Marijuana Legalization

[magekillr]

I feel that the US/Mexico drug war is closely linked to immigration anyway... If you stop illegals from entering the country, you stop the drugs some of them will transport with them.

 

Well you kind of have it backwards in a weird sort of way.

 

When asked about it by Dylan Ratigan, I said that everyone discussing the immigration problem was ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room: marijuana prohibition. Its channeling millions in drug money into the Mexican cartels, and represents 60% of all cartel profits. That money gets used to finance violence not only at the border but in over 200 cities across the United States where they currently have a presence up from 100 cities three years earlier.

 

While the Ariziona situation is being called immigration problem, its more accurately a drug war problem. The shooting that triggered the Arizona law was related to marijuana smuggling, not migrant workers. But rather than using it as an excuse to further erode civil liberties (as the Arizona law does), or ramp up militarization of the border with billions in taxpayer dollars that only serves to escalate the problem, the quite obvious solution seems to be to de-fund the cartels by legalizing marijuana.

 

As Markos said, SB 1070 does nothing to deal with the violent drug smuggling at the border.

 

The money that now goes to the cartels, with which they buy weapons and fund criminal enterprises of all sorts, could instead be paying teacher salaries and going into the coffers of states that badly need the revenue to meet their budgets. Legalization could generate $1.4 billion in revenues in California alone if its taxed at the same rate as alcohol. And that money would come straight out of the pockets of the cartels.

 

Want to Defuse the Mexican Border Problem? Legalize Marijuana

 

I also think that the arguments made for and against drug legalization are very similar to the arguments made for and against prostitution. The people for legalization like to argue in the cleanest sense - "two consenting adults... with an exchange of money...", or "on a vacation or on a weekend... in the privacy of a basement..."

 

In a way it is, but legalizing prostitution has not been successful at stopping the rights of those who are involved in the trade, and is rampant with human trafficking. The best model we have for this is Sweden's:

 

In 1999, after years of research and study, Sweden passed legislation that a) criminalizes the buying of sex, and b) decriminalizes the selling of sex.

 

This Swedish experiment is the single, solitary example in a significant sized population of a prostitution policy that works. In 2003, the Scottish government in looking to revamp its own approach to prostitution enlisted the University of London to do a comprehensive analysis of outcomes of prostitution policies in other countries. In addition to reviewing Sweden's program, the researchers chose Australia, Ireland, and the Netherlands to represent various strategies of legalizing and/or regulating prostitution. The researchers did not review the situation where prostitution is criminalized across the board as it is in the US. The outcome of that approach is already well known. The failures and futility of the revolving door of arresting and rearresting prostitutes is all too familiar the world over.

 

But the outcomes, as revealed in the Univ. of London study, in the states under review that had legalized or regulated prostitution were found to be just as discouraging or even more discouraging than the traditional all round criminalization. In each case the results were dramatic in the negative.

 

Legalization and/or regulation of prostitution, according to the study, led to:

 

A dramatic increase in all facets of the sex industry,

A dramatic increase in the involvement of organized crime in the sex industry,

A dramatic increase in child prostitution,

An explosion in the number of foreign women and girls trafficked into the region, and

Indications of an increase in violence against women.

In the state of Victoria, Australia, where a system of legalized, regulated brothels was established, there was such an explosion in the number of brothels that it immediately overwhelmed the system's ability to regulate them, and just as quickly these brothels became a mire of organized crime, corruption, and related crimes. In addition, surveys of the prostitutes working under systems of legalization and regulation find that the prostitutes themselves continue to feel coerced, forced, and unsafe in the business.

 

A survey of legal prostitutes under the showcase Netherlands legalization policy finds that 79% say they want to get out of the sex business. And though each of the legalization/regulation programs promised help for prostitutes who want to leave prostitution, that help never materialized to any meaningful degree. In contrast, in Sweden the government followed through with ample social services funds to help those prostitutes who wanted to get out. 60% of the prostitutes in Sweden took advantage of the well funded programs and succeeded in exiting prostitution.*

 

http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_sweden.html

[Danqazmlp]

The funniest part about "Legalize it, regulate it, tax the crap out of it" is how the argument ignores the fact that there is an entire black market of people already buying, selling, transporting, etc. They don't care about the law, why do you think they'd start caring once it is legal?

