Marijuana legalization?

Great Debates
41

The OP asks for a legitimate reason why marijuana should NOT be legalized. So I, JFTR being 100% pro-marijuana (and most drugs, for that matter) legalization, am trying to see things from the opposition’s point of view. The only thing I can come up with is the inevitable damage of DNA, which thereby affects our offspring, or “the future”, and I’d like to know your opinions on that. (I admit freely this would be asking for a spanking, IF this were my position, but it’s the only negative aspect I can think of.)

As it stands, I just cannot see why marijuana is still illegal. If it were legalized, there would be age restrictions, just like alcohol and tobacco, and the government could make money off of it through taxes, just like alcohol and tobacco. The potency could even be government controlled, and maybe they could even research ways to make it less harmful, although it can’t be the physical dangers that keep it illegal; alcohol does the same if not worse to your brain, and cigarettes do the same if not worse to your lungs! By the way, who the hell is the government to tell me I can’t hurt my OWN body anyway? (don’t get me started on kevorkian…)

If there were ANY danger to people other than the user himself, i.e., violent tendencies or impaired driving ability, I could see the legitimacy of an anti-legalization stance. But, in the absence of those effects, we are left only with stupid, flimsy arguments based on fear and tradition.

42

nevermore said:

Are there any studies which indicate damage to germ line DNA from drug use? I think this evidence would be hard to obtain ethically, but perhaps you know of an analogous study with chimps (or rats).

Besides, even if some small amount of damage could be proven, men constantly produce new sperm, so any damage would be irrelevant after this time period. Plus, any damage would likely occur in the 90-95% range of “junk DNA”.

Well, you said you wanted opinions :smiley:

43

I can’t be bothered giving the whole history of my knowledge of drugs, but I’ll just note that I am not someone who knows nothing about them, nor am I someone who has a particularly vested interest one way or the other. I’d just like to put my opinion on what I think is wrong with how the debate is carried out.

I can’t be bothered going through all the fallacies in the arguments of both sides one by one, but I’m sure just about every known fallacy has turned up again and again in the arguments of the pro-legalisation and pro-prohibition camps. It would perhaps be a lot simpler if both sides simply stated their cases simply and honestly:

pro-legalisation - we enjoy using substances to change our mental or physical states, and believe we should be able to do so without having to be classified as criminals, or resort to criminal behaviour such as burglary. We may have seen the bad effects of these substances, but generally believe they are outweighed by the benefits, including that they are fun. (or, alternately, we have never seen any bad effects of these substances, and therefore we can’t believe there are any). And what’s wrong with having fun?

pro-prohibition - drugs are unhealthy, often lead to mental and physical problems and sometimes death. We don’t want our children to die or go insane from using drugs. We don’t think we should have to work hard and pay taxes while others live off social security and sit in their couches all day stoned out of their minds.

My personal belief is that all drugs should be decriminalised, but at the same time I would like to see the day that users of marijuana admit that there are physical symptoms of withdrawal (ie physical addiction is a reality) - these can include insomnia, anxiety, headaches, etc., and that they stop talking about how prohibition of alcohol failed, therefore mj should be legalised. These are completely different situations - one was about banning a product that was already legal and therefore had a large legal market already existing, while the other is about legalising something that has not been legal for the lifetime of most of its users. If anything, prohibition is evidence for the case that other drugs should NOT be legalised, in case there is a movement in society later on that it should be banned. Also, there is no way that legalisation will stop kids getting hold of the drug - because it is so much easier to produce at home than alcohol or tobacco, there will just be more of the plant around.

So why do I want drugs legalised/decriminalised (I don’t really mind)? It would mean that many people now who are involved in crime would no longer be involved in crime, and innocent people would no longer be the victims of drug-related crime. I just wish people would be honest about their intentions.

Henry"El Hombre Invisible"Spencer.

