NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't smoke, never have, and don't plan to. But we waste so much money fighting a futile "War on Drugs" when prescription drugs are often more abused and more dangerously so than illegal drugs. The only reason the government insists on prohibiting marijuana is because the drug industries have the FDA in their pocket, and they don't want people to be able to grow their own high. They want to make it in a lab and overcharge people for their drugs. There is a large societal impetus against marijuana usage, so people who haven't smoked wouldn't start because it is legal.

There's more to it than that.

Make soft drugs legal, and municipal regional and national Police forces worldwide will see their budgets reduced. You ever hear of a reduced Police budget in your lifetime?



And you're not going to anytime soon.

Hey lets leaglize crack while were at it!

Seriously though...states rights.

considering cannibis is less damaging than alchohol, and it has been proven NOT to be a "gateway drug," it should of been legalised and taxed long ago. I live in BC --if the government was able to make the money the growers/dealers make, I'd be living in the richest province in Canada. No joke.

This super right-wing think tank says it is an 8 billion per year industry here, which is bigger than forestry the biggest legal industry:

Lol, even Canada's conservatives want pot legalised... :)
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=608

considering cannibis is less damaging than alchohol, and it has been proven NOT to be a "gateway drug," it should of been legalised and taxed long ago. I live in BC --if the government was able to make the money the growers/dealers make, I'd be living in the richest province in Canada. No joke.

This super right-wing think tank says it is an 8 billion per year industry here, which is bigger than forestry the biggest legal industry:

Lol, even Canada's conservatives want pot legalised... :)
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=608

then why don't they do it?
that may be a rhetorical question.

Hey lets leaglize crack while were at it!

It is probably more important to decriminalize crack than to legalize cannabis. I don't want some crackhead breaking into my car so she can pay for her high. I want this crackhead to get her daily ration of clean pure government rocks in return for a few dollars. It doesn't cost much to produce at all. And all of a sudden the drug lords can't make a profit and will have to work down at Burgerking.

I think that the free market should be enough to lower crack prices. They are kept artificially high by government enforcement. People would grow cocoa in greenhouses if they were allowed.

I agree, all drugs should be legalized and government sold at phamarcies by trained pharmacists. Add in information pamphlets and recovery programs and the whole drug issue and crime rate plummets into nothingness. As already mentioned, cheap government-sold drugs will allow addicts to buy clean relatively safe (as much as the specific drug can be) substances that not only allow addicts to get it without resorting to crime, but also eliminate all drug based criminal organizations, and the government can make a small profit to fund the addiction assistance programs or other areas, and reduced police funds can be guided into health care, environment, defence, child care (hint hint, Prime Minister Harper), or paying down government debts.

I will point out that heroin and cocaine used to be perfectly legal in Australia. Heroin was availible with a doctor's prescription up until the 1950's. There was concern about addiction, but not the huge social problems we see today.

it has been proven NOT to be a "gateway drug,"

When was this?

It is probably more important to decriminalize crack than to legalize cannabis. I don't want some crackhead breaking into my car so she can pay for her high. I want this crackhead to get her daily ration of clean pure government rocks in return for a few dollars. It doesn't cost much to produce at all. And all of a sudden the drug lords can't make a profit and will have to work down at Burgerking.

Right, because that's what happend to the tobacco dealers and the alcohol dealers.

That's because of government taxes and profit seeking. The drugs, if government produced and sold, would be able to remain cheap and provided heavy taxes weren't levied on them (which they wouldn't, since the goverment already reaps some profit and is doing this to reduce crime) then there would be far less incentive to steal them.

Mary-j should not be legalized. We legalize mary-j, pretty soon people will want other drugs legalized. Plus, if it is legal, it will be even easier for children to obtain it. Just because legalizing it will lower the crime rate doesn't make it right. Murder accounts for a large portion of our crime rate...should we legalize that?

That's because of government taxes and profit seeking. The drugs, if government produced and sold, would be able to remain cheap and provided heavy taxes weren't levied on them (which they wouldn't, since the goverment already reaps some profit and is doing this to reduce crime) then there would be far less incentive to steal them.

Your ideas are not without merit, but I have to disagree that they are a good idea. I cannot condone turning the government into a drug dealer.

I think it is a great idea. you take what happened with the prohibition, and see how the gangs controlled the streets over the distrubution of alcohol and you see similarities with drug dealers today with weed and coke and all that. I say once we legalize weed, crime will go down like 65% in inner cities.

Mary-j should not be legalized. We legalize mary-j, pretty soon people will want other drugs legalized. Plus, if it is legal, it will be even easier for children to obtain it. Just because legalizing it will lower the crime rate doesn't make it right. Murder accounts for a large portion of our crime rate...should we legalize that?

Someone got an F in logic.

I am all for legalizing marijuana, but isn't this thread # 86759 on this topic this week?

Right, because that's what happend to the tobacco dealers and the alcohol dealers.

Not sure what you're getting at. Criminals used to sell alcohol in America during the prohibition. Now they don't. Lot's of people now sell cocaine in America. If people could buy it legally at a fraction of the street price these people will be unable to make a living selling black market cocaine and will have to do something else. No one makes bathtub gin and sells it on streetcorners anymore.

**edit** meant to quote thomas Pigg...

geeze..and this moron is going around with my name:headbang:

I will point out that heroin and cocaine used to be perfectly legal in Australia. Heroin was availible with a doctor's prescription up until the 1950's. There was concern about addiction, but not the huge social problems we see today.


It was the same in the US (except of course for the timing). The original reasons given for prohibition were completely racist. For example, the first drug prohibitions in the US was San Francisco's "Anti-opium Den" ordinance, passed in 1874, which specifically targeted Chinese.




it has been proven NOT to be a "gateway drug,"
When was this?

Multiple studies (follow the link at the end to links to most, if not all, of the studies):


Gateway Theory

1. In March 1999, the Institute of Medicine issued a report on various aspects of marijuana, including the so-called, Gateway Theory (the theory that using marijuana leads people to use harder drugs like cocaine and heroin). The IOM stated, "There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs."

Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).

2. The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on marijuana explained that marijuana has been mistaken for a gateway drug in the past because "Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana -- usually before they are of legal age."

Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).

3. The 2002 federal National Survey on Drug Use and Health provides an estimate of the age of first use of drugs. According to the Survey, the mean age of first use of marijuana in the US in 2000 was 16.6 years. The mean age of first use of alcohol in 2000 was 16.2 years, and the mean age of first use of cigarettes that year was 16 years old.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, Results from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies, Sept. 2003), p. 233, Table H.35, p. 238, Table H.40, p. 239, Table H.41.

4. The 2002 federal National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) reported that:
"In 2002, the rate of current illicit drug use was approximately 8 times higher among youths who smoked cigarettes (48.1 percent) than it was among youths who did not smoke cigarettes (6.2 percent) (Figure 2.11).
"Illicit drug use also was associated with the level of alcohol use. Among youths who were heavy drinkers, 67.0 percent also were current illicit drug users, whereas among nondrinkers, the rate was only 5.6 percent."

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, Results from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies, Sept. 2003), p. 20.

5. Over 72 million Americans have used marijuana, yet for every 120 people who have ever tried marijuana, there is only one active, regular user of cocaine.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999), pp. 19, 25, 31.

6. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association on cannabis and its possible role as a gateway drug found that "While covariates differed between equations, early regular use of tobacco and alcohol emerged as the 2 factors most consistently associated with later illicit drug use and abuse/dependence. While early regular alcohol use did not emerge as a significant independent predictor of alcohol dependence, this finding should be treated with considerable caution, as our study did not provide an optimal strategy for assessing the effects of early alcohol use."

Source: Lynskey, Michael T., PhD, et al., "Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 289 No. 4, January 22/29, 2003, online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v289n4/rfull/joc21156.html, last accessed Jan. 31, 2003.

7. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association on cannabis and its possible role as a gateway drug concluded that "While the findings of this study indicate that early cannabis use is associated with increased risks of progression to other illicit drug use and drug abuse/dependence, it is not possible to draw strong causal conclusions solely on the basis of the associations shown in this study."

Source: Lynskey, Michael T., PhD, et al., "Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 289 No. 4, January 22/29, 2003, online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v289n4/rfull/joc21156.html, last accessed Jan. 31, 2003.

8. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association on cannabis and its possible role as a gateway drug concluded that "Other mechanisms that might mediate a causal association between early cannabis use and subsequent drug use and drug abuse/dependence include the following:
"1. Initial experiences with cannabis, which are frequently rated as pleasurable, may encourage continued use of cannabis and also broader experimentation.
"2. Seemingly safe early experiences with cannabis may reduce the perceived risk of, and therefore barriers to, the use of other drugs. For example, as the vast majority of those who use cannabis do not experience any legal consequences of their use, such use may act to diminish the strength of legal sanctions against the use of all drugs.
"3. Alternatively, experience with and subsequent access to cannabis use may provide individuals with access to other drugs as they come into contact with drug dealers. This argument provided a strong impetus for the Netherlands to effectively decriminalize cannabis use in an attempt to separate cannabis from the hard drug market. This strategy may have been partially successful as rates of cocaine use among those who have used cannabis are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States."

Source: Lynskey, Michael T., PhD, et al., "Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 289 No. 4, January 22/29, 2003, online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v289n4/rfull/joc21156.html, last accessed Jan. 31, 2003.

9. In 2002 the English government published research on the initiation of drug use and criminal offending by young people in Britain. According to the study, "After applying these methods, there is very little remaining evidence of any causal gateway effect. For example, even if soft/medium drugs (cannabis, amphetamines, LSD, magic mushrooms, amyl nitrite) could somehow be abolished completely, the true causal link with hard drugs (crack, heroin, methadone) is found to be very small. For the sort of reduction in soft drug use that might be achievable in practice, the predicted causal effect on the demand for hard drugs would be negligible. Although there is stronger evidence of a gateway between soft drugs and ecstasy/cocaine, it remains small for practical purposes. My interpretation of the results of this study is that true gateway effects are probably very small and that the association between soft and hard drugs found in survey data is largely the result of our inability to observe all the personal characteristics underlying individual drug use. From this viewpoint, the decision to reclassify cannabis seems unlikely to have damaging future consequences."

Source: Pudney, Stephen, "Home Office Research Study 253: The road to ruin? Sequences of initiation into drug use and offending by young people in Britain" (London, England: Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate, December 2002), p. vi.

10. The World Health Organization's investigation into the gateway effect of marijuana stated emphatically that the theory that marijuana use by adolescents leads to heroin use is the least likely of all hypotheses.

Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995 (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).

11. The World Health Organization noted the effects of prohibition in its March 1998 study, when it stated that "exposure to other drugs when purchasing cannabis on the black market, increases the opportunity to use other illicit drugs."

Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995 (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).

12. According to CASA (National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse), there is no proof that a causal relationship exists between cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and other drugs. Basic scientific and clinical research establishing causality does not exist.

Source: Merrill, J.C. & Fox, K.S., Cigarettes, Alcohol, Marijuana: Gateways to Illicit Drug Use, Introduction (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, October 1994).

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/gatewayt.htm

I not so much for legalising drugs, more just for decriminalising them. I don't think companies should be allowed to have ads for smack while the Teletubbies are on. But I do think Heroin addicts should be able to get clean, cheap heroin for personal use.

Mary-j should not be legalized. We legalize mary-j, pretty soon people will want other drugs legalized. Plus, if it is legal, it will be even easier for children to obtain it. Just because legalizing it will lower the crime rate doesn't make it right. Murder accounts for a large portion of our crime rate...should we legalize that?

This is a rather silly argument. Basically, you're using the gateway drug theory to cover legalization. But what's *really* rediculous is to try to equate a victim crime with a victimless crime.

