<!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Sep 19 2004, 01:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Sep 19 2004, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The reason marijuana isn't responsible for this same death toll is because it's illegal, heavily looked down upon in society, and there are efforts to keep it out of the system. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You think no one smokes it then? You're incredibly wrong if you think so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Health Consequences of Marijuana Abuse</b> Long-term (cumulative, potentially permanent effects of chronic abuse) Can lead to addiction <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any source that openly displays THIS info is totally wrong... you can't be addicted to weed.... its impossible. There is no agent within marijuana that is addictive. It is only addictive through psycological means... and people can be addicted to chocolate like that.
Find a better source.
Also... related threads found <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=55544&hl=' target='_blank'>Here</a> and <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=72590&hl=' target='_blank'>Here</a>
That's one way to support an argument, tell your opponent that their source is unreliable, not only without quoting a single discredible fact, but because they "KNOW BETTER BY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE."
Tell you what trev, you come up with a better source, say "www.marijuana.org" and we'll talk. Until then, read this: <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...showtopic=43638</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5.: Respect other peoples newssources. It is so tempting. Tell someone that you don't believe the newspaper they cited articles from, and the uncomfortably consistent argumentation they built up falls together, leaving you and your notion secure again. Don't ever try that. Discrediting a newssource requires more than that one article from three years ago that wasn't entirely correct, or an obvious political bias - you'll find few newssites without one. Accept that Leftys will often quote facts found on Salon.org, while Conservatives will cite FOX. Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1-up for establishing credibility to your side of the argument trev!
To be honest I find it strange that acohol and tobacco are still legal. They might not have known the effects years ago but we certainly do now but they're still perfectly within the law to use. With that in mind I don't see the point in keeping canabis in it's illegal state either.
I hate all three; alcohol, tobacco and hash, however I'd rather the bingers out on the street were stoned than drunk. I've yet to see someone 'melted' engaging in violence, throwing bottles or other usual acts of those under the influence of alcohol. They don't even have to smoke the crud, they can use vaporisers or even digest it. Either way anything is better than the smokey bars and clubs crammed with drunks of today's society.
Substituting one drug for another is a poor argument for legalizing Marijuana. People will not suddenly stop smoking just so they can hit a bong. At best, they'll do less of both. At worst, they'll do both.
Get used to it, life isn't fair, and hypocrisy is a standard.
If we could ban alcohol and tobacco, we would. But alcohol is an institution over 1000 years old found in every civilization and culture, while tobacco is still an old (300+ years) institution as well.
Do you want drugs to become common place as to be eventually accepted by society?
Not really, I'd rather we didn't have people so disillusioned with themselves that they'd have to turn to stuff like that but I don't really think there's much point in pretending canabis isn't already a pretty much accepted parts of some countries.
Here in scotland you can't turn a corner without seeing someone who probably smokes the stuff. At first I thought it might not be a common thing but the amount of people I learn who actually do this stuff when I get to know them is pretty alarming.
I guess the question is whether the government is better just leaving people to their devices ala alcohol and co and reaping the taxes off it or trying to put down something people have decided they're going to do anyway. Like I said; I don't like it but I'm not going to close my eyes and pretend it's not happening either =P
I think a ban on cannabis is brilliant. Why would you want to smoke it anyway? There are natural ways to chill you out without putting chemicals in your body. Weed smokers are sad individuals.
I can see every major Tabacco company jumping on the oppertunity to roll out them dewbies if ever pot was legalized... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Then you no longer have people in business suits selling, but gun-toting gangsters flooding into every major city showing off their wares. And all the police can do is watch the bodies pile as bad transaction of bad transaction continue to pass through the system.
Murder, suicide, and general illegal activities becomes rampant over gangs and major companies trying to out-do eachother and themselves to produce a better product.
By that time, every system in place is either failing or is corrupted due to a lack of people with good enough educations, instead becoming soldiers for the gangs and companies and their product.
Humanity = Smoked. By a <i>plant</i>.
Sorry if that seems a bit grim, but there's some serious problems with legalizing [<a href='http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info2.shtml' target='_blank'>chemicals</a>] that can do serious harm to a persons body. And while you're legalizing pot, go ahead and legalize coke, meth, acid, crack, smack, and every other hard substance you can think of; at least it'll get us to the end faster that way.
Then why not make alcohol and smoking illegal then?
I know there's a 'tradition' behind it but quite frankly that's no real excuse outside of "we've always had it" mentality and the stubborness of the public to give up their chemical crutches; if the government wants to be serious about protecting people from geniunely harmful chemicals they should bite the bullet and stop making exceptions ><
The difference between alcohol and every other drug is that no one adds alcohol to make you drunk. No companies add alcohol to get people addicted. You can't have wine or beer without alcohol. Alcohol is only 1000+ years old? Hah! We've found recipes for beer from ancient egyptian tombs. These things are incredably old, I can't even remember off the top of my head how old they are. 10,000+?
Cigerette companies add scores of chemicals and poisons to their products just to get people addicted.
Some drug dealers lace marijiana with other drugs to get people addicted. It happened to one of my friends last night.
The fact is, pure marijiana is NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE. It's psychological. Just like food or video games are. Gambling is also psychologically addictive.
