Can anyone argue *against* the legalization of marijuana?

[Lord_Ashtar]

I would just like to point out, for the record, that I said I had arguments against it. I never said they were strong, nor did I say they were logical.

[Lord_Ashtar]

*Originally posted by andros *
**

I’d be very surprised if you have any evidence for that. **

I’m sure he’s got plenty of field research to support that claim.

[Blalron]

Doesn’t frequent use of pot damage the short term memory parts of the brain? That could be an argument against legalization.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by Blalron *
**Doesn’t frequent use of pot damage the short term memory parts of the brain? That could be an argument against legalization. **

except for the fact that alcohol damages the liver and brain, yet we seem to be fine with that.

[Ned]

I’d be very surprised if you have any evidence for that.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1775.html

A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia analyzed blood samples from 2,500 accidents, and found that drivers with cannabis in their system were actually slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without.

Safer is probably an overstatement but there is little evidence to suggest that marijuana presents a significant risk on the roads in real life. Performance is impaired in a controlled test environment but in the real world drivers adjust their driving, as they would for any number of other factors which can result in lower than peak performance, by being more careful.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by Blalron *
**Doesn’t frequent use of pot damage the short term memory parts of the brain? That could be an argument against legalization. **

except for the fact that alcohol damages the liver and brain, yet we seem to be fine with that.

[Mangetout]

I think that things are quite bad enough already with people drinking alcohol then driving, or destroying property and causing nuisance; why should we be looking to add another legal intoxicant?

I’m not rabidly anti-alcohol, but I dislike the adverse effects it can have on third parties; we’re pretty much stuck with this though and I see no reason to build on the problem.

[Colinito67]

I’m not going to reply case-by-case on this one, but rather
deal with some sentiments I’ve picked up on this thread.

1. Medicinal Use. Although I am in favor of legalization, I am far more concerned with the medicinal use thing (and the hemp environmental thing, which no one has mentioned). It is not only a painkiller. It eases nausea, which helps with chemo patients, it is great at building appetite (which helps AIDS patients to name one), it eases the pressure around the eye (for glaucoma patients and even for everyday use- when I read a lot in one day and my eyes start to hurt, the pain goes away soon after I smoke), it has been proven to help with MSDS, alleviate menstrual pains, etc. (cite: Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine)

   Furthermore smoking marijuana for medicinal use has been found to be much more beneficial than other ways of ingesting it. Marinol, the THC pill, pretty much sucks medicinally. Eating it (in brownies or something) is much better, but it is hard to dose correctly in that method. The best way is smoking it. You can dose yourself appropriately and feel the effects within seconds. As far as other drugs alleviating the same problems- there are a lot of people who are very hesitant to take all these pharmies. All these side effects, drug interaction warnings, etc. etc. Despite the fact that there may be pharmecutical alternatives, marijuana, I believe, should be available for those who want to treat themselves naturally.

2. The environment. If you ever owned a Cypress Hill CD, you have probably heard these facts before, but hemp is somewhat of a wonder-product industrially. Hemp seed is high in Omega fatty acids, which are great for you, as well as being high in protein and other nutrients. Hemp is much more easily renewable than trees for paper goods, and produces quality paper goods. It is possible a fuel can be derived from hemp seed oil, which may be a renewable alternative to gasoline. Hemp can make durable clothing, shoes, rope, jewelry, etc., and this is important because hemp (as a weed) grows very easily and plentifully. Much easier to take care of than cotton, for example. Hemp is very regulated under our current laws, and further laws have been taken to diminish the hemp market in the US, despite its environmental properties.

3. I heard some people comment about the loss of jobs. This is by far the worst argument I’ve heard on the topic. What about the millions of people who are stuck in prisons because they got busted with weed? The US has either the highest or second highest incarceration rate in the world. It is a prison state. (I think there are 25 million prisoners in the US). More than half of the prisoners are non-violent drug offenders. What about them? Should they rot in prison because “we don’t need another ‘alcohol’ on the market” or "what about the jobs of drug warriors?’ Shit, put those people to work on productive, positive issues. God knows there are plenty of issues that need a lot of man power right now.