I don't know of any civil, working nation on earth where murder is legal. However, there are those where marijuana, and other drugs, are legal. And the social institutions in those nations do not break down.

I used to be a police officer in a US city. I find this argument above laughable at best, and sadly delusional at worst.

Not sure what you're getting at. Criminals used to sell alcohol in America during the prohibition. Now they don't. Lot's of people now sell cocaine in America. If people could buy it legally at a fraction of the street price these people will be unable to make a living selling black market cocaine and will have to do something else. No one makes bathtub gin and sells it on streetcorners anymore.

In case you missed it, people still do sell alcohol.
And they make more money at it now then they did during prohibition.
If drugs are legalized, then that will just mean that the drug lords put on suits (which they already have, actually) and their business will be legal.
It doesn't mean that they'd be out of business, working at burger king. It means that they'd start an open franchise for their product.
The street level peons would be out of work, but they'd find more work selling other illegal things.

I'm not advocating making drugs into a business where any company can do it, it should be government controlled and run when the government produces and sells it. As for people selling alcohol, not once have I met or heard of anyone making and selling alcohol.

Mary-j should not be legalized. We legalize mary-j, pretty soon people will want other drugs legalized. Plus, if it is legal, it will be even easier for children to obtain it. Just because legalizing it will lower the crime rate doesn't make it right. Murder accounts for a large portion of our crime rate...should we legalize that?

Yeah! We wouldn't want them "dirty crazy Spics" running wild on the Mary J and rapping and killing!
(You are aware that that's the reason it was made illegal, aren't you?)

Probably the best single statement was the statement of a proponent of Texas first marijuana law. He said on the floor of the Texas Senate, and I quote, "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy." Or, as the proponent of Montana's first marijuana law said, (and imagine this on the floor of the state legislature) and I quote, "Give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona."
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

Oh, and for the original racist Anti-Opium Den law, see:


The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs

by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine, 1972

Chapter 6 Opium smoking is outlawed

To summarize the data reviewed so far, opiates taken daily in large doses by addicts were not a social menace under nineteenth-century conditions, and were not perceived as a menace. Opium, morphine, and heroin could be legally purchased without a prescription, and there was little demand for opiate prohibition. But there was one exception to this general tolerance of the opiates. In 1875, the City of San Francisco adopted an ordinance prohibiting the smoking of opium in smoking-houses or "dens." 1

The roots of this ordinance were racist rather than health-oriented, and were concerned with what today is known as "life-style." Opium smoking was introduced into the United States by tens of thousands of Chinese men and boys imported during the l850s and 1880s to build the great Western railroads.* The Chinese laborers then drifted into San Francisco and other cities, and accepted employment of various kinds at low wages --- giving rise to waves of anti-Chinese hostility. Soon white men and even women were smoking opium side by side with the Chinese, a life-style which was widely disapproved. The San Francisco authorities, we are told learned upon investigation that "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the [Chinese] opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise ** 4 The 1875 ordinance followed, "forbidding the practice under penalty of a heavy fine or imprisonment or both. Many arrests were made, and the punishment was prompt and thorough. 6
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu6.htm

if you want to legalize pot, you obviosly are a pot head

I'm not advocating making drugs into a business where any company can do it, it should be government controlled and run when the government produces and sells it. As for people selling alcohol, not once have I met or heard of anyone making and selling alcohol.

Oh, hell yes, people still 'shine.

Moonshine Breaks From Backwoods

ATLANTA, Aug. 28, 2003

(AP) You don't have to travel to the backwoods of the rural South to find moonshine: Plenty is being brewed in the heart of Atlanta, and it's making people sick, according to a new study.

Moonshine — known as "corn liquor" — is made in inner-city stills and sold in "cornhouses," or makeshift bars, for $1.25 a shot or around $2.50 a pint, said Dr. Brent Morgan of Emory University.

University researchers conducted a survey at Atlanta's Grady Memorial Hospital after doctors noticed emergency room patients were turning up with lead poisoning from moonshine.

The survey, reported in the September issue of the Annals of Emergency Medicine, found that nearly 9 percent of emergency room patients said they had consumed moonshine in the last five years.

The 581 patients surveyed were at the hospital for various reasons. The hospital largely serves the poor.

The 9 percent figure was "surprisingly high," said Morgan, Emory's medical toxicology residency director. "You think it's maybe something that occurs in the north Georgia mountains or in Appalachia, but it's here."

In 2000, four adults at Grady Memorial were treated for moonshine-related lead poisoning. The patients had up to six times the lead levels that would warrant medical removal from the workplace under federal rules. One patient died.

Moonshine drinkers can be poisoned from lead in homemade whiskey, which often contains residue from lead soldering in stills or car radiators used in the alcohol extraction process.

Emory and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms analyzed 100 moonshine samples and found 10 percent carried lead levels that could result in poisoning. The alcohol content ranged from 8 percent to 60 percent.

"We still continue to see a couple (of cases) who have been poisoned with lead from drinking moonshine and it's still out here," Morgan said. "There's a whole culture that still exists.

"It's not only in the Southeast — moonshine is being consumed in other areas. Physicians need to be aware of this," he said.

Symptoms of lead poisoning include abdominal pain, anemia, renal failure and hypertension. It also can cause altered thinking, confusion and seizures, Morgan said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/28/health/main570663.shtml

No, people who want to legalize pot are not potheads. I want to legalize pretty much all drugs, and I don't do them. It makes sense to legalize them, both in regards to the crime rate, and economically.

if you want to legalize pot, you obviosly are a pot head

By that logic, I am a racist because I would allow people freedom of speech; I am Islamic, because I would allow freedom of religion; etc.

As AllCoolNamesAreTaken said above, "Someone got an F in logic."

No, people who want to legalize pot are not potheads. I want to legalize pretty much all drugs, and I don't do them. It makes sense to legalize them, both in regards to the crime rate, and economically.