44

Ah, so it’s anecdotes we’re after, is it? :wink:
I’ve been a dedicated mj smoker on and off since I was a young man until a drug test (6+ weeks after last joint) at work put a stop to that. Mind you, I was not high at work. The indicators stay in your urine forever.
The only symptom I ever experienced was that I still would like to smoke a nice fat one some Friday evenings. Maybe even on a few weeknights, but not really so often.
I take part of that back. Rehab was a bitch. I really had no idea (hit bottom? tore up?) what those other folks were talking about. The ones there for hard drugs. In spite of “tough” drug laws.
BTW; Rehab didn’t help many of them either.
Peace,
mangeorge

45

see the 11th bullet on this link:
http://www.pride.org/Marijuana.htm

and take a look at these too
http://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/latest_research_shows_that_.htm

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Meetings/FASEB99/FASEB99.html

but none of them explicitly say whether the DNA damage is germ-line or somatic. But is it possible to only damage your somatic DNA and not germ-line? What would make germ-line so special, just because it’s in your sperm or egg? Speaking of which–what does taking a sperm sample (in order to get germ-line DNA) have to do with ethics?

well, sperm can’t be entirely immune, b/c mj has been shown to decrease sperm production (not that that would necessarily entail damage to the DNA contained therein, but it makes it interesting). THAT was in my biology book, thank you very much. Plus I seem to remember a lecture in that class about how kids could have birth defects from the parents smoking weed–but you’ll probably take that with a grain of salt, since you didn’t think too much of that particular teacher’s spewings anyway. All that said, I guess I can’t prove it, it’s just a strong impression I was under.

But, if the germ-line DNA were indeed damaged, these new sperm would still contain the damaged DNA. New DNA is synthesized from old DNA; it doesn’t change except when it mutates.

46

Spooje, former addict, checks in.

I favor legalization. For MJ especially. Outlawing something that grows naturally just seems wrong to me.

But the war on drugs is a complete failure. I used drugs every day for 12 years. The laws, the state’s lawyers, the cops, and the billions of tax dollars, all they did was drive up the price. Never stopped me from getting loaded. (You can even get loaded while a ward of the justice system)

The laws don’t stop anybody from scoring dope. And I don’t think anybody chooses not to use simply because it’s illegal. Non-users will remain just that if we legalize.

47

pldennison:

By this strange logic, all laws are uncontitutional.

I am not attempting to defend asset and property siezure laws. They are not a part of the discussion in this thread. I would like you to explain, if you can, a general category of laws that which the laws banning drug use fit under, which are unconstitutional. Then we can compare this to other laws that are, in your view, constitutional. (What about drunk driving? I bet there is nothing in the constitution about this either.)

I find this hard to believe. (Note also to Utopia). I wonder if you guys can clarify your positions on this. Are you denying that drugs are addictive? Are you denying that addictions are hard to overcome? Are you denying that while addicted, people feel strong needs to satisfy their addictions, and will go to extreme measures to accomplish this? What specifically are you saying, if anything?

waterj2:

The government does not so much own the roads as it rules over the roads. The method by which ownership was obtained is important for this reason, because it points to this fact. The government never obtained ownership - such ownership as it has is an inherent part of being the government. The rights of people to use the roads are also inherent.

spooje,

What led you to ultimately quit taking drugs?

48

nevermore:

Your links concentrated on cancer caused by marijuana, or the effect of marijuana smoking by pregnant women on the fetus, an entirely different concept. Certainly birth defects might be a result of use during pregnancy without any germ-line damage.

You can damage your lungs from smoking and cause cancer, yet this doesn’t get passed down in the germ-line. Skin cancer doesn’t seem to be hereditary either. Most exposure-type DNA damage occurs only in the directly affected cells, not the germ-line. Anyway, stop asking so many questions. If you want to claim germ-line DNA damage, find the evidence to support it.

I was thinking more along the line of taking eggs from a woman when I made that statement. You would have to cut her open and take all (or most) of them to do any feasible research. Yuk.

You seem to have turned out ok, despite my youthful transgressions :wink: But you’re right, I didn’t like some of what your biology teacher offered, specifically regarding evolution. She let her theology influence her understanding of science.

I don’t know enough about spermtogenesis to really be sure about this, but I think we need to differentiate between various types of alleged germ-line damage. If the proposed damage occurred in the stem cells that eventually become sperm, then any future sperm would be damaged also. But if the damage happened to the sperm after it was produced, future sperm would be unaffected. Women are a different story altogether, as I think their eggs are all present from birth, so any damage to the germ-line would be permanent.