 

There's a black market BECAUSE of prohibition. Have you even heard of Al Capone?

 

Also, you're not a libertarian.

 

 

There is also a large black market in tobacco and Alcohol currently, even though it is legal. You cannot tell me they are there because of phoibi... never mind.

 

Really? Maybe in Appalachia and Tennessee for grain alcohol and moonshine (things that are illegal in many surrounding areas). But people aren't killing each other over it because there is little demand for it. Seriously, where is this black market for alcohol and tobacco.

 

 

If you don't know about a subject, don't try to argue about it.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10138617

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8285307.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14375153

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-13875455

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-13792224

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12456360

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-12051029

 

That was simply from a single search of the BBc news website under 'fake alcohol', taking the top results.

 

The black market for tobacco and Alcohol is huge, leading to many deaths and injuries. Can you give proof that would not happen if marijuana was to be legal?

[Giordano]

A better way to look at it: why would the cartels be content paying taxes? They could just do what they do already and even better, since now their sellers won't be arrested for possession.

[OldJoe]

^Not gonna add much, i'm probably for legalization of weed.

But i can't say in my view our sex-buying laws and penalties are as they should be, since in some cases people have gotten a longer jail sentence for buying sex than surprising someone on the street.

That being said, i'm for it to be legalized, but i guess you always have Germany and Austria nearby.

[magekillr]

The funniest part about "Legalize it, regulate it, tax the crap out of it" is how the argument ignores the fact that there is an entire black market of people already buying, selling, transporting, etc. They don't care about the law, why do you think they'd start caring once it is legal?

 

There's a black market BECAUSE of prohibition. Have you even heard of Al Capone?

 

Also, you're not a libertarian.

 

 

There is also a large black market in tobacco and Alcohol currently, even though it is legal. You cannot tell me they are there because of phoibi... never mind.

 

Really? Maybe in Appalachia and Tennessee for grain alcohol and moonshine (things that are illegal in many surrounding areas). But people aren't killing each other over it because there is little demand for it. Seriously, where is this black market for alcohol and tobacco.

 

 

If you don't know about a subject, don't try to argue about it.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10138617

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8285307.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14375153

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-13875455

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-13792224

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12456360

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-12051029

 

That was simply from a single search of the BBc news website under 'fake alcohol', taking the top results.

 

The black market for tobacco and Alcohol is huge, leading to many deaths and injuries. Can you give proof that would not happen if marijuana was to be legal?

 

It's not a problem in America, or any other country as far as I can tell. In fact, I've never even heard of "fake alcohol."

 

What I do know is that there isn't a rampant problem of organized criminal outlets making "fake alcohol" or tobacco like there is for illegal drugs. Perhaps it's something your government is doing wrong, I don't know.

[Nomrombom]

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3418#question5

 

 

Also, ^ ooooo burn

[Danqazmlp]

It's not a problem in America, or any other country as far as I can tell. In fact, I've never even heard of "fake alcohol."

 

What I do know is that there isn't a rampant problem of organized criminal outlets making "fake alcohol" or tobacco like there is for illegal drugs. Perhaps it's something your government is doing wrong, I don't know.

 

Then you have not bothered looking. A quick Google search can show you it is a growing problem in many countries such as China and South American countries. Just because you have not heard about certain criminality does not mean it is not there and is not of concern, it just means that it is not publicised enough in your area or in the media you navigate.

 

It may not be as rampant, but that is because people can get both legally. This however doesn't mean that legality stops the criminality surrounding it, much like it would not stop much of the criminality around legalised Marijuana.

[Nomrombom]

The funniest part about "Legalize it, regulate it, tax the crap out of it" is how the argument ignores the fact that there is an entire black market of people already buying, selling, transporting, etc. They don't care about the law, why do you think they'd start caring once it is legal?

 

There's a black market BECAUSE of prohibition.

Yes, and there would be even if it was legalized. If I can buy cheap weed now illegally and not get caught, why in hell would I buy the same weed legally for more money? I'm not getting in trouble either way...

