

[jamesrage]

or which group is more full of people who major in somthing like "hockey"

I would think that would be the pot heads majoring in something so useless.

 

[new coup for you]

pot heads do major in retarded stuff like "philosphy" and "film" but they're not necessarily stupid people.

people who smoke weed, as in they don't subscribe to the "pot head lifestyle"...are just people. they major in anything.

 

[jamesrage]

When people say hemp they're talking about the kind that has industrial ussage. Not the entire cannabis family. That being said, you can smoke industrial hemp(which is the one you're talking about) for 40 years non-stop and you'll never get high. Trust me. I know people who have tried. It's simply not possible to get high from the hemp you're talking about. The THC levels in most hemp don't get higher then 0.5%. Furthermore there IS a legitimate argument in the usage of industrial hemp. The U.S. is the only country in the world where it is prohibited. It's ludicruous to be missing out on such a large industry simply because of ridiculous anti-drug radicalism that isn't grounded in logic but the demonization of everything even remotely related to weed.

The only reason why a lot of people do not favor legalizing industrial hemp is because of the fact many would simply use industrial hemp as a cover for growing recreational marijuana.

 

[jamesrage]

How does pot "**** you up"?

.
Depends who you want to believe.I choose not believe junkies who want their fix to be legal while you choose to believe junkies.

brain damage marijuana by marijuana addiction.info
Heavy Marijuana Use Linked to Brain Damage
News Article
March 6, 2002

Researchers report that chronic users of marijuana suffer memory loss and attention problems that can affect their work, their life, and their ability to learn. However, a medical expert not involved in the study questioned the findings and whether the alleged adverse impact of marijuana is really there, which is indicative of the controversy surrounding the drug.


Marijuana Facts For Teens

Q: What are the short-term effects of marijuana use?

A: The short-term effects of marijuana include:

**problems with memory and learning;
**distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch);
**trouble with thinking and problem-solving;
**loss of coordination; and
**increased heart rate, anxiety.

snip..

Q: Can a user have a bad reaction?

A: Yes. Some users, especially someone new to the drug or in a strange setting, may suffer acute anxiety and have paranoid thoughts. This is more likely to happen with high doses of THC. These scary feelings will fade as the drug's effects wear off.

In rare cases, a user who has taken a very high dose of the drug can have severe psychotic symptoms and need emergency medical treatment.

Other kinds of bad reactions can occur when marijuana is mixed with other drugs, such as PCP or cocaine.

Q: Does marijuana affect school, sports, or other activities?

A: It can. Marijuana affects memory, judgment and perception.

snip..

Q: What are the long-term effects of marijuana use?

A: Findings so far show that regular use of marijuana or THC may play a role in some kinds of cancer and in problems with the respiratory and immune systems.

**Cancer--It's hard to know for sure whether regular marijuana use causes cancer. But it is known that marijuana contains some of the same, and sometimes even more, of the cancer-causing chemicals found in tobacco smoke. Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.

**Lungs and Airways--People who smoke marijuana often develop the same kinds of breathing problems that cigarette smokers have: coughing and wheezing. They tend to have more chest colds than nonusers. They are also at greater risk of getting lung infections like pneumonia.

**Immune System--Animal studies have found that THC can damage the cells and tissues in the body that help protect people from disease. When the immune cells are weakened, you are more likely to get sick.

Q: How does marijuana affect driving?

A: Marijuana has serious harmful effects on the skills required to drive safely: alertness, the ability to concentrate, coordination, and the ability to react quickly. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and sounds on the road.

Marijuana may play a role in car accidents. 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. Data have also shown that while smoking marijuana, people show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had too much to drink.

Q: What does marijuana do to the brain?

A: Some studies show that when people have smoked large amounts of marijuana for years, the drug takes its toll on mental functions. Heavy or daily use of marijuana affects the parts of the brain that control memory, attention, and learning. A working short-term memory is needed to learn and perform tasks that call for more than one or two steps.

Smoking marijuana causes some changes in the brain that are like those caused by cocaine, heroin, and alcohol. Some researchers believe that these changes may put a person more at risk of becoming addicted to other drugs, such as cocaine or heroin. Scientists are still learning about the many ways that marijuana could affect the brain.

Q: Can people become addicted to marijuana?

A: 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 or addicted to the drug. In 1995, 165,000 people entering drug treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse, showing they need help to stop using the drug.






Schizophrenia Daily News Blog: Brain Imaging - Cannabis and Schizophrenia Look Similar
Brain Scan Imaging shows similarities in brains of marijuana smokers, and people who have schizophrenia

Adolescents who regularly smoke marijuana risk damaging a key brain pathway associated with language development, and some predisposed to schizophrenia may contract the illness early, researchers said Wednesday, also at the meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

These startling pictures show for the first time that the damage to the brain caused by smoking cannabis mimics that found in the brains of schizophrenia patients.

The images, taken using scanners, appear to prove that cannabis affects the brain's electrical signals in the same way as schizophrenia.