By the way, welcome to the Debates, little one!

49

hardcore said:

yeah, the few links I could find with anything about DNA damage were all muddled with crap about cancer & stuff; you kinda had to look a bit for the genetic stuff. One of them actually did say something about DNA adducts and the “hprt” gene tho. But like I said, I guess I can’t prove it–all boils down to some nonsense my bio teacher came up with, which I (probably wrongly) assumed therefore must have come out of the book. I donno. But IF, in the hypothetical situation that it DID cause germ-line damage, which I’m still convinced it does, would that change (or affect) your position on legalization?

Don’t be so smug. How do you know I’m not harboring a deadly virus in my brainstem that only needs to be triggered by a suppressed memory of abuse to begin its process of slowly turning my brain into something strongly resembling pureed spinach? Or that I haven’t been going on late-night killing sprees and just have a knack for hiding bodies? hmmmmmmm??!!!

Pah! grumbling “little one”, indeed.

50

Izzy in response to my quoting the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution:

Astounding. Utterly astounding. I quote the actual text of the Constitution, and you come back with this non sequitur? Incredible. Let’s try again:

**1. Rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are protected. **

This one is a simple statement of fact. The Bill of Rights is commonly understood by the judiciary to enumerate restrictions on the actions of government and to guarantee rights which cannot be abridged. What part of this do you disagree with?

**2. Amendment IX: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” **

In plainer English: Just because the Constitution says, for example, that Congress can do X, does not mean that the people cannot do Y. Which part of this do you disagree with?

Amendment x: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Again, if a power is not specifically given to the Federal government, or specifically prohibited, that power is reserved to the states and the people. Which part of this do you disagree with?

Fine. It’s my opinion that all laws banning drug use among consenting adults are prima facie unconstitutional in light of the fact that this power is not specifically granted to the Congress.

Sure there is–the government is given the power to build roads (Article I, Section 8). They therefore have a legitimate interest in policing them and preventing intoxicated people from driving on them. You, however, are only a few tiny steps away from engaging in a false analogy. You are not supporting laws prohibiting driving while under the influence of drugs. You are supporting laws banning the taking of drugs at all. We don’t have to ban alcohol to prohibit drunk driving; why would we have to ban drugs to ban driving under their influence? (See also my post above detailing a study in which pot smokers are more attentive than the average driver.)

Very simple–I know several ex-addicts, from alcohol to heroin. Therefore, their behavior can be changed, with varying degrees of ease and success. Everyone is different, and blanket statements like, “There is little that can be done to change their behavior” do little to advance a dialogue.

51

What study reached this conclusion?

I’m denying that some drugs are addictive. On the contrary, certain drugs have stronger addictive properties than others. So why are all drugs lumped together in terms of their addictive properties in the above statement.

Perhaps a personal experience will illustrate my point. My girlfriend was “addicted” to caffeine. She needed her cup of coffee before she could start her day. In June she decided she wanted to stop drinking coffee. A little will power and voila! That behavioral change wasn’t so hard even though she had started every morning with a cup of coffee for the past 5 years. Her behavior was easy to change even though she was addicted.

Drugs have varying potentials for abuse. Human beings have varying degrees of will power and motivation. Generalizing about the about the ability to make behavioral changes with respect to all drugs is erroneous.

52

pldennison:

Will wonders never cease?

I’ll tell you a secret. In the post that I commented on, you attempted to make your point by saying nothing but the actual text of the Constitution, adding nothing of your own. This left me, as well as the other SDMB readers, to figure out for ourselves what you might have meant. I was commenting on your presumed point. In the future, to avoid confusion of this sort, you might wish to consider actually saying something when making your points.

I agree with all your bolded statements.

Note the words “legitimate interest” here. Do not gloss over them. You are acknowledging that the legitimate interests of the government may grant them rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. So it is with drug laws.

Beyond this, the issue of whether this right is properly a federal issue or a state one is not really a part of this thread. I’m sure the supreme court holds them to be constitutional, or they’d have struck them down already. But if the feds can’t ban it, then let the states do it. (My other example, drunk driving, is a state issue). My responses about the Constitutional aspects of this are limited to observing that there is no Constitutional right being trampled on in order to outlaw drugs.