I'm on the fence for this issue. On one side, if we legalize it, it's another substance to mess the masses up with, cause more troubles, etc. etc.
However, if legalized, the government could tax the hell out of it, use the money for education programs, DARE and the like. The money could also be used to up the narcotics divsion to keep the hard drugs out of schools.
Regardless, I think it will get legalized eventually.
<!--QuoteBegin-Geminosity+Sep 19 2004, 03:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Sep 19 2004, 03:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then why not make alcohol and smoking illegal then? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:green'>$$$$$$$$$$</span></span>
I wish the government would make booze and smoking illegal, but said companies can and do spend huge sums of money in political contributions. They literally buy the people who make laws in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case in Europe and around the world as well. =/
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Cancer of the respiratory tract and lungs may also be promoted by marijuana smoke.4 A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and that the more marijuana smoked, the greater the increase.18 A statistical analysis of the data suggested that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cigarett smoke also causes cancer. How many people that don't smoke or drink do you think would start smoking marajuana?
Now, all the other benifits of Cannibus besides its intoxicating effects are the real reason it's illegal. All of this stuff those who are against it are saying is propoganda, nothing more.
The only down side other than what alcohol/tabaco already do that I can think of is that the rebeliousness of marajuana smokers would no longer be rebelious and people may turn to more dangerous drugs to get in the rebel factor.
<!--QuoteBegin-Geminosity+Sep 19 2004, 04:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Sep 19 2004, 04:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then why not make alcohol and smoking illegal then?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> We did that once, it failed. It was called probation, go read a history book. Crime went up and people drank anyway
<!--QuoteBegin-Caboose+Sep 19 2004, 07:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Caboose @ Sep 19 2004, 07:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, all the other benifits of Cannibus besides its intoxicating effects are the real reason it's illegal. All of this stuff those who are against it are saying is propoganda, nothing more.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The reason something was banned does not neccessarily imply the reason something remains banned. Until you can dismiss the past for a moment to consider the issue from a modern perspective, there remains nothing I can say to you that could possibly convince you otherwise.
The argument that Marijuana has never been responsible for any deaths is an absurd attempt by pro-marijuana-legalization advocates to hide the truth of the drug behind a veil of "indirectness." A parellel to such an argument would be similar to that of somebody arguing that alcohol is a harmless drug because only a very few instances of "alcohol overdose" occur each year, or that nicotine is a relatively safe drug because few people are actually killed through overdose or tar buildup. It's an argument that wouldn't exist if they would only consider the amount of deaths that were indirectly the result of consuming these drugs.
As I've already mentioned above, THC is found present in 6-11 percent of fatal accidents, putting it in the same league as alcohol - a perception distorting, judgement inhibiting drug. Secondly, it has found to double or triple the likelyhood of lung and throat cancer, making it as lethal as smoking in that respect. So we have a drug that has both the negative effects of smoking and drinking, and people are claiming that it is completely harmless? Will someone over there please come up with a justifiable argument? Please?
Now that the prohibition is brought up, someone is probably going to take the issue to hand and use it as an example of why Marijuana should be unbanned. They would then be making the mistake of comparing two drastically different situations.
The most obvious difference is the fact that Alcohol was an already legalized drug, the use of which was accepted by everyone. The people at the time were aware of the addictive and deadly qualities of Alcohol, thus the reason for its ban. As is always the case with suppression of rights in America, there's always somebody that's gonna go and out do something about. In this case, it so happened to be all of America. Liquor was brewed in basements, garages, and where-not, and its distribution was regulated by a number of gangs and gangsters.
The primary difference between Alcohol in the 1920s and Marijuana today is that 7%, not 90% of the population makes use of the substance, and that is only a result of strict regulation and government effort to control the substance. Prohibition of Alcohol resulted in increased production, but only because it was so profitable. Legalization of Marijuana will not lower production or use of the drug, but will most likely double, triple, if not quadruple the use of it, which we have already established as harmful to society and oneself.
Now someone, please, come up with a better argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Will stop people commiting crimes to get money for their drugs<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By this quote, you assume that people are so bent on getting Marijuana that they will commit crimes to do so.
You're saying a substance that makes people this dependant should be legal?
<!--QuoteBegin-404NotFound+Sep 19 2004, 08:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound @ Sep 19 2004, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Will stop people commiting crimes to get money for their drugs<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By this quote, you assume that people are so bent on getting Marijuana that they will commit crimes to do so.
You're saying a substance that makes people this dependant should be legal? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It only makes people dependent if it's laced.
And Cam... I never said it's not responsible for any deaths. I'm only saying that if it were legalized there wouldn't be that much of a differance in the number of deaths because the only people that would use marajuana are the same people who smoke cigaretts and drink alcohol anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I've already mentioned above, THC is found present in 6-11 percent of fatal accidents, putting it in the same league as alcohol - a perception distorting, judgement inhibiting drug.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And of those 6 out of 10, how many also had alcohol present in their systems?
Pot is not the demon weed that some of you seem to think it is. While smoking may be bad for your health a person should still be able to light up a nice blunt in the comfort of his own home.
I'm glad I live in Canada, the cops don't care and the people are mellow <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Wangler+Sep 19 2004, 10:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wangler @ Sep 19 2004, 10:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Will stop people commiting crimes to get money for their drugs
Will stop people on the streets selling it, apart froma few I guess <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> To quote the Singaporean's - HELL YES!
