I'm not totally against it. If they legalize it, so be it.

---

Once legalised, it'll be considerably more difficult to revert back. Legalisation isn't a decision to be made lightly.

My first thought reading this thread isn't "What effects do marijuana have" or anything of that sort.

My first thought is, Why do they want to legalise it? What motivations do the law makers have to do so? What incentives are gained in its legalisation? Given that it's illegal in many other countries, how does this affect imports and exports? Djcubez made a good post on the economic ramifications from a healthcare perspective, but it goes further than that.

I don't buy the excuse that it helps the economy. You do not potentially sacrifice the livelihood, the health of your citizens in order to meet budget deficits. I'd rather see good governance rather than legalising something of which we don't fully understand which may adversely affect the populace.

Why do people smoke cannabis anyway? I don't wish to sound callous, but anybody using it to feel euphoric is doing it for completely the wrong reasons. Not everyone's life is peachy but the true testament of humanity is in its ability to overcome our deficiencies in striving to be better. You don't see much of that anymore. The first sign of tough times, and people turn to drugs. Is it a natural painkiller or analgesic? People take marijuana for medicinal purposes. I am unaware of what possible purposes these may be. I can't help but feel skeptical that it's just an excuse to get high. I can't think of any problem where legalising marijuana is the solution, rather than an extensive review of predilections of the users themselves and of the law makers whose agenda it is to legalise such a drug, and to effect a change in the cultural attitude towards taking drugs and seeking temporary escapes.

I could say that it's someone else's business. But if everyone else around me are seeking artificial highs, how am I to know whether the person standing in front of me is genuine and in a right state of mind? If I'm standing next to someone at a zebra crossing how am I to know they won't come off their high and start ranting and raving in my direction? Is this even possible? I don't know. But it's not something I'd want to have to consider.

No, I think the issue goes deeper than legality. Marijuana is a reflection on conforming and existing within the society which we've built, as is the taking of many of the other illicit drugs. The problem, in my opinion, is how people approach their own lives, it doesn't particularly matter that the subject at hand is marijuana.

But I'm not a philosopher, psychologist, chemist or anything. But I just feel that the real problems aren't being addressed. It's a bandage on a septic wound. You have to treat the problem, first.

---

+1 Engineer.
You said what i couldn't seem to find the right words to say.
You NAILED it.
Good job my friend!!! :thumbright:

---

+1 Engineer.

So the crux of your argument is that because you philosophically don't think humans should be relying on euphoric substances, they should therefore be illegal? I can't buy that argument at all. As anyone who's been a member of this forum for a while will know, I don't support relying on on mind-altering substances to make one's life better; in fact, I freely ridicule people who do that, including the average student on my campus. But just because I think it's a waste of time, and even counterproductive, doesn't mean I think the government should step in and overrule people's right to choose -- any more than I think the government should abrogate people's right to choose the equally (perhaps more) foolish and harmful choice to eat fast food.

Your argument also relies on vague notions of harm that might accrue from smoking pot. The problem is there's no research to back up these claims. The major side effect of cannabis consumption is a persistent, sometimes chronic loss of motivation. Well, so what? If through their own indolence, some pot smokers miss out on some opportunities they might otherwise have seized, whose fault is that but their own? I'd argue it's actually a positive for society -- it frees up opportunity slots for those of us who are motivated.

I question how significant this claimed side effect is anyway. I know a number of regular pot smokers who are productive members of the work force in responsible positions. I think it's more related to the probability that people who are drawn to pot tend to be those who already lack motivation. As a female friend of mine who's incredibly intelligent, motivated, fit, and attractive (and also a regular user of marijuana) says, "I counter that such a side effect [the loss of motivation] is more an amplified personality trait than anything else: I tend to go on baking, cleaning, or exercise sprees when high." Precisely. Does someone get into a fight because they're drunk, or do they get drunk because they want to get into a fight? Drugs don't "make" you do anything; they just give you a convenient excuse for following through with whatever urges you might have.

For a while, it was claimed that smoking "might" increase the risk of lung cancer. That myth was shattered last month when a study was released that showed that chronic pot smokers (defined as those who'd smoked 22,000 times in a lifetime) actually had lower lung cancer rates than the general population when all relevant factors were accounted for. This study was conducted by an anti-pot crusader, by the way, who was more than a little surprised by his findings. But at the press conference, he persisted in saying, basically, "But, um, I still don't think you should smoke pot."

What distresses me so much about the American political scene is that for all their rhetoric to the contrary, conservatives these days are no more freedom loving than liberals. They just vary in which freedoms they think the government should take away. The irony, of course, is that it was progressives (the old word for "liberal") who championed the illegalization of drugs, but it's conservatives who now stand against legalization. Politics does indeed make for strange bedfellows.