My point is that the potential damage that can come about from allowing people do take, and potentially become addicted to, drugs (having nothing to do with driving), is analagous to the potential harm in allowing people to drive drunk. The same logic that supports the banning of one supports the banning of the other.

Everyone knows that there are many people who have recovered from addictions. But it is very difficult, and the results are often uncertain. Trying to confuse the issue and distort well known facts about the larger issue by pointing out that on an individual level every case is different, does little to advance a dialogue.

53

**

No. The same logice that allows them to ban drunk driving allows them to ban driving while intoxicated by other substances. At the point that you are intoxicated you can present a danger to others. Banning drugs is similar to prohibition. The assumption that mere use of the drug is dangerous to society as a whole. And of course we all know what happened with prohibition.

54

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by oldscratch *

My position is that due to the addictive nature of drug taking, simply allowing people to take it will result in alot of harm coming about, which will then be far more difficult to control. I agree to the Prohibition analogy. Frankly, I don’t think the Prohibition would have been such a bad idea, were it not for the fact that alcohol consumption was (and is) such a major part of the culture that it simply couldn’t be banned. I made this point earlier, and subsequently HenrySpencer pointed out that by legalizing drugs we may bring ourselves to a point where drugs too become unbannable.

Utopia:

I’m not lumping anything together. In fact, I’ve specifically pointed out that I could not specifically single out marijuana for comment, as I was not familiar with the specific aspects of it. HenrySpencer (my man!) suggested that it too is addictive, so who knows. In any event, I would refer only to drugs which can be shown to be addictive, (or hard to shake, so as not to get into semantic debates about the term addiction).

55

Actually, I am not acknowledging that. I am acknowledging that laws prohibiting drunk driving on the roads are a legitimate extension of the power to build and police them. IANAL, but I believe the government cannot ban you from operating a motor vehicle under the influence in, say, your driveway, or your back forty.

I definitely do not acknowledge that the Federal government can simply take on unenumerated rights, as long as they are not a legitimate extension of enumerated powers. That is not a country I care to live in.

Assuming that someone has brought a case, and that the Court has granted cert. If not, then they don’t just go reviewing and striking down laws willy-nilly. They have held that banning peyote use in religious ceremonies by certain Native American tribes is Constitutional, since it amounts to a general-purpose law, so to that extent you are correct. That ruling, however, did not examine the ban in general, but its application to a specific group. I happen to disagree with their ruling on First Amendment grounds.

More or less. The Feds have an enormous amount of control over state DUI laws by threatening to withhold highway repair and construction funds.

Absent specific Constitutional language to the contrary, you are assumed to have any rights not enumerated. (Which was why I quoted the Ninth Amendment.) I think there is a right, which the drug laws are abridging.

Can you be more specific?

56

What’s the difference between cigarettes and marijuana (or most any other street drug)? They all kill you. But marijuana growers dont give hundreds of millions of dollars to political parties. I think it’s very hypocritical for the government to let people smoke cigarettes all the want (provided they aren’t in a no smoking area) but if someone wants to smoke marijuana oh no, that’s bad. I think we should let people take responsibility for themselves. Don’t want to wear a seatbelt? Fine. Don’t want to wear a motorcycle helmet? Fine. But, once your actions infringe on the rights of others, that’s when all bets are off. Drunk driving is illegal not so much as it’s dangerous to you, but because innocent people are injured or killed as a result of it. Ditto with second-hand smoke (why smoking in certain places is outlawed). Either way though, I wouldn’t smoke cigarettes or marijuana or whatever no matter what the laws about them were, since I know the health consequences of them.

57

[/quote]
**I am distinguishing between a right that you have because the Constitution has specifically limited governmental authority in that area, and a “right” which is merely the result of the feds not having been specifically granted this right. In the latter case, it may sometimes be extrapolated from other powers (as you have done with regards to roads) or enacted by other authorities (states). In any event, if you grant that someone (the states) can enact these laws, than it is not relevent to this thread. (Thanks for the peyote cite. it’s good to know that I’m on the side of the Supreme Court in this, though you disagree).

