NationStates Jolt Archive

As I was sniffing the smell of Mongolian beef a couple hours ago, I had a sudden thought.

The popular opinion (on NS) for gun control is to ILLGALIZE them
The popular opinion (on NS) for marijuana is to LEGALIZE it

The main reason for the gun opinion is SOCIETY CANNOT HANDLE IT
The main reason for the marijuana opinion is THAT THE WAR ON DRUGS IS POINTLESS, AND RESULTS IN MORE MARIJUANA USEAGE.

So, if society isn't handling guns well, you want to illegalize them? But if society isn't handling marijuana well, you want to legalize it anyways?

HmmHMM I see hypocrits (sp)!!!

well, having pot illegal just gives street gangs something else to peddle. if you want to get rid of the main sources of income for gangs, make all drugs legal. sell them next to the smokes or in specialty shops or something. have similar restrictions for them as for alcohol or tobacco, and voila, there goes their income and the profit of being in a gang.

also, guns are used to harm other people. someone using drugs is only harming themselves, if anyone.

well, having pot illegal just gives street gangs something else to peddle. if you want to get rid of the main sources of income for gangs, make all drugs legal. sell them next to the smokes or in specialty shops or something. have similar restrictions for them as for alcohol or tobacco, and voila, there goes their income and the profit of being in a gang.

also, guns are used to harm other people. someone using drugs is only harming themselves, if anyone.

okay, that solves the GANG PROBLEM.


That does nothing to help the marijuana problem. In fact, it only fuels the problem.

Great, now I'll be seeing 7th grade suburban kids smoking marijuana too. Just friggin awesome.

as it is now, 7th graders are smoking pot.
in canada, for someone under 19, pot is easier to come by than tobacco. though it isn't as bad as tobacco.

the thing is, pot is really quite a benign drug. for all the effort you guys put into making it illegal, it's really not worth it.
it's only illegal because that keeps the stigma on hemp, which is a very useful plant.

Odds of someone killing me with a gun: high

Odds of someone killing me with pot: non-existent

Odds of getting a nicer view of the world with a gun: low

Odds of getting a nicer view of the world with pot: moderate to high

also, pot isn't a problem. no more than message boards are a problem. should we outlaw everything that is psychologically addictive now?

and your government creates more problems with going on about the evils of marijuana than anything. kids hear how bad pot is and how horribly fucked up it makes you, they try it and then they see "oh, hey, what do you know, my brain didn't explode." so they're less likely to heed warnings about substances that are actually dangerous... say coccaine or heroin.

Odds of someone killing me with a gun: high

Odds of someone killing me with pot: non-existent

Odds of getting a nicer view of the world with a gun: low

Odds of getting a nicer view of the world with pot: moderate to high
so....your all for using drugs to mess with your brain, yet I'm pretty darn sure you'd be against using chemical weapons.

That does nothing to help the marijuana problem. In fact, it only fuels the problem.

except that there isn't a marijuana problem.

Odds of someone killing me with a gun: high

Odds of someone killing me with pot: non-existent

Odds of getting a nicer view of the world with a gun: low

Odds of getting a nicer view of the world with pot: moderate to high
How HIGH LOL :lol:

Odds of someone killing me with a gun: high

Odds of someone killing me with pot: non-existent

Odds of getting a nicer view of the world with a gun: low

Odds of getting a nicer view of the world with pot: moderate to high
so....your all for using drugs to mess with your brain, yet I'm pretty darn sure you'd be against using chemical weapons.

Smoking up on occasion doesn't have much of an effect. If someone wants to use chemical weapons on themselves in a place where no one else will be affected, then I say they're more than welcome to.

also, pot isn't a problem. no more than message boards are a problem. should we outlaw everything that is psychologically addictive now?

and your government creates more problems with going on about the evils of marijuana than anything. kids hear how bad pot is and how horribly f--- up it makes you, they try it and then they see "oh, hey, what do you know, my brain didn't explode." so they're less likely to heed warnings about substances that are actually dangerous... say coccaine or heroin.

goes well with former role-models smoking pot, and a few years later being on cocaine, speed, etc., no?

I'm talking about role-models who never listened to the government in the first place.

so....your all for using drugs to mess with your brain, yet I'm pretty darn sure you'd be against using chemical weapons.

what a terrible analogy. when exactly was the last time anyone chose to subject themselves to chemical weapons?

so....your all for using drugs to mess with your brain, yet I'm pretty darn sure you'd be against using chemical weapons.

what a terrible analogy. when exactly was the last time anyone chose to subject themselves to chemical weapons?

it's only as terrible as the post before it.

goes well with former role-models smoking pot, and a few years later being on cocaine, speed, etc., no?

