Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Yes

Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. Czolgolz 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

Middle Man

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands. If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[1]. --Eyupdutch 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a buzz) and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. Flippin 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--Smedricksman24 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --Sulgran 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.


Totally! Not only for medical reasons...people will stop drinking and driving and move onto smoking and flying...one other thing though: What about the smoking ban, I mean, will people be able to smoke in public places or will there be special areas in cities, or will we have the same rules that we do about smoking cigarettes. Also, one question, does the smoking ban include cigars 'cos they are P.I.M.P whereas cigarettes are rather townie. Just a wondering :) [User:bealecr] 15:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

It should be legalized, because it's none of the government's damn business what I do on my own property so long as it stays on my own property, and does not make me violent or suicidal or such.... That differentiates marijuana from cocaine, heroin, opium, pcp, lsd, even perscription drugs of abuse.... Plus, if it's legal it can be regulated more effectively - people smoke pot now and they go to drug dealers to get it, dealers who also want to sell them more dangerous drugs.... but if it is legal, people will go to the corner drugstore to get it from someone who won't even sell cigarettes to a 17-yr old. So I say make it legal for persons over 21 to buy, and if a handful do irresponsible things because of it, punish those irresponsible things, not all of society!! Pandeism 23:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

By outlawing drugs, we have effectively turned over a huge section of the economy to criminals. Because they operate outside effective regulation, they pursue unethical marketing practices that are not allowed by legitimate businesses. They operate a multi-level marketing system where new users are recruited through free samples and peer pressure, and the victims can be any age. Once regular users, the victims then have an incentive to recruit other victims to pay for their habit. When new drugs arrive they use the distribution systems which are already set up, which is why cocaine penetrated the US market so quickly in the 1980s. The result is that outlawing drugs leads to higher usage. That is why the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have higher rates of drug use and addiction than the Netherlands.

In addition to the damage that drugs cause, the activities of drug dealers have created an even greater crime problem as they battle for control of this profitable business. And of course many drug users turn to crime to support their habits.

Furthermore, it is a huge waste that the United States keeps one percent of its population in prison, mostly for drug-related offences, let alone the huge financial costs of law enforcement.

All of these are the unintended consequences of the failed War on Drugs.

Unfortunately it is easier to follow perceived common sense than to accept the evidence. Drugs are banned because they are harmful, but the ban is not working, merely making a bad situation worse. --The Four Deuces 21:36, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Yup IMO ,hey btw DrDaniel

yes, the cannabis trade is thriving, even if its not legal, and if the goverment tapped it, we could make massive amounts of money through taxation and regulation. Pot is also a fairly harmless drug if used responsibly. Sure its a danger if you get behind the wheel, but so it talking on your cell phone, eating and drinking, or many legal drugs like antihistamines and cough medicine. It is also literally impossible to OD on (unless you have 100% pure THC delivered at a high volume through an IV) nad has few negative health effects if used through a vaporizer or eaten. Sure there are people who smoke massive amounts of it, but the same is true with many legal substances. Besides that, hemp is an enomrmously useful plant--BenBr 20:58, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Speaking from an economic stand point yes. And here's how you do it. You leagalize not just mary jane, but most, or all drugs. You then take it and tax the holy hell out of it. you can even raise the prices depending on the toxicity of the drug. This is something that will actually raise revenue, unlike everything else the government does to try and make money. Because lets face it, the government is just as bad as the people who pay off credit cards with credit cards. I would not be surprised to hear "I didn't know what to do with the money, so I ate it" from the treasury. mattfelton

No

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. JoshuaZ 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Long-term effects on the brain? OH, you must mean Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol's neuroprotective and antioxidant properties. [2]
It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. Middle Man

If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. JoshuaZ 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
It's actually a lot harder for me to get alcohol than it is to get marijuana. I can't find anyone who will buy me alcohol ever whereas all the dealers that live by me are some of the "friendliest" people I know. Rotskep 20:47, 12 November 2008 (CDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-AmesGyo! 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cigarettes are patriotic, because they have a rich history in America and the government approves of them. Marijuana is unpatriotic and evil, because the money goes to terrorists and, even worse, Illegal Immigrant aliens. --Cranky Joe 23:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Though I suspect you are trolling by saying illegal aliens are worse than terrorists, you have to realize that most marijuana smoked in America is grown in America. Who would buy from a drug lord in Columbia when you can buy from Joe Schmoe down the road who grew it in his own home? (Pebusman 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
Wait, are you serious Joe? I don't mean to bash on what you believe, but I find that to be a tad...."silly". thegovernator

