Should Marijuana Be LEGAL In The US?

[Jazzmarazz]

I'm sorry, but I resent that statement.
I'm not sure what sorts of people you've come to know, but I'd like to think humans beings have the ability to transcend their background.
I don't doubt the existence of such people who abuse the system, crack addicts with 4 starving children living off the government w/ no validity of character & no willingness to support for their family or provide a stable home for their children. It's completely abominable
In fact, I have known people like that, & I've lived some of that to a mild extent, but those are undoubtedly terrible people. Nothing to contribute to the world whatsoever except a cesspool to society.

But my argument is that it's not fair to categorize those who smoke marijuana for nonmedicinal purposes, regardless if it's frequently or occasionally, under the Punk-ass white trash/trailer trash/what-have-you. Break down the umbrella a bit, not everyone who smokes weed recreationally is a piece of shit. & to my experiences, I know of very few people who use any portion of their government assistance (unemployment) that goes towards marijuana. The majority of them actually work for a living & have their little party or unwinding period on the weekend either consuming alcohol or smoking weed (sometimes both).

~just my stance, No hate, only love.

So I can tell by your statement alone, that you live in America, but not Michigan. Sure the question is more directed toward US residents, but we need some opinions from some Brits and Sweds. If you start dancing around the direct answer of yes or no, then why don't we get their opinions too?

[Zerokt15]

Either way, youre giving power to either government or criminals, if you can distinguish that is =p
Even if pot is illegal, you still have various drugs that are legal harmful and easily accessable used for recreation.
The big focus should be in education.

I was highly discouraged today to see a group of children about 8 years old who could barely communicate through proper sentences bartering cigarettes with a highschool kid. The highschooler wanted cigarettes, the 8 year olds had them, they were able to barter and also seemed remorseful at giving them away because then they wouldnt be able to smoke that afternoon and that theyd have to wait until tommorrow.

This scene depressed me greatly.

[Kouen Hasuki]

No.

In short ya they can legalise it and then it will fail to be "Cool" and all the kids will move on to a harder drug, I think a good chunk of "wacky backy" smokers smoke it because its illegal and cool.

Its also been noted as a gateway drug and our society as it is still have its Intoxicated Driver issues without adding legal potheads on top of it.

not to mention if they Legalised it for Medicinal purposes you will have every pot head in the doctors going "My eye hurts, gimmeh some pot doc!"

[ResidentPsycho]

weed is used for glaucoma, to reduce the pressure inside the eye on the optic nerve i think. in the netherlands its legal to smoke, and they don't have an issues with it afaik. its just tourist going there for it "lolol i can smoke legal weedz" kinda rubbish

[VeganZombie]

Lol? Your logic of "it would reduce crime" was what I was referring too (legalizing murder would reduce crime). I am fully aware of the message the subtitle conveys.

I'm sorry but...

I smell a troll

[Lol, everyone seems to have a problem with this one]
Well, I still stand by my initial logic:
"Just because something reduces crime does not mean it is inherently good,"
but perhaps my I could have done something else. The misconception that everyone seems to have, however, is that I am arguing against legalization, when I am actually just arguing against bad logic .
[If you would read my whole post, you would see that I am actually for legalization]

Currently illegal to smoke inside public establishments, or within 25 feet of entrances/windows/vents. At least here.

Lol. Apparently you do not pay attention either, since there are not cops at every street corner. Even though I am fairly certain we have either the same or similar regulations, people still smoke everywhere here in southeast P-town, and I don't want weed-stank in addition to the smoke I already have to deal with. Perhaps the attention it would garner after being legalized would help, but I doubt it; and what happens when everyone becomes complacent? The only one that actually applies is the "within public establishments," but that is out of fear of being kicked out, not because of a wish to be in accordance with some law(s).
And none of those include subway stations, town squares, parks, or many other locations were a large amounts of people gather.

