Convince Me: Marajuana Should Be Legal

[Jason Tate]

I live in Oregon. It's quite heavily populated with ... pot smokers ... and the legalization of weed is something that is brought up all the time. It's also one of the things I really don't care about. If it was legalized I wouldn't be upset, if it's not - I don't care either. I don't do it - so it doesn't impact me.

However ... for the sake of debate, I'm curious why it should be legalized. Why is it needed?

[mcm1610]

Taxes and such...

I don't care either way either.

I think the reason is that it's so wide-spread, that why not legalize it and cash in?

[jawstheme]

A regulated marijuana market would significantly reduce the number of teenagers who use it, and by doing so would also reduce the number of teenagers who get exposed to the entire market of illegal drugs.

[jawstheme]

I don't smoke either, but I have a lot of friends who do, and know a lot of respectable people who do, and I do not see any major problems with it that justify it being illegal.

[Jason Tate]

A regulated marijuana market would significantly reduce the number of teenagers who use it, and by doing so would also reduce the number of teenagers who get exposed to the entire market of illegal drugs.
Why would it reduce it? Wouldn't it just make the ability to get weed as easy as it is for the under aged to get cigarettes?

[Jason Tate]

I don't smoke either, but I have a lot of friends who do, and know a lot of respectable people who do, and I do not see any major problems with it that justify it being illegal.
Same. But I also know some stoners who have permafried their brains and can barely form functioning sentences. I also know a few of the smartest people I knew who started -- and are now basically morons with no drive and no future. And I know a few people who have lost all their money to it.

So I've seen the full spectrum.

[caveBEAR]

I live in Oregon. It's quite heavily populated with ... pot smokers ... and the legalization of weed is something that is brought up all the time. It's also one of the things I really don't care about. If it was legalized I wouldn't be upset, if it's not - I don't care either. I don't do it - so it doesn't impact me.

However ... for the sake of debate, I'm curious why it should be legalized. Why is it needed?

Why is alcohol needed? Cigarettes? I think it should just be legalized to take the heat of the people who want to responsibly use it without the shady drug deals and potential jail time. I'd love to be able to smoke a little bit on my porch/front lawn, maybe down by the beach, etc., and not do time in the local jail. As for people who abuse it, drive under the influence, etc., throw them in jail, give them the same treatment as drunk drivers, I don't care. I feel adults should be able to responsibly use the substance if they choose.

There's taxes and all that, too, but I don't care about that, as I won't be interacting with that aspect of it anyway.

[Jason Tate]

Why is alcohol needed? Cigarettes? I think it should just be legalized to take the heat of the people who want to responsibly use it without the shady drug deals and potential jail time. I'd love to be able to smoke a little bit on my porch/front lawn, maybe down by the beach, etc., and not do time in the local jail. As for people who abuse it, drive under the influence, etc., throw them in jail, give them the same treatment as drunk drivers, I don't care. I feel adults should be able to responsibly use the substance if they choose.

There's taxes and all that, too, but I don't care about that, as I won't be interacting with that aspect of it anyway.
They're not needed. At all.

I already can't stand people who smoke in public, if it's legalized - I would be pissed if it's allowed outside. Keep it in your home. Do what you want -- but I don't want it around me. So, that argument already boils my blood.

I'm fine with taxing it. I'm worried about more driving while under the influence deaths.

[Jason Tate]

A lot of young kids smoke weed or or drink for the simple reason that their not supposed to because its against the law. if weed was legal it would take the "thrill" out of it for a lot of kids.
I'm not sure I buy that.

I think there may be some that do - but I doubt it's wide scale enough that the legalization (which would, I hope, be for 18+) would have much impact on young kids all of a sudden not doing it.

[jawstheme]

Why would it reduce it? Wouldn't it just make the ability to get weed as easy as it is for the under aged to get cigarettes?

Maybe. But it would atleast keep a lot of teens out of the illegal drug market, since pot is what gets a lot of people into it in the first place.

[Love As Arson]

I don't want it legalized. Just de-criminalize it.

[jawstheme]

Same. But I also know some stoners who have permafried their brains and can barely form functioning sentences. I also know a few of the smartest people I knew who started -- and are now basically morons with no drive and no future. And I know a few people who have lost all their money to it.

So I've seen the full spectrum.

I know a few people who lost their drive from getting stoned all the time, but I know far more people who lost a lot more from alcohol addiction. The hypocrocy of the situation bothers me.

[jawstheme]

I don't want it legalized. Just de-criminalize it.

Why don't you want it legalized?

[Jason Tate]

I know a few people who lost their drive from getting stoned all the time, but I know far more people who lost a lot more from alcohol addiction. The hypocrocy of the situation bothers me.
So do I. But I don't think the hypocrisy of the situation means make both legal. I'd rather be hypocritical and 1/2 wrong.

[Jason Tate]

I don't want it legalized. Just de-criminalize it.
I like that idea more than anything. Money saved on the legal process alone. Walk me through this ... so, that would mean if someone's caught with it ... what?

[Jason Tate]

i agree that it wouldn't eliminate the majority of underage people that smoked but I do believe it would make some difference. By no means am I suggesting that i agree with legalization, i personally feel that it would be a mistake because of havoc it creates in family. But i know a lot of kids my age that drink before they're 21 do it for the trill of it... because their simply not supposed to do it because their too young. Like driving a car before you have your license.
I'm starting to realize that for as rebellious as I was as a kid ... man, I was tame.

[Love As Arson]

Why don't you want it legalized?
The idea of major corporations fiddling with it, in the same way they do food, irks me. Plus, I think it is important to keep money in the hands of the local weed sellers.

[Simulcast]

The only benefit I see would be to reduce the criminal element associated with it. I don't buy the fact that less kids would smoke pot if it were legal, or would use it more responsibly.

Does anyone have any concrete idea as to what degree legalization might reduce crime?

[jawstheme]

So do I. But I don't think the hypocrisy of the situation means make both legal. I'd rather be hypocritical and 1/2 wrong.

But if you were someone who enjoyed smoking marijuana after work because it relaxes you, or takes away stomache pain, or whatever, the hypocracy would be frustrating. In this sense I can definitely see how people have a serious case for legalization.

[caveBEAR]

They're not needed. At all.

I agree, I just meant it in the tired, old, 'why is pot illegal when alcohol and cigarettes aren't' argument. :shrug:

This is a difficult subject for me, because I don't believe in 'legislating morality', and I drink and smoke...but on the other hand, I don't think heroin should be legal, and I'm torn on cocaine.

So I don't really know where I fall, I guess.

I already can't stand people who smoke in public, if it's legalized - I would be pissed if it's allowed outside. Keep it in your home. Do what you want -- but I don't want it around me. So, that argument already boils my blood.

I should have clarified; I don't mean 'smoking in public' like strolling down the street with a bong in hand, ha ha ha. :shudder:

I mentioned my porch and front lawn, which are both my property. I think that I should be able to smoke on my property. As well, I only mentioned the beach because it's a place where the beer seems much more accepted than anywhere else on public. I wouldn't want people smoking joints while strolling down the street. The same rules about drinking in public should be applied to marijuana smoking.

I'm fine with taxing it. I'm worried about more driving while under the influence deaths.

As someone who, ahem...'may'...have driven both under the influence of alcohol and marijuana in his stupider, younger years...it's much easier to drive while stoned. I am not in any way, shape or form endorsing driving under the influence (I refuse to do it at this point in my life), I'd much rather be on the road with a high driver than a drunk driver. (From what I've seen) High drivers tend to be much more deliberate in their actions, whereas drunk drivers tend to be much more erratic.

[mattmatumbo]

Decriminalized is the way to go in my opinion. I can only imagine what companies will do to marijuana if it is legalized. Just let people smoke it and grow it and pay a tax to own the plants.

Actually, scratch a tax, everyone who would be released from jail would make up for it, and the amount of money the government would spend policing this plant would save TONS of money.

[Love As Arson]

I like that idea more than anything. Money saved on the legal process alone. Walk me through this ... so, that would mean if someone's caught with it ... what?
The cops basically tell you not to do it out in public or to go somewhere else, and you're on your way.

[ThisDayForward]

Becuase the president will make better decisions while he's stoned lol

[honkyg88]

I did a report on this last year but the one thing I found interesting is that the legalization of weed may be able to curb the rest of the drug trade as a whole. Profits from marijuana allow the cartels to fund the growth of other drugs, enhance smuggling operations, wage drug wars (Mexico is a prime example), and fund a lot of other projects. Legalizing marijuana could cripple that operation. I don't think it'd be a permanent solution as cartels and traffickers would find new ways to make money, but it could be a start.
Here's an article that I read earlier in the year.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-28/news/ct-oped-0328-chapman-md-20100328_1_drug-cartels-drug-related-killings-drug-trade

[Jason Tate]

Decriminalized is the way to go in my opinion. I can only imagine what companies will do to marijuana if it is legalized. Just let people smoke it and grow it and pay a tax to own the plants.

Actually, scratch a tax, everyone who would be released from jail would make up for it, and the amount of money the government would spend policing this plant would save TONS of money.
I like this idea more than anything else I've read so far.

[Jason Tate]

The cops basically tell you not to do it out in public or to go somewhere else, and you're on your way.
Sounds good to me. I'd probably be partial to a DUI policy ... and I'd be ok with that.

[jawstheme]

The cops basically tell you not to do it out in public or to go somewhere else, and you're on your way.

On second thought, I agree with you. This would be much more ideal then legalization and corporate control.

[caveBEAR]

Sounds good to me. I'd probably be partial to a DUI policy ... and I'd be ok with that.

I think the DUI policy on marijuana should mirror whatever the DUI policy is for heavy medication. It just being in your system seems too harsh to me, as it can show up in your bloodstream a decent amount of time after it's no longer impairing your motor skills.

EDIT: Just realized how half-explained that is; I don't think it should be within an officers rights to test you the same way they can breathalyze you - do the test or lose your license. If there isn't some reason to suspect you're high, like driving insanely slow, erratically, etc., I don't think an officer should just be able to test you, especially if they're fishing for something.

[Portugal4142]

I actually think pot can be a very very good thing if done responsibly, and rarely... I'm be no means a "pothead", but i enjoy doing it every once in a while and it just opens up a creative flood gate. Tons of musicians, artists, etc rely (maybe a little too heavily) on pot because it just opens up your mind a little bit, or even simplifies it.

My ex g/f used to HATE pot, was against EVERYTHING that had to do with it... but was a huge DMB fan. That really pissed me off. FYI that had very little to do with the topic.

[caveBEAR]

I actually think pot can be a very very good thing if done responsibly, and rarely... I'm be no means a "pothead", but i enjoy doing it every once in a while and it just opens up a creative flood gate. Tons of musicians, artists, etc rely (maybe a little too heavily) on pot because it just opens up your mind a little bit, or even simplifies it.

My ex g/f used to HATE pot, was against EVERYTHING that had to do with it... but was a huge DMB fan. That really pissed me off. FYI that had very little to do with the topic.

Is that because you're high?

[Andy Young]

I really like the decriminalizing idea. There are way too many people in jail for drug crimes, and most are petty ones at that.

And keeping corporate control out of the equation would be necessary.

[Jason Tate]

I'm tried it before. I was worthless. Not even remotely creative. Sloth-like. Stupid. But then what I do isn't music. But trying to code while high? Heh. Worthless.

[caveBEAR]

I'm tried it before. I was worthless. Not even remotely creative. Sloth-like. Stupid. But then what I do isn't music. But trying to code while high? Heh. Worthless.

I've been working on a cartoon, and when I'm stumped, I can smoke, and my mind just wanders off, and I can literally act out in my head what the characters would be doing. It's like sitting there, letting your 6 year old self play with the characters in your mind. Works to get me out of slumps. Then again, I couldn't code to save my life; however, smoking while studying my algebra homework has helped things click for me (I've failed the class, soberly, two times prior).

:shrug: Maybe my brains just wired differently.

[KingsCrossing]

In Amsterdam its not even fully legalized- just de-criminalized. People essentially aren't allowed to smoke in public or on the streets, but there's a ton of cafes and what not you can sit in and enjoy it leisurely so it seems to be a good balance. I'm against full out legalization as well due to the mental health issues that have been suggestively linked to excessive and/or early use.

[caveBEAR]

In Amsterdam its not even fully legalized- just de-criminalized. People essentially aren't allowed to smoke in public or on the streets, but there's a ton of cafes and what not you can sit in and enjoy it leisurely so it seems to be a good balance. I'm against full out legalization as well due to the mental health issues that have been suggestively linked to excessive and/or early use.

Do you have sources/links for that?

[Jason Tate]

Do you have sources/links for that?
The residual cognitive effects of heavy marijuana use in college students (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/7/521)


Marijuana myths, marijuana facts: A review of the scientific evidence (http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=185047)


Things I found while studying the topic today.

[Jason Tate]

In Amsterdam its not even fully legalized- just de-criminalized. People essentially aren't allowed to smoke in public or on the streets, but there's a ton of cafes and what not you can sit in and enjoy it leisurely so it seems to be a good balance. I'm against full out legalization as well due to the mental health issues that have been suggestively linked to excessive and/or early use.
But you can't buy it at the cafe ... right? So who profits off of it? And are those selling it paying income tax on it?

[caveBEAR]

The residual cognitive effects of heavy marijuana use in college students (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/7/521)


Marijuana myths, marijuana facts: A review of the scientific evidence (http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=185047)


Things I found while studying the topic today.

Thank you.

[caveBEAR]

But you can't buy it at the cafe ... right? So who profits off of it? And are those selling it paying income tax on it?

I thought you could buy it in the cafes...?

