Legalize Marijuana

Then again, if it were legalised, it would be much, much cheaper, and could be affordably eaten rather than smoked - removing many of the health risks to the user (and others).

I used to be in favour of legalising all drugs. I’m not so sure now, as I get older, but I do know that the current “war on drugs” doesn’t seem to be working at all well.

Illegality has certainly stopped me smoking it. I don’t have a car these days, so I catch public transport. There are police sniffer dogs at stations sometimes*. When I go home, my landlord lives just through that wall - and he’s a cop. He’s a nice guy, and I assume he’d lecture the hell out of me rather than arrest me (maybe), but it would be unfair of me to place him in that awkward situation. So I don’t smoke.
*A dubious thing to do if it will force more stoners onto the roads - although, despite the fact we currently don’t have roadside drug-testing, the legislation was passed last month, and now it’s just a matter of the cops acquiring the relevant kit.

I have never smoked marijuana. But I would if it were legal. Well, OK, I probably wouldn’t smoke it, but I would try it in some other consumable manner.

I would also be in favor of legalizing it, as I see it as no more harmful than booze.

I’m surprised so many people refrain because it’s illegal. I think they should legalize it. I rarely smoke it and don’t give a rat’s ass that it’s illegal. “Illegal” doesn’t make it wrong, to me anyway. Laws of all kinds have been relaxed considerably because of scoff law attitudes. There’s no logical reason to keep it illegal while other substances remain legal. They’ll wake up one day.

I don’t refrain because illegality makes it wrong. I refrain because illegality could really, really ruin my day if I end up in the dock. As I said, my landlord’s a cop, my daily commute can involve police sniffer dogs at random, and also I have a government job. It’s simply easier to grab a six-pack of beer after work.

Legality doesn’t much bother me either - it’s just that random workplace drug tests can really ruin your day.

I don’t smoke pot (anymore) because it’s illegal. Like most others here, it’s not a moral objection to breaking that particular law, but because of the consequences. I have two kids, one from a previous divorce. Do I want to give my ex-husband and Child Protective Svcs a reason to remove my kids because I do illegal drugs? No.
But I would love to be able to do some bong hits on a Saturday night if my kids were staying with my parents and not have my parenting called into question. Or, step outside and smoke a joint with my husband after the kids are in bed on a weekend, because I think that would have made *Harold & Kumar Go To Whitecastle * that much funnier. But I can’t because of the consequences. However, I could down a bottle of Jack Daniels easily. Not good parenting, but certainly still an option for me right now, should I choose it, and way more dangerous than half a joint.

I have smoke Marijuana but not for years. I have smoked Tobacco, but not for an even longer time. I still drink, but not a lot.

I still believe in the legalization of Marijuana with heavy taxes and for it to be treated much like Tobacco. I also would like to see the drinking age lowered, possible under 18, but at least back to 18. (17 if in the service)

I would actually like to see most drugs decriminalized. The “War” on drugs is a waste of time. Take all the enforcement dollars and put it into rehab programs and an improved correction system. Take all the tax money from the now legalize drugs and use it to reduce debt. Take the extra officers and law enforcement agents, put them onto solving other crimes, and maybe slowly reduce their numbers through retirement and attrition.

Jim

I understand those who have big consequences to pay should they get caught. If I was in that position I’d refrain as well. I work from home, my son is grown, and I never smoke enough for it to show up in my blood anyway (I’m a one-two hit smoker…LIGHTWEIGHT!).

The funny thing for me? There is a short list of folks I work with that could pass a drug test. (Well, unless you consider testing positive passing, perspective is everything) Seriously, we are a mecca for drugs. The higher ups, the lower downs, it is pretty pervasive.

I’m considered pathologically unhip. I know damn good and well if they did random testing, I would be one of the ones tested. Mostly because they know that I’m one of the ones few actually able to pass it. Seriously, if they random drug tested my department, we’d probably have to shut down.

So while the legality of it is the reason for my position, the EFFECTS of the legality are really it. I like my job, I like my kid. I like unfettered internet access and peeing in private.

Even if I think that pot being illegal is pathologically stupid, shortsighted and a relic of days past.

