Exactly. The reasons to legalize it completely outweigh the reasons not to.

The government wants control. :/

What if, by keeping the drugs illegal, we were putting them in situations which lead to crime, death, and other causes of social burden? Would you be willing to admit that you were wrong?

If the law says "Don't do X", and someone does x, it isn't the law that made their decision to do x.

Focus on the bolded part, with a word placed in there that I'd forgotten to put in the sentence in the first place (the word is to.)

 

If we could reduce the rates of those things, along with reduce the number of new users by making it legally obtainable, would you admit that you were wrong?

What if, by keeping the drugs illegal, we were putting them in situations which lead to crime, death, and other causes of social burden? Would you be willing to admit that you were wrong?

If the law says "Don't do X", and someone does x, it isn't the law that made their decision to do x.

Focus on the bolded part, with a word placed in there that I'd forgotten to put in the sentence in the first place (the word is to.)

 

If we could reduce the rates of those things, along with reduce the number of new users by making it legally obtainable, would you admit that you were wrong?

 

That's still all hypothetical. I personally would not see how you'd get a reduced number of new users if you make it legally obtainable.

What if, by keeping the drugs illegal, we were putting them in situations which lead to crime, death, and other causes of social burden? Would you be willing to admit that you were wrong?

If the law says "Don't do X", and someone does x, it isn't the law that made their decision to do x.

Focus on the bolded part, with a word placed in there that I'd forgotten to put in the sentence in the first place (the word is to.)

 

If we could reduce the rates of those things, along with reduce the number of new users by making it legally obtainable, would you admit that you were wrong?

What is it I'm supposed to be wrong about?

What is it I'm supposed to be wrong about?

That keeping drugs illegal keeps people safer, and is less of a burden on society.

What is it I'm supposed to be wrong about?

That keeping drugs illegal keeps people safer, and is less of a burden on society.

And what is the baseline we're going on?

I've yet to see anything statistical or objective on this thread in favour of legalising marijuana. All the arguments are quite flimsy, libertarian and a bit vague.

The U.S. spends more than 42 billion dollars annually on weed alone.

 

Government stops marijuana research after finding out it slowed cancer growth.

 

There's plenty of legitimate evidence...

I've yet to see anything statistical or objective on this thread in favour of legalising marijuana. All the arguments are quite flimsy, libertarian and a bit vague.

 

Is there any statistical or objective reason to legalize alcohol or tobacco?

 

Edit: http://forum.grasscity.com/medical-marijuana/645925-grannys-mmj-list-july-2010-a.html

 

420 links to reports/studies about either marijuana curing things, helping with symptoms, beneficial uses, etc.

 

Edit: In relation to the links above, decriminalization does not lead to more cannabis use, and isn't the point of it being illegal so that people don't do it? http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3383

Alcohol, when not abused, has no harmful side effects whatsoever.

 

It's not possible to take marijuana and avoid the side effects.

Alcohol, when not abused, has no harmful side effects whatsoever.

 

It's not possible to take marijuana and avoid the side effects.

 

Eat it? Vaporize it?

Nom is correct. It is not the marijuana itself that has physical health detriments, but the smoking of it which happens to be the most popular form of intake. As for the mental health detriments, that could be a different story. Some individuals just cannot handle even the mildest of drugs responsibly. But this is no reason to make a substance illegal for everybody.

 

As evidenced on this page, the burden of having tons of harmless people crowding our prisons and the taxes we have to pay in order to "combat" the detrimental effects of weed is substantially more detrimental to our society as a whole than a few idiots doing stupid things while they're high. Also take into account that it's illegal status gives government regulators less credibility when it comes to public health concern (when you take into account they are profiting off one of the top causes of death), it fuels an underground thug economy, and that smoking it has actually become more popular since it's become illegal. The Prohibition Act never solved anything, has it?

Alcohol, when not abused, has no harmful side effects whatsoever.

 

It's not possible to take marijuana and avoid the side effects.

Alcohol, even in small doses, damages your liver.

At the end of the day, tobacco and alcohol are legal because they've been integral parts of global society for centuries and, in the case of the latter, millennia. You can't really ban them, they're too intergrated.