I'm talking about role-models who never listened to the government in the first place.

Role models like William S. Burroughs, for example?

goes well with former role-models smoking pot, and a few years later being on cocaine, speed, etc., no?

I'm talking about role-models who never listened to the government in the first place.

Role models like William S. Burroughs, for example?
try uncles and cousins. Not people I have no clue about.

Role models like William S. Burroughs, for example?
try uncles and cousins. Not people I have no clue about.

"Feed your head".

it's only as terrible as the post before it.

tu quoque is no excuse

Role models like William S. Burroughs, for example?
try uncles and cousins. Not people I have no clue about.

"Feed your head".
Been there, done that.


Wanna suggest something new?

Role models like William S. Burroughs, for example?
try uncles and cousins. Not people I have no clue about.

"Feed your head".
Been there, done that.


Wanna suggest something new?

It means "read a book". Possibly one by or about William S . Burroughs.

Role models like William S. Burroughs, for example?
try uncles and cousins. Not people I have no clue about.

"Feed your head".
Been there, done that.


Wanna suggest something new?

It means "read a book". Possibly one by or about William S . Burroughs.

You said "free your head" not "open up a book"

Anyways, I think I might know what William would be talking about... :roll:

Role models like William S. Burroughs, for example?
try uncles and cousins. Not people I have no clue about.

"Feed your head".
Been there, done that.


Wanna suggest something new?

It means "read a book". Possibly one by or about William S . Burroughs.

You said "free your head" not "open up a book"

Anyways, I think I might know what William would be talking about... :roll:

No, I didn't: see the section you quoted "feed" not "free". No editing on my part.

My point being that despite ingesting ludicrous amounts of drugs of just about any and every kind, Burroughs lived a full and productive life and died of a heart attack at the age of 83. His works are considered classics and their influence is still strongly felt in contemporary literary circles. However, because he was on drugs, I guess he would be a bad role model?

did you know shakespeare was a pothead?
most of the music you listen to, poems you read, much of the literature you and others appreciate was written by someone who was at some point, on something that altered their thinking.

One man speaks for everyone that uses drugs? Wow. If I followed that philosophy:
-All Americans would be EVIL CHRISTIANS
-All British would be AMERICAN SLAUGHTERING DENTIST-DEPRIVED WEIRDOS
-All Canadians say "eh" all the time
-All Aussies go "crikey"
-All Muslims are terrorists
-It's all the Jews fault



Obviously, it's not true right? Wouldnt this be no different? Moderate doses is all one needs to easily hide it. I can guess this is what he did? Or did he smoke bong like every day with his pals?

did you know shakespeare was a pothead?
most of the music you listen to, poems you read, much of the literature you and others appreciate was written by someone who was at some point, on something that altered their thinking.

Mmmhmm. So humans need pot to live on if they ever want to be different?

That would be a great pro-marijuana slogan.

"Do the weed! Skakespere did!"
[/sarcasm]

(and do you care to back up this claim?)

did you know shakespeare was a pothead?

Circumstantial evidence at best: some pipes were found on the grounds of his home which contained traces of marijuana. They have been dated as being from some time in the C17th.. hardly conclusive proof that it was he that was smoking them.

most of the music you listen to, poems you read, much of the literature you and others appreciate was written by someone who was at some point, on something that altered their thinking.

Drugs in art = good?
Drugs in sport = bad?

did you know shakespeare was a pothead?
most of the music you listen to, poems you read, much of the literature you and others appreciate was written by someone who was at some point, on something that altered their thinking.

A lot of the old writers did drugs...what's your point? We're not all artists...

Ooooh....

GIVE ALL THE DRUGS TO THE ARTISTS!

One man speaks for everyone that uses drugs?
.
.
.
Obviously, it's not true right? Wouldnt this be no different? Moderate doses is all one needs to easily hide it. I can guess this is what he did? Or did he smoke bong like every day with his pals?

No, he shot smack straight into whatever vein he could find which hadn't collapsed whilst surrounded by his pals or when alone. That was when he wasn't on speed or acid or mescaline or some other chemical substance.

My point being: there are those who are able to use drugs and still live productive lives. Why should they be penalised because of the weaknesses of others?


***
Care to explain why you claimed that I wrote "free your head"?

One man speaks for everyone that uses drugs?
.
.
.
Obviously, it's not true right? Wouldnt this be no different? Moderate doses is all one needs to easily hide it. I can guess this is what he did? Or did he smoke bong like every day with his pals?