Ditto for me, adding (as one may guess from my previous posts on this subject :)), that I strongly object to the racism that underlies the drug prohibition laws.

Multiple studies (follow the link at the end to links to most, if not all, of the studies):

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/gatewayt.htm

Okay, one by one.
1. "There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs"
That's not disproving the theory, that's just lack of proof for the theory.
2. " In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana -- usually before they are of legal age."
I don't find any significance in that, other than indicating that alcohol and tobacco are also gateway drugs (which is pretty obvious).
3. Same as two. The fact that cigarettes and alcohol are gateway drugs does not mean that marijuana is not one.
4. Same as 2 and 3.
5. "Over 72 million Americans have used marijuana, yet for every 120 people who have ever tried marijuana, there is only one active, regular user of cocaine."
Interesting, but not conclusive. Pot is cheaper and easier to get ahold of than cocaine.
6. Same as 2-4.
7. "While the findings of this study indicate that early cannabis use is associated with increased risks of progression to other illicit drug use and drug abuse/dependence, it is not possible to draw strong causal conclusions solely on the basis of the associations shown in this study."
Indicates that it may be a gateway drug, actually, although it doesn't indicate this very strongly this is far from proof that pot is NOT a gateway drug.
8. "Other mechanisms that might mediate a causal association between early cannabis use and subsequent drug use and drug abuse/dependence include the following:"
"1. Initial experiences with cannabis, which are frequently rated as pleasurable, may encourage continued use of cannabis and also broader experimentation. 2. Seemingly safe early experiences with cannabis may reduce the perceived risk of, and therefore barriers to, the use of other drugs. For example, as the vast majority of those who use cannabis do not experience any legal consequences of their use, such use may act to diminish the strength of legal sanctions against the use of all drugs. 3. Alternatively, experience with and subsequent access to cannabis use may provide individuals with access to other drugs as they come into contact with drug dealers. This argument provided a strong impetus for the Netherlands to effectively decriminalize cannabis use in an attempt to separate cannabis from the hard drug market. This strategy may have been partially successful as rates of cocaine use among those who have used cannabis are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States."
Seems to be saying, "It's a gateway drug because it's illegal", which doesn't disprove the theory. Also, I don't agree with their conclusion that legality would solve all of these problems.
9. "Although there is stronger evidence of a gateway between soft drugs and ecstasy/cocaine, it remains small for practical purposes."
Shows that there is a gateway effect, if a small one.
10. "The World Health Organization's investigation into the gateway effect of marijuana stated emphatically that the theory that marijuana use by adolescents leads to heroin use is the least likely of all hypotheses."
I'm not sure of the context of this, but it (at best) shows that potheads don't turn directly into heroin junkies, not that they don't turn to harder drugs in general.
11. "exposure to other drugs when purchasing cannabis on the black market, increases the opportunity to use other illicit drugs."
Is actually a decent argument.
12. "According to CASA (National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse), there is no proof that a causal relationship exists between cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and other drugs. Basic scientific and clinical research establishing causality does not exist."
Lack of proof for something does not constitute proof against it.

Overall, it's a good link and good quoted source. I'll certainly agree that there is a lack of evidence for the gateway theory for pot.

I've just seen too many people who follow the basic stereotype, though. First they try pot, because "it's natural, like an herb!", then they try shrooms, because "they're natural!", then they move to LSD, because.... well, they seemed to have forgotten about the whole "natural" argument. Then some of them moved on to motion sickness pills, meth, and anything else that might get them high, and others eventually had (or witnessed) bad trips that scared them out of the harder drugs. Few of them that I know ended up significantly permanently messed up, but they followed the basic pattern of experimenting with pot and moving on to something worse.
Of course, just because it happend that way with a bunch of people I know doesn't mean that it's typically that way, but it also doesn't mean that it isn't.

By that logic, I am a racist because I would allow people freedom of speech; I am Islamic, because I would allow freedom of religion; etc.

As AllCoolNamesAreTaken said above, "Someone got an F in logic."
terrorist

Well I'll be damned, people do still make and sell moonshine. Not that big of an issue, and I doubt its all that profitable, and either way I've never heard of it here in Ontario, though it probably does happen.

As for the gateway argument, I've seen a number of people do weed then move onto other stuff, but I've also seen far far more people do weed, and only weed. It really depends on the individual.

terrorist


tard.

tard.
terrorist

if you want to legalize pot, you obviosly are a pot head

I want it legalized and I would never touch the stuff. Go back and try again!


Good to see some people recognizing one of the true causes of crime rather than making scapegoats.

I want it legalized and I would never touch the stuff. Go back and try again!


Good to see some people recognizing one of the true causes of crime rather than making scapegoats.
communist

communist

*Snickers*.... *Bursts into laughter*

Obviously you did not get my Sealab 2021 references in my state.
Come back to me when you can carry a conversation without ad-homenems.

*Snickers*.... *Bursts into laughter*

Obviously you did not get my Sealab 2021 references in my state.
Come back to me when you can carry a conversation without ad-homenems.
come back to me when you decide to not be a communist

come back to me when you decide to not be a communist

I never was and never will be a communist, comrade! ;)

I never was and never will be a communist, comrade! ;)
queefe

I have to say, anyone opposed to the decriminalization of marijuana hasn't looked into the subject at all. The Netherlands (the holy cliche of all pro-marijuana advocates) has set the benchmark for all nations with their progressive drug laws. With marijuana legalized opiates and hard drugs such as heroin and alcohol have fallen in use. Also children in the US use marijuana earlier than in the netherlands. Odd how it works so easily in europe. Same as their alcohol laws. They can get it earlier and yet they abuse it less. Our war on drugs is focused in the wrong direction entirely. We believe the only answer to a problem is to punish the user. Maybe if we worked with people instead of punishing them our society would be better off. Prohabition of a victamless crime only means that people will have to find someone willing to sell them the drug.

