Piece of cake. California debated legalization this fall, so the election forum has about 4 threads on the topic.
I oppose the legalization of marijuana. In the absence of meaningful campaign finance reform, I don’t want industrial scale growers and distributors running advertising and marketing campaigns on behalf of weed. American business is very good at what they do. Sure, cigarettes and alcohol are worse and marijuana prohibition sucks. But legalization will increase substance abuse and more intense varieties of weed, as it will be backed by a multibillion dollar industry.
Decriminalization is another matter. I’m all for that. Note that Holland has not in fact legalized marijuana: there is a lot of harm reduction that can be done short of industrial scale legalization.
Anyway, the debate plan is to note that smart decriminalization can capture all the benefits of legalization without the costs.
Not an argument, but only a lead towards a possible counter-argument: I seem to recall a doctor on this board (Quadgop?) saying that the glaucoma argument is BS, because there are commercially-available drugs that deal with glaucoma far better than marijuana.
Might be good to have in your pocket.
Like alcohol, & unlike nicotine, THC is an intoxicant. Nicotine addicts suffer some diminished capacity while in withdrawal. THC users suffer diminished capacity while high.
Legalization would tend to lead to normalization. Cannabis use would be out in public; obnoxious potheads would smoke in public with impunity–everywhere. The incidence of driving under the influence would go up. The incidence of persons secretly putting cannabis in their cooking that they serve to guests, “because it’s the best medicine,” would go up. Remember, many potheads are fanatical about the object of their addiction, & this would only justify them.
It takes a remarkably concentrated amount of pot smoke to get someone high off secondhand smoke. But cars would turn into full-immersion bongs pretty fast. After all, it was legalized, it must be safe, right?
Ergo, legalization would lead to an increase in dangerous behavior, particularly traffic fatalities. And then people would ask, “Why did you give us freedom to do this if it was unsafe?”
Better to leave it an “illegal drug” & just drop the penalties dramatically. I’m for decriminalization, or rather defelonization, of pot, because punishments should fit crimes. I’m not really for normalization, so I’m leery of legalization as such. Let it be a controlled substance, let its use & sale be an infraction, let police go after those who drive under the influence with all necessary deterrent power; but don’t make simple possession or use a felony, don’t have a war on it. That’s my actual position, use of that what you will.
Perhaps you could combine this with the gateway aspect and make the claim that pot serves as a relatively safe outlet for rebellion. If pot became mainstream, kids who wanted to fight against the machine would be forced to choose more dangerous drugs. WON"T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
This may be a bit late, but I can think of a number of ways to attack the ‘pro’ argument.
As the country moves towards a national healthcare system, cannabis will have a negative impact on the whole. A counter argument will bring up tobacco and alcohol, but you could propose that these should be evaluated as well against national good.
Most of the studies by the FDA, the body determining what substances are fit for what use and level of use have determined cannabis to be a hazard to health. While many of these studies (if not all) have been heavily influenced by politics and partisanship, it does not mean they are necessarily incorrect. An unbiased set of studies should be enacted before any legalization should be done.
3)Leading into the carcinogens…
Even if that blog is correct, there is more than THC in cannabis, such as cadmium, polonium, arsenic, pesticides, etc. Just as nicotine is just part of the problem with tobacco, THC is just one ingredient in cannabis.