No, he shot smack straight into whatever vein he could find which hadn't collapsed whilst surrounded by his pals or when alone. That was when he wasn't on speed or acid or mescaline or some other chemical substance.

My point being: there are those who are able to use drugs and still live productive lives. Why should they be penalised because of the weaknesses of others?


***
Care to explain why you claimed that I wrote "free your head"?

Listening to Pink Floyd and multi-tasking.

anyways, if these people are leading productive lives, than their lives would just be as productive without drugs. Unless, it's drugs that are causing them to excell in society. Don't we already have something like that in sports?

but drugs in sport give a person an unfair advantage.

in any case, how is pot any worse than alcohol? or tobacco?
if you look at the impact on society, both of those drugs have more of an impact than pot, and it's not just because they're legal. nicotine is more addictive than coccaine or herion. alcohol has a tendency to kill people who use too much. pot does not. there is not one death caused by pot. (unless you count lung cancer, which doesn't happen often and if you use that, then youd' have to make tobacco illegal as well and we all know that's not going to happen)

in any case, there is a fundamental difference between drugs and guns.
if you don't want to do drugs, you don't have to no one's going to force you. if you don't want to be shot, then someone else can shoot you and there's nothing you can say about it.

My point being: there are those who are able to use drugs and still live productive lives. Why should they be penalised because of the weaknesses of others?

anyways, if these people are leading productive lives, than their lives would just be as productive without drugs. Unless, it's drugs that are causing them to excell in society. Don't we already have something like that in sports?

I take it that you are of the opinion that drugs in sport are a bad thing?

Mmmhmm. So humans need pot to live on if they ever want to be different?


when did i ever say that?
and no one has "pot to live on"... i really don't think you know a damn thing about marijuana.

but drugs in sport give a person an unfair advantage.

in any case, how is pot any worse than alcohol? or tobacco?
if you look at the impact on society, both of those drugs have more of an impact than pot, and it's not just because they're legal. nicotine is more addictive than coccaine or herion. alcohol has a tendency to kill people who use too much. pot does not. there is not one death caused by pot. (unless you count lung cancer, which doesn't happen often and if you use that, then youd' have to make tobacco illegal as well and we all know that's not going to happen)

in any case, there is a fundamental difference between drugs and guns.
if you don't want to do drugs, you don't have to no one's going to force you. if you don't want to be shot, then someone else can shoot you and there's nothing you can say about it.

ya wanna count the deaths caused by people who tried pot, which lead em to PCP, speed, heroine, cocaine, whatever?

My point being: there are those who are able to use drugs and still live productive lives. Why should they be penalised because of the weaknesses of others?

anyways, if these people are leading productive lives, than their lives would just be as productive without drugs. Unless, it's drugs that are causing them to excell in society. Don't we already have something like that in sports?

I take it that you are of the opinion that drugs in sport are a bad thing?
very

there is not one death caused by pot. (unless you count lung cancer, which doesn't happen often and if you use that, then youd' have to make tobacco illegal as well and we all know that's not going to happen)


Translation:

"There is not one death caused by pot (unless you count those deaths caused by pot.)"

I take it that you are of the opinion that drugs in sport are a bad thing?
very

Why?

anyways, if these people are leading productive lives, than their lives would just be as productive without drugs. Unless, it's drugs that are causing them to excell in society. Don't we already have something like that in sports?

ok, so someone wants to go drink a beer with his friends. they sit around, they talk, they get sloshed, have interesting conversations they don't remember, get a ride home with someone sober (like a cabbie) and then on monday, they go back to work in their 9-5 jobs.

someone else doesn't like beer, they like pot. they go to a friend's house on a friday night with a quarter ounce and smoke a couple of spliffs between them. they get stoned, much out, have interesting conversations they don't remember, crash on a couch or get a ride home with someone sober and then on monday, they go back to their 9-5 jobs.

what's the difference?