Cigarettes are the result of slave labor and 400,000 American's deaths each year. Marijuana is one of the ingredients of Christ's anointing oil, know in the bible as kaneh bosm. Marijuana has also resulted in zero deaths from OD or even cancer, look it up if you don't believe me, the truth is out there.Independentthinker 14:15, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug. If it were legalized, there would be awful consequences. HClinton 20:24, 9 November 2007 (EST)

you mean more personal freedom and less people getting criminal records for being in possession of a dried up flower? (Pebusman 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))

I'm a noob at this editing thing so please go easy on me. NO, marijuana should not be legalized just as I believe alcohol shouldn't being legal either. But, our government has too much to gain from the legalization of alcohol and as a result it will never become illegal. I'm well aware they tried it once before during the Prohibition and it simply didn't work. Marijuana is another drug just like alcohol and will only add to the many problems we already see in our society as a result of alcohol related injuries, deaths, illnesses, and public intoxication. Why add fuel to the fire? I believe too many people are already addicted to alcohol because it is so easily accessible to the general populace. I know of at least a handful of people that are alcoholics by definition. Should marijuana become legal we will only see more addictions and ultimately more problems associated with it. Last but not least, I don't want my tax dollars supporting yet another unnecessary item should marijuana become legal, not to mention the medical costs associated with it. Federal funding of abortion and the NEA are already more than I can stand to waste my tax dollars on. --Watchman 23:07, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Think about how much tax money is spent on the war on drugs, and then think about how much money the government could make off taxing marijuana, Marijuana is a multi billion dollar industry. (Pebusman 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))

No. We don't need our government telling our children that its alright to burn your brain and body. WilliamH 00:09, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

We don't need our government telling us what we can and can't put into our own bodies.(Pebusman 00:24, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
Why not? Philip J. Rayment 06:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
May 25, 1981, 13 sailors were killed on the flight deck of USS Nimitz, prompting the Navy to institute a "zero tolerance" policy regarding illegal drug use. Were drugs used indicriminantly by several of those sailors? Yes. Was marijunana used? Possibly. The point, Pebusman, is you might as well hang up getting your pro-joint views accepted here. It's not going to sit well with me at all. Karajou 06:52, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
I am zero-tolerant to narcotics abuse, and double-zero-tolerant (its not a real word, I just made it up, but you get the point) to narcotics abuse in the Armed Forces. In my own service, I saw too many accidents caused by illicit drug use, including several fatal ones. A few years back, one of a pair of sentries accidentally shot his buddy through the abdomen at "point blank" range with a 9mm Sterling submachine gun. Although the victim survived and eventually recovered (physically - the mental trauma remained with him for a long time afterwards, and I once came across him sobbing in the washrooms with fear just before he pulled another sentry duty) the "shooter" - an otherwise great guy, well-liked, due to be married tested positive for cannabis. While on subsequent leave under investigation, he drove his car head-on into a wall in an act of apparent suicide. A sad end to a young life. Many lives were affected by that instance of someone smoking a joint when they shouldn't have. As for the Nimitz incident, I think it should also be pointed out that, while some deck crew members tested positive for cannabis, it is widely held that it was pilot error which caused the incident. The illicit drug use was uncovered as a result of the crash. Just to clarify. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 13:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Those are both sad stories but those are both problems that the navy/armed forces/what ever need to deal with on their own. As for ordinary citizens, the government should have absolutely no right to tell us what we can or can not put in to our bodies so long as we don't hurt anyone else. Innocent pedestrians and other drivers get killed every year as a result of drinking and driving, why don't we make that illegal? Rotskep 21:07, 11 November 2008 (CDT)


Yes

I think it should be legalized for a few reasons. Just watch the film: Traffic.

^ Agreed. Here are some more ideas (An Amber Rant): And the "essay" below that someone wrote is not even concise at all. It's a five page paragraph with BROAD GENERALIZATIONS. I talk about amendments for evidence. You can't get cooler than that.