[meroki22]

I've been working on a cartoon, and when I'm stumped, I can smoke, and my mind just wanders off, and I can literally act out in my head what the characters would be doing. It's like sitting there, letting your 6 year old self play with the characters in your mind. Works to get me out of slumps. Then again, I couldn't code to save my life; however, smoking while studying my algebra homework has helped things click for me (I've failed the class, soberly, two times prior).

:shrug: Maybe my brains just wired differently.

I've learned over the years that it 100 percent depends upon the user. I know people who just become slightly more euphoric and creative while smoking and others who are practically put into comas. And that's even before idea of building a tolerance to it.

[KingsCrossing]

Do you have sources/links for that?

Yes but I'm at work right now and I'm posting from my phone so I don't have access to the articles at this time. However I think I posted a link and some citations in the other Marijuana thread regarding a potential correlation between early usage and increased risk of schizophrenia and schizophrenoid symptoms.

[Kozzy333]

I think the Portuguese model is the best when it comes to drug laws. Possession of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc has been decriminalized there. HIV rates among drug users has gone down considerably. So have overdoses.

Read more here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

[meroki22]

I thought you could buy it in the cafes...?

You can. But I think you can legally smoke it in most cafes and bars even it's not a dispensery.

[Alou]

As long as it is not in public, I could care less. If it becomes like smoking where there are times I have to move just because of a fricken smoker then I'd be pissed. If they keep it in homes and a few specific public areas then I can be okay with it. Never really been a huge advocate of it though as I don't do marijuana.

[And Hours Pass]

Where are the millions of threads that have had this debate? Can somebody just sum up all the points made in those?

[caveBEAR]

Yes but I'm at work right now and I'm posting from my phone so I don't have access to the articles at this time. However I think I posted a link and some citations in the other Marijuana thread regarding a potential correlation between early usage and increased risk of schizophrenia and schizophrenoid symptoms.

Jason posted some links, but if you have any different ones, feel free to post them later. I want to know about the side effects, too, if I'm going to argue for it.

[caveBEAR]

Where are the millions of threads that have had this debate? Can somebody just sum up all the points made in those?

How about you do it?

[reckoner]

I've learned over the years that it 100 percent depends upon the user. I know people who just become slightly more euphoric and creative while smoking and others who are practically put into comas. And that's even before idea of building a tolerance to it.

There are two types of marijuana. Sativas and indicas. Sativas are more euphoric, creative type of high, while indicas are the couch lock, stoned type of high. It has nothing to do with the user.

Edit: And you technically don't build a tolerance to weed.

[Jason Tate]

Where are the millions of threads that have had this debate? Can somebody just sum up all the points made in those?
I searched for them and read through them. They were virtually worthless and didn't answer my questions.

[KingsCrossing]

But you can't buy it at the cafe ... right? So who profits off of it? And are those selling it paying income tax on it?

I was actually just in Amsterdam back in July and while I didn't venture into any of the cafes I'm pretty sure you can actually buy it there and they have menus of different types, etc.. But I'm not 100% on that.

[Jason Tate]

I was actually just in Amsterdam back in July and while I didn't venture into any of the cafes I'm pretty sure you can actually buy it there and they have menus of different types, etc.. But I'm not 100% on that.
Ok. I had no idea. Never been.

[And Hours Pass]

How about you do it?

Tried. I searched for Marijuana reform and legalize marijuana and only found a forum topic on Denver.

Way to be a dick though.

I searched for them and read through them. They were virtually worthless and didn't answer my questions.

But wouldn't those threads have attracted similar people and arguments as this thread will?

[vivatoto56]

So we can all get high together and you don't have to scoff at me.

[Kozzy333]

The Netherlands policy on marijuana is interesting. It's still a misdemeanor crime to posses and sell weed there but there is also a policy of non-enforcement. Something like that could work in North America.

[Jason Tate]

Tried. I searched for Marijuana reform and legalize marijuana and only found a forum topic on Denver.

Way to be a dick though.



But wouldn't those threads have attracted similar people and arguments as this thread will?
So far it doesn't appear so ... different people frequent this forum now than in the past.

[meroki22]

There are two types of marijuana. Sativas and indicas. Sativas are more euphoric, creative type of high, while indicas are the couch lock, stoned type of high. It has nothing to do with the user.

Edit: And you technically don't build a tolerance to weed.

I'm not doubting the different types of marijuana but how can you say you can't build a tolerance. If the average pot smoker still got as high as they did the first few times that'd be insane.

[caveBEAR]

I was actually just in Amsterdam back in July and while I didn't venture into any of the cafes I'm pretty sure you can actually buy it there and they have menus of different types, etc.. But I'm not 100% on that.

Ok. I had no idea. Never been.

One of my buddies went for a week vacation. That's pretty much 100% what he described, and that's the reason he went.

[KingsCrossing]

Jason posted some links, but if you have any different ones, feel free to post them later. I want to know about the side effects, too, if I'm going to argue for it.

Will do. Speaking from a personal perspective as a former pothead smoking daily for roughly 7 years I can say that quitting has really turned my entire life around for the better. Unfortunately I've also had to deal with some of the negative consequences that came with smoking consistently for that long. On the other hand I know respectable people who still smoke daily such as a close relative of mine who's a top ranked lawyer in NYC. It really varies quite a bit from person to person and how they can handle it.

[caveBEAR]

I'm not doubting the different types of marijuana but how can you say you can't build a tolerance. If the average pot smoker still got as high as they did the first few times that'd be insane.

How you smoke can affect the 'tolerance'. If you're using a shitty pipe, you can end up weakening your lungs, therefore not taking as big of hits as you used to, especially if you compound that with a stereotypical 'lazy stoner' diet/exercise routine (or lack thereof). If you keep in shape, use a decent water pipe/vaporizer, you won't develop much (if any) tolerance.

As well, everything in moderation. If you spend all day stoned out of your mind, you'll be 'tolerant' to it because it will be your norm, and you'll be working your endorphins to death. Then again, if you've hit that level, that's probably the least of your problems.

[meroki22]

How you smoke can affect the 'tolerance'. If you're using a shitty pipe, you can end up weakening your lungs, therefore not taking as big of hits as you used to, especially if you compound that with a stereotypical 'lazy stoner' diet/exercise routine (or lack thereof). If you keep in shape, use a decent water pipe/vaporizer, you won't develop much (if any) tolerance.

As well, everything in moderation. If you spend all day stoned out of your mind, you'll be 'tolerant' to it because it will be your norm, and you'll be working your endorphins to death. Then again, if you've hit that level, that's probably the least of your problems.

Well...this explains a lot. Time to to turn over a new leaf. hahaha

[caveBEAR]

Will do. Speaking from a personal perspective as a former pothead smoking daily for roughly 7 years I can say that quitting has really turned my entire life around for the better. Unfortunately I've also had to deal with some of the negative consequences that came with smoking consistently for that long. On the other hand I know respectable people who still smoke daily such as a close relative of mine who's a top ranked lawyer in NYC. It really varies quite a bit from person to person and how they can handle it.

Yeah, I had a rough patch a while back when I was working in a restaurant. The smoking was tolerated, so I could (and did) spend all day stoned out of my mind. It's expensive, wears you down mentally, and is pointless in the end.

I've learned (as with everything) moderation is key.

[reckoner]

I'm not doubting the different types of marijuana but how can you say you can't build a tolerance. If the average pot smoker still got as high as they did the first few times that'd be insane.

Brain receptor sites act as switches in the brain. The brain's neurotransmitters, or drugs which mimic them, throw the switches. The basic theory of tolerance is that repeated use of a drug wears out the receptors, and makes it difficult for them to function in the drug's absence. Worn-out receptors were supposed to explain the connection of tolerance to addiction. This phenomenon has been associated with chronic use of benzodiazepines (Valium, Prozac, etc.), for example, but not with cannabinoids.

Source: http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/brain2.html

[Jason Tate]

Source: http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/brain2.html
Quite a few scholarly sources disagree (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=marjuana+tolerance&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=400000000001&as_sdtp=on).

From a 2008 study (http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v33/n10/abs/1301643a.html): These data suggest that frequent users of cannabis are either inherently blunted in their response to, and/or develop tolerance to the psychotomimetic, perceptual altering, amnestic, endocrine, and other effects of cannabinoids.

Another one (http://jop.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/08/21/0269881108092393.abstract): These data indicate that cannabis use history strongly determines the behavioural response to single doses of THC.

When in doubt, I'm believing the scientific articles compared to marijuanalibrary.org (http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/brain2.html).

[EasySkankin]

Probably already said, but the fact that marijuana itself does not kill, but being an illegal drug criminals will capitalize on it and kill for it.

[reckoner]

Quite a few scholarly sources disagree (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=marjuana+tolerance&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=400000000001&as_sdtp=on).

From a 2008 study (http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v33/n10/abs/1301643a.html): These data suggest that frequent users of cannabis are either inherently blunted in their response to, and/or develop tolerance to the psychotomimetic, perceptual altering, amnestic, endocrine, and other effects of cannabinoids.

Another one (http://jop.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/08/21/0269881108092393.abstract): These data indicate that cannabis use history strongly determines the behavioural response to single doses of THC.

When in doubt, I'm believing the scientific articles compared to marijuanalibrary.org (http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/brain2.html).

Touche. I didn't even think about using google scholar.

[Jason Tate]

Touche. I didn't even think about using google scholar.
I like it because at the very least ... they have some big words :)

[Portugal4142]

Is that because you're high?

Haha. Just buzzed maaaaaaan

[tizabor]

I live in Oregon also. If they legalized it, I wouldn't care either, I dont smoke, so it doesn't directly effect me. I smell it enough whenever I am waiting for the Max at Lloyd Center and Pioneer Square that it might as well be legal.
Funny thing to me is the guys that have petitions for medical marajuana look like stoners, and though I might not exactly know if they actually need it, it sure does'nt look like they do...

[mms13]

I just graduated college, landed an awesome, high paying job, and bought my own condo. I'd consider myself a very smart, responsible, and successful person. And ive been smoking weed fairly regularly for the past 8 years.

That's my arguement for why it should be legal. I'm not a menace to society, I'm not a criminal, but god forbid if I ever got busted it would fuck up my life. And that's what's not cool about it.

Another argument I like to make is comparing how much safer it is than alcohol. Weed has yet to take a single life, yet alcohol kills thousands of people a year. Weed is used as fucking medicine for christs sake. Tons of new studies show that smoking pot actually benefits your health! Ask any casual smoker - driving while high is simple. I do it all the time. Not while drunk. Legal, taxed, marijuana would generate big revenue, empty our jails, and cut down on police resources (they could be out dealing with real crimes). I could go on forever. Legalization makes sense.

That being said, I sadly don't see it ever happening in my lifetime.

[reckoner]

At the very, very least, it should not be a schedule I substance.

[kidwithhelmet]

I just graduated college, landed an awesome, high paying job, and bought my own condo. I'd consider myself a very smart, responsible, and successful person. And ive been smoking weed fairly regularly for the past 8 years.

That's my arguement for why it should be legal. I'm not a menace to society, I'm not a criminal, but god forbid if I ever got busted it would fuck up my life. And that's what's not cool about it.

Another argument I like to make is comparing how much safer it is than alcohol. Weed has yet to take a single life, yet alcohol kills thousands of people a year. Weed is used as fucking medicine for christs sake. Tons of new studies show that smoking pot actually benefits your health! Ask any casual smoker - driving while high is simple. I do it all the time. Not while drunk. Legal, taxed, marijuana would generate big revenue, empty our jails, and cut down on police resources (they could be out dealing with real crimes). I could go on forever. Legalization makes sense.

That being said, I sadly don't see it ever happening in my lifetime.

I've been just casually browsing this thread, because this debate interests me but ultimately won't affect me.

2 things here, and please don't take it the wrong way.

1: If you view yourself as smart and responsible, then why are you still smoking weed if you know it could fuck up everything you've worked so hard to achieve? It's that much of a game-changer for you? 2: I hate the "weed doesn't kill people / it's a medicine" argument. Look, when I was a kid my mom put whiskey on my toothache to dull the pain. That doesn't make it a fucking cure-all. Fact of the matter is that while under the influence of weed or alcohol it can slow your motor-skills, creating some accidents. Whether that be a stubbed toe or a car crash isn't the point.

Yes I'm being a little cynical; alcohol is absolutely more dangerous. But people can't make that comparison when fighting for weed's legalization is all I'm saying.

[reckoner]

I've been just casually browsing this thread, because this debate interests me but ultimately won't affect me.

2 things here, and please don't take it the wrong way.

1: If you view yourself as smart and responsible, then why are you still smoking weed if you know it could fuck up everything you've worked so hard to achieve? It's that much of a game-changer for you? 2: I hate the "weed doesn't kill people / it's a medicine" argument. Look, when I was a kid my mom put whiskey on my toothache to dull the pain. That doesn't make it a fucking cure-all. Fact of the matter is that while under the influence of weed or alcohol it can slow your motor-skills, creating some accidents. Whether that be a stubbed toe or a car crash isn't the point.

Yes I'm being a little cynical; alcohol is absolutely more dangerous. But people can't make that comparison when fighting for weed's legalization is all I'm saying.

Do you fully understand how beneficial weed is when used as a medicine?

[mms13]

At the very, very least, it should not be a schedule I substance.

Agree with this big time. Absolutely stupid that weed is classified with meth and LSD. And cocaine is schedule 2...so fucked up

[Jason Tate]

I just graduated college, landed an awesome, high paying job, and bought my own condo. I'd consider myself a very smart, responsible, and successful person. And ive been smoking weed fairly regularly for the past 8 years.