I take it that you are of the opinion that drugs in sport are a bad thing?
very

Why?
Why should someone, who's willing to mess with his body with drugs, (temporarily) become a better athelete when I am the loser because I don't want to be messing with my body like that?

anyways, if these people are leading productive lives, than their lives would just be as productive without drugs. Unless, it's drugs that are causing them to excell in society. Don't we already have something like that in sports?

ok, so someone wants to go drink a beer with his friends. they sit around, they talk, they get sloshed, have interesting conversations they don't remember, get a ride home with someone sober (like a cabbie) and then on monday, they go back to work in their 9-5 jobs.

someone else doesn't like beer, they like pot. they go to a friend's house on a friday night with a quarter ounce and smoke a couple of spliffs between them. they get stoned, much out, have interesting conversations they don't remember, crash on a couch or get a ride home with someone sober and then on monday, they go back to their 9-5 jobs.

what's the difference?

hmm, if this is a battle of generalizations.....than the ones smoking marijuana would be working at a low-income job.

there is not one death caused by pot. (unless you count lung cancer, which doesn't happen often and if you use that, then youd' have to make tobacco illegal as well and we all know that's not going to happen)


Translation:

"There is not one death caused by pot (unless you count those deaths caused by pot.)"

there aren't many people who get lung cancer from pot anyways...
you ahve to smoke like 2-3 joints a day for 40 years for it to be an issue. i don't know anyone who would smoke 2-3 joints in a day, let alone on a daily basis.

and there's also a difference between dying because you "overdosed" than dying from very long term and over-the-top effects.

Why should someone, who's willing to mess with his body with drugs, (temporarily) become a better athelete when I am the loser because I don't want to be messing with my body like that?

The same could be said for a harsh regime of training: why should you be allowed to (temporarily) become a better athlete by undergoing strenuous training and exercise when I am the loser because I don't want to be messing with my body like that?

You haven't pointed out why drugs in themselves are a bad thing in sport, just pointed out that you don't want to use them.

anyways, if these people are leading productive lives, than their lives would just be as productive without drugs. Unless, it's drugs that are causing them to excell in society. Don't we already have something like that in sports?

ok, so someone wants to go drink a beer with his friends. they sit around, they talk, they get sloshed, have interesting conversations they don't remember, get a ride home with someone sober (like a cabbie) and then on monday, they go back to work in their 9-5 jobs.

someone else doesn't like beer, they like pot. they go to a friend's house on a friday night with a quarter ounce and smoke a couple of spliffs between them. they get stoned, much out, have interesting conversations they don't remember, crash on a couch or get a ride home with someone sober and then on monday, they go back to their 9-5 jobs.

what's the difference?

hmm, if this is a battle of generalizations.....than the ones smoking marijuana would be working at a low-income job.

what? there are quite successful people who smoke pot.
and who said anything about generalizations?
perhaps the situations are a little general, but there's no real difference between going out and getting drunk with your buddies every once in a while and getting stoned with your buddies every once in a while. except perhas you might eat a little more when stoned.

but then again, what do you know. you don't seem to know anything about pot whatsoever.

Why should someone, who's willing to mess with his body with drugs, (temporarily) become a better athelete when I am the loser because I don't want to be messing with my body like that?

The same could be said for a harsh regime of training: why should you be allowed to (temporarily) become a better athlete by undergoing strenuous training and exercise when I am the loser because I don't want to be messing with my body like that?

You haven't pointed out why drugs in themselves are a bad thing in sport, just pointed out that you don't want to use them.

because they're making an unfair advantage over others.

And concerning what you said earlier about the complaining athelete who's too lazy to train. He can suck a lemon. This athelete is TRAINING and winning his advantage. He's not paying a few bucks to get first place.

there aren't many people who get lung cancer from pot anyways...

There aren't many, but there are some, which is not what you tried to claim earlier.

you ahve to smoke like 2-3 joints a day for 40 years for it to be an issue. i don't know anyone who would smoke 2-3 joints in a day, let alone on a daily basis.

I do know people that would smoke that much, but that is utterly irrelevant here. The fact that they tend to put on a lot of weight and become generally sluggish both physically and mentally may not be.

and there's also a difference between dying because you "overdosed" than dying from very long term and over-the-top effects.

That important difference being?

anyways, if these people are leading productive lives, than their lives would just be as productive without drugs. Unless, it's drugs that are causing them to excell in society. Don't we already have something like that in sports?

ok, so someone wants to go drink a beer with his friends. they sit around, they talk, they get sloshed, have interesting conversations they don't remember, get a ride home with someone sober (like a cabbie) and then on monday, they go back to work in their 9-5 jobs.

someone else doesn't like beer, they like pot. they go to a friend's house on a friday night with a quarter ounce and smoke a couple of spliffs between them. they get stoned, much out, have interesting conversations they don't remember, crash on a couch or get a ride home with someone sober and then on monday, they go back to their 9-5 jobs.

what's the difference?

hmm, if this is a battle of generalizations.....than the ones smoking marijuana would be working at a low-income job.

what? there are quite successful people who smoke pot.
and who said anything about generalizations?
perhaps the situations are a little general, but there's no real difference between going out and getting drunk with your buddies every once in a while and getting stoned with your buddies every once in a while. except perhas you might eat a little more when stoned.

but then again, what do you know. you don't seem to know anything about pot whatsoever.