Speech, religion, search, and seizure are rights under the Bill of Rights that the government cannot meddle with. When America became independent, the society preserved the rights of the individual. After all, the Preamble begins with “We, the people.” The amendments of the Constitution, focusing on the individual, didn’t put restrictions on what people can do; restrictions were put on what the government can do. However, marijuana prohibition has put restrictions on people’s ‘inappropriate lifestyles.’

Marijuana prohibition essentially violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. The First Amendment prevents the government from making any laws about religion, speech, press, or assembly. Marijuana has been used for religious purposes. Hindi and Buddhist tribal celebrations use marijuana sacramentally. The Rastafarians obtained a court ruling that gave them the right to do marijuana during their ceremonies in 1996. However, their right was eventually taken away from them under “drug kingpins.” Hindu men drink bhang, a cannabis-infusion, to build a stronger connection with Shiva, their Godly figure. The First Amendment also gives people freedom of speech. However, the FBI and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) use selective arrest and prosecution to pro-marijuana advocates. The government has been violating Americans’ free speech and religious freedom when it comes to prohibiting marijuana.

The Fourth Amendments gives Americans privacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the police have been known for searching people’s cars and houses if they were even a tiny bit suspicious because of the well-known stereotypes today. Just because a policeman thinks someone looks like they smoke copious amounts of marijuana doesn’t mean that they have the right to unreasonably pull them over and check inside their car.

The Fifth Amendment gives citizens rights if they have been accused of crime and also restricts the government from taking away property without “due process of law.” The Supreme Court has decided that random drug testing is acceptable, which is unconstitutional. The Constitution enforces immunity. State and federal governments have prosecuted drug crimes, which is unconstitutional, because the crime was punished more than once.


The Sixth Amendment gives citizens the right to “speedy public trials.” There have been several court cases that haven’t followed the Constitution. Bryan Epis provided medical marijuana and was offered a plea-bargain for four and a half years. He didn’t accept the bargain and was sentenced to ten years in prison. The Symbionese Liberation Army, on the other hand, admitted they were guilty for the murder of a bank costumer and were sentenced for less than eight years. The court also ruled that defendants do not have the right to mention “medical necessity.” Keith Alden, like Epis, provided medical marijuana and was forced in court. However, Judge Martin Jenkins didn’t mention medicine, illness, medical-marijuana, or California’s medical-marijuana proposition in the court proceedings. Courts take absolutely nothing in consideration when someone is accused of drug crime and make decisions that are unconstitutional according to the Sixth Amendment.

The Seventh Amendment grants citizens the right to “trial by jury.” Marijuana defendants are subject to this right, obviously. However, the court threats marijuana defendants if they plea to the charge. Judges and district attorneys loathe jury trials and manipulate people to give up their constitutional rights, which is a crime in and of itself.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits “excessive bail, fines, and punishments.” People have been sent to jail for a plethora of years, without the possibility of parole, for having a joint. Homes and properties have been seized for growing the plant. That is obviously violating the Eighth Amendment. Murders and rapists rarely get prison for life without parole (LWOP), but marijuana entrepreneurs almost always get LWOP. Prison for life for growing marijuana clearly violates the Constitution and is also violating human rights.

The Ninth Amendment reserves rights to Americans that are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution gives citizens certain rights but does not mean that citizens are limited to those rights. When the Bill of Rights was written, drug rights were not being threatened, so naturally the authors didn’t include the right to get high or do drugs. In 1798, anyone could grow or buy marijuana without being penalized. In 1937, the feds started to tax marijuana because making marijuana illegal would be unconstitutional, and taxation meant control. In 1967, it was criminalized unconstitutionally.

The Tenth Amendment says that any legal powers not granted by the Constitution to the federal government that are not prohibited by the state governments are reserved to the people and the states representing the people. California passed Proposition 215 that allowed medical-marijuana, but the federal government has meddled with California’s internal affairs, which is against the Tenth Amendment. “The federal government, which was supposed to have specifically limited powers, has now become so powerful that it leads to world in prisons, sting operations, secret police, paid informants, aerial surveillance, wiretaps, urine testing, searches, and seizures” (Rosenthal 11).

