Regardless of definition, my main concern would be whether or not we have adequately researched the safety. In this thread, I asked whether or not it was dangerous; the majority of studies were done prior to the 70’s (when it was classified), and I’m wondering how well those studies would stand up to modern scrutiny. Plus, recent studies have shown it to have harmful effect on still-developing brains, which kind of counts against it. Before any kind of legalization would sit well with me, I’d need to see tests into exactly what the harmful effects were, and I don’t believe those tests have been conducted. To be fair, I’d also like to see tests done for the helpful effects, but those haven’t been done either.
One; there were never any “Studies”. Two; what kinds of tests are you looking for?
People have been smoking pot forever. People have been smoking it in large numbers for a century. It has been the number one drug (or no. 2 behind alcohol) for 50 years. Almost everyone you know has tried it.
And furthermore, there doesn’t have to be any “legalization”. It was legal to start with. “Decriminalization” is the operative word.
I think maybe the best against is the “big marijuana” argument, which of course only applies to complete full legalization, not the various decriminalization schemes.
Think about the history of tobacco-- for centuries it was used much like marijuana is now, as something that was basically a leisure activity only occasionally partaken of. It wasn’t until the industrial production of cigarettes ramped up in the early 20th century that people started smoking all the time and it became a huge public health issue. It’s quite possible that something similar would happen in the case of full-on legalization of pot. The current body of evidence that says that marijuana use is relatively benign is based on how marijuana is currently used, which even for “heavy” users is usually no more than once a day. If industrial production and heavy advertising leads to “pack a day” or more marijuana users, it’s quite possible we could start to see more health issues associated with it.
Simple question: is the fact that marijuana can be harmful reason enough not to legalize it?
I don’t want to get too sidetracked into a precise definition of “legal.” I mean it colloquially, namely, it’s not a crime to possess it. Similar to alcohol. Maybe similar to prescription drugs.
BTW, today’s Fresh Air segment alluded to above was quite interesting.
In that case, I’m all in favor of legalizing (sorry, “decriminalizing”) it. I’m also all in favor of the law coming down like the wrath of God on the head of anybody who does harm, intentionally or not, to other people because they’re under the influence, which is the same way I feel about alcohol, tobacco and firearms.
“Heavy Users” (nice dope addict lingo!) smoke more than once a day.
“Pack a day” users? As in 20 joints a day? Ha ha ha! Oh my god. Reefer Madness it is.
There’s a big difference between legalization and decriminalization, though. Usually decriminalization means that possession is legal (or punishable by a minor fine), but that production and distribution remain illegal to various degrees. Decriminalization generally means it remains more or less an underground enterprise, just one we don’t put too much effort into fighting, whereas legalization would mean it goes completely out in the open, much like alcohol or tobacco.
Well, I put “pack a day” in quotes because I meant it as an extension of the tobacco analogy, not literally 20 joints a day. And “heavy” is in quotes not because I’m hip to the lingo the cool kids use and making a delicious pun, but because a “heavy” or “light” user of anything is relative to the way it is currently used in society. A “heavy” tobacco user in the 1850’s might have smoked a pipeful of tobacco a few times a day, whereas someone would probably have to smoke multiple packs a day to be considered one in the 1950’s. Right now, someone who smokes one or more joints (or equivalent) a day is a heavy marijuana user, whereas if you can buy it inexpensively at any store, that may no longer be the case.
My point is that the way marijuana is used in this country (and the rest of industrialized world) has been shaped by its illegality. Full legalization, if it ever comes, will fundamentally change how it is used, which means that much of the conventional wisdom and research about the long-term health effects and effects on society may no longer be entirely relevant.
Hey, blue-nose, that’s a fresh idea, and how! Maybe if we gave the gin mills the bum’s rush, there wouldn’t be so many rubes getting so spifflicated that they come down with the heebie-jeebies. That’d be swell!
I don’t know from nuthin’, and it might be that I’m beatin’ my gums, but maybe as a side benefit we’d finally know if prohibitionists are on the level or if that line of thinking is all wet and might lead to unintended consequences. Once we had the straight dope, we could apply what we’ve learned to our beef with hop, posilutely!
In the absence of rolling paper marijuana causes [del]fucking carpentry[/del] arts and crafts projects.
In the presence of rolling paper marijuana causes serious challenges to manual dexterity and hand-eye coordination.
There are people who are intensely, rabidly against legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana. Is their only argument that people can misuse it? Is that what the objection boils down to? Does anyone know of a compelling reason that doesn’t also apply to legal tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and prescription meds? Why single out marjuana?
Based on that argument, cell phones should be illegal. And mascara (which *some *women apply while driving). And drinking coffee while driving.
The inevitability of misuse (and I absolutely grant that as a certainty) doesn’t seem like reason enough to keep possession of it illegal/criminal. Isn’t there one rock-solid, fact-based argument against decriminization?
It’s amazing how the very same people who complain about the nanny state are the ones determined to keep marijuana illegal.
Yes, there is a downside to legalization. Since most marijuana is smoked, legalization might encourage more smoking and that is certainly bad. It might cut down on drinking though, which is good. There will likely be more high drivers, which is bad, but maybe fewer drunk drivers, which is good.
But all this pales before the enormous criminal factories created by the drug laws. First the criminal organizations set up to sell drugs. Second the people who are forced into criminal life by being sent to prison for drug offenses. Once convicted, they will have few choices of jobs for the rest of their lives and prison is, in any case, a school for criminals.
Of course, this applies mainly to blacks. I have know many drug users over the years and not one of them, middle class whites, gives any thought to the possibility of incarceration. My sister used cocaine for decades (and has been dry for 20 years now) but as a middle class white never gave arrest a thought.
I think some people here think that posters in this thread are anti-decriminalization. I haven’t checked every username, but I don’t think that’s accurate. I’m pro-legalize-it-all-and-let-natural-selection-take-care-of-it, myself… But that doesn’t mean I can’t imagine some downsides. It just means I think personal liberty and all the other upsides outweigh the potential downsides.