To say people only care about money neglects to mention that without their lives, said money becomes worthless. Execution for drug dealers, draconian laws on the users, plus a small Island all add to zero drug problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Conversely, without freedom my life is worthless. I would rather die than live under a system like that. Fortunately I don't have to go so far to influence policy.
Tell me: why should the government care whether I have a beer or smoke a joint, in my own house and on my own time, to relax on the weekend? Or grow my own, in my basement, to facilitate said use?
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1) It is insulting to assume that a citizen cannot make an informed decision about marijuana or any other drug. Unless of you course you hide pertinent information, but that's a different issue. We do not all need to be treated like children<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can still make an informed decision. Is the risk of jail time worth the high and loss of brain cells?
You can't use it being illegal as a reason for it to remain illegal. Jail time cannot factor into the equation at all. You could make anything illegal on that premise. Law already moves at the speed of government, so you don't have to offer reasons for it to become even more stagnant.
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Sep 20 2004, 04:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Sep 20 2004, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Conversely, without freedom my life is worthless. I would rather die than live under a system like that. Fortunately I don't have to go so far to influence policy.
Tell me: why should the government care whether I have a beer or smoke a joint, in my own house and on my own time, to relax on the weekend? Or grow my own, in my basement, to facilitate said use? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your kidding. You'd rather be dead than live in a society that deals comprehensively with a drug problem? Put bluntly - you're willing to bleed for your weed? You still have freedom - freedom to leave the country, freedom to get a job, freedom to not get a job, freedom to worship, raise kids, do whatever you like, so long as you do it within the confines of the law. You are not free to sell drugs, you are not free to use them. Its almost comical to think of all the causes people have fought and died for over the years, yet you'd be willing to do it for a high.
I'll tell you why the government cares. Because weed screws people up. Not everyone, but some. So you weed smokers are like a cancer. Not only do you light one up for yourselves, killing your own braincells, hurting your lungs etc (which in my country means eventually my taxes will be paying your medical bills), but you keep suppliers in business, and in a profitable business no less. So they can offer that filth to someone else, who might not be as tolerant of the effects of weed as you - their life down the tube so you can experience some immediate gratification.
That "growing your own" is a complete smokescreen - if you are legally allowed to grow something, then it automatically follows that you should be allow to distribute it. You cant have one without the other.
But you dont just keep it in the house - pot does wierd things to your mind, especially if you're addicted to it. So you come to work and set a chair on fire near some gas cylinders - and that is an event taken from personal experience while I was working in an optical lab. Stoned out of his mind, tried to light up AT WORK, dropped his match and set the chair alight. Leaps up - pushes the chair away from him towards the cylinders. Completely stupid, completely drug addled.
We have pokies to **** people up. We have alcohol to **** people up. We have cigarettes to **** people up. All of them have a much higher societal saturation rate than weed and will take longer to deal with - so why add another?
But hey, you dont care, you're having a great time, you got the munchies, you feel relaxed, you feel good. Every time I smell weed, hear about weed, watch people take it, I take it as a personal affront and extremely selfish and irresponsible.
Just wanted to weigh in a little on this with personal experience.
I used to tutor high school students. One of my kids was a pothead (she was a girl, a junior in high school, taking algebra-2). It was really sad to see, because she would come to our meeting place reeking of weed - I mentioned it to her and she was like "omg, you can smell it??" as if it was a completely new thought to her.
Anyway, she was having a lot of trouble in math, and basically what i noticed was this: she had a big problem concentrating, especially if she was high or soon after a high, and that she had noticeable short-term memory lapses. She kind of compensated for this by taking notes, but things just didn't seem to click and stay - it would seem like she understood, and the next time i saw her she had lost all of it.
Let's one-up on the subject. Legalize all recreational drugs. Every single one of them.
Reason one for the probation on all drugs except alcohol is the fear of the imaginary "what would happen" scenario where the amount of drug addicts rise incrementally after legalization. However, no nation on earth that allows alcohol consists 50% of alcoholics, or even 10%. My home country Finland is probably the world leader in hard liquor consumption (with the possible exception of Russia where cheap vodka has significantly lowered male life expectancy - I'll elaborate on this later), and we clearly have a portion of people who are more interested in destroying their brain with alcohol than working. If we banned alcohol, they wouldn't stop drinking. They'd just find other ways to obtain it. If we suddenly legalized all drugs it is not like there would be a population boom in the addict numbers overnight. That is simply because the people who are not bothered by their addiction to a drug are quite likely already using it. It simply must be accepted that unless we burn every high-inducing object from superglues to opium poppies from the face of this earth there will always be a certain percentage of the population that cannot or doesn't want to control their substance use. Thus the frightening "addicts piled up on the streets" scenario falls, and not in the least because it is already here. I see a lot of heroin, speed and Subutex (a substitute for heroin - actually a medicine designed to treat heroin addicts) users in my work. I can usually spot them a mile away, but I know that this is only the other side of the story. Go check your local needle exchange point. Most of the people who go to those places to get free needles you wouldn't ever believe to be users of hard drugs.