Prohibiting Marijuana doesn’t only affect citizens’ individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but the economy that the citizens’ live in continually declines. By prohibiting marijuana, taxpayers are being cost billions each year in enforcement costs. The economy is also losing money in profits and wages. Marijuana has helped save economically declining areas, like Humboldt County, California. It was California’s most prosperous areas in the 1980’s as land values kept raising because the marijuana’s growers’ spending was supporting other county businesses. When the government formed stricter laws against marijuana, the county began to decline like it was in the 1960’s.

By legalizing marijuana, tax payers could have a new tax revenue steam. “Based on experiences with vice taxes on cigarettes, liquor, and other substances, the federal excise and manufacturing taxes, licenses, and fees could generate about $7 billion a year in revenue for the government including state licenses, taxes, and fees, and these are just directed revenues directed by regulation. Indirect revenues from taxes generated on sales of paraphernalia, from recreational establishments, and from new industries would increase the government’s revenue steam considerably” (Rosenthal 26).

Who wouldn’t want to be a domestic farmer if marijuana farming is 20% of the total farm income? The value of the marijuana crop is about $15 billion to $20 billion each year. Large farms have recently been enclosing, so more farmers should look into selling marijuana because they wouldn’t lose their jobs. Having a marijuana garden of less than 100 feet can earn someone roughly $30,000-$50,000 a year. “‘A few marijuana plants can double my income and increase my net several times,’ said a Wisconsin farmer” (Rosenthal 27). Allowing marijuana farms would save small farms and give people better paying jobs.

Cannabis hemp, the non-psychoactive variety of the plant, is prohibited in order to sustain the marijuana laws. Hemp is consisted of the longest fiber in the plant species and is extremely strong and durable. It could be used for insulations, textiles, clothing, and rope. The fiber and pulp can also produce non-deteriorating paper. The United States is the only industry that prohibits industrial hemp. Yearly, the United States spends $10 billion to $15 billion a year on industrial hemp products. If the United States, however, legalized industrial hemp, we’d be an exporter of the product; not an importer, which would ultimately give us money instead of us wasting copious amounts. After all, George Washington once said “Make the most of the hemp seed. Sow it everywhere.”

The United States hasn’t bee using their money wisely. In 1999, the federal state spent $7.7 billion on sustaining marijuana laws. This money could have been used on more reasonable things, like crimes and terrorism.

It even costs a lot of money to put marijuana users in jail. The Marijuana Policy Project in 1999 determined that “At an average cost per prisoner per year of more than 20,000, the total cost to tax payers of marijuana-related incarceration reaches more than $1.2 billion per year. (This does not include cost of investigating, arresting, and prosecuting the hundreds of thousands of marijuana users arrested every year).” It can cost as high as $450,000 to arrest, prosecute, and jail a one sole drug dealer. Carl Hiassen, a former drug-crime reporter for the Miami Herald, summed it up and said “If you squeeze a balloon in one place, it will pop out somewhere else. Pot’s popularity will not go away … I don’t think it can be controlled … It’s no longer a law enforcement issue; it’s an economic issue.”

No

I wrote a 5 page debate for this in health class. Here it is:

