Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

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.

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)

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)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-AmesG_yo! 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)

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)

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)