That's my arguement for why it should be legal. I'm not a menace to society, I'm not a criminal, but god forbid if I ever got busted it would fuck up my life. And that's what's not cool about it.

Another argument I like to make is comparing how much safer it is than alcohol. Weed has yet to take a single life, yet alcohol kills thousands of people a year. Weed is used as fucking medicine for christs sake. Tons of new studies show that smoking pot actually benefits your health! Ask any casual smoker - driving while high is simple. I do it all the time. Not while drunk. Legal, taxed, marijuana would generate big revenue, empty our jails, and cut down on police resources (they could be out dealing with real crimes). I could go on forever. Legalization makes sense.

That being said, I sadly don't see it ever happening in my lifetime.
I don't know if that's an argument. Because you're able to function on it? Hmmm.

I hate the argument that it's "safer" than alcohol. You should be able to make a legit case without having to compare it to another product. It should stand on its own. The idea that weed has yet to take a single life is factually wrong. Here's one (http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Death-crash-driver-s-criminal-record/article-2682132-detail/article.html). Enough to kill that argument. Plenty of harmful things are used as medicine. Chemo is basically poison. Links to these "tons of studies"? The fact that you drive while high negates your first argument ("I'd consider myself a very smart, responsible, and successful person") -- because that's not smart or responsible.

This argument hurt your cause more than helped it.

[leaving_astoria]

it doesnt mean hes not responsible for smoking weed. i mean, this debate could take forever.
legalizing weed haves hes pros and cons.
2: I hate the "weed doesn't kill people / it's a medicine" argument. you can hate this argument all you want, but it always comes out whenever your discussing this. cause it clearly make sense.

I've been just casually browsing this thread, because this debate interests me but ultimately won't affect me.

2 things here, and please don't take it the wrong way.

1: If you view yourself as smart and responsible, then why are you still smoking weed if you know it could fuck up everything you've worked so hard to achieve? It's that much of a game-changer for you? Look, when I was a kid my mom put whiskey on my toothache to dull the pain. That doesn't make it a fucking cure-all. Fact of the matter is that while under the influence of weed or alcohol it can slow your motor-skills, creating some accidents. Whether that be a stubbed toe or a car crash isn't the point.

Yes I'm being a little cynical; alcohol is absolutely more dangerous. But people can't make that comparison when fighting for weed's legalization is all I'm saying.

[mms13]

1: If you view yourself as smart and responsible, then why are you still smoking weed if you know it could fuck up everything you've worked so hard to achieve? It's that much of a game-changer for you?

I guess I've never really thought about it. The fact is I love smoking weed and don't plan on stopping. Ive never been scared of getting busted cause I'm smart. I smoke in the privacy of my home. I buy from friends in small, personal amounts. I don't sell.

[Jason Tate]

At the very, very least, it should not be a schedule I substance.
Agreed.

[Jason Tate]

it doesnt mean hes not responsible for smoking weed. i mean, this debate could take forever.
legalizing weed haves hes pros and cons.
2: I hate the "weed doesn't kill people / it's a medicine" argument. you can hate this argument all you want, but it always comes out whenever your discussing this. cause it clearly make sense.
Except that it does lead to deaths, and we could reasonably extrapolate more if made legal. And it being a medicine has no relevance on anything. Something being medicine doesn't make it "healthy" for everyone to consume. Or does it mean we should all be taking glaucoma pills because it's "medicine." Medical uses and legalization are two different things.

[tkamB]

Decriminalization is actually the worse thing that could possibly happen. Decriminalization will keep the money in the hands of the drug dealers, now this could be considered a good thing if all the drug dealers dealt was weed but most of the time that is not the case. Which is why wee need legalization, which will separate marijuana from the drug market and would heavily reduce the gateway effect. The only reason people go on to try harder things is because of the access they get to the other drugs through their use of marijuana. Everyone starts out using marijuana thinking they won't go on to harder drugs, but since you get involved in the drug culture it becomes easy to try new drugs. And like another person said earlier legalization will help reduce the use of people that are underage. It is much easier to get marijuana than it is to get alcohol for kids underage because of the regulation. Then obviously the taxes that will be made from legalization will be in the billions, plus legal job growth that we so desperately need the economic times we are currently in. While I'm sure corporations will exist, that will not eliminate small time growers and I'm sure most marijuana users will still seek out the small businesses because of the hate of corporations. Not to mention we can help reduce the amount of funds substantially that go to gangs and drug cartels (Ahem Mexico). Legalization is the only rational option imo.

[leaving_astoria]

yes, youre right. but thats hes point of view as a weed consumer. they will always bring this medicine statement to the table.
i really dont care if the legalize it or not. and i dont see it coming very soon.


Except that it does lead to deaths, and we could reasonably extrapolate more if made legal. And it being a medicine has no relevance on anything. Something being medicine doesn't make it "healthy" for everyone to consume. Or does it mean we should all be taking glaucoma pills because it's "medicine." Medical uses and legalization are two different things.

[mms13]

I don't know if that's an argument. Because you're able to function on it? Hmmm.

I hate the argument that it's "safer" than alcohol. You should be able to make a legit case without having to compare it to another product. It should stand on its own. The idea that weed has yet to take a single life is factually wrong. Here's one (http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Death-crash-driver-s-criminal-record/article-2682132-detail/article.html). Enough to kill that argument. Plenty of harmful things are used as medicine. Chemo is basically poison. Links to these "tons of studies"? The fact that you drive while high negates your first argument ("I'd consider myself a very smart, responsible, and successful person") -- because that's not smart or responsible.

This argument hurt your cause more than helped it.

Weed didn't kill that person - a bad driver/someone who doesn't know his capabilities did. I shouldn't have had to phrase it this way but my argument was that you cant overdose from weed. Just cause I drive while high doesn't make me irresponsible. I know how my body reacts to weed and how I can handle it. I don't drive when I drink because I know it inhibits me. However I know that I can perform normally while high. A first time smoker should not drive. A veteran smoker who knows it affects him poorly should not drive. Everyones different. But I for one am fine driving high. I'd consider that thought process responsible.

You can make plenty of arguments that stand on their own, the alcohol comparison is just easy cause you can say - hey here's a legal substance that is really bad for everyone and here's an illegal one that's relatively harmless....somethings not right here.

[bridgeofeldin]

The government wouldn't make any money from taxes on the legal sale of marijuana. Kids would just keep buying it illegally from their sources. However, the government could save money if they decriminalized it.

Marijuana can't be legal for the same reason that alcohol couldn't be banned during prohibition. Political inertia is a very difficult thing to overcome. Not enough people feel strongly about the issue to make it legal.

[mms13]

Except that it does lead to deaths, and we could reasonably extrapolate more if made legal.

Actually I read something a while back that said if it we're legalized that the number of users wouldn't really even increase substaintially.

[majinsharingan]

Same. But I also know some stoners who have permafried their brains and can barely form functioning sentences. I also know a few of the smartest people I knew who started -- and are now basically morons with no drive and no future. And I know a few people who have lost all their money to it.

So I've seen the full spectrum.

Same here, but then again the same happens with alcohol on a far more extreme and regularly occurring scale.

[mms13]

The government wouldn't make any money from taxes on the legal sale of marijuana. Kids would just keep buying it illegally from their sources. However, the government could save money if they decriminalized it.

Not true. Legalization would absolutely destroy all the illegal sources. Growers would become legit manufacturers and prices of the legal pot would be way cheaper. There would be no black market after legalization.

[Jason Tate]

Weed didn't kill that person - a bad driver/someone who doesn't know his capabilities did.
Then alcohol is not responsible for drunk drivers. Come on.

I shouldn't have had to phrase it this way but my argument was that you cant overdose from weed.
Which isn't an argument ... so what? That doesn't change anything.

Just cause I drive while high doesn't make me irresponsible. Yes it does.

I know how my body reacts to weed and how I can handle it. You are making a drunk driver argument ... and it's laughably bad.

I don't drive when I drink because I know it inhibits me. Weed inhibits you.

However I know that I can perform normally while high. False. You're not high if you can perform normally.

A first time smoker should not drive. A veteran smoker who knows it affects him poorly should not drive. Everyones different. But I for one am fine driving high. I'd consider that thought process responsible. I consider you a moron. Stop driving while under the influence. And I don't mean this to be hostile (ok, I kind of do) - but this kind of thinking is ridiculously ignorant and could lead to someone being hurt.

You can make plenty of arguments that stand on their own, the alcohol comparison is just easy cause you can say - hey here's a legal substance that is really bad for everyone and here's an illegal one that's relatively harmless....somethings not right here. Tu Quoque. It's a logical fallacy. I am not going to accept that.

[tkamB]

]The government wouldn't make any money from taxes on the legal sale of marijuana. Kids would just keep buying it illegally from their sources.[/B] However, the government could save money if they decriminalized it.

Marijuana can't be legal for the same reason that alcohol couldn't be banned during prohibition. Political inertia is a very difficult thing to overcome. Not enough people feel strongly about the issue to make it legal.

So you know better than nearly every economics professor who has broached the subject? And there will be much less illegal sources if marijuana was legalized, because most growers are going to realize that it would be more beneficial to get a license and grow legally. Therefore the illegal dealers will have to get their marijuana from legal means, thereby getting taxed, or having to grow their own which will be heavily regulated. This will make costs go up for the illegal drug market. Oh and its pretty stupid to assume that only kids are the ones that buy marijuana and that they make up most of the market share.

[Jason Tate]

Not true. Legalization would absolutely destroy all the illegal sources. Growers would become legit manufacturers and prices of the legal pot would be way cheaper. There would be no black market after legalization.
Economics 101 disagrees with you.

The shift in supply and demand causes the quantity consumed of the black market good to decrease, while the price rises. If the demand side effects dominate, we will still see a drop in quantity consumed, but we will also see a corresponding drop in price. This does not typically happen in a black market - we normally see a rise in price.

What matters is the price (which would be impacted by taxes), and supply and demand.

[bridgeofeldin]

Not true. Legalization would absolutely destroy all the illegal sources. Growers would become legit manufacturers and prices of the legal pot would be way cheaper. There would be no black market after legalization.

I respectfully disagree. If the government taxes the product, it will be more expensive. Why would one buy the drug from a smoke shop at a higher cost when he can get it from his friend at a cheaper price? The market price would not be cheaper with legalization. The marijuana market is already very competitive. If you add pharmaceuticals and cigarette manufacturers to the mix, they wouldn't be able to compete. As supply increases, price increases. The demand is debatable.

[majinsharingan]

So you know better than nearly every economics professor who has broached the subject? And there will be much less illegal sources if marijuana was legalized, because most growers are going to realize that it would be more beneficial to get a license and grow legally. Therefore the illegal dealers will have to get their marijuana from legal means, thereby getting taxed, or having to grow their own which will be heavily regulated. This will make costs go up for the illegal drug market. Oh and its pretty stupid to assume that only kids are the ones that buy marijuana and that they make up most of the market share.

What's your definition of "kid'? Younger than 14? Or 18 and under? Because 18 and under probably isn't far off. You take out people 21 and under and my friend's mother and that's probably at least half the market gone.

[Jason Tate]

Actually I read something a while back that said if it we're legalized that the number of users wouldn't really even increase substaintially.
My gut instinct is that demand would increase in the short-term, as the penalties for being caught with marijuana go down and marijuana should be easier to attain; both of these factors suggest that in the short-term, demand should rise.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (http://www.dea.gov/demand/speakout/06so.htm) believes that demand for marijuana would skyrocket if legalized:
Legalization proponents claim, absurdly, that making illegal drugs legal would not cause more of these substances to be consumed, nor would addiction increase. They claim that many people can use drugs in moderation and that many would choose not to use drugs, just as many abstain from alcohol and tobacco now. Yet how much misery can already be attributed to alcoholism and smoking? Is the answer to just add more misery and addiction? From 1984 to 1996, the Dutch liberalized the use of cannabis. Surveys reveal that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in Holland increased consistently and sharply. For the age group 18-20, the increase is from 15 percent in 1984 to 44 percent in 1996.And basically echoing what I said in the previous post:

In a report titled "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition (http://economics.about.com/od/marijuanalegalization/a/The%20Budgetary%20Implications%20of %20Marijuana%20Prohibition), Jeffrey A. Miron, a Visiting Professor of Economics at Harvard University felt that the quantity demand for marijuana after legalization would largely be determined by price; thus there would not likely be an increase in quantity demanded if the price stayed the same. He went on to say: If the price decline under legalization is minimal, then expenditure will not change regardless of the demand elasticity. If the price decline is noticeable but the demand elasticity is greater than or equal to 1.0 in absolute value, then expenditure will remain constant or increase. If the price decline is noticeable and the demand elasticity is less than one, then expenditure will decline. Since the decline in price is unlikely to exceed 50% and the demand elasticity is likely at least -0.5, the plausible decline in expenditure is approximately 25%. Given the estimate of $10.5 billion in expenditure on marijuana under current prohibition, this implies expenditure under legalization of about $7.9 billion.

[bridgeofeldin]

So you know better than nearly every economics professor who has broached the subject? And there will be much less illegal sources if marijuana was legalized, because most growers are going to realize that it would be more beneficial to get a license and grow legally. Therefore the illegal dealers will have to get their marijuana from legal means, thereby getting taxed, or having to grow their own which will be heavily regulated. This will make costs go up for the illegal drug market. Oh and its pretty stupid to assume that only kids are the ones that buy marijuana and that they make up most of the market share.

No need to be hostile. Of course kids aren't the only people who smoke marijuana. In my experience, however, most of my friends have grown out of the drug. But yes, older people smoke it too.