The U.S. research adds to a long list of studies which point to the drug as a trigger for the condition and a major factor in the development of mental illness in young people.

Lead researcher Dr Manzar Ashtari said: 'What we saw should cause alarm because the type of damage in cannabis smokers' brains was exactly the same as in those with schizophrenia and in exactly the same place in the brain.

'To me, this is proof of the damage cannabis can do.

Alcohol destroys ones judgment.

So does pot.See above article.

We live in a society where this crap is glamorized, and you'd rather persecute the guy just wanting to relax with some pot.
Thats just plain sickening.

Rap music glamorizes and glorifies scumbags ,does that mean we should make car jacking,theft,murder and other things legal too?Just because mental retards glamorize something doesn't mean we should legalize it.

And what is more sickening is that you try to act like you know something about it, while using 80's terms to describe it.

I know more about than.You are are just reciting nonsense from NORML.

Shake is not a type of pot btw. Its just the loose pot that is no longer in bud form.

I am aware of that.It is loose pot formed in the bottom of the baggie and that is where some the seeds accumulate.Some do not consider it good quality.Most real stoners want their pot in bud form.

And btw, never in my life have i heard someone describe a pot smoker as a junkie.
That is a term used to describe cocaine and heroin addicts.

Potheads like to live in denial,that is why they do not consider themselves to be junkies.

Pot has no physical addiction what so ever.

So your telling me that stoners who wake and bake have no addiction?

If you want to debate Marijuana in an intelligent manner using personal experience or valid information I would welcome it.

I have personal experience.Most likely due to the nonsense you spew I have more than you.

 

[Caine]

It is like drinking and driving can result in a non-governmental death sentence, yet people still do it.

Can you explain this?

Its another example of the over exaggeration of punishments for "stuff we all do" crap.

 

[Thorgasm]

The only reason why a lot of people do not favor legalizing industrial hemp is because of the fact many would simply use industrial hemp as a cover for growing recreational marijuana.

That is silly. Weed is no more dangerous than coffee. I understand the point you are making. I am not calling you silly. But that "logic" is.

 

[Thorgasm]

Can you explain this?

Its another example of the over exaggeration of punishments for "stuff we all do" crap.

I don't know what you mean. I was speaking in context of Galen's idea that people wouldn't drink if the penalty was death for it.

You are apparently taking my words out of context.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If it were impertinent you wouldn't have brought up your claim as to the guaranteed nature of the failure of prohibition. I'm glad you acknowledge you were wrong to bring that up :2wave:

Please do not misrepresent what I said. It's quite unbecoming. What I said was not pertinent was your example of using the death penalty as a consequence for drinking one beer. It didn't happen, so your comment is not pertinent. Hope that clears it up. :2wave:

They are congruent, and they are congruent because they are economically identical. You point to a distinction, no one's denying that, BUT what you fail to recognize is that the distinction is immaterial to the congruency of the metaphor. There will be distinctions between metaphors, otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor, the question is whether the distinctions pointed to are of any significance. In this case the distinction you're pointing to is of no significance to the similar economic standings of weed and alcohol. If your distinction was at all significant marijuana would've been successfully removed. The reason why they didn't shoot booze drinkers is the same reason they for the most part go easy on pot users.

You are arguing points I am not arguing. My position is that the economic and sociological affects of Alcohol Prohibition are distinctly different than the current economic and sociological affects of current marijuana prohibition. Alcohol Prohibition was such a disaster economically and for society, it was repealed in 13 years. The widespread use and acceptability of alcohol was largely responsible for this, as the elimination of this was unacceptable to many.

Because marijuana use was in no way as widespread or in no way as socially acceptable as alcohol, the impact of its criminalization has not had anywheres near the impact. Most anti-marijuana laws were put into effect as a preventative measure, not because of widespread use, or problems. This reasoning is completely different from alcohol prohibition.

The scenarios are different, and the metaphor remains incongruent.

 

[Kali]

There is no gateway drug and in case you did not know? You can legally buy all kinds of products made from Hemp.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I disagree. Marijuana wasn't always illegal. It was taken away as well. The thing is, the people that it was taken away from didn't have a voice.

There was very little voice around its criminalization, because, compared to alcohol, its use was not widespread at all, and the problems it caused, because of the minimal users, was small. There were very few users, at the time to have a voice. And compared to alcohol users, marijuana users were inconsequential, statistically.

And regardless of the psychology of having something taken away, it is no reason to support the draconian prohibition of marijuana.

As I have posted, earlier, I support legalization. Monies can then be used for education and treatment rather than the ridiculous war on drugs we now have.

But, and perhaps I should quite while I am ahead, I am curious as to why you would describe marijuana prohibition as "draconian".

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

weed isnt' a lifestlye?

Didn't say that. The legality and widespread use of alcohol has been part of American society since its founding. The legality and widespread use of marijuana has not.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

That is silly. Weed is no more dangerous than coffee. I understand the point you are making. I am not calling you silly. But that "logic" is.

Hmmm...I'm not sure I agree with that. Do you have some proof that these two drugs are comparable in their danger levels?