Anything to oblige an old friend.

There are many people who can drive drunk and have no harm come about. When looking at whether or not to outlaw this practice, we do not consider whether these people are having their driving rights unfairly limited. We consider the large-scale results of allowing or banning this practice. Since the result of banning it is to reduce the number traffic accidents, we ban. The inconvenience of those who cannot get home as result is deemed the lesser evil. This is so despite the fact that many of these people would not have caused any accidents, and are being inconvenienced “for nothing”. Overall, it is the prudent thing to do.

When deciding whether to outlaw drugs a similar situation prevails. No determination can be made that every or even most people will destroy their lives and that of others if drugs are legalized. But enough will to make it worthwhile to outlaw them.

This is due the addictive nature off drugs and the long term destruction that they cause. Many people will find themselves increasingly reduced from being productive members of society, to people who are unable to hold jobs or accept other responsibilities, as their overriding commitment becomes the need for more drugs. Crime will necessarily increase as people support their habits in the only way that they can. (Not drug crimes, obviously).

Some will point out, as has been done by other posters, that many of the problems that are caused by drugs, are due to the very fact that they are illegal. This is undoubtedly true. (The price would come down, lessening the need for so much crime per druggie. Druggies would find it easier to hold down jobs). But what is also undoubtedly true is the fact that a siginificantly larger number of people (especially young people) will experiment with drugs if they were legal, and hence a significantly larger percentage will become addicted.

It should be noted that, as people keep on referencing the Prohibition, that the costs to society of alcoholism are enormous. Legalizing drugs will add to this cost.

Therefore, when analyzing the costs and benefits of outlawing drugs, it seems to me that it is far better to have them outlawed. Therefore, a similar rationale exists to outlaw them as exists in the case of drunk driving.

58

IzzyR said:

Well then we should ban driving, and skydiving, and wrestling. Allowing people to do these things will result in harm to people. We should also ban drinking coffee, because that’s addictive and harmful. The thing is, it’s not up to you or to the government to make that decision. People should be allowed to take these risks if they so choose, and shouldn’t be subject to worries of a government trying too hard to be a parent figure. They might as well ban candy because it can rot your teeth!

maybe they already are unbannable. maybe that’s why large numbers of people continue to take them and traffic them, despite the fact that they are “banned.”

59

I have to disagree with this statement in its entirety. First and foremost, we should be talking about marijuana, not drugs in general. If MARIJUANA, not drugs, were to be legalized, I don’t see why any more people would experiment with it than they do now. As a matter of fact, it might even decrease the number of smokers who started because of the intrigue of doing something illegal or “bad”. So even if more people started smoking it just because the government “no” is off it, probably the same number would never START smoking for that very reason, for reasons conscious or un-. Keep in mind I do not assert that any previous users would quit for this reason. As to a significantly larger percentage becoming addicted, this is impossible in the first place because marijuana isn’t addictive. Yes, yes, HenrySpencer says it is, but it’s not. Take it from someone with hands-on experience. Psychologically (read: in your mind) it is, but that just means you go “Hey. That was fun. I’d like to do it again.”–not, “OH MY GOD if I don’t smoke a joint my head will burst and my chest will cave in.” Physical addiction is the only one you have to worry about; you can get psychologically addicted to a video game (or to a message board :D).

60

I accept that drunk driving is illegal not because everyone who drives drunk will cause accidents, but because it increases the likelihood of doing so. Accidents unlike drug use/abuse harm other people directly, not by any trickle down effect. When someone abuses drugs it may “destroy their lives”, but it’s likely that it will only be their lives. Children and other dependents may be an exception.

We don’t think drunk driving is wrong because the drunk person could “destroy their lives.” I don’t want others driving drunk for my own safety. I’m apathetic towards possibility of drunk drivers destroying their lives I’m worried about a drunk driver destroying my life. They can drink and drive all they want as long as it’s on their land and not public streets. They should also be able to do what ever else they what to do to themselves provided that they do not put others at risk. People on public roads is not an exception.

A drug abuser might put the lives of others at risk. Drunk driving virtually always does.