Marijuana is illegal
Marijuana is not proven to be bad for you
things that are not proven to be bad for you are illegal

hows that for some logic

/socrates would be proud

Would now be a good time to bring up the fact that George Washington was a pothead?

queefe

Haha!

I see your debate skills are exceptional... Thanks for the laugh, I know I woke the neighbors up!

I have to say, anyone opposed to the decriminalization of marijuana hasn't looked into the subject at all. The Netherlands (the holy cliche of all pro-marijuana advocates) has set the benchmark for all nations with their progressive drug laws. With marijuana legalized opiates and hard drugs such as heroin and alcohol have fallen in use. Also children in the US use marijuana earlier than in the netherlands. Odd how it works so easily in europe. Same as their alcohol laws. They can get it earlier and yet they abuse it less. Our war on drugs is focused in the wrong direction entirely. We believe the only answer to a problem is to punish the user. Maybe if we worked with people instead of punishing them our society would be better off. Prohabition of a victamless crime only means that people will have to find someone willing to sell them the drug.

Marijuana is illegal
Marijuana is not proven to be bad for you
things that are not proven to be bad for you are illegal

hows that for some logic

/socrates would be proud


How are your crime rates there Skittle? Do you have a gov scorekeeper of crimes and crime per 1000 people? I would like to see if my hypothesis is correct.

Marijuana is illegal
Marijuana is not proven to be bad for you
things that are not proven to be bad for you are illegal

hows that for some logic

/socrates would be proud

I'm 100% certain that cannabis is bad for you. I just think that being locked in a cell with a 300 pound man called Tinkerbell is worse.

Haha!

I see your debate skills are exceptional... Thanks for the laugh, I know I woke the neighbors up!
im sure you wake the neighbors up every night anyways pulling on yourself and blasting gay porn

Saying that legalizing certain drugs will reduce crime is circular logic to me. The reason several people buy these drugs is because they're illegal, so legalizing them will stop them, right? Well, I don't think that's how it would work. I believe that they will just move to a more dangerous drug. The drug would probably be more expensive, resulting in an increase in crime. Meanwhile, the first drug continues to be taken, which really doesn't help that problem as well.

EDIT: And there's nothing wrong with gay porn.

If your going to say that marijuana is gateway drug that your gonna have to point out that alcohol, cigarettes, coffee(caffine) and others are gateway. They're just legal

When people do herion, they are ADDICTED to that drug. They don't care if its legal, illegal, ultralegal, or something. They just want the drug. They will kill themselves sooner or later and thats the end of that.

EDIT: And there's nothing wrong with gay porn.

Gotta blast something back at them for the loud music... :D

Gotta blast something back at them for the loud music... :D
chode-chomper

When people do herion, they are ADDICTED to that drug. They don't care if its legal, illegal, ultralegal, or something. They just want the drug. They will kill themselves sooner or later and thats the end of that.

Heroin use is not fatal, so as long as people are not forced to rob, steal and prostitute themselves to feed their habit they can live normal lives, hold down jobs, etc. If they can obtain heroin legally, perhaps from a doctor, then they can live a normal life just like you and me. Or rather, like someone who doesn't hang out on NS accusing people of blasting gay porn.

chode-chomper

Is this honestly the absolute best you can do? C'mon man, I had better come backs in the 1st grade...

I think when they made weed illegal, it was because they were power hording racists in DC.

I think its easy enough the way it is to get weed.. you really don't need to make it legal.

Oh, and I'm a stoner.

Just thought I'd add that in there.

Heroin use is not fatal, so as long as people are not forced to rob, steal and prostitute themselves to feed their habit they can live normal lives, hold down jobs, etc. If they can obtain heroin legally, perhaps from a doctor, then they can live a normal life just like you and me. Or rather, like someone who doesn't hang out on NS accusing people of blasting gay porn.
homo

Is this honestly the absolute best you can do? C'mon man, I had better come backs in the 1st grade...
well lets hear em big shot

Legalizing drugs (weed, cocaine, heroin etc etc) will reduce crime because criminal organizations based on dealing drugs will completely lose their market to the perfectly legal and vastly cheaper (not to mention safer) drugs now readily available. All the drug fueled crimes such as break-ins, muggings, stabbings, shootings etc etc that occur between rival drug financed gangs will die out as they don't have the finances coming in or even the reason to fight in the first place (not to say it will die out completetly, because it probably won't). The addicts that do the drugs will still do them, yes, but the cheap price means they don't have to do steal to get the money for it, and recovery programs that are freely available and encouraged at pharmacies will probably attract a number of addicts, and therefore reduce the addiction rate. Also, as mentioned in the netherlands example, the fact that its legal, readily available, and people are educated about it they are less likely to become dependent on it.

homo
Piece of shit n00b.

Piece of shit n00b.

I'm sorry, I need sleep.
dude that was mean

terrorist

:::points, laughs:::

Legalizing drugs (weed, cocaine, heroin etc etc) will reduce crime because criminal organizations based on dealing drugs will completely lose their market to the perfectly legal and vastly cheaper (not to mention safer) drugs now readily available. All the drug fueled crimes such as break-ins, muggings, stabbings, shootings etc etc that occur between rival drug financed gangs will die out as they don't have the finances coming in or even the reason to fight in the first place (not to say it will die out completetly, because it probably won't). The addicts that do the drugs will still do them, yes, but the cheap price means they don't have to do steal to get the money for it, and recovery programs that are freely available and encouraged at pharmacies will probably attract a number of addicts, and therefore reduce the addiction rate. Also, as mentioned in the netherlands example, the fact that its legal, readily available, and people are educated about it they are less likely to become dependent on it.

Exactly my point, alot of dealers vote for those who will not legalize drugs for this exact reason. Once it's legal, thier income and shady job is gone.