People won't change their drug dealer just because the government now offers the stuff. And neither will the dealers. Most dealers make a nice bit of cash from their sale as a side endeavor, not as a full time gig. Legalization would not stop these guys from selling unless the consumer stopped buying. I simply don't think that the consumer will.

And I am obviously not an economics professor, and neither are you. Your claim that every economics professor thinks legalization will benefit the economy simply isn't true. If it were, this debate would not be going on right now.

[tkamB]

What's your definition of "kid'? Younger than 14? Or 18 and under? Because 18 and under probably isn't far off. You take out people 21 and under and my friend's mother and that's probably at least half the market gone.

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quickoptions.do;jsessionid=C261B86E 80A7065C4888DC9A1E1F5A49

18-25 year olds have the highest usage. And those above 25 have a far bigger combined usage than those underage.

[mms13]

I consider you a moron.

Well I clearly can't win with you Jason. Let me just say that if they were to legalize it I would totally agree that it should still be illegal to drive with intoxicated just like alcohol, because yes it can impair people and make it unsafe for them to be driving. However, I don't really appreciate you judging me, calling me a moron, and telling me to stop doing what I've done for years (without as much as an accident, speeding ticket, or any sort of criminal charge).

I know you said you aren't a smoker, but I'm curious, how many times have you tried it if any?

[majinsharingan]

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quickoptions.do;jsessionid=C261B86E 80A7065C4888DC9A1E1F5A49

18-25 year olds have the highest usage. And those above 25 have a far bigger combined usage than those underage.

Question, what part of....type Exception report
message
description The server encountered an internal error () that prevented it from fulfilling this request.
exception
javax.servlet.ServletException: For input string: ""
org.apache.struts.chain.ComposableR equestProcessor.process(ComposableR equestProcessor.java:286)
org.apache.struts.action.ActionServ let.process(ActionServlet.java:1913 )
org.apache.struts.action.ActionServ let.doGet(ActionServlet.java:449)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.serv ice(HttpServlet.java:690)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.serv ice(HttpServlet.java:803)
root cause
java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: ""
java.lang.NumberFormatException.for InputString(NumberFormatException.j ava:48)
java.lang.Integer.parseInt(Integer. java:470)
java.lang.Integer.parseInt(Integer. java:499)
edu.berkeley.sda.quicktables.action s.ExecTableAction.execute(ExecTable Action.java:78)
org.apache.struts.chain.commands.se rvlet.ExecuteAction.execute(Execute Action.java:58)
org.apache.struts.chain.commands.Ab stractExecuteAction.execute(Abstrac tExecuteAction.java:67)
org.apache.struts.chain.commands.Ac tionCommandBase.execute(ActionComma ndBase.java:51)
org.apache.commons.chain.impl.Chain Base.execute(ChainBase.java:190)
org.apache.commons.chain.generic.Lo okupCommand.execute(LookupCommand.j ava:304)
org.apache.commons.chain.impl.Chain Base.execute(ChainBase.java:190)
org.apache.struts.chain.ComposableR equestProcessor.process(ComposableR equestProcessor.java:283)
org.apache.struts.action.ActionServ let.process(ActionServlet.java:1913 )
org.apache.struts.action.ActionServ let.doGet(ActionServlet.java:449)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.serv ice(HttpServlet.java:690)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.serv ice(HttpServlet.java:803)


Tells me that?
Also, I don't quite trust something tracking the usage of illegal substances...it can hardly be called accurate.

[saysmydoctor]

Portugal hasn't descended to hell yet, minus that whole economic crisis.

[Jason Tate]

Well I clearly can't win with you Jason. Let me just say that if they were to legalize it I would totally agree that it should still be illegal to drive with intoxicated just like alcohol, because yes it can impair people and make it unsafe for them to be driving. However, I don't really appreciate you judging me, calling me a moron, and telling me to stop doing what I've done for years (without as much as an accident, speeding ticket, or any sort of criminal charge).

I know you said you aren't a smoker, but I'm curious, how many times have you tried it if any?
I'm going to judge you. I don't really care if you don't appreciate it. If you're on the road while under the influence - you're not responsible. Regardless of how many times you've done it. This is a frat boy saying "it's ok, I've been worse before" as he gets into the car from the bar. It's irresponsible. Not getting caught is not an excuse.

I have no idea how many times I've smoked weed. It was the end of high-school/college. It's been years since then. As I said, I felt stupid and had goals I wanted to achieve that smoking did not lead me toward.

[Jason Tate]

Portugal hasn't descended to hell yet, minus that whole economic crisis.
Weird, I just read this article (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html) while researching this.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

[tkamB]

No need to be hostile. Of course kids aren't the only people who smoke marijuana. In my experience, however, most of my friends have grown out of the drug. But yes, older people smoke it too.

People won't change their drug dealer just because the government now offers the stuff. And neither will the dealers. Most dealers make a nice bit of cash from their sale as a side endeavor, not as a full time gig. Legalization would not stop these guys from selling unless the consumer stopped buying. I simply don't think that the consumer will.

And I am obviously not an economics professor, and neither are you. Your claim that every economics professor thinks legalization will benefit the economy simply isn't true. If it were, this debate would not be going on right now.

It takes common sense to realize when you take a billion dollar illegal industry and just add it to the legal market over night its going to be beneficial to the economy. And if you did even a little research before spouting off nonsense you'd come to the same conclusion.

If you really think people are going to choose to do marijuana illegally for more money rather than do it legally for less money you are out of your mind. And it is true that nearly every economics professor considers marijuana a great benefit to the market, the only argument is in social implications.

[tkamB]

Question, what part of....

Tells me that?
Also, I don't quite trust something tracking the usage of illegal substances...it can hardly be called accurate.

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quicksetoptions.do;jsessionid=88538 47590129BFA0711B8A0CDD79897?reportK ey=04138-0001_du%3A7

Do it for yourself then. Its based on the substance abuse and mental health data reports. And I can assure you that it is much more accurate then your anecdotal evidence.

[Jason Tate]

It takes common sense to realize when you take a billion dollar illegal industry and just add it to the legal market over night its going to be beneficial to the economy. And if you did even a little research before spouting off nonsense you'd come to the same conclusion.

If you really think people are going to choose to do marijuana illegally for more money rather than do it legally for less money you are out of your mind. And it is true that nearly every economics professor considers marijuana a great benefit to the market, the only argument is in social implications.
The actual numbers from economists (Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University and undersigned by 530 distinguished economists): (http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/execsummary.html)
The report estimates that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $5.3 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $2.4 billion would accrue to the federal government.
The report also estimates that marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.

Just for the record, those numbers, not "great benefit" to the market. They're big numbers - but on a % scale? Pretty tame.

[Nevuk]

Why would it reduce it? Wouldn't it just make the ability to get weed as easy as it is for the under aged to get cigarettes?
A large part of the allure is the illegality of it. In places where it is legalized like the netherlands the use among the youth is lower .

edit :
Ok I forgot it wasn't technically legalized there.

[mms13]

I'm going to judge you. I don't really care if you don't appreciate it. If you're on the road while under the influence - you're not responsible. Regardless of how many times you've done it. This is a frat boy saying "it's ok, I've been worse before" as he gets into the car from the bar. It's irresponsible. Not getting caught is not an excuse.

I have no idea how many times I've smoked weed. It was the end of high-school/college. It's been years since then. As I said, I felt stupid and had goals I wanted to achieve that smoking did not lead me toward.

Well, thanks for making me feel horrible about myself.

Don't know why you started a thread saying 'convince me it should be legal' if you just planned on shitting on everyone who expressed their opinion.

[tkamB]

The actual numbers from economists (Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University and undersigned by 530 distinguished economists): (http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/execsummary.html)
The report estimates that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $5.3 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $2.4 billion would accrue to the federal government.
The report also estimates that marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.
Just for the record, those numbers, not "great benefit" to the market. They're big numbers - but on a % scale? Pretty tame.

Thats the report I was looking for thank you. And while the tax revenue and saved expenditure isn't huge, though it is in the billions, it doesn't take into account the amount of jobs created in the growth, distribution, and sale of the product. Which will probably be of greater benefit.

[majinsharingan]

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quicksetoptions.do;jsessionid=88538 47590129BFA0711B8A0CDD79897?reportK ey=04138-0001_du%3A7

Do it for yourself then. Its based on the substance abuse and mental health data reports. And I can assure you that it is much more accurate then your anecdotal evidence.

That goes without saying. But my point was that even that source cannot be considered completely accurate for fairly obvious reasons.

[Jason Tate]

Well, thanks for making me feel horrible about myself.

Don't know why you started a thread saying 'convince me it should be legal' if you just planned on shitting on everyone who expressed their opinion.
I don't know why I should feel bad about making you feel horrible about yourself? It's an irresponsible action. I feel it's my duty to call attention to that in a society. I would do the same to my best friend if he wanted to drive while impared.

Because I want to be convinced - not given unsubstantiated opinions. The point is to test my beliefs, my arguments, my thoughts, and hear others and see what shakes out.

[tkamB]

That goes without saying. But my point was that even that source cannot be considered completely accurate for fairly obvious reasons.

It can be considered very accurate at a 99% confidence interval.

[Nevuk]

Driving high is like driving drunk. It's ridiculous to try and make an argument against that. and I smoke a lot of weed . It's also STUPID. If you get pulled over for some reason or another it's an instant DUI most places in the US, no matter the amount. Which isn't true of alcohol. I could realistically drive if I had only had like 1 hit. But I wouldn't.

[majinsharingan]

It can be considered very accurate at a 99% confidence interval.

How so? It accounts for 99% of people?

[Jason Tate]

A large part of the allure is the illegality of it. In places where it is legalized like the netherlands the use among the youth is lower .

edit :
Ok I forgot it wasn't technically legalized there.
It would still be illegal for most youth (smoking/alcohol for example), I would assume.

[kidwithhelmet]

Do you fully understand how beneficial weed is when used as a medicine?

Yeah, I mentioned that I knew I was being somewhat cynical in that regard.

[tkamB]

Yes it is never safe to drive impaired under any drug, but marijuana is far safer than alcohol.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm (Yes its druglibrary but it was the US department of Transportation's report)

[tkamB]

How so? It accounts for 99% of people?

" If you drew repeated samples from the same population, you would expect the true population percentages to be included within the confidence intervals 99 percent of the time." Its statistics, a survey with 99% confidence interval is about as accurate as it can be without being a census.

[mms13]

Because I want to be convinced - not given unsubstantiated opinions. The point is to test my beliefs, my arguments, my thoughts, and hear others and see what shakes out.

Well we just have drastically different ideas about what's considered unsubstantiated. I trust my personal experience. Regardless of what you or others say I know my own body. I know when I'm putting myself or others in danger by driving and it's certainly not when I'm high. It just doesn't effect me that way - I wish you could trust that. I don't wanna fight anymore <3

[saysmydoctor]

Weird, I just read this article (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html) while researching this.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."


I'm not sure what you're trying to say, is this good in your opinion or bad?

I see that as a good thing. I'd rather focus money towards rehabilitation than anything else--I see drug usage as more of a health crisis than an issue of public safety.

That's why I liked things like NYCDOH releasing a safety guide on how to properly use needles and such. We're not going to eliminate drug usage--but we can sponsor healthy practices and routines.

I hadn't read this before though. This was interesting.

[Nevuk]

When people say that weed never kills they are referring to its LD50, of which they claim it has none. Not that people haven't died due to being high. You would die from the smoke before the cannibus even comes close to killing you.

There is responsible use of weed, and then there is irresponsible use of it. To punish the entirety of smokers for the actions of the irresponsible half is very similar to the prohibition against alcohol due to those using it in harmful ways. It's never going to be possible to ignore the alcohol comparisons.

The real reason to legalize weed is that by leaving it illegal the US is basically handing mexican drug cartels Mexico. (Which applies to more than just cannibus.) Legalization OR decriminalization are both things I would agree with. Legalization would indeed place power in the hands of corporate interests who would likely do things like cut weed with tar for no reason. But uh... I guess it's just that so many people locally grow where I am that I doubt it would come up. And there's no real guarantee that they aren't cutting with really stupid shit like shards of glass, which is the one real argument for legislation of it. I do WANT to know what I'm smoking, and it's currently very hard. But I don't trust any of the corporations who would get involved.

[Nevuk]

It would still be illegal for most youth (smoking/alcohol for example), I would assume.
Oh, by youth I was referring to the <30 audience in this example. From what I understand it's kind of stereotypically used by old hippies.

[peder458]

Well we just have drastically different ideas about what's considered unsubstantiated. I trust my personal experience. Regardless of what you or others say I know my own body. I know when I'm putting myself or others in danger by driving and it's certainly not when I'm high. It just doesn't effect me that way - I wish you could trust that. I don't wanna fight anymore <3

Not to be a dick, but evidence of human beings, much like yourself, says otherwise. You are dumb for ignoring it.

[kidwithhelmet]

it doesnt mean hes not responsible for smoking weed. i mean, this debate could take forever.
legalizing weed haves hes pros and cons.
2: I hate the "weed doesn't kill people / it's a medicine" argument. you can hate this argument all you want, but it always comes out whenever your discussing this. cause it clearly make sense.

I'm not trying to chastise him for it at all. I'm just pointing out that he knows it could ruin a lot of stuff for him if he's caught with it. If you got nothing important enough to lose by risking it then that's one thing, but I'm assuming he does since he made it a point to mention it. Which is why I followed it up with the question of "weed's that big of a gamechanger for you?"

And I know it's going to come up. But all the positive studies in the world about how good marajuana can be for you aren't going to magically make it legal/decriminalized...

[majinsharingan]

" If you drew repeated samples from the same population, you would expect the true population percentages to be included within the confidence intervals 99 percent of the time." Its statistics, a survey with 99% confidence interval is about as accurate as it can be without being a census.

