Look, most of the people who desire to smoke it already do. Sure, it will be more easily available and with less risk. But as marijuana isn’t really a debilitating drug and not everyone in the universe is suddenly going to run out and start smoking it, the risks you state above are being vastly overstated by the opponents of legalization.
I still have in my memory watching a show back in, I believe, the early 80’s. The guest was making all sorts of gloom and doom predictions about the end of the world if Cocaine was legal and suddenly everyone was doing it. William F Buckley turned to him and shot him down in one sentence and question, saying that he certainly had no interest in doing cocaine and asking if his guest intend to start using it if it was legal? (which he obviously did not)
Marijuana is currently being used by about 90% of the people who would use it if it was legal. The only people who are going to start smoking it are the people who either don’t dare purchase it now because they’re paranoid about getting busted, or just have zero connections to obtain it (like me).
So in summary; ‘fear that everyone will start smoking marijuana’ is unfounded, and ‘medical costs, accidents, etc’ is overstated.
I never said that “everyone” would start smoking. As the above few posters note, there are some who would either start smoking or smoke more if it were legal.
That’s at least “good” reason #1 to give someone pause before legalizing it.
That is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. I think lowering the drinking age back to 18 would do that better than legalizing all of the above.
I think 90% is way to high. You have to remember that alot of people are tested for it (healthcare workers) or are in threat of being tested (driving jobs etc.)
Usage numbers will skyrocket. The numbers will be around 1/4 of alcohol usage or more. Everybody has already atleast tried it.
Plus I think the argument we’re making isn’t so much that “everyone will start smoking marijuana” but rather that people who are currently smoking it will be able to smoke a whole lot more of it. Prohibition makes it expensive, and even if you have a totally reliable dealer there’s still some risk and a lot of hassle. Because marijuana isn’t physically addictive, most users make a rational decision about how much they use based on how much money, time and risk they’re willing to invest in their habit. If it were suddenly cheap and convenient, I think virtually everyone who smokes now would smoke more.
(and, yes, I also am generally for legalization, but in the spirit of the OP I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s a completely lopsided issue.)
In the absence of strong campaign finance reform, legalization of marijuana would lead to a vast upward spiraling public health challenge. Advertisers and marketers are very good at what they do. Lobbyists too. Over time, they would block reasonable restrictions on pot usage, advertising, marketing and genetic development. Alcohol regulation at least is protected by the 21st amendment, AFAIK.
Decriminalization, like they have in the Netherlands, is another matter. I support that. I just don’t want Philip Morris involved. There are very good reasons for not legalizing pot.
I’m against decriminalization because in my experience, potheads are quite loopy. I also am incensed every time someone comes into my store reeking of the stuff and gives me a contact high!
I think you are underestimating how easily available marijuana is in any semi-democratic nation. Or how much value for money it is, compared to all the other recreational drugs available, either illicit or legit. And nobody is ever going to sell tobacco-flavoured food products, but there are plenty of things you can add cannabis to in order to improve the experience.
Perhaps you don’t think you are, but all of those things you cite are things that are forbidden because they supposedly cause harm. Bans on burning garbage are specifically about fire safety. Bans against catching too many fish are about keeping the fish population high enough so that people in the future will still be able to fish. And owning a fully armed tank is banned because there’s really no reason to have something armed if you don’t plan on using it, and I’m sure you realize its use would be very destructive.
Marijuana is banned because it was classified as a narcotic. Ignorance is the reason it is banned, not any actual concerns on harmful effects. I personally can’t think of any other law that bans something for that reason.
But, you want an actual benefit? It’s a depressant/anxiolytic that isn’t very addictive (if at all) and that doesn’t result in inebriation or in loss of judgement. It’s a much safer alternative to drinking. We can’t make drinking illegal, as that doesn’t work, but perhaps people would drink less if they have another choice.
Right now it’s so illegal you can’t legally do studies on it–it’s that highly controlled. The federal government has just refused to prosecute in those cases.
Do I really have to spell this out for you? Many people who do drugs start with marijuana. Then, because they’re now criminals, they don’t feel bad about moving on to harder drugs. That’s why marijuana is called a gateway drug. Make marijuana legal, and those who do it will no longer have that excuse.
Find someone who doesn’t wear a seatbelt who then goes on to, I don’t know, do U-turns in traffic or something. Safety issues don’t work like drug issues.
Yes, but firing someone because of it being illegal will no longer be possible. And, as far as I can tell, that’s the only reason it’s tested for: it’s legally a narcotic, so it’s tested for like other narcotics.
Sure, some people may hold on for a while, but they will look like those people who fire people for getting drunk or smoking off the job. They will feel pressure for those limits to be placed higher so that they actually see if people are high on the job, rather than just having been high a week ago.
Exactly. If by testing your employees you could determine that they’d been smoking pot, tooting crack or injecting stimulants for the past year, and you hadn’t noticed, then why should what is in their blood system be held against them?