Legalized, it's just as easy to grow and sell as tobacco. Arguably easier. The price to produce wouldn't be that much higher. As is, more than half of the selling price is purely based on the risk. So if you cut out that half of the price and put a, say, $1 per ounce tax on it, you're still considerably cheaper.
If you want to talk about the cost of regulation, they already have to spend that. The only difference is that you would only be arrested for underage, while driving, or in public. So you're more likely reducing the cost of regulation.

Hmm... Alright, there is a definite possibility that the price of regulation will decrease, but the actual end price of the product? Suggestions that I hear specifically stipulate that, either because of it's potency or simply it's public perception, the government will at the very least regulate and very probably fully control every aspect of cultivation, transportation, and solicitation. That would get expensive; I guess it could come from the proposed increase in income tax, but people want immediate results. It is also a perfect excuse to deliberately make it expensive.

"1$ an ounce"? That's a little naive. Here is a list of state and federal taxes on ONE PACK of cigarettes (about 0.65% of an ounce). MAYBE the federal tax would be that low, but defiantly not the state taxes. If we legalize it, we are going to use it to get us out of this economic hole, hence "immediate results". (The justification that all of the California legislators was that it would "produce 1 billion dollars within the first year".) Also, people who don't like weed will want it as expensive as possible, not only as placation, but because less people will use it. It's the same justification used for new tobacco taxes.

In short: Proponents will make it expensive to better their image, and say it is out of necessity, and opponents will only settle if it is expensive.

And as for the "people don't steal for marijuana," you clearly don't pay much attention. Sure, someone's not likely to knock over a liquor store to afford pot, but no one mentions soft crimes like taking a twenty from your friend's wallet while he's not looking, or depositing 1/10 of a penny into a private account for every $30k that's transferred around at work. Or walking out of Kohl's with three thongs, two bras, and two shirts on underneath your sweatshirt so that you can spend your own money on pot. Furthermore, the "gateway drug" argument works for crime as well. People think "Oh, I've already smoked pot, and that's illegal. So stealing from Sears is no big deal."

LOL. Who have you been hanging with?

First, how the hell am I, or anyone else, supposed to know when any of this actually happens, unless it happens directly around you? Let alone how often they occur, and then in addition, how often they are associated with the need for marijuana? Crimes like those that you have cited (especially "taking a twenty from your friend's wallet while he's not looking") are not broadcast on the news, they are not put all over the internet, and unless it happens somewhere in your vicinity, it will not come to your attention through basic hearsay (Especially the "depositing 1/10 of a penny into a private account for every $30k that's transferred around at work," which I did not know people routinely did for weed).

Cum Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc:
It seems to me that most of these people could have committed these crimes for any of the innumerable accessories and trinkets that people steal for that have nothing to do with the topic... in fact, that is the goal of the majority of the theft I see (IPods, cell phones, etc.). Although weed could defiantly be a factor, the comparably inexpensive price and low addiction-level does not create the necessity to commit these crimes.

Those addicted to harder drugs need to acquire a much larger amount of cash in a much more limited time-frame (thus resulting in rasher methods) in order to both satisfy their crippling addictions and also, you know, eat.

Furthermore, the "gateway drug" argument works for crime as well. People think "Oh, I've already smoked pot, and that's illegal. So stealing from Sears is no big deal."

Honestly, all I can is "Not in my experience," seeing as where I live, pot is considered separate from other drugs:
Pot growers only grow pot, and pot dealers only deal pot. You do not need to go looking through the underworld in order to score some weed. Although it is not condoned, it certainly considered "normal," while stealing is not, so there is no real sense of criminality.
So again I have to ask... what people have you been hanging with?

I'm not sure what kinda pot you're getting or got (past tense), but it sounds like dirt weed, which is only good if you're making edibles

More like "meh" weed, guesstimation of about 12-14% THC content. Whereas "dirt weed" (we call it "skank weed") is about 8% THC content, and the best stuff is like... what, 26% THC content, or some other ridiculous figure?

Also, after looking at this again, it is not completely fair, since the weed would be considered "wholesale," and the price of a gram of meth is after it has been chopped, and probably chopped again. An "8 ball" (which is 3 1/2 grams) is around $200.00.