99% accuracy? Eh, I'm still skeptical. 310 million people in 50 states spanning over roughly 4 million square miles. How many people were part of the survey you sent me? From where? Even amount from each age group? From each neighborhood? Etc...etc...

[Jason Tate]

Well we just have drastically different ideas about what's considered unsubstantiated. I trust my personal experience. Regardless of what you or others say I know my own body. I know when I'm putting myself or others in danger by driving and it's certainly not when I'm high. It just doesn't effect me that way - I wish you could trust that. I don't wanna fight anymore <3
One person's personal experience is not substantiated. And while there are responsible weed smokers (see above for Nevuk talking about it) -- I would say you're a poster child for the opposite. You're driving under the influence. It's irresponsible. Why should I trust that?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, is this good in your opinion or bad?

I see that as a good thing. I'd rather focus money towards rehabilitation than anything else--I see drug usage as more of a health crisis than an issue of public safety.

That's why I liked things like NYCDOH releasing a safety guide on how to properly use needles and such. We're not going to eliminate drug usage--but we can sponsor healthy practices and routines.

I hadn't read this before though. This was interesting.
... good? Why would it be bad?

[coma]

Same. But I also know some stoners who have permafried their brains and can barely form functioning sentences. I also know a few of the smartest people I knew who started -- and are now basically morons with no drive and no future. And I know a few people who have lost all their money to it.

So I've seen the full spectrum.

Well I clearly can't win with you Jason. Let me just say that if they were to legalize it I would totally agree that it should still be illegal to drive with intoxicated just like alcohol, because yes it can impair people and make it unsafe for them to be driving. However, I don't really appreciate you judging me, calling me a moron, and telling me to stop doing what I've done for years (without as much as an accident, speeding ticket, or any sort of criminal charge).

I know you said you aren't a smoker, but I'm curious, how many times have you tried it if any?


You aren't going to win, mms13, not because you have a compelling argument and Jason is just ignoring it, but because you have a retarded argument, and you keep asking as if you have a compelling one. The discussion, one about the legalities (or lack thereof) of Marijuana, has been turned (entirely by you) into a discussion of the merits of driving while under the influence of Marijuana. No one is arguing whether or not you are less of a danger than say a person driving over the legal limit of alcohol intoxication. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that you are less of a danger in that case. The case you're trying to make for yourself, though, is that you are 100 percent unaffected by Marijuana and therefore are no less intoxicated than you are when driving sober, which is just total bullshit.

You're trying to convince intelligent people that Marijuana has little effect on you. Give it a rest. You are a danger to yourself or anyone else on the road while intoxicated on ANYTHING. It is simply an unforgivable practice and you are sitting here trying to convince us that it isn't. You're selfish, you're stupid, and worst of all, you think you're okay being that way, and you aren't.

[saysmydoctor]

I dunno, you said "Weird" and I thought you were being sarcastic then linking an article that would almost refute your sarcasm?

[Jason Tate]

When people say that weed never kills they are referring to its LD50, of which they claim it has none. Not that people haven't died due to being high. You would die from the smoke before the cannibus even comes close to killing you.
I was reading this earlier -- at present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000.

Which is awesomely high.

There is responsible use of weed, and then there is irresponsible use of it. To punish the entirety of smokers for the actions of the irresponsible half is very similar to the prohibition against alcohol due to those using it in harmful ways. It's never going to be possible to ignore the alcohol comparisons. Agreed, but again - I think an argument needs to stand without a "but look at that other substance" case. And I think a legit case can be made for the decriminalization of weed for a variety of reasons without having to even bring alcohol into the conversation.

Now, I like the recent laws being passed to keep cigarette smoke away from me while I'm outside. Do it with weed and, as I said before, I don't really care what people do with their own time. I'm not sure I truly understand the motivations (which is fine) ... but I do have worries over the irresponsibility of certain people (as evidenced by this thread). Because if my family is out on the road - that matters to me.

The real reason to legalize weed is that by leaving it illegal the US is basically handing mexican drug cartels Mexico. (Which applies to more than just cannibus.) Legalization OR decriminalization are both things I would agree with. Legalization would indeed place power in the hands of corporate interests who would likely do things like cut weed with tar for no reason. But uh... I guess it's just that so many people locally grow where I am that I doubt it would come up. And there's no real guarantee that they aren't cutting with really stupid shit like shards of glass, which is the one real argument for legislation of it. I do WANT to know what I'm smoking, and it's currently very hard. But I don't trust any of the corporations who would get involved. I'd assume there would be large corporations and mom and pop stores. But wouldn't you love to see a USDA certified organic sticker on your weed?

[Jason Tate]

I dunno, you said "Weird" and I thought you were being sarcastic then linking an article that would almost refute your sarcasm?
Weird, as in you mentioned a country as I was reading about said country ...

[tkamB]

99% accuracy? Eh, I'm still skeptical. 310 million people in 50 states spanning over roughly 4 million square miles. How many people were part of the survey you sent me? From where? Even amount from each age group? From each neighborhood? Etc...etc...

For more information on the study: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/SAMHDA/studies/04138/detail

[saysmydoctor]

Weird, as in you mentioned a country as I was reading about said country ...
Oh, oh, oh, okay. Nevermind.

[majinsharingan]

For more information on the study: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/SAMHDA/studies/04138/detail

Thank you, I'll quit bothering you with this and look at it myself now.

[coma]

Agreed, but again - I think an argument needs to stand without a "but look at that other substance" case. And I think a legit case can be made for the decriminalization of weed for a variety of reasons without having to even bring alcohol into the conversation.

Now, I like the recent laws being passed to keep cigarette smoke away from me while I'm outside. Do it with weed and, as I said before, I don't really care what people do with their own time. I'm not sure I truly understand the motivations (which is fine) ... but I do have worries over the irresponsibility of certain people (as evidenced by this thread). Because if my family is out on the road - that matters to me.

Two questions.

While I agree that you can make arguments for Weed without bringing alcohol into the discussion, my question is why would you, or furthermore why do you think that's needed? Alcohol is the one glaring 'trick up the sleeve' so to speak of marijuana proponents. It's far more intrusive to mental stability and it remains legal and easily available. We know that thought. To reiterate, the question was why do you think the Juaner needs a stand alone argument?

Secondly, that fear over irresponsible people will always be there. It's no more tolerable than when a drunk driver is behind the wheel. All I know is this, straw man as it may be, I'll take the dude driving baked over the dude driving drunk in 100/100 situations. I hate to get into a lesser of two evils situation here, but my question to you is, knowing the dangers overall of driving intoxicated (both on alcohol and drugs) what changes would you make personally if given the opportunity to ensure the safety of non-intoxicated people on the road? It seems like that's just something that has to be dealt with, and law enforcement does what it can but it certainly doesn't erase the issue. I've spent many a night white-knuckling it home behind totally ridiculous drivers, and every time I alert the cops, they never show.

[Jason Tate]

Two questions.

While I agree that you can make arguments for Weed without bringing alcohol into the discussion, my question is why would you, or furthermore why do you think that's needed? Alcohol is the one glaring 'trick up the sleeve' so to speak of marijuana proponents. It's far more intrusive to mental stability and it remains legal and easily available. We know that thought. To reiterate, the question was why do you think the Juaner needs a stand alone argument?
Because I believe it's a logical fallacy to point to something else and say "you too." If the discussion should be about making all illegal, or all legal, then that's a different conversation. Second if someone says "but Beer" the counter is "but heroin." The conversation shouldn't be centered around anything except the substance we're talking about. It's a stronger argument that remains more focused on the actual topic instead of a tangent.

Secondly, that fear over irresponsible people will always be there. It's no more tolerable than when a drunk driver is behind the wheel. All I know is this, straw man as it may be, I'll take the dude driving baked over the dude driving drunk in 100/100 situations.
And I'll take the dude dead sober. False dichotomy.

I hate to get into a lesser of two evils situation here, but my question to you is, knowing the dangers overall of driving intoxicated (both on alcohol and drugs) what changes would you make personally if given the opportunity to ensure the safety of non-intoxicated people on the road?
Completely hypothetically speaking - given all the money and resources? Hmm, just making this up right now: I would institute technology into all cars that doesn't allow it to operate before the driver passes a sobriety test and I'd ask for stiffer penalties for those found guilty of circumventing the technology.

It seems like that's just something that has to be dealt with, and law enforcement does what it can but it certainly doesn't erase the issue. I've spent many a night white-knuckling it home behind totally ridiculous drivers, and every time I alert the cops, they never show.
Which is why I think law enforcement isn't the answer. It's a needle and a haystack problem. I'd rather not have people have to be in the right place right time to catch someone - but cut it off before it can happen.

[Jet Set Paul]

A regulated marijuana market would significantly reduce the number of teenagers who use it, and by doing so would also reduce the number of teenagers who get exposed to the entire market of illegal drugs.

This. Back in my pot-smoking days, whenever I would visit my dealer, he would be trying to sell me coke. I never tried it, but I know way too many people who got into harder drugs because they had to buy weed from people who would be pushing powders/pills as well, and they didn't have the good sense to turn it down.

[Junction183]

A regulated marijuana market would significantly reduce the number of teenagers who use it, and by doing so would also reduce the number of teenagers who get exposed to the entire market of illegal drugs.
how are you going to regulate something that can be grown in anyone's backyard

[KingsCrossing]

For more information on the study: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/SAMHDA/studies/04138/detail

I'll be honest - I haven't looked at detail into this study, but even at 99% confidence interval (which is certainly a high level to prevent any Type I errors), a self report survey on drug use obviously produces a variety of confounding variables, especially when examining the younger age intervals (fear of consequences based off truthful responding being the most obvious example).

[iamtaylorrr]

If it became legal, I honestly don't think I would actually smoke it anymore. The amount of edibles that would pop up would lure me that direction. I love feeling high, but sometimes the side affects of inhaling the smoke make me feel pretty shitty, like when I get hits that torch my throat. Not to mention edibles would be a lot healthier. If I'm not mistaken, inhaling smoke can still increase your chances for cancer, right? So in that sense it's not exactly any better than smoking tobacco?

[Jason Tate]

This has been the best discussion on the topic I've seen in the forums. Just for the record.

[tkamB]

how are you going to regulate something that can be grown in anyone's backyard

How do people regulate alcohol? You can make alcohol in your own home in about a week, while marijuana takes around 4 months to grow effectively. The majority of drug dealers don't grow, if we offer the growers incentives to grow legally then they will choose the legal operation over growing illegally. That way the supply the illegal drug dealers will have will be significantly reduced. And while it will likely be legal to grow for your own consumption, what do you think people are going to do? Work for 4 months to get good bud or go down to the local store to grab an eighth?

[Jason Tate]

How do people regulate alcohol? You can make alcohol in your own home in about a week, while marijuana takes around 4 months to grow effectively. The majority of drug dealers don't grow, if we offer the growers incentives to grow legally then they will choose the legal operation over growing illegally. That way the supply the illegal drug dealers will have will be significantly reduced. And while it will likely be legal to grow for your own consumption, what do you think people are going to do? Work for 4 months to get good bud or go down to the local store to grab an eighth?
You can't sell home made alcohol.

[tkamB]

I'll be honest - I haven't looked at detail into this study, but even at 99% confidence interval (which is certainly a high level to prevent any Type I errors), a self report survey on drug use obviously produces a variety of confounding variables, especially when examining the younger age intervals (fear of consequences based off truthful responding being the most obvious example).

I'd say the fear of consequence would stem into all age groups, especially when dealing with recency of use which I'm sure is much higher than reported for all age groups. But my point is that the majority of marijuana users are above 18 and I think even with the variables that still stands and its about as accurate of a study as you're going to get.

[zion the lion]

They're not needed. At all.

I already can't stand people who smoke in public, if it's legalized - I would be pissed if it's allowed outside. Keep it in your home. Do what you want -- but I don't want it around me. So, that argument already boils my blood.

I'm fine with taxing it. I'm worried about more driving while under the influence deaths.

This is the one time I think I've agreed absolutely 100% with you.

And I think that the people who are going to smoke and drive would do so if it was legal, especially the people who do it in public, like on the beach or whatever, they're going to need a way back home. Someone I grew up with died 3 years ago because someone was driving while high. It's the one thing I'd always be worried about if it ever became legal.

[tkamB]

You can't sell home made alcohol.

Not legally, but isn't that the point? You won't be able to sell homemade marijuana legally if marijuana was legalized as a license is definitely going to be a requirement.

[Jason Tate]

I'd say the fear of consequence would stem into all age groups, especially when dealing with recency of use which I'm sure is much higher than reported for all age groups. But my point is that the majority of marijuana users are above 18 and I think even with the variables that still stands and its about as accurate of a study as you're going to get.
The majority are over 18 because you have like 8 years under (10-18) and virtually 50 years above. The important number is when people start smoking...

[Jason Tate]

Not legally, but isn't that the point? You won't be able to sell homemade marijuana legally if marijuana was legalized as a license is definitely going to be a requirement.
Yeah, I was saying that's how they'd regulate it.

[tkamB]

The majority are over 18 because you have like 8 years under (10-18) and virtually 50 years above. The important number is when people start smoking...

Well the original argument someone made is that there would be no tax benefits because people underage would still get their weed illegally, and I was arguing that most marijuana users are adults.

[Jason Tate]

Well the original argument someone made is that there would be no tax benefits because people underage would still get their weed illegally, and I was arguing that most marijuana users are adults.
Eh, they initial purchase would probably be legal (and taxable) the secondary market is something else completely.