Oh, I need a Master's Degree in Pot in order to express my opinion now?

What do you know about me anyways? nothing whatsoever

You haven't pointed out why drugs in themselves are a bad thing in sport, just pointed out that you don't want to use them.

because they're making an unfair advantage over others.

Not if everybody was allowed to take whatever drugs they wanted: as was pretty much the case in international sport before the 1960s and the outrage that surrounded the deaths of Tour de France riders as a result of the drugs they were taking in excessively large doses.

And concerning what you said earlier about the complaining athelete who's too lazy to train. He can suck a lemon. This athelete is TRAINING and winning his advantage. He's not paying a few bucks to get first place.

So paying for a better coach or better equipment to train with would also be out of the question?

You haven't pointed out why drugs in themselves are a bad thing in sport, just pointed out that you don't want to use them.

because they're making an unfair advantage over others.

Not if everybody was allowed to take whatever drugs they wanted: as was pretty much the case in international sport before the 1960s and the outrage that surrounded the deaths of Tour de France riders as a result of the drugs they were taking in excessively large doses.

And concerning what you said earlier about the complaining athelete who's too lazy to train. He can suck a lemon. This athelete is TRAINING and winning his advantage. He's not paying a few bucks to get first place.

So paying for a better coach or better equipment to train with would also be out of the question?

Coaches don't train you. You train yourself dammit.

And I'm not sure what point your trying to make with the Tour De France

Oh, I need a Master's Degree in Pot in order to express my opinion now?

What do you know about me anyways? nothing whatsoever

no, it would be nice if you just knew something other than third hand information that has no real basis in reality.

you can spout off your opinion all you want. i woudl really just rather talk to someone with an informed opinion.

and i know that you don't know anything about pot. if you think it's as bad as you seem to, you really don't know jack shit.

I do know people that would smoke that much, but that is utterly irrelevant here. The fact that they tend to put on a lot of weight and become generally sluggish both physically and mentally may not be.


so? i know people who put on a lot of weight and are mentally and physically sluggish because they're alcoholics. what's your point?
at least a severe stoner isn't violent.

Oh, I need a Master's Degree in Pot in order to express my opinion now?

What do you know about me anyways? nothing whatsoever

no, it would be nice if you just knew something other than third hand information that has no real basis in reality.

you can spout off your opinion all you want. i woudl really just rather talk to someone with an informed opinion.

and i know that you don't know anything about pot. if you think it's as bad as you seem to, you really don't know jack shit.

Then why are you talking for the love of God?

Coaches don't train you. You train yourself dammit.

Ah. So the fact that they 'coach' you is irrelevant? The fact that they are also known as 'trainers'? What do coaches do if they don't train you?

And I'm not sure what point your trying to make with the Tour De France

That if everyone is allowed to take drugs in sport, then no-one would be "making an unfair advantage over others" - all would have the same option of taking drugs available to them.

Then why are you talking for the love of God?
in the hopes that perhaps you would actually learn something rather than wallow in your own ignorance.

Coaches don't train you. You train yourself dammit.

Ah. So the fact that they 'coach' you is irrelevant? The fact that they are also known as 'trainers'? What do coaches do if they don't train you?

And I'm not sure what point your trying to make with the Tour De France

That if everyone is allowed to take drugs in sport, then no-one would be "making an unfair advantage over others" - all would have the same option of taking drugs available to them.
Now your just saying "Take these drugs and have a chance of winning. Or don't and lose. Period."

What about the real atheletes (sp)? Should they be left in the dust?

I do know people that would smoke that much, but that is utterly irrelevant here. The fact that they tend to put on a lot of weight and become generally sluggish both physically and mentally may not be.


so? i know people who put on a lot of weight and are mentally and physically sluggish because they're alcoholics. what's your point?
at least a severe stoner isn't violent.

I was just pointing out that that kind of heavy use of dope has its unpleasent side-effects, even if one does not succumb to lung-cancer due to long term use.

Then why are you talking for the love of God?
in the hopes that perhaps you would actually learn something rather than wallow in your own ignorance.
I said, why are you still talking if you said you would much rather talk to someone else than blah blah blah?