Marijuana is a dangerous illegal drug that comes from the Indian hemp plant Cannabis. It is the most widely used of all illicit drugs, giving off the false guise that it is not as dangerous as it truly is. It contains over 420 different chemicals, including d-alpha-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). As with other mood-altering drugs, marijuana raises the levels of dopamine in the brain. After the drug’s effects wear off, the user is left craving more. In the year 1999 alone, over 200,000 Americans entered substance abuse treatment with marijuana as their primary drug. If legalization occurred, the number of users would grow exponentially, and we, as future taxpayers, would be forced to support their immoral habits. Along with mental addiction, marijuana has many adverse effects including: hallucinations, paranoia, impaired short-term memory and reaction time, difficulty with concentration and coordination, loss of motivation, risk of infertility, coughing, heart and lung damage, increased risk of lung cancer, and a weakened immune system just to name a few. It is the job of the US government to protect its citizens from harm, legalizing marijuana would do the exact opposite. I already know what one of your major arguments is going to be: marijuana should be legal because alcohol and tobacco are legal and they cause many more deaths. However, there are some serious flaws in this argument. For one, because marijuana is illegal, it has been much more difficult for scientists to conduct research on the long-term effects of using the drug- while they have been doing controlled studies on alcohol and tobacco for decades. The facts are that marijuana is a stimulant, depressant, and hallucinogen- so it exhibits similar traits to both of these substances and many others. Tobacco, as we know, is one of the major causes for lung cancer is the US. Marijuana contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than cigarettes, along with the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and for longer than cigarette smokers. Marijuana increases the heart rate of the user by 20-100 percent and it is 4.8 times more likely that the user will have a heart attack in the first hour after smoking. As a hallucinogen and depressant, marijuana is extremely dangerous for drivers. Marijuana impairs judgment, interferes with depth perception, and slows reflexes. Also, while alcohol and its effects are usually eradicated relatively quickly, marijuana can have effects on the user for days after using and can be detected in their system after up to 90 days. Now, think about it, if marijuana were made legal, people in public transportation, such as school bus drivers, would be able to get high on weekends, and then drive the American youth in the week. That’s not a risk I think any of us are willing to take. Yes, tobacco and alcohol are legal, but the US government is doing everything in their power to inform their citizens not to use these drugs. You can’t watch TV for a half hour without seeing a commercial about the harmful effects of cigarettes or the .08 BAC for alcohol. However, the government trying to illegalize these substances would result in a giant fiasco for it is much harder to take something away from the population that they’ve had forever, than it would be to keep prohibition (which is what the US government is successfully doing with marijuana at the present. In addition to the harmful effects of marijuana alone, it is commonly mixed with other drugs and substances which increase the risks exponentially. It is a gateway drug that increases the users risk to move onto even worse drugs. An individual who uses marijuana is 17 times more likely to use cocaine than someone who has never used marijuana. In Holland, where, as most of you know, marijuana is legal, the drug problem has grown substantially. Not only is there the expected increase in marijuana users since the drug is legal, but heroin addiction levels have tripled as well. The European drug model is not successful and not the way the US should go. So wouldn’t this allow us to infer that legalizing marijuana would only increase the war on drugs, except against different drugs? Now is the issue of medical marijuana, of which I am sure you will try to praise for its numerous health benefits and how it is a medical panacea. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine conducted a study to assess these so called healthful benefits. They concluded that smoked marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications that are currently available. Marijuana weakens the immune system, so giving it to patients with HIV/ AIDS and compromised immune systems would actually speed the progression of the disease. Recent studies by the Mayo Clinic show that THC is actually less effective than standard treatments in helping patients regain lost appetites. Besides all the proven information that THC is not the most effective way to treat many diseases, a synthetic version of the drug, Marinol already exists. Medical marijuana already exists in a pill form and has been legal since 1985. It is much more effective than smoked marijuana at treating nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite; even though there are other effective medications to treat all three of these. So doesn’t it seem a little strange that people are still pushing so hard for the legalization of medical marijuana even though it already exists. Clearly it is just a guise to legalize all forms of marijuana for recreational use. Legalization activists have turned the argument from decriminalization to a way to help those with incurable diseases. Really?! The argument for medical marijuana is a load of crap, developed by the extreme narcissists who plague this country and only care about their own bodily pleasures, rather than the good of the nation as a whole. Contrary to popular belief, marijuana use is not as widespread as many activists would like you to believe. Only 1 in 7 10th graders are current marijuana users and that number has been dropping steadily. Legalizing marijuana would send a bad message to most high-schoolers: If the government thinks it should be legal, than it clearly cannot be doing too much harm to me. Drugs users and addicts, especially young users would shoot up. The argument of free will is wholly wrong here as well. Marijuana is addictive. Addictions cause the user to develop a mental craving and need for the drug. They no longer have the free will to make that choice as their body needs the drug. The War on Drugs has been an ongoing battle against harmful illicit drugs for decades now. Many men have lost their lives fighting to protect others for what they believed in. Legalizing marijuana would mean they would have died in vain. Yes, billions of dollars have been spent, but the results shouldn’t be measured by money spent but rather the thousands of American Youth who have been saved from the horrors of drugs. The war on drugs is an ongoing struggle that will never be completely 100% solved. However, just like any other social issue, the struggle should not be abandoned. We wouldn’t ever give up on reducing poverty or increasing education just because we have eliminated all of the problems. It simply isn’t plausible. The majority of drug users seek treatment, not ending up in jail. Only 5 percent of inmates in federal prisons are there simply for possession. Crime rates would actually increase and jails would fill more if marijuana was legalized. This is because crime and drug use go hand-in-hand and with US government regulation and taxation, marijuana prices would increase. Also six times more homicides are committed by people under the influence. While possession charges for marijuana would be gone, the influx of new users would cause more violence related charges.