As for THC and brain damage- the human brain actually has THC receptors (I read this in a newspaper a few years ago- breaking news then). The brain can process THC. Unlike MDA, unlike cocaine, unlike alcohol, etc. Marijuana does effect short-term memory. Marijuana does effect motivation. Whoopdi-fucking do. In 1975 (or so), the US government commissioned a study of long term effects of marijuana smoke in Jamaica (among heavy lifetime smokers). The study, in the end, advocated legalization, finding no drastic long term effects.

So, is that why millions of people are in prison for it?

As for driving, simply from personal experience I’ve found that driving is not hindered too much by marijuana. If it were legalized, I think it should be illegal to drive high, but it is not nearly as bad as driving drunk, which I also do from time to time. On road trips, I am always high when I’m driving. I’ve never gotten into an accident on the highway. Not conclusive evidence, but, in my mind, important personal experience.

All this talk is making me hungry, as in
“my belly full but me hungry”

colin

[CaelNCSU]

This about sums it up to the max:

But we do know this, and I approach the nexus of my inquiry, which is that more people die every year as a result of the war against drugs than die from what we call, generically, overdosing. These fatalities include, perhaps most prominently, drug merchants who compete for commercial territory, but include also people who are robbed and killed by those desperate for money to buy the drug to which they have become addicted.

This is perhaps the moment to note that the pharmaceutical cost of cocaine and heroin is approximately 2 per cent of the street price of those drugs. Since a cocaine addict can spend as much as $1,000 per week to sustain his habit, he would need to come up with that $1,000. The approximate fencing cost of stolen goods is 80 per cent, so that to come up with $1,000 can require stealing $5,000 worth of jewels, cars, whatever. We can see that at free-market rates, $20 per week would provide the addict with the cocaine which, in this wartime drug situation, requires of him $1,000.

My mind turned, then, to auxiliary expenses – auxiliary pains, if you wish. The crime rate, whatever one made of its modest curtsy last year toward diminution, continues its secular rise. Serious crime is 480 per cent higher than in 1965. The correlation is not absolute, but it is suggestive: crime is reduced by the number of available enforcers of law and order, namely policemen. The heralded new crime legislation, passed last year and acclaimed by President Clinton, provides for 100,000 extra policemen, even if only for a limited amount of time. But 400,000 policemen would be freed to pursue criminals engaged in activity other than the sale and distribution of drugs if such sale and distribution, at a price at which there was no profit, were to be done by, say, a federal drugstore.

So then we attempt to put a value on the goods stolen by addicts. The figure arrived at by Professor Duke is $10 billion. But we need to add to this pain of stolen property, surely, the extra-material pain suffered by victims of robbers. If someone breaks into your house at night, perhaps holding you at gunpoint while taking your money and your jewelry and whatever, it is reasonable to assign a higher cost'' to the episode than the commercial value of the stolen money and jewelry. If we were modest, we might reasonably, however arbitrarily, put at $1,000 the value’’ of the victim’s pain. But then the hurt, the psychological trauma, might be evaluated by a jury at ten times, or one hundred times, that sum

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by Colinito67 *
As for driving, simply from personal experience I’ve found that driving is not hindered too much by marijuana.

People also genuinely think that their concentration is not hindered by using a cellphone while driving

If it were legalized, I think it should be illegal to drive high, but it is not nearly as bad as driving drunk, which I also do from time to time. On road trips, I am always high when I’m driving.

So you want it legalised, so you don’t have to break the law by smoking it, but it should remain illegal while driving, but you seem happy to drive under the influence

**I’ve never gotten into an accident on the highway. Not conclusive evidence, but, in my mind, important personal experience.

**Yup, my Grandad smoked forty cigarettes a day and lived to ninety-four, not conclusive evidence that cigarettes promote long life, but in my mind, important personal experience…

[Ms2001]

Using a vaporizer to get the THC out of marijuana is healthier than regular smoking, since you’re inhaling only the drug and not a bunch of plant matter. But you still get the positive effects of smoking vs. ingesting: better control over your dose with immediate results; a more potent, less long-lasting effect; and the ability to use THC to control nausea (a pill or brownie is useless if you’re just going to throw it up).

[Shodan]

Mr2001 -

I didn’t know that was possible. I thought heating changed the chemical properties somehow, which is why you can’t eat raw grass and expect to get high.