Now your just saying "Take these drugs and have a chance of winning. Or don't and lose. Period."

What about the real atheletes (sp)? Should they be left in the dust?

Okay - so how about two different sets of olympics or other similar international competitions: one which is open to drug-users, and one in which drug use is strictly forbidden. Would you have a problem with that kind of set up?

(sp = athletes)

Now your just saying "Take these drugs and have a chance of winning. Or don't and lose. Period."

What about the real atheletes (sp)? Should they be left in the dust?

Okay - so how about two different sets of olympics or other similar international competitions: one which is open to drug-users, and one in which drug use is strictly forbidden. Would you have a problem with that kind of set up?

(sp = athletes)

But the results would be at or around the same as if the athletes never took the drugs in the first place. Eliminating the need for the second set of Olympics/Int. Comp.

But the results would be at or around the same as if the athletes never took the drugs in the first place. Eliminating the need for the second set of Olympics/Int. Comp.

I assume you mean that Joe would still beat Bob whether they were both on drugs or not?

Not necessarily: different people react to drugs in different ways, and different people would find combinations of drugs which worked better than other combinations, thus the rankings could be radically different from in drug-free events.

Pot is no worse than alcohol, in fact, I'd say it's not even as bad as alcohol. I choose not to smoke pot, and I still wouldn't if it was legal. True, you can get lung cancer from smoking pot (not from eating hash brownies though), but you can get lung cancer a lot more easily from cigarettes and you can get liver cancer from drinking. How many people have died from Alcohol abuse? A lot more people than have died because of pot.
Alcohol is also a "gateway drug" as you might call it. All the people I know who got into hard drugs used alcohol first. We tried making it illegal already, it didn't work. Pot, unlike drugs used for sports, doesn't really give anyone an unfair advantage. Why do people use pot, or alcohol for that matter? To feel good. Besides, the legality alcohol and tobacco indicate that it's legal to screw yourself up. I personally don't care what someone's method is.
I think pot should be legalized, and that there should be similar restrictions placed on it as alcohol. What someone does with their body is their own damn business. I just think it's inconsistant of the government to allow alcohol, which is really a dangerous substance, while possessing cannabis is a crime.

Pot is no worse than alcohol, in fact, I'd say it's not even as bad as alcohol. I choose not to smoke pot, and I still wouldn't if it was legal. True, you can get lung cancer from smoking pot (not from eating hash brownies though), but you can get lung cancer a lot more easily from cigarettes and you can get liver cancer from drinking. How many people have died from Alcohol abuse? A lot more people than have died because of pot.
Alcohol is also a "gateway drug" as you might call it. All the people I know who got into hard drugs used alcohol first. We tried making it illegal already, it didn't work. Pot, unlike drugs used for sports, doesn't really give anyone an unfair advantage. Why do people use pot, or alcohol for that matter? To feel good. Besides, the legality alcohol and tobacco indicate that it's legal to screw yourself up. I personally don't care what someone's method is.
I think pot should be legalized, and that there should be similar restrictions placed on it as alcohol. What someone does with their body is their own damn business. I just think it's inconsistant of the government to allow alcohol, which is really a dangerous substance, while possessing cannabis is a crime.

legalize but regulate :)

I'd almost be willing to bet money that this has already been said in one form or another, but guns' primary purpose is to kill other organisms while marijuana's primary purpose is personal enjoyment. People cannot handle guns because they keep killing each other with them. People can handle marijuana because they would not be kililng each other with it. With that said, there are some serious problems will marijuana that would need to be addressed before it could be legalized, not the smallest of which is the fact that marijuana intoxication is dangerous on the road in the same way as alcohol intoxication. An advantage of legalizing marijuana would be to allow for more public regulation and treatement of drug users, as with alcohol or cigarettes. Also, the existence of a list of banned substances gives a tacit "ok" to legal substances which can be just as dangerous. The danger from legal, perscription and non-perscription drugs and from "huffing" other household products is as great as the danger from even the worst of illegal drugs but the institutions for treating and preventing use of these drugs is nowhere near as well established nor as well funded as the institutions for preventing illicit drug use. Twenty two billion dollars are spent each year in the "war on drugs" but only one percent of all drug trafficing is prevented. If that money went into anti-drug education and treatment rather than the rather expensive ($450,000 average) incarceration of drug users (not dealers) drug use would decline significantly, drug deaths would similarly drop, terrorism sponsored using money from drug sales would diminish, and a greater number of people could become productive members of society rather than a drain and a danger.

Locked by request of author. *shrugs*