You can try to refute this but I am sure that my position is correct.

No

If marijuana was to be legalized, there would be a rise in arrests in public intoxication, and, when the human body becomes intoxicated, the mind is more prone to violence, whether it be animal cruelty or domestic violence. Narcotics have also been known to cause mental imparement, such as memory loss or slurred speech. What is stopping them from running over little Jimmy who is walking across the street to the school bus. Heck, little Jimmy might be the drug user someday!

Think about this and you'll see my point.

Comments

But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK

Banning a product does make it go away—most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be some around, but surely some is better than a lot? I mean, you might as well "regulate" rather than "ban" things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently wrong.
Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And "regulation" also means "banning" in limited ways. For example, if you "regulate" it, you probably still ban it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.
Philip J. Rayment 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Please do not compare marijuana to things like assault, robbey, arson, etc. Those things do harm to other people, whereas smoking marijuana harms only the user. I for one believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as no unconsenting party is hurt in the process. Legalize it for use in private residencies, but throw people caught using it in public in the drunk tank for a while. And banning things, at least in marijuana's case, does NOT make it go away, it was named the country's #1 cash crop, take a look: [[3]] (Pebusman 00:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
Why the distinction between "other people" and "the user"? In both cases harm is being done. Okay, so you "believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as no unconsenting party is hurt in the process". I don't believe that. Why is your belief correct and mine not? Of course, this is ignoring that marijuana does harm others. First, somebody under the influence could lose control (e.g. while driving) and harm someone else. Second, a person harming himself causes distress for those that care for them. Philip J. Rayment 06:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on The U.S. Prohibition Act, in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning may, in theory cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -Simple 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said "given suitable enforcement". One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it did make it go away (for the most part)! Philip J. Rayment 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the theory that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -Simple 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that causing a subset of the American population to suffer thusly, all the while funding organized crime, could possibly be a good thing. If you look closely, you can see that this situation resembles the modern marijuana situation significantly. -Simple 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007