Reason two is crime. After government-controlled arms sales drugs are the most revenue generating and probably the most profitable business in the world. Where else can you expect to refine a product and make back it's market value twentyfold from the end user? Drugs are the main currency of organized crime and are also used to fund other criminal activities. By legalizing drugs and manufacturing more pure, cheaper alternatives the government could tap in to the business and cut most of the criminal market out of it. The legal sales could also be taxed. Drug-related crime would plummet also elsewhere, since these days most burglaries, car thefts and such are perpetrated by people looking for something they can turn into money and score with. A really pathological junkie can feed his smack habit by $200 a day. It's a lot of money but not a lot of drugs, actually.
Reason three is war. The human tragedy of the drug trade is not only limited to criminal activities. Drug sales, because of their profitability, also fuel wars. The Colombian government, backed by the US, has fought a so-called war on drugs for over two decades. At the moment the country is being ravaged by a civil war which is one of the most brutal conflicts ever on this planet. The government, aided by right-wing paramilitary death squads under the banner of AUC, is fighting a leftist revolutionary movement called FARC. FARC gets weapons by extorting protection money from coca plant growers, AUC sells drugs openly to fund itself, and the government is rife with corruption, since bribes are just pocket money to drug cartels. The whole conflict is fueled by the enormous profits reaped from the trade of illegal drugs. Legalizing them would seriously cut into the budgets of all sides and perhaps help to end the conflict. The US has vocally supported the so-called war on drugs in Colombia but the government has known for a long time that this war cannot be won. The result of pouring money and arms into Colombia only helps to escalate the conflict into a whole new level.
Other organizations that fund their wars with drug sales include the now-disbanded UCK of Kosovo and the warlords of the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan. Yes, the guys who eventually did the dirty work of captring the country from Taliban are just about the world's worst drug dealers. They were able to hole up in the north for many years against the vastly numerically superior Taliban forces simply because they had the money to spend on weapons.
Reason four is prisoner rehab. Even in a small country like Finland many people who go into prison clean come out addicted and in huge debts to the criminal organizations who run drug sales in the prisons. These people have no other choice but to continue their criminal career both to feed their habit and to pay off their never-ending debts. Legalization would also cut into the prison drug racket and most likely allow for a better rate of ex-convicts succesfully rehabilitated into the society. Increasing control doesn't help here, since even high security prisons have their own drug rings.
There is simply no way that legalizing drugs could victimize or kill more people than the probation already has. The reason why most people demanding legalization only want cannabis legalized (say cannabis, not marihuana, please) is that cannabis has a lower addiction rate than coffee. In fact, it is technically impossible to become physically addicted to it. It's also relatively easy to grow it in your own home. What they do not realize is that legalizing cannabis will not cut the drug trade by much because cannabis in all its forms is a low-profit drug. The only way to destroy the trade (which also affects the modern slave trade in Europe, and most likely in other areas as well) is to cut the profits by offering low-cost legal alternatives. Those who have already destroyed themselves with drugs will most likely continue to do so, but the end result would be better for all of us. The only thing that is stopping this is that politicians, some of whom are actually involved in the trade, refuse to see that the controls do not work. The laws do not stop the ever-increasing flow of illegal drugs.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 20 2004, 02:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 20 2004, 02:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Anyway, she was having a lot of trouble in math, and basically what i noticed was this: she had a big problem concentrating, especially if she was high or soon after a high, and that she had noticeable short-term memory lapses. She kind of compensated for this by taking notes, but things just didn't seem to click and stay - it would seem like she understood, and the next time i saw her she had lost all of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to say "duh" here.
If she'd just drank a sixpack of beer, would you be surprised that she'd not do math quite right? If she comes into classes totally smashed, be it alcohol, cannabis or salvia seeds, whatever, she has a problem and needs some help.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To say people only care about money neglects to mention that without their lives, said money becomes worthless. Execution for drug dealers, draconian laws on the users, plus a small Island all add to zero drug problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Want to see how well this system you propose will work? Take a look at Iran. Iran executes drug dealers and smugglers, yet the business is booming. No other country has so many addicts. The US in fact imposes draconian measures on people in possession of drugs regardless of whether it is meant for sales or personal use. It doesn't seem to help, does it?
You do realize that your opinion invalidates all other points you make simply because it shows you haven't actually observed your surroundings in any way before forming an opinion. Even a total police state cannot control the drug trade. It's just like King Mob said in The Invisibles:
<i>"You can cover the world in cameras but you can't stop the guys in the monitor room from jerking off or playing the fifteenth sequel to Doom for the hundreth time."</i>
Evil_bOb1Join Date: 2002-07-13Member: 938Members, Squad Five Blue
I entirely agree with scinet. He has clearly pointed the whole problem out.
Legalising/banning cannabis goes way beyond the fact that it's dangerous for a person or not.
Legalising will take a weight off a country. I think we have to accept the fact that a small percentage of the population will **** themselves up. Whatever the laws this will always be true. This is just the nature of life in society and has been observed in all societies. I can't quite remember the figure but it has been observed, for example, that 5% of ants just won't work for the community and they just spend time eating off the reserves and idle about. Nothing can be done about it, and even so the other ants don't go killing them off or rejecting them from society. We have much to learn from ants.
At least let them **** themselves up legaly without having to support mafia and all that comes with taking drugs.