 

To eliminate the fear and risk of getting caught and allowing people to avoid paranoia. I'd rather pay more and have it legal. Decriminalization is stupid because if it's legal to have it and use it, why should it be illegal to make it?

[Crocefisso]

The problem with marijuana is that, unlike alcohol or tobacco, one use is enough to set off some sort of neurological reaction (I've not looked into the science of it) that has severe effects on mental health, sometimes even as bad as schizophrenia.

 

It's not quite like that. The only way you'll get schizophrenia from it is if you already had the genetics for it. If you never had a predisposition for it, you can't get it. Marijuana justs brings it on a little earlier.

The point being that quite a few people have the genetics for it (some NHS reports say as many as 1 in 5, though I'm sceptical of that). Alcohol and tobacco, though dangerous, don't have the same short term risk associated with them. It also brings it on significantly earlier, in some cases decades earlier.

[Nomrombom]

The problem with marijuana is that, unlike alcohol or tobacco, one use is enough to set off some sort of neurological reaction (I've not looked into the science of it) that has severe effects on mental health, sometimes even as bad as schizophrenia.

 

It's not quite like that. The only way you'll get schizophrenia from it is if you already had the genetics for it. If you never had a predisposition for it, you can't get it. Marijuana justs brings it on a little earlier.

The point being that quite a few people have the genetics for it (some NHS reports say as many as 1 in 5, though I'm sceptical of that). Alcohol and tobacco, though dangerous, don't have the same short term risk associated with them. It also brings it on significantly earlier, in some cases decades earlier.

 

Okay. Shouldn't it be each person's choice to do it or not? Alcohol and tobacco and probably fast food are worse than cannabis, but they are legal. If you can be responsible with it, why should it not be your choice?

[Danqazmlp]

The problem with marijuana is that, unlike alcohol or tobacco, one use is enough to set off some sort of neurological reaction (I've not looked into the science of it) that has severe effects on mental health, sometimes even as bad as schizophrenia.

 

It's not quite like that. The only way you'll get schizophrenia from it is if you already had the genetics for it. If you never had a predisposition for it, you can't get it. Marijuana justs brings it on a little earlier.

The point being that quite a few people have the genetics for it (some NHS reports say as many as 1 in 5, though I'm sceptical of that). Alcohol and tobacco, though dangerous, don't have the same short term risk associated with them. It also brings it on significantly earlier, in some cases decades earlier.

 

Okay. Shouldn't it be each person's choice to do it or not? Alcohol and tobacco and probably fast food are worse than cannabis, but they are legal. If you can be responsible with it, why should it not be your choice?

 

No. Governments and law enforcers have the responsibility to look after the safety of it's citizens, from both internal dangers and external. The danger may be low, but it still has the possibility of danger. I can be responsible with a chainsaw but walking through a city centre with it will get me arrested. I accept that I don't have the choice because it is for the protection of civilians that the police enforce things.

[Danqazmlp]

The funniest part about "Legalize it, regulate it, tax the crap out of it" is how the argument ignores the fact that there is an entire black market of people already buying, selling, transporting, etc. They don't care about the law, why do you think they'd start caring once it is legal?

 

There's a black market BECAUSE of prohibition. Have you even heard of Al Capone?

 

Also, you're not a libertarian.

 

 

There is also a large black market in tobacco and Alcohol currently, even though it is legal. You cannot tell me they are there because of phoibi... never mind.

"dry" counties, age requirements. Crime over prohibited items shows that people are going to do what they want and punishing for them is a waste of resources for any society to spend on.

 

I can't honestly believe you just said that. Basically you say enforcing the law is a waste of money. Lets just get rid of the police altogether?

 

And as a matter of fact, a lot of the black market in alcohol and tobacco is actually due to people wanting to make money in organised crime. They aren't selling it to under-aged people or in countries where it is illegal, they are making it out of dangerous items, selling it cheap and counterfeit. The same would almost certainly happen were marijuana to become legal.

 

But again, I cannot take seriously a comment which in essence seems to state that law enforcement is pointless.

