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.

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

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)

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)

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: [[2]] (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)