Ok, I have thought about this a lot, and my first inclination is to say "sure, legalize it." I don't really give a (insert swear of choice) about society, so if people want to waste away their lives, so be it. Let them.
But then I read Marine01. Pot heads are a dreg on society (which I don't care about) but as a direct result they are a dreg on me. Having more potheads means more taxes. The loosers in this world don't need my money to help them out.
Call me a selfish (insert another swear of choice), but my hard work shouldn't pay for someone elses habit - or their medical needs when that lifestyle catches up to them. What's mine is mine. Keep fighting the drug problem.
There seems to be a misconception that leagalizing drugs will lower crime. This is wrong. It will lower drug related crime incidents, but you will see it appear in other forms, such as violence, theft, burgerly's, etc.
In example, look at leagalizing gambling - to make gambling illegal in some places, like vegas, you'd think would lower crime because there would be no more reported incidents of "illegal gambling", but the very nature of gambling encourages many forms of crime. This is a cold fact.
Another thing is, crime is only breaking of laws. Why put laws in the first place? Laws are there to <b>ban morally irreprehensible actions</b>. I mean, techically the best way to remove crime would be to legalize everything - murder, theft, rape, etc. etc.
But obviously that's not going to work, so please saying legalizing cannabis will lower crime is an extreamlly weak argument.
Okay sure, we have plenty of counterarguments <b>AGAINST</b> the legalization for marijuana, but what I want to know is, where are the <b>FOR</b> arguments to legalize marijuana?
Do you guys really have more motive than "Cause it feels good"? Arguably, it causes short term memory loss, concentration problems, crime, it fries your brain, and does a list of equally dangerous and potentially bad side effects that don't even come to mind this second. So what are the reasons <b>FOR</b> legalizing marijuana? "Cause it feels good"?
I won't buy health benefits, because junkies certainly don't look like they are reaping the benefits of these supposed "health benefits."
Sure taxing will get the government more money. However, you can't tell me that taxing marijuana is a prime motivation in your (the smoker's) life.
So what possible reason might you have to smoke marijuana? It'd have to be something which counteracts all the harmful side effects (and to me at least, the answer is not an obvious one).
Comments
You think no one smokes it then? You're incredibly wrong if you think so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Health Consequences of Marijuana Abuse</b> Long-term (cumulative, potentially permanent effects of chronic abuse)
Can lead to addiction <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any source that openly displays THIS info is totally wrong... you can't be addicted to weed.... its impossible. There is no agent within marijuana that is addictive. It is only addictive through psycological means... and people can be addicted to chocolate like that.
Find a better source.
Also... related threads found <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=55544&hl=' target='_blank'>Here</a> and <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=72590&hl=' target='_blank'>Here</a>
Tell you what trev, you come up with a better source, say "www.marijuana.org" and we'll talk. Until then, read this: <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...showtopic=43638</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5.: Respect other peoples newssources.
It is so tempting. Tell someone that you don't believe the newspaper they cited articles from, and the uncomfortably consistent argumentation they built up falls together, leaving you and your notion secure again.
Don't ever try that.
Discrediting a newssource requires more than that one article from three years ago that wasn't entirely correct, or an obvious political bias - you'll find few newssites without one. Accept that Leftys will often quote facts found on Salon.org, while Conservatives will cite FOX. Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1-up for establishing credibility to your side of the argument trev!
I hate all three; alcohol, tobacco and hash, however I'd rather the bingers out on the street were stoned than drunk. I've yet to see someone 'melted' engaging in violence, throwing bottles or other usual acts of those under the influence of alcohol.
They don't even have to smoke the crud, they can use vaporisers or even digest it. Either way anything is better than the smokey bars and clubs crammed with drunks of today's society.
Get used to it, life isn't fair, and hypocrisy is a standard.
If we could ban alcohol and tobacco, we would. But alcohol is an institution over 1000 years old found in every civilization and culture, while tobacco is still an old (300+ years) institution as well.
Do you want drugs to become common place as to be eventually accepted by society?
Here in scotland you can't turn a corner without seeing someone who probably smokes the stuff. At first I thought it might not be a common thing but the amount of people I learn who actually do this stuff when I get to know them is pretty alarming.
I guess the question is whether the government is better just leaving people to their devices ala alcohol and co and reaping the taxes off it or trying to put down something people have decided they're going to do anyway.
Like I said; I don't like it but I'm not going to close my eyes and pretend it's not happening either =P
Then you no longer have people in business suits selling, but gun-toting gangsters flooding into every major city showing off their wares. And all the police can do is watch the bodies pile as bad transaction of bad transaction continue to pass through the system.
Murder, suicide, and general illegal activities becomes rampant over gangs and major companies trying to out-do eachother and themselves to produce a better product.
By that time, every system in place is either failing or is corrupted due to a lack of people with good enough educations, instead becoming soldiers for the gangs and companies and their product.
Humanity = Smoked. By a <i>plant</i>.
Sorry if that seems a bit grim, but there's some serious problems with legalizing [<a href='http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info2.shtml' target='_blank'>chemicals</a>] that can do serious harm to a persons body. And while you're legalizing pot, go ahead and legalize coke, meth, acid, crack, smack, and every other hard substance you can think of; at least it'll get us to the end faster that way.