Please show me a single peer-reviewed study that indicates marijuana causes substantive harm. Just one.

---

I don't profess to claim impartiality or knowledge in the matter. I'm sure you understand that it's just my opinion. Is it a shallow argument, to say that I denounce those who use it recreationally? Yes, I don't defend that. But it's my opinion that to rely on artificial stimulation is a weakness of the mind. Is it bigoted intolerance? Sure, it probably is.

But is legalisation a matter just for those who use it? No, it isn't. It affects those others around those individuals. I cannot in good conscious claim to support something that has the possibility to negatively impact my own life and those that I care about if all it takes is a vote. If I was polled, I would vote no. Why SHOULD I take the chance that it's harmless?

---

I will address your trade argument, which I think is interesting and compelling, after school today. I have to get some homework done.

---

If there is one political thinker who I think ought to be ritually burned in effigy each year, it is Jeremy Bentham. He may be more responsible than any other person for the insidious idea that the role and aptitude of government is to weigh costs and benefits. Bentham's Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation was published the same year as the US government began operations under the Madisonian Consitution.

Unfortunately, Bentham, not Madison, won. And we now live in a country that thinks nothing of the fact that the "laws" governing our conduct number in the hundreds of thousands of pages. Oh, sure, we complain about why the government does this or that thing to some of us ... and, Janus-faced, we spend even more time justifying what government should do to others of us.

And we do it all following Bentham's utiliarian guidelines. We do it in the name of "benefits" greater than "costs". We think nothing of trying to use the state to manipulate each other's conduct by "pains" and "pleasures".

And we ignore the fact that our coercion of each other lacks moral justification. No amount of blathering about "democracy" or "the social contract" or "we, the people," justifies hundreds of thousands of pages of coercion by federal, state, and local government.

At the rate of one 250-page book a day, the current Federal Register alone will take over a year to read. (And I dare anyone to try to read 250 pages of tax or environmental regulations in a day.) And that's assuming there are no changes in the meantime. And it doesn't count the statutes that "enable" all those regulations. Or state statutes and rules. Or county and municipal ordinances. Or the hundreds of volumes of court opinions that get published each year.

What enslaves us more, our addiction to "substances" that cause us pain or pleasure, or our addiction to delegating the weighing of costs and benefits to the state so that it might re-shape our pains and our pleasures?

Bah.

---

I tend to think the opposite. Outlawing actions or behavior of any kind are not decisions to be made lightly. The burden should always fall on the side of restriction, not on the side of liberty. "Why do they want to legalize it?" in my opinion, is not a relevant question. The natural order is the existence of freedom and choice. To remove that freedom, that choice, is what requires a "why?".

FYI, if you get pulled over, possession of < 1 oz. of marijuana in Massachusetts is now considered something akin to a traffic offense, with a $100 fine and nothing added to your criminal record (plus they confiscate the marijuana, obviously).

---

I would argue that those that want to smoke pot already do. And I doubt that upon legalization the percentage of people that roam the streets high as a kite would increase significantly.

The medical argument I believe is bullshit to a point. It's a smoke-screen for getting around the law, just how religion can bypass federal law because of the "freedom of religion" amendment (See: Rastafarian). But marijuana does lend in a hand in increasing appetite and decreasing nausea. I also think that people believe marijuana is a painkiller because instead of actually reducing pain the "patient's" mind is distracted from the pain they should be feeling because of the euphoria. Marijuana is not going to cure anything, although it may make people in pain happier.

I also believe in America and the freedom of choice. Masspackerfan said it best:

What is the resounding why for making weed illegal? In the past it was made illegal due to prejudice, bigotry, propaganda, and false information. After years of research, none of the reasons the government stated for making pot illegal have stood up.



How would we be sacrificing the livelihood and health of the citizens? If we lived by your statement wouldn't menu items like French Fries be illegal? There is not one healthy ingredient in that product. Shouldn't alcohol be illegal? There are no benefits to drinking, only consequences. If we're so concerned about the health of our citizens, why does it cost so damn much to go to the hospital or the doctor? Where's the free health care?

We live in a country and culture that prescribes freedom. We have the right to choose what substances we ingest. Basically, we have the right to choose how we want to kill ourselves or deteriorate our bodies. I'm in total agreement with you on the fact that others decisions may negatively effect your life and I don't agree with it. I live my life by the golden rule; "treat people how you want to be treated." However life has it's assholes and they will effect your life no matter what you do about it.