 

Marijuana has not been, and I think the only reason it should be outlawed is because otherwise people will keep pushing the line back until real, dangerous drugs are legalised, e.g. heroin, LSD. Besides, legalising it hasn't done The Netherlands any favours.

Cannabis and Opiates have both been used for tens of thousands of years. Cannabis has even been used for medical purposes for thousands of years.

 

And the Netherlands hasn't legalized it. It's a pseudo-legalization limbo. Portugal has decriminalized and refocused resources on education and rehab, and it has done that country many favors.

 

There are various ins and outs to this' date=' but as I understand it there are two main problems with the status quo. One is that under the old tolerance regime there’s still no way for a coffee shop to legally obtain the supply of marijuana you need to operate on the scale of a business. Consequently, de facto legalization hasn’t actually eliminated the black market and associated criminality. Secondarily, the main market for the coffee shops turns out to be drug tourists from abroad. That reduces the Dutch political constituency for keeping them open. And the two factors interact together to create a situation where there’s a strong case to be made that legal coffee shops (by bringing drug tourists from the UK and the US into shops that need to tap an illegal wholesale market to gain their supplies) increase the scale of organized crime in the Netherlands.

I think that if you’re looking for stable alternatives to prohibition you either need to more to a more robust form legalization than the Dutch had—complete with totally legitimate marijuana farmers—or else adopt the Mark Kleiman “grow your own” proposal in which growing pot, smoking pot, possessing pot, etc are all legal but commerce in marijuana would be illegal.[/quote']

 

The point is, prohibition sucks; just like prohibition of prostitution sucks (there are viable alternatives to prohibition that don't include legalization). If you think it should stay illegal -- fine. But at least put resources where they matter (education and rehabilitation...not to prisons and police). You say you don't see any viable objective arguments in favor of legalization, well I don't see any in favor of prohibition.

I think you quoted the wrong person, I'm all in favour of legalisation.

I think you quoted the wrong person, I'm all in favour of legalisation.

 

No I quoted you because you made a good point -- cannabis has in fact been in our culture for a long time (just not contemporary culture).

I personally would not see how you'd get a reduced number of new users if you make it legally obtainable.

 

I don't think that's the object of legalisation. Most people just want to be able to get high without fear of breaking any laws / getting arrested.

I personally would not see how you'd get a reduced number of new users if you make it legally obtainable.

 

I don't think that's the object of legalisation. Most people just want to be able to get high without fear of breaking any laws / getting arrested.

 

Yep. What are your thoughts on it?

I'm pro choice - use it if you want - it's relatively harmless, but if you gain any ill effects from it's usage, the healthcare system shouldn't have to treat you - though this only really applies to countries with public, taxpayer funded healthcare.

I'm pro choice - use it if you want - it's relatively harmless, but if you gain any ill effects from it's usage, the healthcare system shouldn't have to treat you - though this only really applies to countries with public, taxpayer funded healthcare.

 

Orly? Healthcare treats people who get diseases from alcohol, or get diseases due to tobacco use. I agree that if you put a burden on the healthcare system due to smoking you should pay extra, but still receive the same quality care.

I don't understand how people can say we shouldn't allow the health care system to pay for people who use it if it were legalized. That's not logical. Should tax payers be funding rehabilitation while it's illegal? If so, why the discrepancy? It's the same [cabbage] with abortion. "Oh I think it should be legal, but the taxpayers shouldn't pay for it." Why? It's health care, and it's not some cosmetic change like breast implants or Botox.

You're a nurse in an A&E ward. Your job is to treat the sick and the ill, not judge whether the reason they are there in the first place is worthy or not.

 

The idea that the NHS shouldn't treat drug users is frankly ridiculous and shows total ignorance to the fundamental values which underpin the medical profession.

I don't think people should be treated if they've drunk alcohol or smoked tobacco excessively either.

Why?

Well, because they're doing it to themselves.

 

Same thing applies to people who try to commit suicide, or do something foolhardy that ends up with them getting injured.

 

I don't agree, but I get it. I understand why people don't want to see their money wasted on people who make no effort to keep themselves healthy.