Wow are you really bringing up the crime rates in my country? Which is like 2 weeks old anyways? Although they are "realatively low" I'm sure that they will be lower in the future. Also, i do think that my excessive lack of law in the country will have an effect on the crime sooner or later...

Also, if you eat a maryjane browny, its never shown to be bad for you. No worse than milk.(if your not lactois intolerant)

dude that was mean
*shrugs*

dude that was mean

When one acts as a child, one must expect to be treated accordingly.

When one acts as a child, one must expect to be treated accordingly.
ohhh is that how you roll? Do you like to spank children when they're naughty?

Well, I am out for the evening...

I think I just might keep the neighbors, as well as my roommate up by blairing gay porn and whackin... It has been some time sence I had seen some girl on girl action! Thanks for the idea and the laughs Tom!

I'm 100% certain that cannabis is bad for you. I just think that being locked in a cell with a 300 pound man called Tinkerbell is worse.

:)

Oh, and to the rest of you... Have a good night!

If your going to say that marijuana is gateway drug that your gonna have to point out that alcohol, cigarettes, coffee(caffine) and others are gateway. They're just legal

Agreed.
Although I'm not so sure about caffine.

Well, I am out for the evening...

I think I just might keep the neighbors, as well as my roommate up by blairing gay porn and whackin... It has been some time sence I had seen some girl on girl action! Thanks for the idea and the laughs Tom!


damnit...his name is chris..i am tom..that little whore is using my name:(

Agreed.
Although I'm not so sure about caffine.


yea not to many people do, but it is a stimulant and if people want to throw around words like "drugs" we have to make sure that the arguement is sound and correct. Just because caffine is ubiquitous, doesn't mean that people almost need it. I'm not saying they are dependant on it, but we all know that one guy who reeks of coffee because he's had like 3 cups in 20 minutes.

damnit...his name is chris..i am tom..that little whore is using my name:(
what a load of crap...dont listen to his conspiracies. hes a terrorist

what a load of crap...dont listen to his conspiracies. hes a terrorist
Don't forget the homo part too. :rolleyes:

yea not to many people do, but it is a stimulant and if people want to throw around words like "drugs" we have to make sure that the arguement is sound and correct. Just because caffine is ubiquitous, doesn't mean that people almost need it. I'm not saying they are dependant on it, but we all know that one guy who reeks of coffee because he's had like 3 cups in 20 minutes.
A few gallons of espresso in 5 minutes every day, I love me!

Don't forget the homo part too. :rolleyes:


Wtf....who is a homo?:confused:

Wait, wait. Just because it's legal doesn't automatically mean that it will become readily availible immediately. It won't be an over-night thing, and the dealers will have enough time to bring more things to the market, while lowering the price of their wares to competitive standards.

Wtf....who is a homo?:confused:
Ask tom

yea not to many people do, but it is a stimulant and if people want to throw around words like "drugs" we have to make sure that the arguement is sound and correct. Just because caffine is ubiquitous, doesn't mean that people almost need it. I'm not saying they are dependant on it, but we all know that one guy who reeks of coffee because he's had like 3 cups in 20 minutes.

True enough, and it certainly is addictive.
I just don't see it as a gateway drug. I don't know of anybody I can think of who was intrigued enough by caffeine to move on to speed.
Admittedly, that doesn't mean that there aren't any.

Ask tom


I AM Tom..He is chris..

Caffeine? Addictive? Wow, I must be really resistant to it. I had a Quad Venti Mocca, and I didn't even get a buzz from it. I loved Coke, too, but I can go without XD.

Wait, wait. Just because it's legal doesn't automatically mean that it will become readily availible immediately. It won't be an over-night thing, and the dealers will have enough time to bring more things to the market, while lowering the price of their wares to competitive standards.

Thats not the point. They dont WANT to lower the price. Because there is no way they can compete with other business'. The only way they will continue to get customers is if they began lacing they're productswith addictive substances. The majority of people just want weed, the fun safe drug kids!, and wont want the dangers that drug deals bring.

It won't be readily available at first, but once government production is up and its been distributed it will be. As for criminals, with all the common drugs legally available, they won't have many products to fall back on. As for offering at a competitive price, goverment produced/sold drugs will be legal, but independent production/distribution will still be illegal and that fact will ensure illegal prices remain higher than legal prices, largely destroying their customer base and forcing them to give up and find a legal job or try to find other profitable illegal activities (which will be few and far between if drugs are legal).

Caffeine? Addictive? Wow, I must be really resistant to it. I had a Quad Venti Mocca, and I didn't even get a buzz from it. I loved Coke, too, but I can go without XD.


I never said it was addictive, i just said it was a drug.

also, you got ripped, mocca sucks

Caffeine? Addictive? Wow, I must be really resistant to it. I had a Quad Venti Mocca, and I didn't even get a buzz from it. I loved Coke, too, but I can go without XD.

Caffine is a central nervous system stimulant. It is one of the most addictive drugs available. But taken in moderation, it does not cause dependance. (like everything else, even though your Reagan-parent-state-drug-war- propoganda tells you otherwise)

http://www.renewedhealth.ca/welcome.asp

I never said it was addictive, i just said it was a drug.

also, you got ripped, mocca sucks
Psh, I love mocca. Chocolate rocks. I put Espresso in Hot Chocolate XD

Caffeine? Addictive? Wow, I must be really resistant to it. I had a Quad Venti Mocca, and I didn't even get a buzz from it. I loved Coke, too, but I can go without XD.

One of the key signs of addiction is that it takes a larger and larger amount of the substance to have the same effect.
If you aren't addicted to caffeine, stop drinking it entirely for a week or two. Most people get headaches after the first day.

Nope, no headaches. I drink coffee very rarely. Heck, I have a card so I can get some whenever I want, but I just haven't gotten around to it.

It won't be readily available at first, but once government production is up and its been distributed it will be. As for criminals, with all the common drugs legally available, they won't have many products to fall back on.
As for offering at a competitive price, goverment produced/sold drugs will be legal, but independent production/distribution will still be illegal and that fact will ensure illegal prices remain higher than legal prices, largely destroying their customer base and forcing them to give up and find a legal job or try to find other profitable illegal activities (which will be few and far between if drugs are legal).