I know there's a 'tradition' behind it but quite frankly that's no real excuse outside of "we've always had it" mentality and the stubborness of the public to give up their chemical crutches; if the government wants to be serious about protecting people from geniunely harmful chemicals they should bite the bullet and stop making exceptions ><
Cigerette companies add scores of chemicals and poisons to their products just to get people addicted.
Some drug dealers lace marijiana with other drugs to get people addicted. It happened to one of my friends last night.
The fact is, pure marijiana is NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE. It's psychological. Just like food or video games are. Gambling is also psychologically addictive.
I'm on the fence for this issue. On one side, if we legalize it, it's another substance to mess the masses up with, cause more troubles, etc. etc.
However, if legalized, the government could tax the hell out of it, use the money for education programs, DARE and the like. The money could also be used to up the narcotics divsion to keep the hard drugs out of schools.
Regardless, I think it will get legalized eventually.
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:green'>$$$$$$$$$$</span></span>
I wish the government would make booze and smoking illegal, but said companies can and do spend huge sums of money in political contributions. They literally buy the people who make laws in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case in Europe and around the world as well. =/
Cigarett smoke also causes cancer. How many people that don't smoke or drink do you think would start smoking marajuana?
Now, all the other benifits of Cannibus besides its intoxicating effects are the real reason it's illegal. All of this stuff those who are against it are saying is propoganda, nothing more.
The only down side other than what alcohol/tabaco already do that I can think of is that the rebeliousness of marajuana smokers would no longer be rebelious and people may turn to more dangerous drugs to get in the rebel factor.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We did that once, it failed. It was called probation, go read a history book. Crime went up and people drank anyway
The reason something was banned does not neccessarily imply the reason something remains banned. Until you can dismiss the past for a moment to consider the issue from a modern perspective, there remains nothing I can say to you that could possibly convince you otherwise.
The argument that Marijuana has never been responsible for any deaths is an absurd attempt by pro-marijuana-legalization advocates to hide the truth of the drug behind a veil of "indirectness." A parellel to such an argument would be similar to that of somebody arguing that alcohol is a harmless drug because only a very few instances of "alcohol overdose" occur each year, or that nicotine is a relatively safe drug because few people are actually killed through overdose or tar buildup. It's an argument that wouldn't exist if they would only consider the amount of deaths that were indirectly the result of consuming these drugs.
As I've already mentioned above, THC is found present in 6-11 percent of fatal accidents, putting it in the same league as alcohol - a perception distorting, judgement inhibiting drug. Secondly, it has found to double or triple the likelyhood of lung and throat cancer, making it as lethal as smoking in that respect. So we have a drug that has both the negative effects of smoking and drinking, and people are claiming that it is completely harmless? Will someone over there please come up with a justifiable argument? Please?
Now that the prohibition is brought up, someone is probably going to take the issue to hand and use it as an example of why Marijuana should be unbanned. They would then be making the mistake of comparing two drastically different situations.
The most obvious difference is the fact that Alcohol was an already legalized drug, the use of which was accepted by everyone. The people at the time were aware of the addictive and deadly qualities of Alcohol, thus the reason for its ban. As is always the case with suppression of rights in America, there's always somebody that's gonna go and out do something about. In this case, it so happened to be all of America. Liquor was brewed in basements, garages, and where-not, and its distribution was regulated by a number of gangs and gangsters.
The primary difference between Alcohol in the 1920s and Marijuana today is that 7%, not 90% of the population makes use of the substance, and that is only a result of strict regulation and government effort to control the substance. Prohibition of Alcohol resulted in increased production, but only because it was so profitable. Legalization of Marijuana will not lower production or use of the drug, but will most likely double, triple, if not quadruple the use of it, which we have already established as harmful to society and oneself.
Now someone, please, come up with a better argument.
By this quote, you assume that people are so bent on getting Marijuana that they will commit crimes to do so.
You're saying a substance that makes people this dependant should be legal?
By this quote, you assume that people are so bent on getting Marijuana that they will commit crimes to do so.
You're saying a substance that makes people this dependant should be legal? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It only makes people dependent if it's laced.
And Cam... I never said it's not responsible for any deaths. I'm only saying that if it were legalized there wouldn't be that much of a differance in the number of deaths because the only people that would use marajuana are the same people who smoke cigaretts and drink alcohol anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I've already mentioned above, THC is found present in 6-11 percent of fatal accidents, putting it in the same league as alcohol - a perception distorting, judgement inhibiting drug.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And of those 6 out of 10, how many also had alcohol present in their systems?
I'm glad I live in Canada, the cops don't care and the people are mellow <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Will stop people on the streets selling it, apart froma few I guess
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To quote the Singaporean's - HELL YES!
To say people only care about money neglects to mention that without their lives, said money becomes worthless. Execution for drug dealers, draconian laws on the users, plus a small Island all add to zero drug problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Conversely, without freedom my life is worthless. I would rather die than live under a system like that. Fortunately I don't have to go so far to influence policy.
Tell me: why should the government care whether I have a beer or smoke a joint, in my own house and on my own time, to relax on the weekend? Or grow my own, in my basement, to facilitate said use?
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1) It is insulting to assume that a citizen cannot make an informed decision about marijuana or any other drug. Unless of you course you hide pertinent information, but that's a different issue. We do not all need to be treated like children<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can still make an informed decision. Is the risk of jail time worth the high and loss of brain cells?