[HazeSmoker1]

A regulated marijuana market would significantly reduce the number of teenagers who use it, and by doing so would also reduce the number of teenagers who get exposed to the entire market of illegal drugs.

BINGO but I doubt that would happen lol just like with alcohol people find way around to get it so there is no real reason to keep it outlawed other then the government abusing their laws that haven't caught up with the general population yet ( there are over millions of marijuana users now). Government serves the people and it looks like the people wanna light TIT UP.

[tkamB]

Eh, they initial purchase would probably be legal (and taxable) the secondary market is something else completely.

Yep thats basically what I told him that the illegal dealers would most likely have to get their supply from legal sources.

[KingsCrossing]

I'd say the fear of consequence would stem into all age groups, especially when dealing with recency of use which I'm sure is much higher than reported for all age groups. But my point is that the majority of marijuana users are above 18 and I think even with the variables that still stands and its about as accurate of a study as you're going to get.

I'd still hypothesize that younger age groups would be more hesitant towards being completely honest about their drug usage, more so than adults who might have engaged in drug use X amount of years ago. Even for adults who engaged in drug use more recently I would assume they'd still be less reluctant towards divulging truthful information. However I would agree with you that this type of survey is probably the most convenient and useful tool in gathering a large amount of data for this type of sample.

[HazeSmoker1]

Wanna know why its still illegal? The main,real, laughable reason? Cause the government abuses the laws that are already in place to tax THE hell out of us with fines and jail time, who is the gov really working for hurr? I SAY REBEL!!. Politicians need to know who elected them and in what time they got elected!! and change THESE 1950 LAWS that should have bee eradicated a long time ago just like the era there were placed in -.- This is 2010 and those laws were erected in? A world wide vote would end this discussion tremendously.

[Nevuk]

I think as far as younger people goes people need to be more honest about what weed does. Starting smoking at young age (like 15 or so) does have long lasting negative mental side effects, but the main DARE argument against it is the gateway drug argument AND ridiculous other things like the anti-drug commercials. (2 people get high, one shoots the other, weed is blamed. Etc.) Almost every anti-weed ad is so ridiculous that once a younger person does weed they realize that everything they've been told about it from authority figures has been a lie. That's the real reason for it acting as a gateway drug. Starting smoking weed at 15 is not going to make someone instantly a moron and incapable of ever functioning in society. It will however give them a slight disadvantage in life on average compared to someone who waits until they're more completely grown. (The last stats I read suggested that realistically in order to avoid all developmental problems 25 is the proper age to begin drinking or smoking. But they start to become slight at 19 for most).

[Jason Tate]

I think as far as younger people goes people need to be more honest about what weed does. Starting smoking at young age (like 15 or so) does have long lasting negative mental side effects, but the main DARE argument against it is the gateway drug argument AND ridiculous other things like the anti-drug commercials. (2 people get high, one shoots the other, weed is blamed. Etc.) Almost every anti-weed ad is so ridiculous that once a younger person does weed they realize that everything they've been told about it from authority figures has been a lie. That's the real reason for it acting as a gateway drug. Starting smoking weed at 15 is not going to make someone instantly a moron and incapable of ever functioning in society. It will however give them a slight disadvantage in life on average compared to someone who waits until they're more completely grown. (The last stats I read suggested that realistically in order to avoid all developmental problems 25 is the proper age to begin drinking or smoking. But they start to become slight at 19 for most).
That ad may have been the dumbest thing I've ever seen ... I can't believe it was approved. I didn't even feel bad laughing at it.

[UnderclasHero]

Just imagine how much more money it would bring in for the government. almost like cigarettes x10

[Jason Tate]

Just imagine how much more money it would bring in for the government. almost like cigarettes x10
I can do more than imagine: economists venture $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. The federal government would collect $1.6 billion in additional revenue while on average each state would collect $16 million in additional tax revenue.

It would not be like cigarettes x 10.

Not even close (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403).

[Sean Rizzo]

I don't want it legalized. Just de-criminalize it.
Wow. We actually agree on something.

[tkamB]

I can do more than imagine: economists venture $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. The federal government would collect $1.6 billion in additional revenue while on average each state would collect $16 million in additional tax revenue.

It would not be like cigarettes x 10.

Not even close (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403).

What I don't understand is how we get 6.2 billion for the US as a whole but when comparing states, California is estimated to get 1.3 billion a year in tax revenue ( http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1884956,00.html ), and comparing that to tobacco revenue it shows 1.1 billion a year for tobacco.

[tkamB]

Wow. We actually agree on something.

So you'd rather the profits from marijuana to go to drug dealers/cartels and gangs instead of legal workers, businesses, and the government? I don't see the logic in decriminalization.

[Scrandon]

The idea of major corporations fiddling with it, in the same way they do food, irks me.
You can grow your own, pure marijuana if you feel the need to.

Plus, I think it is important to keep money in the hands of the local weed sellers.
Ha fuck that, they can get a job in the legalized marijuana industry, or they can move to selling other illegal drugs if they want. They'll be just fine.

[Scrandon]

I respectfully disagree. If the government taxes the product, it will be more expensive.
No

Why would one buy the drug from a smoke shop at a higher cost when he can get it from his friend at a cheaper price?
It won't be cheaper

The market price would not be cheaper with legalization.
Wrong

The marijuana market is already very competitive.
Ha, what? How can it be competitive, everybody who doesn't want to risk breaking the law is not a part of the market.

If you add pharmaceuticals and cigarette manufacturers to the mix, they wouldn't be able to compete.
Many of the costs that are a part of the product today would be eliminated. International transportation, costs to hide the growing and selling operation, the costs that are associated with the risk of being caught, etc.

As supply increases, price increases.
:lol: Who are you?

The demand is debatable.
Can we assume it will be roughly equal, or slightly higher than it is now? Would that be okay with you?

[Jason Tate]

What I don't understand is how we get 6.2 billion for the US as a whole but when comparing states, California is estimated to get 1.3 billion a year in tax revenue ( http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1884956,00.html ), and comparing that to tobacco revenue it shows 1.1 billion a year for tobacco.
No idea - I'm taking the economist that did the study's word for it. I haven't seen real California numbers.

[perceptrons]

Completely hypothetically speaking - given all the money and resources? Hmm, just making this up right now: I would institute technology into all cars that doesn't allow it to operate before the driver passes a sobriety test and I'd ask for stiffer penalties for those found guilty of circumventing the technology.
I really wish this was looked into more, I'm not sure the technology is that limiting of a factor. The only thing I can think of is false positives, but what is the rate of that on current devices?

[myplanforescape]

Interesting story about the price of marijuana and how the tax revenue might not be as great as predicted if legalized, though I don't think that tax revenue should be the driving force for legalization.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/08/national/main6658178.shtml

I think this quote from it is a great point too, "The most important lesson to be taken away is that the benefits of legalization depend strongly on how it is implemented."

[Love As Arson]

You can grow your own, pure marijuana if you feel the need to.

Ha fuck that, they can get a job in the legalized marijuana industry, or they can move to selling other illegal drugs if they want. They'll be just fine.
I take it you do not know very many people that sell marijuana. Generally, they are simply trying to make ends meet and have 9 to 5 jobs. I'd rather not take food out of their mouths to give corporations something else to capitalize on. As for growing my own marijuana, I have no problem with it, or purchasing it from people that do. The fact remains that I don't think it is good to pump weed with chemicals, as corporations would do. De-criminalization gets rid of the injustice and keeps weed within the community.

[Sean Rizzo]

I take it you do not know very many people that sell marijuana. Generally, they are simply trying to make ends meet and have 9 to 5 jobs. I'd rather not take food out of their mouths to give corporations something else to capitalize on. As for growing my own marijuana, I have no problem with it, or purchasing it from people that do. The fact remains that I don't think it is good to pump weed with chemicals, as corporations would do. De-criminalization gets rid of the injustice and keeps weed within the community.
Do you think big tobacco would lap up this market if it were legalized? That's what I'm thinking, and I definitely don't trust them selling anything "safe" with all the chemicals that get pumped into cigarettes, either.

[Scrandon]

I take it you do not know very many people that sell marijuana. Generally, they are simply trying to make ends meet and have 9 to 5 jobs. I'd rather not take food out of their mouths to give corporations something else to capitalize on. As for growing my own marijuana, I have no problem with it, or purchasing it from people that do. The fact remains that I don't think it is good to pump weed with chemicals, as corporations would do. De-criminalization gets rid of the injustice and keeps weed within the community.
The drug system is not fair. I can't believe you would advocate for the continuation of such an institution. Cartels, drug operations, etc. keep the little guys down and throw huge profits in the hands of the top dogs.

There is no going down from there. A legal system would be much more fair, would put less risk on the guys doing the majority of the work, would likely end territory wars amongst cartels (No more drug mule argument to conservatives opposing immigration?). Only thing I could see happening is putting an end to a drug lords lavish lifestyle.

[Cameronisonfire]

http://texashempcampaign.com/images/tax%20hemp.jpg

[Jason Tate]

Hemp is not illegal. What is the point of that image?

[Love As Arson]

Do you think big tobacco would lap up this market if it were legalized? That's what I'm thinking, and I definitely don't trust them selling anything "safe" with all the chemicals that get pumped into cigarettes, either.
I can see it happening.

The drug system is not fair. I can't believe you would advocate for the continuation of such an institution. Cartels, drug operations, etc. keep the little guys down and throw huge profits in the hands of the top dogs.
The drug system is undercut by de-criminalization. The reason prices are high is largely related to risk, and if law enforcement isn't viewing it as a priority, then cartels lose a legitimate portion of their power/profit. It becomes easier for the average person to get and sell marijuana.


There is no going down from there. A legal system would be much more fair, would put less risk on the guys doing the majority of the work, would likely end territory wars amongst cartels (No more drug mule argument to conservatives opposing immigration?). Only thing I could see happening is putting an end to a drug lords lavish lifestyle.
It would just create cartels which we view as legitimate, i.e., corporations. If I had to choose between the local drug dealer and the CEO, I'd rather the local drug dealer get the money.

[Scrandon]

The drug system is undercut by de-criminalization. The reason prices are high is largely related to risk, and if law enforcement isn't viewing it as a priority, then cartels lose a legitimate portion of their power/profit. It becomes easier for the average person to get and sell marijuana.
It's still not going to be 'grow marijuana farms in your backyard' time if it's not legalized. Mass quantities will still have to be brought across borders, without authorities knowing. Risk will still be involved, the only difference is that if someone is caught, they lose their whole crop instead of being put in jail.

It would just create cartels which we view as legitimate, i.e., corporations. If I had to choose between the local drug dealer and the CEO, I'd rather the local drug dealer get the money.
Don't address the depravity of the drug system and compare it to corporations all you want, it doesn't advance your argument.

[Junction183]

How do people regulate alcohol? You can make alcohol in your own home in about a week, while marijuana takes around 4 months to grow effectively. The majority of drug dealers don't grow, if we offer the growers incentives to grow legally then they will choose the legal operation over growing illegally. That way the supply the illegal drug dealers will have will be significantly reduced. And while it will likely be legal to grow for your own consumption, what do you think people are going to do? Work for 4 months to get good bud or go down to the local store to grab an eighth?
spoken from a true pothead

[Nevuk]

That ad may have been the dumbest thing I've ever seen ... I can't believe it was approved. I didn't even feel bad laughing at it.
There's a reason it's on harold and kumar. It is the funniest thing possible thing to watch high.

[tkamB]

spoken from a true pothead

If making a rational argument for why regulation will be effective makes me a "true pothead" then I'm fine with that. But next time if you want to have a debate or discussion with someone, try to not making (incorrect) assumptions about them to try to discredit their points. All it does is makes you look like someone incapable of having a meaningful discussion.

[Scrandon]

If making a rational argument for why regulation will be effective makes me a "true pothead" then I'm fine with that. But next time if you want to have a debate or discussion with someone, try to not making (incorrect) assumptions about them to try to discredit their points. All it does is makes you look like someone incapable of having a meaningful discussion.

Hey man, it's hard to call someone a pothead when you are barely literate yourself!

[tkamB]

Hey man, it's hard to call someone a pothead when you are barely literate yourself!

Yeah I find it hard to believe he was sober when he wrote that, but who knows. Maybe thats an indication that our education system could really use the billions of dollars from marijuana tax revenue.

[bridgeofeldin]

No

It won't be cheaper

Wrong

Ha, what? How can it be competitive, everybody who doesn't want to risk breaking the law is not a part of the market.

Many of the costs that are a part of the product today would be eliminated. International transportation, costs to hide the growing and selling operation, the costs that are associated with the risk of being caught, etc.

:lol: Who are you?

Can we assume it will be roughly equal, or slightly higher than it is now? Would that be okay with you?

Well alright, that's fair enough. I was just being skeptical about the tax benefits. In my original post I said I was for decriminalization. Wasn't expecting to be chastised so vigorously.

[Scrandon]

Well alright, that's fair enough. I was just being skeptical about the tax benefits. In my original post I said I was for decriminalization. Wasn't expecting to be chastised so vigorously.

Sorry, but it seemed like literally every sentence was made up as you went along. Anyway, my point being the price would not go up with legalization, even if corporations wanted to gouge people to no end, because then there would still be motivation for a black market to exist.

[SmeezyBeezy]

I'm tried it before. I was worthless. Not even remotely creative. Sloth-like. Stupid. But then what I do isn't music. But trying to code while high? Heh. Worthless.

Different Strokes for different folks. Music and creativity are in a different part of your brain then computer coding, that's for sure, and certain sectors get enhanced, while others get faded. But, if you so choose to listen to some tunes after you've smoked, it's quite wonderful.
As far as legalization, I can't decide. There are pros and cons for either side, but it should in no way be a schedule 1 narcotic, its effects just aren't that inebriating, especially if it's being compared to alcohol as well as the other drugs it's in contention with. It's legalization would cause some sort of an economic boost, if only temporarily, and it would absolutely eliminate a significant profit for drug cartels, which is kindasorta awesome.