Of course, college is more years behind me that I care to think about anyway - I am sure head culture has advanced since then.

Regards,
Shodan

[Colinito67]

*Originally posted by Mangetout *
**People also genuinely think that their concentration is not hindered by using a cellphone while driving

So you want it legalised, so you don’t have to break the law by smoking it, but it should remain illegal while driving, but you seem happy to drive under the influence
**Yup, my Grandad smoked forty cigarettes a day and lived to ninety-four, not conclusive evidence that cigarettes promote long life, but in my mind, important personal experience… **

I don’t believe it should be legalized for my benefit. For everyone’s benefit, for the environment’s benefit, etc. I believe it is an unjust law. The law against drunk driving, however, I find to be a just law. It is dangerous. I do drive drunk sometimes, and I’m not going to make excuses- it is something I shouldn’t do. It is something that people shouldn’t do (although I think .08 is way too low). Although I do not feel that driving while high is dangerous or wrong, I don’t think we should encourage it. If you have just been smoking for 45 minutes straight, it will inhibit your driving skills. But, when I smoke a bowl or even two and drive, which I do quite often, it is no different than when I drive sober.

I do not feel that I was using the “grandad logic.” Somebody had already posted a link which cited a study saying that driving under the influence of marijuana was not very detrimental to their driving skills. I merely corroborated the evidence that the study put forth- with my personal experience. I know that personal experience can be misleading and erroneous in a political argument, as you pointed out with your example. But, personal experience can also be an important part to a cogent political argument. I feel the same way about personal experience and my affiliation with communism.

colin

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
I didn’t know [smoking with a vaporizer] was possible. I thought heating changed the chemical properties somehow, which is why you can’t eat raw grass and expect to get high.

You’re correct. Vaporizers use an electric heating element that gets hot enough to release the THC, but not hot enough to burn the plant matter.

[WSLer]

So, my mom should have smoked some pot to relieve the nausea caused by the chemo she was undergoing for treatment of LUNG CANCER???!!!
OH PLEASE.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by WSLer *
**So, my mom should have smoked some pot to relieve the nausea caused by the chemo she was undergoing for treatment of LUNG CANCER???!!!
OH PLEASE. **

WSLer,

I’m sorry about your mom. I lost mine to breast cancer. The fact is though that pot does help relieve nausea in some chemo patients and also induces hunger, which can be helpful in treating anorexia. I would be interested to see if some of the doper MD’s agree. In the case of lung cancer though, my guess is it might do more harm than good.

• Quadrop, you out there?*

[domesticatedjunglefowl]

Mr. Anslinger argued against cannabis.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/anslng1.htm

this man might be considered the one who is responsible for criminalizing it in the first place.

[stolichnaya]

Colinto67:

{Lots of real interesting stuff about medicine, and the agricultural properties of hemp, and its use as an automobile safety device}

Repeat this slowly for me. The reason why you want pot to be legal is that you like to get high.

It’s OK. Me too. I just can’t really buy the sleight of hand. I agree that marijuana looks very very useful for the medical purposes you mention. But let’s assume that it was completely legal, like valium, with a prescription. Let’s further assume that non-THC hemp was legal, plentiful, and happily pumping out economic benefits for society. But you still have to call Ray every few weeks and keep a stash in your sock drawer.

Would you be happy then?

[Binarydrone]

So, on the pro legalizing front I have seen many well-reasoned and logical arguments. I do not think that I will really have anything add to that.

I will point out, however, that as far as I can tell there is no amount of logic that will make this happen. It is functional to have it illegal (although functional for a pretty cynical corrupt part of our society, as far as I can tell).

Here are the reasons that it will not be legalized any time soon:

[ul]
[li]The millions (billions?) of dollars that are seized by the authoritied in cash and property as the result of intolerant enforcement.[/li][li]Hosts of people employed as a result of this nonsense (Drug enforcement agencies, prisons, social workers).[/li][li]All of the “decent citizens” that have bought this progaganda.[/li][/ul]

Until it becomes dysfunctional for society at large to enforce this nonsense, the ugly fact remains that we are stuck with these stupid laws.

[domesticatedjunglefowl]

Here’s another look into the mindset that prompted marijuana prohibition.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/murd3.htm