You can't use it being illegal as a reason for it to remain illegal. Jail time cannot factor into the equation at all. You could make anything illegal on that premise. Law already moves at the speed of government, so you don't have to offer reasons for it to become even more stagnant.
Tell me: why should the government care whether I have a beer or smoke a joint, in my own house and on my own time, to relax on the weekend? Or grow my own, in my basement, to facilitate said use? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your kidding. You'd rather be dead than live in a society that deals comprehensively with a drug problem? Put bluntly - you're willing to bleed for your weed? You still have freedom - freedom to leave the country, freedom to get a job, freedom to not get a job, freedom to worship, raise kids, do whatever you like, so long as you do it within the confines of the law. You are not free to sell drugs, you are not free to use them. Its almost comical to think of all the causes people have fought and died for over the years, yet you'd be willing to do it for a high.
I'll tell you why the government cares. Because weed screws people up. Not everyone, but some. So you weed smokers are like a cancer. Not only do you light one up for yourselves, killing your own braincells, hurting your lungs etc (which in my country means eventually my taxes will be paying your medical bills), but you keep suppliers in business, and in a profitable business no less. So they can offer that filth to someone else, who might not be as tolerant of the effects of weed as you - their life down the tube so you can experience some immediate gratification.
That "growing your own" is a complete smokescreen - if you are legally allowed to grow something, then it automatically follows that you should be allow to distribute it. You cant have one without the other.
But you dont just keep it in the house - pot does wierd things to your mind, especially if you're addicted to it. So you come to work and set a chair on fire near some gas cylinders - and that is an event taken from personal experience while I was working in an optical lab. Stoned out of his mind, tried to light up AT WORK, dropped his match and set the chair alight. Leaps up - pushes the chair away from him towards the cylinders. Completely stupid, completely drug addled.
We have pokies to **** people up. We have alcohol to **** people up. We have cigarettes to **** people up. All of them have a much higher societal saturation rate than weed and will take longer to deal with - so why add another?
But hey, you dont care, you're having a great time, you got the munchies, you feel relaxed, you feel good. Every time I smell weed, hear about weed, watch people take it, I take it as a personal affront and extremely selfish and irresponsible.
I used to tutor high school students. One of my kids was a pothead (she was a girl, a junior in high school, taking algebra-2). It was really sad to see, because she would come to our meeting place reeking of weed - I mentioned it to her and she was like "omg, you can smell it??" as if it was a completely new thought to her.
Anyway, she was having a lot of trouble in math, and basically what i noticed was this: she had a big problem concentrating, especially if she was high or soon after a high, and that she had noticeable short-term memory lapses. She kind of compensated for this by taking notes, but things just didn't seem to click and stay - it would seem like she understood, and the next time i saw her she had lost all of it.
That kind of worries me.
Reason one for the probation on all drugs except alcohol is the fear of the imaginary "what would happen" scenario where the amount of drug addicts rise incrementally after legalization. However, no nation on earth that allows alcohol consists 50% of alcoholics, or even 10%. My home country Finland is probably the world leader in hard liquor consumption (with the possible exception of Russia where cheap vodka has significantly lowered male life expectancy - I'll elaborate on this later), and we clearly have a portion of people who are more interested in destroying their brain with alcohol than working. If we banned alcohol, they wouldn't stop drinking. They'd just find other ways to obtain it. If we suddenly legalized all drugs it is not like there would be a population boom in the addict numbers overnight. That is simply because the people who are not bothered by their addiction to a drug are quite likely already using it. It simply must be accepted that unless we burn every high-inducing object from superglues to opium poppies from the face of this earth there will always be a certain percentage of the population that cannot or doesn't want to control their substance use. Thus the frightening "addicts piled up on the streets" scenario falls, and not in the least because it is already here. I see a lot of heroin, speed and Subutex (a substitute for heroin - actually a medicine designed to treat heroin addicts) users in my work. I can usually spot them a mile away, but I know that this is only the other side of the story. Go check your local needle exchange point. Most of the people who go to those places to get free needles you wouldn't ever believe to be users of hard drugs.
Reason two is crime. After government-controlled arms sales drugs are the most revenue generating and probably the most profitable business in the world. Where else can you expect to refine a product and make back it's market value twentyfold from the end user? Drugs are the main currency of organized crime and are also used to fund other criminal activities. By legalizing drugs and manufacturing more pure, cheaper alternatives the government could tap in to the business and cut most of the criminal market out of it. The legal sales could also be taxed. Drug-related crime would plummet also elsewhere, since these days most burglaries, car thefts and such are perpetrated by people looking for something they can turn into money and score with. A really pathological junkie can feed his smack habit by $200 a day. It's a lot of money but not a lot of drugs, actually.
Reason three is war. The human tragedy of the drug trade is not only limited to criminal activities. Drug sales, because of their profitability, also fuel wars. The Colombian government, backed by the US, has fought a so-called war on drugs for over two decades. At the moment the country is being ravaged by a civil war which is one of the most brutal conflicts ever on this planet. The government, aided by right-wing paramilitary death squads under the banner of AUC, is fighting a leftist revolutionary movement called FARC. FARC gets weapons by extorting protection money from coca plant growers, AUC sells drugs openly to fund itself, and the government is rife with corruption, since bribes are just pocket money to drug cartels. The whole conflict is fueled by the enormous profits reaped from the trade of illegal drugs. Legalizing them would seriously cut into the budgets of all sides and perhaps help to end the conflict. The US has vocally supported the so-called war on drugs in Colombia but the government has known for a long time that this war cannot be won. The result of pouring money and arms into Colombia only helps to escalate the conflict into a whole new level.