[Love As Arson]

It's still not going to be 'grow marijuana farms in your backyard' time if it's not legalized. Mass quantities will still have to be brought across borders, without authorities knowing. Risk will still be involved, the only difference is that if someone is caught, they lose their whole crop instead of being put in jail.
I imagine de-criminalization will initiate a sort of "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy, whereby the authorities will look the other way for recreational drugs. This, of course, supposes that the policy will be combined with a fundamental reorientation of the police and federal forces in regards to their drug enforcement policies.


Don't address the depravity of the drug system and compare it to corporations all you want, it doesn't advance your argument.
My point is, either way we'll have to deal with some sort of cartel. In my mind, with the implementation of reforms, one is less harmful than the other.

[HazeSmoker1]

Different Strokes for different folks. Music and creativity are in a different part of your brain then computer coding, that's for sure, and certain sectors get enhanced, while others get faded. But, if you so choose to listen to some tunes after you've smoked, it's quite wonderful.
As far as legalization, I can't decide. There are pros and cons for either side, but it should in no way be a schedule 1 narcotic, its effects just aren't that inebriating, especially if it's being compared to alcohol as well as the other drugs it's in contention with. It's legalization would cause some sort of an economic boost, if only temporarily, and it would absolutely eliminate a significant profit for drug cartels, which is kindasorta awesome.
Exactly, the money that the cartels profit from the mass soliciting of MJ would diminish gradually with the decriminalization of it because people would find safe ways such as visiting a drug store or something to get it. Plus lowering our crime rates and the amount of resistant that law officials have to deal with when taking out these gangs because they gain most of their money to support their activities thru selling marijuana which in turn gives them more cash to buy goodies such as weapons and the things gangs use haha. In the end the pros do outweigh the god dam cons in this matter. Decriminalizing =less lives lost thru drugs being sold by shady figures and more security around the plant in general when people handle it. Because in decriminalizing/legalizing it would benefit the people who want to use it for recreational purpose other then benefiting the people who just want to abuse the plant for money to gain support for their illegal and unjustified purposes.

[Scrandon]

I imagine de-criminalization will initiate a sort of "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy, whereby the authorities will look the other way for recreational drugs. This, of course, supposes that the policy will be combined with a fundamental reorientation of the police and federal forces in regards to their drug enforcement policies.


If a border patrol agent searches a bag and finds the drug... they just let it go? It's still illegal to posses; fines and seizures would surely still apply, right? If this is true, the costs of risk don't decrease significantly due to decriminalization only.

Is there currently anything that is decriminalized but not legal that would serve as an example? I can't think of anything.

[mattmatumbo]

I like this idea more than anything else I've read so far.

The only thing that stands in it's way is control of distribution to minors.

[HazeSmoker1]

The only thing that stands in it's way is control of distribution to minors.
Handle it the same way you handle alcohol/cigs..?

[elmakias]

it pretty much is in california. I got my medical card a few months ago, very easily. there is a shop underneath my best friends apartment complex. I take the elevator to the bottom floor, buy weed, and go right back up the elevator with it. Pretty wild considering my whole childhood all my friends purchased it off the shadiest people ever.

[Debut_Fin]

Same. But I also know some stoners who have permafried their brains and can barely form functioning sentences. I also know a few of the smartest people I knew who started -- and are now basically morons with no drive and no future. And I know a few people who have lost all their money to it.

So I've seen the full spectrum.

I don't really think there should be laws to protect people from their own stupidity / lack of self control. That's on the individual in my opinion

[AMackChuck]

I learned the metric system thanks to marijuana.

[Stearman77]

Not a smoker, but i have brothers who had smoked for years, one of them still does, and the worst thing i've seen come from it is people can't seem to go without it. To achieve the high they had before they need to up the dosage, just like any other drug. Also it's a drive killer. Meaning, from what i've seen, makes one more susceptible to not doing a whole lot. I think the dependency would be the worst because if people were to smoke regularily then it would become like a cigarette addiction.

[HazeSmoker1]

Not a smoker, but i have brothers who had smoked for years, one of them still does, and the worst thing i've seen come from it is people can't seem to go without it. To achieve the high they had before they need to up the dosage, just like any other drug. Also it's a drive killer. Meaning, from what I've seen, makes one more susceptible to not doing a whole lot. I think the dependency would be the worst because if people were to smoke regularly then it would become like a cigarette addiction.
You see this is where most people stray off from the subject at hand, its about legalizing the plant or decriminalizing. It shouldn't be about how people abuse or misuse the plant because not everyone is like that, everyone uses it to there own discretion just like with alcohol. You cant just penalize everyone from using it just because a few people don't know how to control themselves can you? I mean not everyone who tries a joint or smokes a bowl then goes and yell at there siblings or parents randomly or turns into a heroin or cocaine addict just because they tried a little weed? Else this argument about legalizing or decriminalizing wouldn't even exist and we would be here jailing almost half the fucking world lol which...from the statistics I bet look a little crazy too, why are we blaming the harmless little plant for? When its really the people who smoke its own fault? To end what I am saying really is that you can't neglect what most people want mainly cause a percentage of smoker's don't know how to control their actions just like with alcohol when someone is about to drive down the street drunk as fuck or sober from saying hey maybe ill just have one beer tonight.

[ETGsynth]

I live in Oregon. It's quite heavily populated with ... pot smokers ... and the legalization of weed is something that is brought up all the time. It's also one of the things I really don't care about. If it was legalized I wouldn't be upset, if it's not - I don't care either. I don't do it - so it doesn't impact me.

However ... for the sake of debate, I'm curious why it should be legalized. Why is it needed?
Idk if you've ever seen the film but you should check out the film "Super High Me", it's a pretty good movie that shows alot of facts about the world of weed in the way of films like "Bowling For Columbine".

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Idk if you've ever seen the film but you should check out the film "Super High Me", it's a pretty good movie that shows alot of facts about the world of weed in the way of films like "Bowling For Columbine".

Yea, I'd also recommend Super High Me. I also liked how Doug Benson was able to make the issue more topical by showing how DEA agents would frequently raid legal California dispensaries.

[ETGsynth]

Yea, I'd also recommend Super High Me. I also liked how Doug Benson was able to make the issue more topical by showing how DEA agents would frequently raid legal California dispensaries.
Yeah, it's a wonderful movie but the comedy scenes could probably be pretty off-putting to some.

[Love As Arson]

If a border patrol agent searches a bag and finds the drug... they just let it go? It's still illegal to posses; fines and seizures would surely still apply, right? If this is true, the costs of risk don't decrease significantly due to decriminalization only.

Is there currently anything that is decriminalized but not legal that would serve as an example? I can't think of anything.
As I said with Jason, there focus would be on harder drugs. If they see someone with simply marijuana, they should look the other way because their orientation isn't towards a drug which isn't harmful. So, for example, cops rarely enforce jay walking laws, mostly because it is normalized. The same principle applies.

[SkateFirm21]

Legalizing it might give scientist more reason to study it and see if there are positive effects to the drug. Right now society has the mind set that it's just bad, and nothing good could come from it.

studies like this: http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_helps_cure_cancer_say s_harvard_study

EDIT: i know wikipedia isnt a good source but it serves as a good outline of other things marijuana might help prevent. Just look more into the subjects if you're really interested in any of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Recent_studies

[Piieterr00]

I dont see any problem with legalizing it everywhere. But I live in the Netherlands. Here its all good.

[patpratt]

I live in Oregon. It's quite heavily populated with ... pot smokers ... and the legalization of weed is something that is brought up all the time. It's also one of the things I really don't care about. If it was legalized I wouldn't be upset, if it's not - I don't care either. I don't do it - so it doesn't impact me.

However ... for the sake of debate, I'm curious why it should be legalized. Why is it needed?

Looks like this is a pretty popular thread. You should consider changing the spelling of 'Marajuana' to Marijuana in the thread title, so it quits bugging me.

[youngmountain]

Same. But I also know some stoners who have permafried their brains and can barely form functioning sentences. I also know a few of the smartest people I knew who started -- and are now basically morons with no drive and no future. And I know a few people who have lost all their money to it.

So I've seen the full spectrum.

Same here, I just hate the whole stoner culture thing, so I'm pretty against it.

[Mitch]

I am more for decriminalization than I am legalization although the latter would not bother me especially because I would no longer have to deal with any sketchy dealers.

[domotime2]

Hey if soda, saturated fats, faulty fast food, cigarettes, and alcohol are legal.... might as well toss in the product that has no statistical deaths linked to it. Punish those who abuse and drive while on it of course, but the war against drugs is one of the most pathetic things (on a list of many) that the American government has placed on our society. It's just not fair, and I don't even smoke.

[phillipjacob]

I don't smoke but then again I have no qualms against those who do, so I'm not stressing out if it becomes legal or not

Although if it was legal, all of the money spent enforcing it, could be allocated into something more beneficial.

[SensesFailTY]

in the year 2010 when weve been under control and been told were free when were not

how can anyone be upset if a plant is made legal when its been used as medicine for thousands of years?

the only reason your upset is because youve been drilled as a kid that its bad for you....but alcohol is worse.

ive met cops here in FL who point me out and tell me they are fighting to get it legalized and want it legalized both because they are tired of throwing people away for such a petty offence and because they simply think its wrong its illegal.

so theres definitely a stir going around the country a big fucking one

Marc Emery has been sentenced to 5 yrs for simply having SEEDS on him.

give me a break.

we need to open up a little bit or this is just going to get worse and were all going to keep sinking.

[Nevuk]

Stoner culture is weird because a lot of what people consider stoner culture has nothing to do with weed. Like I know a guy who just sits around all day tripping on cccs. It's one of the dumbest, most moronic things possible. But he'd get lumped in with stoner culture because he hangs out with stoners. Weed lowers inhibition some so it makes people do things they would be less likely to. But they still have that impulse sober.

[mattmatumbo]

Handle it the same way you handle alcohol/cigs..?

Those are legalized drugs, my proposition was decriminalization. IE: Anyone can grow it and smoke it the same as you can grow and eat tomatoes.

[i_am_sexy]

i don't know why weed is so frowned upon, perscription drugs can fuck you up twice as bad as marijuana can. and those aren't illegal.

[Jason Tate]

Different Strokes for different folks. Music and creativity are in a different part of your brain then computer coding, that's for sure,
The creativity part of your brain is definitely used during computer coding.
and certain sectors get enhanced, while others get faded. But, if you so choose to listen to some tunes after you've smoked, it's quite wonderful.
Completely disagree. Would rather be able to focus on the music and enjoy it.

I don't really think there should be laws to protect people from their own stupidity / lack of self control. That's on the individual in my opinion
When we live in a society where your stupidity can kill me - there should be a law to protect me from you being an idiot.

Idk if you've ever seen the film but you should check out the film "Super High Me", it's a pretty good movie that shows alot of facts about the world of weed in the way of films like "Bowling For Columbine".
Quick internet search points out a whole bunch of factually incorrect pieces in the film. I'd rather look at the actual numbers than watch something.

Looks like this is a pretty popular thread. You should consider changing the spelling of 'Marajuana' to Marijuana in the thread title, so it quits bugging me.
Nah.

Hey if soda, saturated fats, faulty fast food, cigarettes, and alcohol are legal.... might as well toss in the product that has no statistical deaths linked to it. Punish those who abuse and drive while on it of course, but the war against drugs is one of the most pathetic things (on a list of many) that the American government has placed on our society. It's just not fair, and I don't even smoke.
Bad logic.

in the year 2010 when weve been under control and been told were free when were not

how can anyone be upset if a plant is made legal when its been used as medicine for thousands of years?

the only reason your upset is because youve been drilled as a kid that its bad for you....but alcohol is worse.

ive met cops here in FL who point me out and tell me they are fighting to get it legalized and want it legalized both because they are tired of throwing people away for such a petty offence and because they simply think its wrong its illegal.

so theres definitely a stir going around the country a big fucking one

Marc Emery has been sentenced to 5 yrs for simply having SEEDS on him.

give me a break.

we need to open up a little bit or this is just going to get worse and were all going to keep sinking.
Worst post in this thread - and why legalization faces an uphill battle. For every intelligent debate and facts brought up -- you get 10 or 20 of these ... come on.

i don't know why weed is so frowned upon, perscription drugs can fuck you up twice as bad as marijuana can. and those aren't illegal.
They're illegal if you don't have a RX for them...

[EasySkankin]

Completely disagree. Would rather be able to focus on the music and enjoy it.
I find it sad that you haven't experienced that before. Music and drugs have such a beneficial relationship.

[Jason Tate]

I find it sad that you haven't experienced that before. Music and drugs have such a beneficial relationship.
I never said I hadn't experienced it. I said what I would rather do ... I've made it quite clear why I don't smoke in this thread - don't feel "sad" that I'm perfectly ok with my choices.

[nowFace]

I never said I hadn't experienced it. I said what I would rather do ... I've made it quite clear why I don't smoke in this thread - don't feel "sad" that I'm perfectly ok with my choices.
your a douchbag

[EasySkankin]

I never said I hadn't experienced it. I said what I would rather do ... I've made it quite clear why I don't smoke in this thread - don't feel "sad" that I'm perfectly ok with my choices.
Ok, I just didn't understand the "i'd rather focus on the music" thing. There are things that you just hear differently when you're high.

EDIT: also I find it really aggravating when you're among a group that's smoking and you don't want to smoke, and everyone calls you a "bitch" or "pussy" for it and sprends 10 minutes trying to convince you to smoke. Please quit that.