The U.S. Government didn't repeal Prohibition; it was the people, via a referendum (okay, there would have been an associated act involved). But by your logic, (a) why would the people have voted for prohibition in the first place, if it was so bad, given that quite a few states already had it (i.e. the "experiment" was already tried) before it went national, and (b), why did the people vote for a pro-prohibition presidential candidate after it came in, if it was so bad?
The answer, as I understand it, is that powerful media groups (i.e. newspapers; there was no TV then) (perhaps they were liberal?) campaigned for an end to prohibition because the media owners wanted to ease their tax burden by creating another source of revenue for the government, by taxing alcohol. Their propaganda campaign of disinformation was so successful that to this day most people think that prohibition was a failure.
I was also citing U.S. history, so we are on an equal footing there. I understand that it did work—the theory did "hold water" when applied.
Yes, alcohol was still available (one of the flaws of the legislation was to ban the sale of it, not the manufacture of it!), and the desperate alcoholics could still get it. But most people—they had voted for it, remember—weren't that desperate, and most simply gave it up, so the use of alcohol dropped to a tiny fraction of what it had been. The relatively small amount of bootlegged grog of dubious "quality" was far outweighed by the vast majority no longer imbibing this poisonous depressant drug.
Yes, it does have similarities with the modern situation with marijuana. Which is one reason why marijuana should stay banned.
Philip J. Rayment 11:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
At this point, our disagreement seems to be largely a debate on whether or not the history we have been taught is accurate. I am no historian, and cannot argue on this level. That said, I offer a different point: assuming that you are accurate in saying that substance banning is mostly effective, and is good for most people, we have still confessed that it is an imperfect and expensive solution. What I suggest is that there may well be a more effective alternative: education. Translating "given suitable enforcement" to "given suitable funding", my experiences lead me to believe that properly educating kids to the pitfalls of substance abuse (and by educating I don't mean 'Marijuana is bad, okay?') we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. -Simple 11:33 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
I agree with the education angle, but educating people that it's bad, and legalising it, sends contradictory messages. Both education and banning are needed. Philip J. Rayment 11:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Philip - using that logic, presumably you'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned then? As far as I can see from the evidence, the harm caused by these substances is, if anything, more than the harm caused by marijuana. And yet we deal with the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco by educating people into knowledge of their harmful effects, and acknowledging that (with alcohol at any rate) there are positive benefits to be gained from a moderate and rational use of it.--Britinme 12:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned. The only qualifier I'd put on that is that politically, you would not get away with banning alcohol at present, and perhaps not tobacco yet, although we are probably getting close to that (in Australia at least). To put it another way, banning them might be a slow process of erosion of availability and education before the actual banning, but banning them ought to be the goal.
I'm not convinced of many of the claims that there are benefits from using moderate amounts of alcohol, for three reasons:
  • Reported studies (in newspapers) claiming to show benefits from drinking wine fail to mention whether the benefit would still be achieved by drinking non-alcoholic wine. That is, is the benefit in the alcohol, or something else in the drink?
  • Apparently at least some studies claiming to show benefit from drinking wine were done by comparing the health of drinker with non-drinkers, and the latter groups frequently include people who used to drink heavily, but have become teetotallers because of how it was affecting their health.
  • Reported studies usually fail to mention whether the benefits outweigh the problems. Alcohol is both a dependence-forming drug and a depressant (unlike caffeine, for example which although mildly dependence-forming is a stimulant), which is a dangerous combination, and also makes the drinker thirsty! How much more diabolical can it get? More, actually, because it's also poisonous! (The Woman's Christian Temperance Union here in Victoria buys (or used to buy) pure alcohol to use in education programs, and were restricted to buying small quantities per year because of its classification as a poison. Yet it is freely available mixed into drinks!!) So are the reported benefits so great that it's worth putting up with all the problems?
With regards to tobacco, I probably don't need to explain the problems with that, except to point out acceptance of tobacco 40 years ago was at similar levels to acceptance of alcohol today, in my opinion.
Philip J. Rayment 13:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Marijuana is more dangerous due to physcodelic effects Eljawa 10:24, 27 July 2007 (EDT) You mean psychedelic? Can you explian how this makes it dangerous?

All I can say about marijuana is this... may God have mercy upon the person that I catch ever trying to sell marijuana to my kids. --Watchman 22:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

This is more of a control issue verses if it is bad or good. The war on drugs first started as a discimination practice against the Mexicans. When you live in a FREE country you should be able to do what you want in your own home. We are not talking about getting high and going to work. Alcohol and tobacco is not done there either. Just in the privacy of your home. Smoking is already banned in California if you live in an apartment. If you pay rent I still consider this to be your home. Do you think people actually stopped? You should arrest those criminals? And if you want to ban mind altering substance, kiss cheese good bye because it acts like morphine on the brain. Lets decriminalize instead of legalizing and leave the Government out of it. They control enough already. It is all about control and nothing to do with the substance. After all it is a natural product and not a man made concotion. Other drugs will crop up in its place if it is too scarce. Why do you think Meth came around? Proper law enforcement should be substituted with education on the effects. Education not propoganda. I did read where there is one entire northern Califorian county that exclusively relies on Marijuana for its economy.

"Lets decriminalize instead of legalizing." I know somebody who is always telling me we should decriminalize marijuana, but she has thus far been unable to effectively articulate what the heck the difference between decriminalization and legalization. Can you help me out? --Ben Talk 15:26, 5 December 2009 (EST)

If you legalize it, you can tax and regulate it. Decrimimalization is while it is still illegal, therefore can't be regulated and taxed, the crime carries no penalty.

Ah, okay. Honestly, that doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Assuming that the government has, at any time, the authority to legalize, tax, and regulate the stuff anyway, why not just legalize, and NOT tax or regulate. That way those people who obey the law as a matter of conscience aren't disadvantaged. --Ben Talk 15:58, 5 December 2009 (EST)

The people I know that smoked the most weed were also total losers. is there perhaps a causal link? don't know what legalising it would do though. Cmurphynz 07:22, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

Personal tools