We’ve all heard the arguments as to why we should legalize marijuana, but now I’m more interested into why the legalization process hasn’t gove father (not that there aren’t states like California and Alasksa reforming the laws). I understand that some people think it’s a gateway drug to other substance abuse, but personally I don’t buy that. I think it has more to do with the money that pharmacuetical companies would loose if people were able to grow their own medicine in the form of marijuana.
How much money do you think pharmaceutical companies are making from marijuana-based medicines? I’m willing to bet it’s a rather small percentage.
The reason, IMO, that pot is still illegal is based in morality. Not that it’s a gateway to other drug USE - though that is a reason - but more that it’s a gateway to making OTHER drugs legal. The majority of Americans aren’t interested in allowing that much mind-altering permissiveness when it comes to personal behavior.
Libertarians have long sought to decriminalize drugs. It is one of the primary reasons they will never reach mainstream status.
The pro-liberalization forces have done a very poor job of pushing for legalization. Their effort is directed against a huge status quo elements of which include:
. People who honestly think pot should be illegal.
. Drug companies, to some small degree.
. A very large number of government agencies who are chartered to be anti-pot.
. A very large number of persons employed by such agencies.
To begin with, look at how poorly pro-legalization efforts have done in other countries. Americans (as a group) tend to be even more conservative than (say) Australians. A US legalization effort would have a more difficult fight than one in Oz.
It is the job of the DEA (and the FBI, and the Coast Guard) to be anti-pot. That is what they are there to do. One way they do their job is to squash legalization even as a subject of political discussion.
The legalization case is rarely even heard, and probably will not be until some group (say the AMA) raises it again and again.
Now let us look at NORML, the leading legalization group. They are underfunded, unprofessional and seem to have spent years eating munchies and giggling. These were wasted years.
The fight for legalization will be won by old gray attorneys and lobbyists in old gray suits. NORML has few of them.
Compare NORML to (say) the Log Cabin Republicans. Ever hear of a NORML contribution of a political candidate?
Until the liberalization effort gets bigger and more professional, it will not have a chance against its very large and well-organized opposition.
I’m not talking about pharmaceutical companies getting rich off of marijuana - based medicines; instead I’m talking about people who are spending hundreds of dollars a month on prescription medication when they could consume thc from a cannabis plant, while at the same time making them feel better and not have such a financial burden on themselves every month.
Because the government sucks.
Dammit.
While I agree with you generally, the Log Cabin Republicans are a pretty poor example to hold up of how a group can become more successful through suits, lobbyists and donations. Or are you suggesting without them the GOP would be more rabidly anti-gay?
Any jackass can grow it (my father, rest his soul, proved that) and as a result, the government cannot get much tax revenue from the cultivation, distribution, and sales of it. It is my personal opinion that in the United States, at least, the push to repeal Prohibition of alcohol was a result of the promise of income to the government from taxation more so than any other reason. Tax revenue from the sale of alcohol is astonishing. Here at home, SC, I was really surprised that the elimination mini-bottles in favor of free-pour was even put to a vote, considering that each individual bottle is taxed, but that’s another rant. Honestly, if it were as easy to make a good bottle of beer or distill a good bottle of rye as it is to cultivate some really righteous weed, booze wouldn’t be legal either. Granted that is all just my opinion, take it or leave it. 
I blame it on Reefer Madness.
I don’t know about distillation but a good bottle of beer is ridiculously easy to make.
You did say it’s just your opinion, but I think it might have a slight flaw. If that were the case, the government would have outlawed tomatoes a long time ago as much more of those get consumed than marjunana. And if you want to be picky, I’d say it’s far easier to grow a decent tomato or cucumber than a marijuana plant yielding even decent “fruits.”
I think Paul’s pretty much got it covered. It’s going to be tough to outspend Anheuser Busch and Seagrams on old gray hairs.
Nietzsche , you’re wrong, weed is much easier to grow than tomatoes, much less labor intensive but you make a good point. I wouldn’t be a very good lawyer.
trandallt , you are right, beer is real easy to make and make good, too, but weed is quicker and less labor intensive also. By the way, yesterday I was actually on Hwy. 61. Small world.
Distillation is illegal in the United States without a license and some inspections of the equipment and such – while I consider this annoying, there are some legitimate reasons for it. (Basically, an improperly set up still may wind up concentrating the alcohols that do things like strike people blind or kill them rather than get them drunk, and this is considered a bad enough thing that regulating it isn’t terribly controversial.)
IIRC, freeze distillation is legal in Canada. (But not vapor distillation.)
My personal suspicion is that if marijuana were legal, there’d be a sudden market in homegrower’s kits (similar to the market in homebrewing) which would die down in a few years once people figured out that growing plants is work. There’d be a some people who’d keep growing, just like there are plenty of homebrewers, but most people would just go down to the Pot And Liquor Store for their sin-taxed bottle of wine and packet of joints.
Smoking too much pot can make you paranoid.
I consider myself fairly liberal, and I am not really in favor of legalizing pot. I don’t think pot is a very dangerous drug, but I haven’t really heard a convincing reason why the laws should be changed. What I hear most often is that pot is no worse than alcohol or cigarettes, but this doesn’t really convince me of the need for any and all substances that are no more dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes should be legalized.
What really turns me off from the idea of legalization is all the disinformation and dishonesty of the rabid pro-legalization organizations. For example, the blatantly obvious “hidden” agenda of most groups that advocate medicinal marijuana to use those new laws as a slippery slope for full legalization. Also, all those BS conspiracy theories about drug companies controlling the government or the minds of most Americans just causes me to stop listening. I’m telling you now, here’s one person who doesn’t give two sticks about what Big Drug thinks about pot, and I don’t support legalization.
I will say that I think a case can be made for medical uses of pot. My mind is entirely open to that. But I think that such a decision ought to be made based on the science of the matter. It should not be taken as a step to full legalization. But that seems like a different debate.
In short, my view is that pot proponents have a burden of proof of explaining why pot should be legalized, and I haven’t heard very convincing reasons why a change in laws would benefit society.
As I understand it, and my understanding may be imperfect, marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol (apparently you cannot overdose on marijuana, for example).
Further the War on Drugs has done a lot to screw up our society.
I do not intend to get into a long-winded debate on this, but I suspect we can all agree that liberalization of drug laws is a legitimate issue that ought to be open for political discussion.
Darn shame it is not.
Also, I don’t think you want people to smoke pot and then drive automobiles. At least cops can perform a breathalyser test on a drunk driver. It’s probably harder to prove that someone was high on pot while driving.
Why? because the marijuana lobby doesn’t have enough clout/money.
Simple.
Cuz… they blew it all on pot? 
Jackknifed Juggernaut
What about Demerol, Valium, Ativan, countless decongestants, etc.? Some people learn that it is still Driving Under the Influence , even thought there was a Doctor’s prescription, only after they have run someone down. There are many substances legal and otherwise that impair driving ability and generally people do not learn until an innocent suffers.