So the answer to drug dealers is to make the government drug dealers.
What's your answer to illegal gambling? Prostitution? Smuggling? Illegal weapons sales? Extortion?

Nope, no headaches. I drink coffee very rarely. Heck, I have a card so I can get some whenever I want, but I just haven't gotten around to it.

I rarely drink caffeine, but it has a strong effect on me when I do. A single Mountain Dew will keep me going for about 12-13 hours for some reason. Less, if I start drinking it regularly.

But everybody's body is different.

So the answer to drug dealers is to make the government drug dealers.
What's your answer to illegal gambling? Prostitution? Smuggling? Illegal weapons sales? Extortion?


ummm... the government.. is.. uh... kinda involved in all those things.

/no but seriously

Man, I can remember this DEA agent came to my high school and he said that marijuana is the most damaging drug around because it leads to other drugs. Marijuana...the gatekeeper to the hell of drugs! Good god. he also said that if you do drugs, you're supporting terrorism. What kind of shit is that? Chrome plated balls.

You know, I don't mind anti-DRUG campaigning. What I DO mind is when they lie, and/or focus on marijuana. Lying isn't justified, and marijuana ISN'T that dangerous. Jesus Christ.

So the answer to drug dealers is to make the government drug dealers.
*sigh* You have blinders on. If, say, chocolate was illegal, because it releases endorphins and makes you happy (i.e. high), would you be opposed to having the government legalize it, and put regulations on the processing of it, and selling it in stores? You seem to think that drug=bad; sell drug=drug "pusher"; and other such drug war propoganda. You have been programmed and don't even know it.

What's your answer to illegal gambling?
Um, legalized gambing? You know casinos, state lotteries, etc. Places where mob bosses don't break your legs.
Prostitution?
Again- legalized prostitution. You know- red light districts, mandatory health tests, legal protections against servitude/abuse, etc.
Smuggling?
Smuggling what? If it's drugs, then you won't have to. Shipped in refrigerated trucks with gps locators, just like alcohol, liquid nitrogen, etc.
Illegal weapons sales?
Well, we want to legalize personal choices, not arm Al Qaeda here. You don't see a difference, and I don't see how.
Extortion?
Again, not a personal freedom issue.

Yea, legalizing prostitution would be great... not that I would ever use it... cough... uh yea! Back to marijuana!

*sigh* You have blinders on. If, say, chocolate was illegal, because it releases endorphins and makes you happy (i.e. high), would you be opposed to having the government legalize it, and put regulations on the processing of it, and selling it in stores? You seem to think that drug=bad; sell drug=drug "pusher"; and other such drug war propoganda. You have been programmed and don't even know it.

Or you've been programmed and don't even know it.
More likely, you just believe that drugs don't do harm, and I believe that they do. Different lives, different experiences, and no need to be condescending to each other about it.
(You know what "condescending" means, don't you?)

Um, legalized gambing? You know casinos, state lotteries, etc. Places where mob bosses don't break your legs.

Why wouldn't they? Would the government do that to, or would they just send you to prison?

Again- legalized prostitution. You know- red light districts, mandatory health tests, legal protections against servitude/abuse, etc.

Government run or not?

Smuggling what? If it's drugs, then you won't have to. Shipped in refrigerated trucks with gps locators, just like alcohol, liquid nitrogen, etc.

Whatever's illegal. Immigrants, unlicensed prostitutes, whatever.

Well, we want to legalize personal choices, not arm Al Qaeda here. You don't see a difference, and I don't see how.

Lots of people who aren't terrorists have illegal weapons.
Are you saying that you don't endorse their personal choice to own whatever weapons they want?

Again, not a personal freedom issue.
Yeah, I tossed that one in because it was easy. :)

A lot of illegal weapons are used in drug related activities - remove the illegal drugs, and you remove a lot of the need for weapons. Prostitution should be legalized with the previously mentioned health tests and checks, and that way the prostitutes would be protected and the health risks vastly reduced. Also, the forced sex issue would be greatly reduced as a result. Gambling is legal, in casinos, horse tracks, sports betting, loterries, and gambling for money is legal, it's when you take a cut of the money that it becomes illegal (unless you are a licensed casino), or so I've heard, though it depends where you are and I haven't actually read the specific laws myself. Either way, it happens all the time and is perfectly harmless (seen law enforcement and security personnel doing it all time, done it myself in fact). Illegal immigration is obviously an issue, but that is different from the drug issue. Also, illegal weapons are simply legal weapons that were stolen, so perhaps certain countries should outlaw specific firearms that a civilian has no legitimate need for (honestly, what the hell do you need an assault rifle for?)

Or you've been programmed and don't even know it.
More likely, you just believe that drugs don't do harm, and I believe that they do. Different lives, different experiences, and no need to be condescending to each other about it.
(You know what "condescending" means, don't you?)
Um, who is the one being condescending? Get off that high horse. Or how about we knock you off.
Drugs do harm. To one's body. Not to someone else. So does Pepsi. And cigarettes. And running. (strain on the knee joints, you see?) I know what you're going to say. A person may get addicted to alcohol and cause their family harm by ignoring them, or hitting their kids, or whatever. Or you might mention second hand smoke. Or compulsively buying beanie babies. That is the person's fault. They need to take responsibility for their own actions, and not spend all their money on beanie babies and feed their damn kids! And smoke outside people- don't give your kid asthma. But does that mean cigarettes should be illegal? no. Unless, like you, you believe in a parent state where the government tells you what to do with your own life.

re: gambling

Why wouldn't they? Would the government do that to, or would they just send you to prison?
No. Because if it were legal, there would be no mobsters running gambling rings. There would be legitamate businesses, like the ones I already mentioned. And in normal businesses, you don't pay, you don't play. There would be no need for government debtors prisons because of that little fact of the modern market. For example- you cannot buy lottery tickets on a credit card.