[domotime2]

your a douchbag
hahah.

[Jason Tate]

Ok, I just didn't understand the "i'd rather focus on the music" thing. There are things that you just hear differently when you're high.

EDIT: also I find it really aggravating when you're among a group that's smoking and you don't want to smoke, and everyone calls you a "bitch" or "pussy" for it. Please quit that.
And there are things that you just hear differently if you're squeezing your balls in a vice.

[Zack Haughton]

It doesn't seem like you're too willing to be convinced.

But some of these posts are atrociously stupid.

[Jason Tate]

It doesn't seem like you're too willing to be convinced.

But some of these posts are atrociously stupid.
Be convinced I should smoke weed or that it should be legal? I'm not "willing" -- I'm open. But the arguments have to be good. Not going to just agree with stupid logic ... it needs to be legit.

[Kurt Retenauer]

I live in Oregon. It's quite heavily populated with ... pot smokers ... and the legalization of weed is something that is brought up all the time. It's also one of the things I really don't care about. If it was legalized I wouldn't be upset, if it's not - I don't care either. I don't do it - so it doesn't impact me.

However ... for the sake of debate, I'm curious why it should be legalized. Why is it needed?

On a very, very, very simplified note, it would either save money or reduce the trade of other illicit drugs. The government spends so much money attempting to prevent the import of marijuana and growing of it and so forth. Therefore, legalize it, and either save the money you'd spend on trying to prevent it, or invest the money in preventing the trade/sale/production of other illicit drugs.

[Nevuk]

And there are things that you just hear differently if you're squeezing your balls in a vice.
Then your music all sounds like
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc259/Sept1979/VisualStimuli/Scavenge/circa_survive-metro_theatre.jpg

[Jason Tate]

Then your music all sounds like
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc259/Sept1979/VisualStimuli/Scavenge/circa_survive-metro_theatre.jpg
Circa Survive? Hahah. I haven ever listened to a full album by those dudes. Just not for me.

[Jason Tate]

On a very, very, very simplified note, it would either save money or reduce the trade of other illicit drugs. The government spends so much money attempting to prevent the import of marijuana and growing of it and so forth. Therefore, legalize it, and either save the money you'd spend on trying to prevent it, or invest the money in preventing the trade/sale/production of other illicit drugs.
Yep, the economic reasons are pretty legit.

[Zack Haughton]

Be convinced I should smoke weed or that it should be legal? I'm not "willing" -- I'm open. But the arguments have to be good. Not going to just agree with stupid logic ... it needs to be legit.

Convinced that it should be legalized. No one should smoke if they don't want to.

And I couldn't care less whether it's legalized or not. I just think this whole controversy is completely unnecessary.

[Jason Tate]

How to not convince me by "AbsentTruth" ... holy shit.

[Zack Haughton]

This country was founded on drugs. Many early American presidents smoked and it was illegal to not grow hemp back in the day. Alcohol is legal because while people are under the influence they are stupid and slow. Stoners have a much different perspective on life and the way things should be, drunk people just think about their next drink. God forbid people start to think for themselves. Free thinkers in today's society are now classified as mentally ill (http://nestmann.sovereignsociety.com/2010/09/16/are-independent-thinkers-mentally-ill/). I know with the people in power right now cannabis will NEVER be legal, the DEA and the federal government would never allow for that to happen. Too many industries prevail thanks to it being illegal (energy, plastics, big pharma, etc). Corporations own the government now so you can bet your ass they will do everything to keep the gravy train going. The main reason it was ever made illegal was because of racism and the emerging plastics industry of DuPont and others.

If Prop 19 passes you can bet your ass that the federal government will move to block it. Look at Arizona and SB 1070... they are SUING the state over it. State sovereignty = extinct. The Feds will sue the state of California if this passes. Freedom died a long time ago.

It is also illegal because of the prison industrial complex. They also stand to lose too much money if it's legalized. The United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world with the majority of offenders sitting in jail over drug charges. They make too much money from ruining lives over stupid shit.

People should be free to use their bodies as they please, as long as they don't bother me why should I give a shit? The war on drugs is a war on the people.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe

I fucking despise people like you.

[Nevuk]

Circa Survive? Hahah. I haven ever listened to a full album by those dudes. Just not for me.
I don't like them unless i'm high. They're very much a stoner band. And I actually almost only ever listen to live shows of theirs. If he's in a mood to hit the notes it CAN be amazing. Too bad he's not like 70% of the time. I do think On Letting Go is actually a really good album but Blue Sky Noise seems like 4 good tracks and a lot of filler.
But still, ball crushingly high vocals.

But uh... weed. Right.

[Jason Tate]

Because I happen to be informed? Go back to your mainstream media.
Just for the record ... it's people like you that keep legitimate arguments for things like decriminalization or legalization out of the ears of the mainstream. Because you make the cause look as ridiculous as hunting for unicorns. The avatar adds to the hilarity.

[Zack Haughton]

Because I happen to be informed? Go back to your mainstream media.

No, I hate you because you're pretentious and live under the illusion that you're "informed".

So, by following your ironclad logic, we should legalize slavery along with marijuana? After all, America was founded on it.

[Jason Tate]

How is that not convincing? Do the research.
Why should I do research for your rants?

[Scrandon]

How is that not convincing? Do the research.

Israel and the US government did 9/11. This ground zero mosque is used in the mainstream media to create a religious war between Christians and Muslims. There is another mosque right down the street but nobody is bitching about that one. Don't burn the Koran burn the 9/11 Commission Report!

I'm sure this is all one big conspiracy and keeping weed illegal is fundamental to the creation of the religious war, right?

[Jake Denning]

lol at this thread.

[Zack Haughton]

How is that not convincing? Do the research.

You do realize that all of the reasons you stated for why it will never be legalized are in no way detrimental to the country, right? And to go to jail for weed means you were trafficking or dealing or doing something you knew was illegal to begin with, and that you knew the repercussions of. People ruin their own lives.

I used to smoke on a daily basis, and can honestly say that it's not something I'd love to see legalized. You're more of a slave to it than you think you are.

[Jason Tate]

I'm not trying to look ridiculous I just happen to know what's going on so excuse me for giving a shit and getting my news from the alternative media. The truth will not be televised. Well informed people are what we would need in order to have a legitimate argument about it. You don't have to listen to what I have to say but at the very least look at some of Allen St. Pierre's arguments for legalization.
You don't know what is going on ... which is abundently clear from your posts. And I don't know what zine you're reading, but maybe you should link us ... let's us see. The truth will not be televised? Are we in an episode of X-Files?

The current director of NORML? Yeah, his arguments have already been discussed in this thread. At least read a thread before posting.

[Jason Tate]

Did I say all of the things that they did are morally correct? No. HELL no.

They killed off the tribes of the earth, collected slaves, and spread their mutated form of capitalism throughout the world to only benefit a few. Of course you can't trust them. It's up to people to question authority and form their own conclusions. I am just encouraging others to be their own master and live for themselves as well as the good of others.
If you believed 1/2 of this -- you wouldn't be paying for your computer or internet.

[Jason Tate]

Bad Troll. BAD.

[Zack Haughton]

Did I say all of the things that they did are morally correct? No. HELL no.

They killed off the tribes of the earth, collected slaves, and spread their mutated form of capitalism throughout the world to only benefit a few. Of course you can't trust them. It's up to people to question authority and form their own conclusions. I am just encouraging others to be their own master and live for themselves as well as the good of others.

So this voids your argument that "America was founded on it, so it has to be legal". There are plenty of things this country was founded on that no one would ever consider legalizing or doing today.

[Zack Haughton]

To be honest, it just sounds like you're an anti-establishment hippie.

[Jason Tate]

Yes, you need say more than "Operation Paperclip."

:hitself:

[Jason Tate]

I'm just saying that this information is readily available online. Ever hear of Harry Anslinger?
And if you want people to read it - you should source it in your post. Yes, he died 40 years ago. I've seen the conspiracy theories ... they're fucking stupid. You don't need to bring any of that shit up. It does nothing except hurt the underlying cause.

[Jason Tate]

Well unfortunately I'm trying to make something of myself in the world and college kind of requires a computer and the internet.
Ahh, so you sacrifice your "beliefs" for money. You're a sell out conspiracy nut. Fuck America. But ... uh ... I kinda need them.

[Zack Haughton]

I never said that all things that were initially legal still should be so please stop putting words into my mouth.

You opened your argument by saying that America was founded on drugs, and then described how. This insinuates that things the country was founded on should still be in practice today.

[Jason Tate]

Maybe I am anti-establishment. Is that really so bad?
Hypppppooorittttteeee!

[Jason Tate]

It only acts to reinforce it in my point of view. I'm done trying to lift the veil of ignorance.
This needs to be the thread title in the next gen thread.

[Scrandon]

Most people don't look at the big picture. I'd like to think I do. Of course I'm going to look like a crazy conspiracy theorist because the "big picture" has been cleverly designed to be that way. Unless you have all of the pieces of the puzzle you look like a lunatic. However the creation of a religious war is being done by those in power. If you believe that a man in a cave orchestrated the biggest attacks on this country, that is laughable. 9/11 was orchestrated by the Israel and US governments in order to expand their power and their control of the globe. They are trying to make muslims look guilty to create a religious war when they weren't even responsible. Need I say more than Operation Paperclip? The nazis used to have a program for remote controlled planes is it really that hard to believe that we may have flew planes into the towers? For the love of god, Prescott Bush funded the nazis.

Don't give them so much credit. They flew a fucking plane into a building. Doesn't require criminal masterminds.
Afghanistan has nothing to do with power, influence, or natural resources.

[Zack Haughton]

This thread has turned to poop

[SmeezyBeezy]

And there are things that you just hear differently if you're squeezing your balls in a vice.

Those probably don't sound as good..

[Jason Tate]

This thread has turned to poop
Yes it did. We avoided the exact reason I (and others) hate this topic for 15 pages. And then it fucking nose dived.

There are very good reasons for decriminalizing weed. There's some logistical stuff that needs to be worked out first. And as long as people like AbsentTruth are spouting stuff like this though ... it won't happen for a long while.

[x togepi x]

Afghanistan has nothing to do with power, influence, or natural resources.

Do you know anything about history? It was totally about power, influence and, to an extent, natural resources, since the taliban probably would have never been in power if the US hadn't funded them during the cold war.

but whatever that has nothing to do with weed. decriminalization is cool. i like not having corporations fuck up my weed.

[Jason Tate]

Those probably don't sound as good..
As I said, I don't think it sounds good high.

[Zack Haughton]

Yes it did. We avoided the exact reason I (and others) hate this topic for 15 pages. And then it fucking nose dived.

There are very good reasons for decriminalizing weed. There's some logistical stuff that needs to be worked out first. And as long as people like AbsentTruth are spouting stuff like this though ... it won't happen for a long while.

Quote for truth.

[Jason Tate]

Do you know anything about history? It was totally about power, influence and, to an extent, natural resources, since the taliban probably would have never been in power if the US hadn't funded them during the cold war.

but whatever that has nothing to do with weed. decriminalization is cool. i like not having corporations fuck up my weed.
More geography than history.

[jawstheme]

So I think marijuana should be decriminalized because the reasons for it being illegal in the first place were based on lies and exaggerations. I think the burden of proof should be turned back over to the people who want it to be illegal. And I don't think the sweeping generalization of stoner culture is a good argument against it. (trying to get back on track)

[Scrandon]

Do you know anything about history? It was totally about power, influence and, to an extent, natural resources, since the taliban probably would have never been in power if the US hadn't funded them during the cold war.

but whatever that has nothing to do with weed. decriminalization is cool. i like not having corporations fuck up my weed.

So how does invading Afghanistan give the United States more power?

[x togepi x]

More geography than history.

you could probably see it either way.

So how does invading Afghanistan give the United States more power?

because terrorism and islamic fundamentalists are threats to American power. that's simple logic. there's tons of literature on how islamic fundamentalism is the only truly global alternative to Western globalization.

[caveBEAR]

The most obvious reason we should legalize marijuana is because it used to be referred to as 'Muggles', which I'm pretty sure means that 1/5 of the Harry Potter books were about pot.

[Jason Tate]

So I think marijuana should be decriminalized because the reasons for it being illegal in the first place were based on lies and exaggerations. I think the burden of proof should be turned back over to the people who want it to be illegal. And I don't think the sweeping generalization of stoner culture is a good argument against it. (trying to get back on track)
Eh, I think the main argument is that there's already enough shit parents have to protect their kids from, there's already enough substances that are fucking with society, why open the door and take a chance? There are responsible smokers .. and we'll probably see this on a state level soon. Be interesting to see some studies after it happens.

[Scrandon]

because terrorism and islamic fundamentalists are threats to American power. that's simple logic. there's tons of literature on how islamic fundamentalism is the only truly global alternative to Western globalization.
Jesus fucking Christ. You don't jump into a conversation without reading. So fucking annoying.

According to this guy's conspiracy theory, the U.S. has motive to invade Afghanistan to obtain power, assuming terrorists didn't do anything. Now ARE YOU DONE?

[AbsentTruth]

So how does invading Afghanistan give the United States more power?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ

There are plenty of puppets in office around the world, Obama included. The Bilderberg Group, CFR, and Trilateral commission have been working towards world government for quite awhile now.

[AbsentTruth]

Do you know anything about history? It was totally about power, influence and, to an extent, natural resources, since the taliban probably would have never been in power if the US hadn't funded them during the cold war.

but whatever that has nothing to do with weed. decriminalization is cool. i like not having corporations fuck up my weed.

Thank god someone knows about this shit.