Well, I deal with obnoxious drunks all damn day. I hate what alcohol does to folks.

As in a previous post, I suspect the would be a short term rise in use, which would taper off in a few short years. I think the illegality is as much of a lure to teens, as is getting high.
The tax revenue could be used to compensate for any arising social problems, as well as to combat the importation, manufacture and use of dangrous drugs.
Due to the current illegality of MJ, the cultivation of hemp is also illegal, or at least discouraged. Cultivating hemp has great financial and enviromental benefits.
Public use of MJ could be restricted, just as alcohol consumption is currently.
I’m not a user and I doubt I would become one, unless I had some therapeutic reason.

I thought the “contact high” thing has been pretty much debunked, unless you’re in a very small space in a cloud of very dense pot smoke. Anyone have a cite on this one way or the other?

And that’s not to say carcinogens aren’t present. I’m talking strictly about the high and the reading in the blood.

The problem we have over here is the advent of roadside testing which, I believe, is by no means far away.

Marijuana is still theoretically illegal in the UK but the rules were relaxed in January 2004 when its status was downgraded from Class B to Class C. If found in possession of a small amount, you will escape with a warning and confiscation of the drug. Repeat offenders are subject to somewhat stiffer penalties and those found holding large amounts will be prosecuted as dealers rather than users.

From memory (I can’t find a cite) possession of up to 4 oz. or so is considered to be an amount consistent with personal use rather than for dealing purposes.

The police still have the power to arrest for possession of marijuana but the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has issued guidance to the police force that there should be a presumption against arrest where someone is in possession of a small amount of cannabis (that is, where it is clearly for personal use).

Problems may well arise when roadside testing comes into play. Smoking a joint a couple of nights a week may take 21-28 days to clear the system. Heavy marijuana use can be detected for around 42 -56 days after cessation. I’m curious to know how the proposed testing equipment will distinguish between someone who has just smoked a joint then got in his car, and someone who last smoked, say, 2 days earlier and whose blood still contains traces of the drug. Clearly these are two different circumstances.

And so, even a ‘lightweight’ smoker like your good self might be in danger of prosecution for DUI if you smoked one night and were tested the next day.

Easy…
1: Switch on video camera
2: Tell a knock-knock joke
3: Hilarity ensues

Where’s the Pitting here? Shouldn’t this be a GD thread?

The “pot should be legalized because it is no worse than alcohol/tobacco” argument starts from a false premise – that because something else harmful is allowed, everything else equally harmful should be allowed.

Alcohol has been part of the social experience for a broad range of people for millennia (indeed it has been celebrated in literature and song from the Bible on down). Tobacco has been part of the popular culture for centuries. To prohibit them outright now, despite their undisputed negative effects, would be impossible in any practical manner. The US tried it with alcohol in the failed experiement of prohibition. Currently, there is a growing movement to ban tobacco use in public places and workplaces, but virtually no calls for its ban in private.

Marajuana use, however, only became popular in the mid-20th century, starting with jazz singers and other undesirables. Although hard drug use has a longer history, it was also generally used in any significant magnitude only by the marginal before it was banned. As such, neither marajuana nor hard drug use became part of the popular culture before it was illegalized.

I have no doubt that had alcohol or tobacco only become popular in the 20th century, they would be banned as harmful and dangerous drugs and there would be little outcry like that that caused the repeal of prohibition. It is only the quirk of history that allows alcohol and tobacco to be legitimately available to the public (though regulated and taxed).

To me, the burden of proof should be on those proposing legalizing marajuana to show that it will be a benefit to society, not merely that we allow certain other drugs of potentally equal harmfulness. Although I could see a valid argument for medical marajuana, I don’t see any reason why generally unrestricted majauana use would be a net positive.

Why should something have to be a “net positive to society” in order to be legal? It’s a positive because some people enjoy it and it’s not that harmful. Clearly it doesn’t lead to an increase in the GDP or whatever you mean by a net positive, but neither do chick flicks, poker games, fast food, Rock and roll, comic books, NASCAR, or a thousand other things I could name. Should all those things be banned?

We join together in a free society because we obtain benefits from so doing. It’s up to society to justify its restrictions on our freedom. It’s not up to us to justify our desires to society.