For starters, that 40 billion would be out of the direct tax revenue, that doesn't even compare to the long term revenue generated within the economy from the private sector alone. More jobs would be created from the cultivation to the transportation, not to mention the opportunity for other businesses to grow & market this would-be new commodity.

Is it all worth the exponential increase of heath care cost (somewhere in the 250 Billion Dollars range a year), though? I don't know...

And that's why you simply tack marijuana onto the list of things you can't do before/while driving. Like cold medicine.

I am aware that is how it would be regulated.
But you are missing the point... entirely.

First and Foremost:
I was not saying that it should be illegal because of it's negative effects.

He said that we should legalize pot and criminalize alcohol, citing that alcohol was "more dangerous." I said that neither is essentially more dangerous than the other, so his logic for the (paraphrased) statement "Alcohol should be illegal and Marijuana should be illegal" is flawed, and that in a "Marijuana should be legal" discussion, the point that it is "more dangerous" is null and void.

I was speaking purely in the sense of "alcohol related deaths" versus "marijuana related deaths".

I would say that because alcohol is both legal and cheap:
More people use it, therefore more people use it in excess, therefore more people die from it.

Alcohol is a much more devastating drug in terms of it's physical affect on your body.

Meh. I don't know, honestly. I'm sure there are things that would support both sides, especially since I remember seeing a study that said "One drink a week can help your heart," but since I don't want this to regress into a "who can Google faster" discussion, I'm not going to post anything. Just remember that alcohol has a much greater potential for excess than marijuana does (burnout).

I'm gonna disagree, though certain chemicals do effect some people differently, but the degree to which Alcohol impairs a person is by leaps & bounds more significant than Marijuana.

Meh. Based on personal experience:
1 joint > 1 beer, 2 joints = 2 beers, and then I plateau and 3 joints < 3 beers, etc.

Though I'm not saying that alcohol should be illegal, the argument is & always has been that if Alcohol can be sold @ your local market & consumed @ (certain) public places & on one's own property, then it is complete hypocrisy to say that marijuana should not be treated equally.

Same misinterpretation as

Colamisu

Also, Marijuana is not drug that can be abused unlike alcohol,

Well as far as I know, "drug abuse" is defined as "any intentional misuse of legal drugs or any use of illegal drugs," so in that sense, it can be abused. But in the sense of "who wants to smoke more weed, or even do anything after 2 joints" yeah, that is true.

there is virtually no long term physical ailments that are attributed to it from long term use, also unlike alcohol,

Um... Cancer?
"Marijuana smoke has been found to contain more cancer-causing agents than is found in tobacco smoke." Plus "research has shown that being a marijuana smoker is associated with a 70% increased risk for being diagnosed with testicular cancer. "

Also,

• It can impair the body's immune system, by affecting your body's ability to create T-cells.
  
• Both Short and Long-Term Memory Loss
  
• You "can develop many breathing problems, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent chest colds, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency toward obstructed airways."

& it's not addictive like alcohol or caffeine can be.

[I knew this would come up, so I have already put some thought into this]
As far as I know, you can become addicted, in one way or another, to basically anything that makes you feel good. The debate, however, is whether it is a psychological addiction (basically a really strong habit), or a physical addiction, where your body actually develops a need for it (also called "dependence").

The conclusion that I came to, from what I can tell based on what I've been told and what I've found is that, in a nutshell, it is probably both:

By the year 2000, more than 100,000 Americans a year were seeking treatment for marijuana dependency, by some estimates

There is good experimental evidence that chronic heavy cannabis users can develop tolerance to its subjective and cardiovascular effects, and there is suggestive evidence that some users may experience a withdrawal syndrome on the abrupt cessation of cannabis use. There is clinical and epidemiological evidence that some heavy marijuana users experience problems in controlling their marijuana use, and continue to use the drug despite experiencing adverse personal consequences of use.