Other organizations that fund their wars with drug sales include the now-disbanded UCK of Kosovo and the warlords of the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan. Yes, the guys who eventually did the dirty work of captring the country from Taliban are just about the world's worst drug dealers. They were able to hole up in the north for many years against the vastly numerically superior Taliban forces simply because they had the money to spend on weapons.
Reason four is prisoner rehab. Even in a small country like Finland many people who go into prison clean come out addicted and in huge debts to the criminal organizations who run drug sales in the prisons. These people have no other choice but to continue their criminal career both to feed their habit and to pay off their never-ending debts. Legalization would also cut into the prison drug racket and most likely allow for a better rate of ex-convicts succesfully rehabilitated into the society. Increasing control doesn't help here, since even high security prisons have their own drug rings.
There is simply no way that legalizing drugs could victimize or kill more people than the probation already has. The reason why most people demanding legalization only want cannabis legalized (say cannabis, not marihuana, please) is that cannabis has a lower addiction rate than coffee. In fact, it is technically impossible to become physically addicted to it. It's also relatively easy to grow it in your own home. What they do not realize is that legalizing cannabis will not cut the drug trade by much because cannabis in all its forms is a low-profit drug. The only way to destroy the trade (which also affects the modern slave trade in Europe, and most likely in other areas as well) is to cut the profits by offering low-cost legal alternatives. Those who have already destroyed themselves with drugs will most likely continue to do so, but the end result would be better for all of us. The only thing that is stopping this is that politicians, some of whom are actually involved in the trade, refuse to see that the controls do not work. The laws do not stop the ever-increasing flow of illegal drugs.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to say "duh" here.
If she'd just drank a sixpack of beer, would you be surprised that she'd not do math quite right? If she comes into classes totally smashed, be it alcohol, cannabis or salvia seeds, whatever, she has a problem and needs some help.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To say people only care about money neglects to mention that without their lives, said money becomes worthless. Execution for drug dealers, draconian laws on the users, plus a small Island all add to zero drug problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Want to see how well this system you propose will work? Take a look at Iran. Iran executes drug dealers and smugglers, yet the business is booming. No other country has so many addicts. The US in fact imposes draconian measures on people in possession of drugs regardless of whether it is meant for sales or personal use. It doesn't seem to help, does it?
You do realize that your opinion invalidates all other points you make simply because it shows you haven't actually observed your surroundings in any way before forming an opinion. Even a total police state cannot control the drug trade. It's just like King Mob said in The Invisibles:
<i>"You can cover the world in cameras but you can't stop the guys in the monitor room from jerking off or playing the fifteenth sequel to Doom for the hundreth time."</i>
Legalising/banning cannabis goes way beyond the fact that it's dangerous for a person or not.
Legalising will take a weight off a country. I think we have to accept the fact that a small percentage of the population will **** themselves up. Whatever the laws this will always be true. This is just the nature of life in society and has been observed in all societies. I can't quite remember the figure but it has been observed, for example, that 5% of ants just won't work for the community and they just spend time eating off the reserves and idle about. Nothing can be done about it, and even so the other ants don't go killing them off or rejecting them from society. We have much to learn from ants.
At least let them **** themselves up legaly without having to support mafia and all that comes with taking drugs.
But then I read Marine01. Pot heads are a dreg on society (which I don't care about) but as a direct result they are a dreg on me. Having more potheads means more taxes. The loosers in this world don't need my money to help them out.
Call me a selfish (insert another swear of choice), but my hard work shouldn't pay for someone elses habit - or their medical needs when that lifestyle catches up to them. What's mine is mine. Keep fighting the drug problem.
In example, look at leagalizing gambling - to make gambling illegal in some places, like vegas, you'd think would lower crime because there would be no more reported incidents of "illegal gambling", but the very nature of gambling encourages many forms of crime. This is a cold fact.
Another thing is, crime is only breaking of laws. Why put laws in the first place? Laws are there to <b>ban morally irreprehensible actions</b>. I mean, techically the best way to remove crime would be to legalize everything - murder, theft, rape, etc. etc.
But obviously that's not going to work, so please saying legalizing cannabis will lower crime is an extreamlly weak argument.
Do you guys really have more motive than "Cause it feels good"? Arguably, it causes short term memory loss, concentration problems, crime, it fries your brain, and does a list of equally dangerous and potentially bad side effects that don't even come to mind this second. So what are the reasons <b>FOR</b> legalizing marijuana? "Cause it feels good"?
I won't buy health benefits, because junkies certainly don't look like they are reaping the benefits of these supposed "health benefits."
Sure taxing will get the government more money. However, you can't tell me that taxing marijuana is a prime motivation in your (the smoker's) life.
So what possible reason might you have to smoke marijuana? It'd have to be something which counteracts all the harmful side effects (and to me at least, the answer is not an obvious one).