I do agree that the argument that we should legalize pot because alchohol is illegal is a bad one. But that’s not the argument a lot of us–especially those of us who oppose legalizing, say, meth or PCP—make.

I’ve never smoked pot… or anything else, for that matter. I’ve never done any drugs, period. However, I think marijuana should be legalized. I think it’s ridiculous how many people are in jail over the stuff.

One problem, though- I can’t stand the smell of the stuff (most of my friends either currently partake, or have in the past). For me, it’s even worse than cigarettes- and I just know that if it were legal, people would be smoking it everywhere they could. As I said, I don’t do drugs, and I don’t want to be forced to do them.

So, yeah- legalize it, as long as it’s in brownie form.

Do you consider the current War on Drugs to be a benefit to the country and the world? The War on Drugs is currently funding many extremely violent strong-arm groups around the world, gangs and organized crime in the US and to a minor degree some terrorism in Afghanistan.

It has incarcerated thousands for a victimless crime and if you have ever checked the usage rates for kids over the last 40+ years and caused multiple generations to be scofflaws over the ridiculousness of the law.

Why don’t you provide the net-benefit of keep drugs outlawed?

Jim

As has been marijuana. Evidence of pot smoking dates back to the the Neolithic Age in Eastern Europe, and in Western Europe, even Queen Victoria used it to ease menstrual pain (anecdotally, I’ve heard modern female pot smokers attest to its efficacy for that ailment).

And that makes it fair to imprison marijuana users because… ?

Six words: “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.” Paul McCartney stated that one of the greatest albums of the 20th century would not have been made without marijuana. (Oh, by the way, it might help your case if you actually knew how to spell the name of the plant you’re talking about - you misspelled it five times in your post).

How about fairness? Consider the facts. To every organ but the lungs, it is less dangerous than alcohol. Marijuana users are not prone to violence. The number of fatal THC overdoses in recorded history is… um, zero!

It impairs users less than alcohol. Experienced users can actually drive cars nearly as well as a sober person when they’re stoned (if you want cites on that, I’ll dig them up - I’ve been through this argument dozens of times on this message board).

Yes, I know, life is not fair. However, when we have a chance to make it a little bit more fair, why not do it? Why penalize someone because a less harmful drug is more socially acceptable than a more harmful drug?

You’re right that alcohol prohibition did not work. Does that mean you think that marijuana prohibition is working? If so, I’d like to see some cites…

On re-reading I note that the OP says he is a junior in high school. This makes my dormant responsible adult gene kick in. Despite my argument for legalization I should point out that pot isn’t very good for you.

Although it may be less carcinogenic than tobacco, I have a hard time believing inhaling a lot of smoke is good for the lungs.

Pot’s effect on the brain, especially a still developing brain, is unknown.

LaFuriaRoja, I am perfectly willing to believe that you are pulling a 3.6 GPA while taking AP classes. However I’m sure you are aware of some serious stoners who are pretty messed up. Weed should be used in moderation, if at all, and I’m leery of teenage use. (One benefit to legalization is that age restrictions are easier to enforce on liquor stores than on drug dealers.)

Regardless of whether or not it should be illegal, the fact is it is illegal. You’ll face legal consequences if caught in possession. Also, don’t grow weed in your parents house whatever you do. Google “Asset forfeiture” to find out why.

If I may quote South Park Geologist Randy Marsh: “Look Stan, smoking pot isn’t going to make you go crazy and kill all your friends. And you’re probably not supporting terrorists either. But the thing about pot is it makes you OK with being bored. And it’s when you’re bored that you should be going out to do stuff and learn new things. If you smoke a lot of pot you may find yourself forty years old with no skills and no life.”

Also, as PJ O’Rourke said in a batchelors guide to life: “Marijuana makes everything delicious, even what the dog is having. Therefore it should be avoided by any batchelor whose age or waistline exceeds thirty-five.”

(quotes from memory. P’roly not exact.)

Again, in moderation pot is pretty harmless. Heavy use can lead to psychological dependency and turning into some hopeless stoner, and maybe even some health problems. So be self-aware in all things.