[angel_mage]

To be honest, I really don't care. As long as it has restrictions such as drinking restrictions. No smoking in public, at work, in your car, or even around your children in this case. If people disagree with this then they might as well disagree with drinking alcohol.

[sees_all1]

Why would there be no smoking at work? I see employees smoking outside stores all the time (cigs obviously, but in this hypothetical case they're pretty much the same).

It's the same reason you don't drink alcohol at work. Both impair your coordination and balance, delay your reaction time. Pot also hurts your short-term memory and distorts your perception.

[Nomrombom]

Why would there be no smoking at work? I see employees smoking outside stores all the time (cigs obviously, but in this hypothetical case they're pretty much the same).

It's the same reason you don't drink alcohol at work. Both impair your coordination and balance, delay your reaction time. Pot also hurts your short-term memory and distorts your perception.

 

Sure, but it's not like you turn into a rock. You can function at a near normal level.

 

 

If you believe that cannabis should not be legal because of the danger, you also believe that alcohol and tobacco should be illegal. Is this correct?

[Danqazmlp]

Why would there be no smoking at work? I see employees smoking outside stores all the time (cigs obviously, but in this hypothetical case they're pretty much the same).

It's the same reason you don't drink alcohol at work. Both impair your coordination and balance, delay your reaction time. Pot also hurts your short-term memory and distorts your perception.

 

Exactly. In this case, it is much more closely related to drinking than smoking, due to it negatively effecting your actions. It can make you drowsy, effect coordination and generally reduce your ability to work at a competent standard which an employer wants.

 

Just as it would not be legal at work, it would also be illegal to drive while under the influence, operate any heavy machinery and use it under certain ages.

[sees_all1]

Why would there be no smoking at work? I see employees smoking outside stores all the time (cigs obviously, but in this hypothetical case they're pretty much the same).

It's the same reason you don't drink alcohol at work. Both impair your coordination and balance, delay your reaction time. Pot also hurts your short-term memory and distorts your perception.

 

Sure, but it's not like you turn into a rock. You can function at a near normal level.

 

 

If you believe that cannabis should not be legal because of the danger, you also believe that alcohol and tobacco should be illegal. Is this correct?

Alcohol can be measured very specifically - in a bottle and in the blood, relatively easily.

Alcohol may affect one person's ability to function, but it doesn't affect people around you.

 

Tobacco (Nicotine) can't be measured very specifically (unless it is processed in a gum or patch), but smoking next to someone won't impair their judgement or affect them directly.

 

Marijuana can't be measured very specifically (THC can vary greatly from one plant to the next), it does impair people's judgement (like alcohol), and it affects people around them.

 

So no, its different.

[Nomrombom]

Why would there be no smoking at work? I see employees smoking outside stores all the time (cigs obviously, but in this hypothetical case they're pretty much the same).

It's the same reason you don't drink alcohol at work. Both impair your coordination and balance, delay your reaction time. Pot also hurts your short-term memory and distorts your perception.

 

Sure, but it's not like you turn into a rock. You can function at a near normal level.

 

 

If you believe that cannabis should not be legal because of the danger, you also believe that alcohol and tobacco should be illegal. Is this correct?

Alcohol can be measured very specifically - in a bottle and in the blood, relatively easily.

Alcohol may affect one person's ability to function, but it doesn't affect people around you.

 

Tobacco (Nicotine) can't be measured very specifically (unless it is processed in a gum or patch), but smoking next to someone won't impair their judgement or affect them directly.

 

Marijuana can't be measured very specifically (THC can vary greatly from one plant to the next), it does impair people's judgement (like alcohol), and it affects people around them.

 

So no, its different.

 

You can get a pretty good idea of how high a person is based on how much they smoked. Of course it can vary, but smoking a few bowls of any type is going to get you pretty high.

 

How does it affect people around you? When you inhale the smoke, the THC absorbs into your lungs. When you exhale, there is ideally little to no THC in the smoke. Unless you intentionally try to inhale the secondhand smoke, you're not going to get high from someone else smoking.

[Locke_Superbus]

A better way to look at it: why would the cartels be content paying taxes? They could just do what they do already and even better, since now their sellers won't be arrested for possession.