The best study I found that was on "2446 young adults aged 14-24 years at baseline was followed up over a period of 4 years" said that:

Among all users 35% met at least one dependence criterion. Most frequently reported dependence criteria among all users were withdrawal (17%), tolerance (15%), loss of control (14%) and continued use despite a health problem (13%). Even without concomitant use of other illicit drugs, 22% of low frequency users and 81% of high frequency users met at least one dependence criterion.

Among both groups, the most common sign of dependency was withdrawal

Another said confirms that many (but not all)

regular marijuana users experience negative effects when they stop using the drug. Since THC is fat-soluble and lingers in the body, withdrawal symptoms may not be felt immediately.

Albeit, many stipulated something along the lines of "There is limited evidence in favor of a cannabis dependence syndrome analogous to the alcohol dependence syndrome." But "remember that alcohol has a much greater potential for excess than marijuana does because of burnout, and I think that is at least a little worse than caffeine.

[muzicdevil]

People still import it in the U.S. and even though its illegal... we still gott plenty of it... at least thats how it is in New York...

[VeganZombie]

People still import it in the U.S. and even though its illegal... we still gott plenty of it... at least thats how it is in New York...

People still do many things that are illegal... does that mean we should legalize them?

[JKDarkside]

People still do many things that are illegal... does that mean we should legalize them?

If we already have a more dangerous substance nice and legal with restrictions, then yes.

You know which substance I mean.

[Synthetik]

I was gonna type out some long winded post agreeing with the good points people made and disagreeing with other laughably untrue things that others posted, tell people that not everyone can be categorized into a black or white grouping and that believing in stereotypes is ignorant, maybe talk about how it's much more profitable for the government to keep marijuana illegal, and rant on about how beneficial marijuana can be and how THC has actually been found to shrink brain tumors in both lab rats and humans, while still acknowledging that inhaling any kind of smoke can be harmful to your body and that anything you put in your body should be used with moderation and responsibility.

But since most of the things I would have said have already been posted, I'm just going to eat another handful of chips and laugh at this stupid movie I'm watching.

[Mistral]

If we already have a more dangerous substance nice and legal with restrictions, then yes.

You know which substance I mean.

Shooting yourself in the arm is no way to treat a gunshot wound to the head. I can understand the desire for legal rationalization regarding addictive substances, but legalizing marijuana is not the answer to that.

[Dr Mario]

Shooting yourself in the arm is no way to treat a gunshot wound to the head. I can understand the desire for legal rationalization regarding addictive substances, but legalizing marijuana is not the answer to that.

It is part of it, if you make the assumption that people are actually being upfront with their motivations regarding the illegality of certain substances. The claimed motivation is that its a dangerous substance that ought to be restricted from use. If other, significantly more dangerous, substances remain legal for recreational use then it implies that they haven't thoroughly considered the situation and have erred in claiming it to be above their safety threshold (as shown by their acceptance of nastier substance being legal) in which case removing the prohibition would make things more rational. Prohibiting the other substances, thereby lowering their safety threshold for legality, would also make the laws more consistent/rational regarding eachother but would run so far counter to standard attitudes that its not really worth considering.

There's also the side-issue that Marijuana isn't addictive in the same sense as the poster-child prohibited drugs are. It's strictly a mental addiction, in which case regulating it on that basis falls apart unless people also intend to regulate WoW and coffee amongst other things.

[Slacker Magician]

Lol? Your logic of "it would reduce crime" was what I was referring too (legalizing murder would reduce crime). I am fully aware of the message the subtitle conveys....

I didn't read all of the post but, I highly approve.

[skullpoker]

Doctor told my uncle he has so many warning signs for glaucoma that he should be blind. Doc had no idea why my uncle isn't currently suffering from severe glaucoma... Smart doctor, right?

I, for one, always told my doctors straight out when I smoked weed. Last thing I want is an otherwise harmless drug interacting with pot when the doctor doesn't know I'm toking.

[Lee]

I, for one, always told my doctors straight out when I smoked weed. Last thing I want is an otherwise harmless drug interacting with pot when the doctor doesn't know I'm toking.

I've watched too much House to lie to doctors.

The drugs they are using are serious shit.

[J03]

[Lol, everyone seems to have a problem with this one]

I just call it as I see it, I interpreted the "let's legalize rape" as such: a statement that's intended purpose is to insult someones better logic.
Granted, I can see that you're arguing against "poor logic", but the method of going about it isn't purposeful as it's more semantics & rhetoric than anything.
nothing gets accomplished w/ sophist arguments imo

As it stands, this is a debate, I'm not looking to insult, but rather engage in a series of statements intended to establish a proposition. We are, after all benefiting from the different perspectives, regardless if some of us (& when I say some of us, I mean specifically me) appear more stubborn in their (my) position.

Suggestions that I hear specifically stipulate that, either because of it's potency or simply it's public perception, the government will at the very least regulate and very probably fully control every aspect of cultivation, transportation, and solicitation. That would get expensive; I guess it could come from the proposed increase in income tax, but people want immediate results. It is also a perfect excuse to deliberately make it expensive.

I personally doubt the government would control every aspect of it, sure there'd be some regulation(s) by the federal "who the fuck cares" to an extent, but ultimately it would be privatized, whether that be through Pharmaceuticals (an evil industry imo) or some other/new corporation that could market such things (in much the same way Alcohol & Tobacco companies do). They would be the ones who could make it an affordable commodity -never doubt the ability of large corporations.

In short: Proponents will make it expensive to better their image, and say it is out of necessity, and opponents will only settle if it is expensive.

I consider this a viable argument, however this is merely based on speculation, if I know evil corporations in the way I like to think I do, they know exactly how to price it so that it is both affordable in its marketability & it satisfies the demand (to an extent) of those who would want more red tape barring/restricting its use... that or Big Tobacco could jack up the price & put Nicotine in their new "Blissful Blunts" product line.. this is all theoretical though.

Those addicted to harder drugs need to acquire a much larger amount of cash in a much more limited time-frame (thus resulting in rasher methods) in order to both satisfy their crippling addictions and also, you know, eat.

Some of 'em don't even eat!

Is it all worth the exponential increase of heath care cost (somewhere in the 250 Billion Dollars range a year), though? I don't know...

I don't believe the the increase would be exponentially greater, though I can't remember if I said it already but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the US Health Care system is broken. That's not an issue I care to get into however I support the concept of universally available healthcare, I just completely disagree with the methods they're going about getting there.
As it stands, my only argument to this is to consider the long term, as all investments are.

Meh. I don't know, honestly. I'm sure there are things that would support both sides, especially since I remember seeing a study that said "One drink a week can help your heart," but since I don't want this to regress into a "who can Google faster" discussion, I'm not going to post anything. Just remember that alcohol has a much greater potential for excess than marijuana does (burnout).

Agree

Meh. Based on personal experience:
1 joint > 1 beer, 2 joints = 2 beers, and then I plateau and 3 joints < 3 beers, etc.

Beer is regulated (to my knowledge) to not exceed a certain alcoholic proof (though I could be wrong)
this scale is no longer valid when "mixed drinks" &/or straight shots are thrown into the equation (but this is me mostly bullshitting)

Same misinterpretation as

That statement wasn't necessarily directed as a rebuttal to your argument, it's more me merely clarifying my position & my justification in the "pro legalization" debate.
I thought it appropriate that it be stated sooner or later.

Well as far as I know, "drug abuse" is defined as "any intentional misuse of legal drugs or any use of illegal drugs," so in that sense, it can be abused. But in the sense of "who wants to smoke more weed, or even do anything after 2 joints" yeah, that is true.

The way I interpret drug abuse is any use of a controlled substance that upon reaching a particular threshold in consumption or other means of absorption that results in adverse physical &/or psychological effects. So in that context, use of LSD, regardless if it's only once in a lifetime, is in & of itself abuse due to "flashbacks".