 

they wont be paying taxes, as theyre criminal organisations (shocking I know). So they would then have 2 options:

 

Reduce their prices to below that of the legal stuff, which gives them less money to fund their activities and less incentive to produce the stuff in the first place.

 

change the quaility of their product. They then either have to either provide a better product than the legal produce greatly deminishing most of the danger of illict drugs which comes from the practice of 'cutting' them (the inconsistency this causes is the main cause of OD, not to mention the dangers of the cutting agents like drain cleaner etc) or theyre going to have to lower the quaility of their product and risk driving themselves out of business when their customers can get better and safer.

 

 

 

though it is true the dealers wont be arrested for possession, theyll be arrested for dealing illegally. Also threat of arrest is such an effective deterrent for people who knowingly break the law[/sarcasm]

[Nomrombom]

deminishing most of the danger of illict drugs which comes from the practice of 'cutting' them (the inconsistency this causes is the main cause of OD, not to mention the dangers of the cutting agents like drain cleaner etc)

 

 

Since we're talking about marijuana, we can assume that it's not laced as lacing is counterproductive for everyone involved.

[aeternitatis]

I try to be as unbiased as possible.

 

Marijuana does not "harm" others when smoked, but that does not rule out the question that it could harm society.

Most smokers & even non-smokers would agree that, for the most part, getting stoned will make you lazy. You'll probably sit around and enjoy some music while munching out.

If the general population were to smoke marijuana, most of that population would become lazy or at least lazier than they were before smoking weed.

This could in turn slow down the economy by decreasing productivity. That's the worst it would do. The positives outweigh the negatives.

If people would not be able to do their jobs properly while high they wouldn't get high before working, or they would and eventually become replaced by someone more responsible. I'm sure even if pot were legal and not frowned upon most people would still not be high at work.

 

The moral aspect of legalizing pot for personal use should not even be in question. As humans we should be allowed to take whatever drug we like as long as it doesn't harm other people. Does marijuana harm other people in any way direct enough to justify its illegality? No, therefore it should be legal for personal use. If legalized and properly taxed, billions of dollars of revenue would be made annually and (assuming our government spends the money accordingly) that money would benefit the people, whether it's put into health care, education or other things.

 

The question of legalizing marijuana has absolutely nothing to do with alcohol or tobacco. I agree with whoever said that just because marijuana is more healthy than alcohol and tobacco that does give it a legitimate reason to be legalized.

 

I advise the stoners to have more of an open mind. As much as you like weed and getting high, you can't simply think that 'everything' about it is good. There are negative effects, whether societal or not. You have to think beyond the physical effects of it and examine possible underlying problems it may cause. Upon analyzing these problems properly a decision can be made as to whether it should be legal or not.

[Nomrombom]

The question of legalizing marijuana has absolutely nothing to do with alcohol or tobacco. I agree with whoever said that just because marijuana is more healthy than alcohol and tobacco that does give it a legitimate reason to be legalized.

 

Why not?

 

I advise the stoners to have more of an open mind. As much as you like weed and getting high, you can't simply think that 'everything' about it is good. There are negative effects, whether societal or not. You have to think beyond the physical effects of it and examine possible underlying problems it may cause. Upon analyzing these problems properly a decision can be made as to whether it should be legal or not.

 

I don't think anyone here is disregarding the negative effects. We're just saying that there aren't enough bad things about it to justify it being illegal.

[Crocefisso]

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.

[aeternitatis]

1. Tobacco/alcohol being legal & harmful to one's health shouldn't mean that since weed is illegal and less harmful it should be legalized. That's comparable to murdering kittens being legal because "it's not as bad as abortion."

 

2. I was speaking more for the general population of stoners who argue that there is absolutely nothing wrong with weed.

[Danqazmlp]

Don't forget that tobacco is slowly being pushed into illegal status. At least in the EU and UK, in the last 20 years or so, it has been taken off TV screens, public and indoor places and has a very large stigma attached to it. I could very realistically see it being banned totally within the next 50 years. One of the major forces stopping it is actually that tobacco companies bring money into the economy which needs to be looked at.