Um... Cancer?
"Marijuana smoke has been found to contain more cancer-causing agents than is found in tobacco smoke." Plus "research has shown that being a marijuana smoker is associated with a 70% increased risk for being diagnosed with testicular cancer. "

Also,

• It can impair the body's immune system, by affecting your body's ability to create T-cells.
  
• Both Short and Long-Term Memory Loss
  
• You "can develop many breathing problems, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent chest colds, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency toward obstructed airways."

[I knew this would come up, so I have already put some thought into this]
As far as I know, you can become addicted, in one way or another, to basically anything that makes you feel good. The debate, however, is whether it is a psychological addiction (basically a really strong habit), or a physical addiction, where your body actually develops a need for it (also called "dependence").

The conclusion that I came to, from what I can tell based on what I've been told and what I've found is that, in a nutshell, it is probably both:

The best study I found that was on "2446 young adults aged 14-24 years at baseline was followed up over a period of 4 years" said that:
Another said confirms that many (but not all)

Albeit, many stipulated something along the lines of "There is limited evidence in favor of a cannabis dependence syndrome analogous to the alcohol dependence syndrome." But "remember that alcohol has a much greater potential for excess than marijuana does because of burnout, and I think that is at least a little worse than caffeine.

There's also the side-issue that Marijuana isn't addictive in the same sense as the poster-child prohibited drugs are. It's strictly a mental addiction, in which case regulating it on that basis falls apart unless people also intend to regulate WoW and coffee amongst other things.

In this day & age, everything has the potential to cause cancer or some other form of undesirable ailment.
Personally, I'm highly skeptical of public surveys as anyone with the for or against bias can fund such a study. Nothing takes into account the innumerable other variables that are thrown in the mix, & if there's an evil corporation that might in the least bit be affected negatively by the legalization of marijuana, you can bet that the results would be inaccurate.
Corruption is rampant regardless of what source or study is being cited. But that's just me.

I'll admit there are cases of memory loss that could be attributed to abuse of marijuana, but for long term casual use, such a "risk" is rare to say the least.
Again, different people are affected differently from different stumili

I can't say for certain in regards to immunosuppression, so I can't effectively debate that.

Respiratory ailments is also valid, though I can't speak for others. I supposedly have asthma (though it was much more significant when I was younger), I don't get colds or other respiratory problems any more than the next guy who doesn't smoke at all, but then again, I'm kinda a health nut.
For those who frequently smoke weed, as in smoking the equivalent of 1-3≤ cigarettes per day, then that's absolutely valid

Again, my argument was there's virtually no long term physical ailments. There's room for error in any argument, & imo, the health problems that are supposedly attributed to marijuana use (in whatever form it is used) are rare with the exceptions to the various rules with the different people & the possibility for abuse.

I was gonna type out some long winded post agreeing with the good points people made and disagreeing with other laughably untrue things that others posted, tell people that not everyone can be categorized into a black or white grouping and that believing in stereotypes is ignorant, maybe talk about how it's much more profitable for the government to keep marijuana illegal, and rant on about how beneficial marijuana can be and how THC has actually been found to shrink brain tumors in both lab rats and humans, while still acknowledging that inhaling any kind of smoke can be harmful to your body and that anything you put in your body should be used with moderation and responsibility.

I agree wholeheartedly with the axiom that moderation is key
& on the subject of moderation, if it's possible to consume enough of any given substance to a point where it becomes toxic, logically there's an exception to every rule.
see Hypervitaminosis

But since most of the things I would have said have already been posted, I'm just going to eat another handful of chips and laugh at this stupid movie I'm watching.

You sir have won the thread

I, for one, always told my doctors straight out when I smoked weed. Last thing I want is an otherwise harmless drug interacting with pot when the doctor doesn't know I'm toking.

:srs: As someone who takes personal health srsly, this is always recommended when seeing a physician before they prescribe something that could adversely affect you when combined with another substance.


Anyhow, I officially declare this thread tl;dr Woo! nobody wins!