re: prostitution

Government run or not?
Depending on your state/country- Much like the Amsterdam model. Legal in certain areas (i.e. red light district). The "workers" would need a license, and regular mandatory health inspections.

re: smuggling

Whatever's illegal. Immigrants, unlicensed prostitutes, whatever.
Well, as that is not a personal freedom issue, it is not one of the things we are looking at legalizing. So the government can still feel free to bust up those damn immigrant smugglers. Unless we get to free borders, which is another issue.

re: illegal arms sales
Lots of people who aren't terrorists have illegal weapons.
Are you saying that you don't endorse their personal choice to own whatever weapons they want?
Depends. We are not talking about anarchy- I endorse freedom of choice, as it pertains to the individual. Do what you want with your own body. But don't leave a bag of pot on the counter for a kid to eat. Likewise, you need to have a gun locks, or a gun safe if you have children. That is a gun control issue, and a bit different. Some countries, like the U.S., have a right to carry tradition, while most of europe does not. I am for legalized gun possession, but it will have to be regulated. No arms for convicted felons, and I don't want Jim Bob to have an RPG. Some things are best left in the military. Now, older collectables with firing pins removed, such as WWI and WWII things- well, we have pretty good regulations for that.

Let's see, where I am we have decriminalised dope, legal prostitution, and legal gambling. There is stuff you aren't allowed to smuggle and guns are strictly controlled. I guess three out of five ain't bad.

Yay Canada!? Wonder if anyone has done all three at once? :p

So the answer to drug dealers is to make the government drug dealers.
What's your answer to illegal gambling? Prostitution? Smuggling? Illegal weapons sales? Extortion?

This guy hits upon a point. Instead of being drug communists and trusting our crazed government with the job, why not just put marijuana under the same category as any other herbal plant you can grow in your backyard? This way the drug warriors won't seize upon regulation and taxation as their new battleground. If you disagree, then give me an example of a time when a similar free-market solution has actually failed.

The USA might one day take a lesson from the Dutch and experiment.

Don't try to figure it all out at once, take a try and see approach. Make small changes and find the happy medium.

Amsterdam increased it's regulations along the way and then put a stop to issuing new licenses. The number of shops stays the same, the locations stay the same and monitoring it all is easy.

It's obviously an economically successful experiment. Since the federal government gave farming over to industry, through de-regulation, the American farm families desperately need a cash crop.

What's left of American farm families anyway.

I'm not saying that any of those in this forum who advocate the legalization of marijuana are themselves users because I don't know, but in my experience, the only people who want marijuana legalized are a. the "perma-bakes," or b. the athletes that think because they play a sport, they are therefore invincible and they can do anything to their body and stay healthy. Really, legalizing marijuana helps very few people. I'm not saying it hurts people, but it doesn't better our society as a whole, which is what I think is one of our government's goals (or should be).

I do not smoke! I have never tried it and don't plan to because quite frankly I see no reason to do it. But honestly, what is the point of it being illegal when people will find a way to do it anyways if they really want to. If it were legal i honestly think less people would do it because there would be no thrill of sneaking around and doing it. Fighting the "War on Drugs" is a waste of time. Drugs will be abused, whether legal or illegal.

I do not smoke! I have never tried it and don't plan to because quite frankly I see no reason to do it. But honestly, what is the point of it being illegal when people will find a way to do it anyways if they really want to. If it were legal i honestly think less people would do it because there would be no thrill of sneaking around and doing it. Fighting the "War on Drugs" is a waste of time. Drugs will be abused, whether legal or illegal.

I'm not saying that any of those in this forum who advocate the legalization of marijuana are themselves users because I don't know, but in my experience, the only people who want marijuana legalized are a. the "perma-bakes," or b. the athletes that think because they play a sport, they are therefore invincible and they can do anything to their body and stay healthy. Really, legalizing marijuana helps very few people. I'm not saying it hurts people, but it doesn't better our society as a whole, which is what I think is one of our government's goals (or should be).
Currently, the illegality of marijuana hurts many thousands of people who have to severe prison sentences for possession. It also hurts law enforcement bodies, because they have to focus on crimilising marijuana users rather than real criminals. It hurts the economy, because people can't buy and sell as they please. It also hurts the taxpayer, because they have to pay for the DEA and prison cells for users while missing out on the revenue that legal marijuana would give. So yes, legalizing marijuana does benefit society as a whole.

Also, what category do the 500 economists that called for the legalizing of marijuana fall into?

Um, who is the one being condescending?

Irony just goes right over your head, doesn't it?

Get off that high horse. Or how about we knock you off.

:rolleyes:

Drugs do harm. To one's body. Not to someone else. So does Pepsi. And cigarettes. And running. (strain on the knee joints, you see?) I know what you're going to say. A person may get addicted to alcohol and cause their family harm by ignoring them, or hitting their kids, or whatever. Or you might mention second hand smoke. Or compulsively buying beanie babies. That is the person's fault. They need to take responsibility for their own actions, and not spend all their money on beanie babies and feed their damn kids! And smoke outside people- don't give your kid asthma. But does that mean cigarettes should be illegal? no. Unless, like you, you believe in a parent state where the government tells you what to do with your own life.

You are free to do whatever you want with your life, as long as it doesn't cause other people harm.
Drugs cause you harm, and they cause the people around you harm.
Sure, lots of stuff is harmful, but there are degrees.


re: gambling

No. Because if it were legal, there would be no mobsters running gambling rings. There would be legitamate businesses, like the ones I already mentioned. And in normal businesses, you don't pay, you don't play. There would be no need for government debtors prisons because of that little fact of the modern market. For example- you cannot buy lottery tickets on a credit card.

Which still leaves plenty of room for black market gambling. The people with no money on hand who want to gamble will find a way to do it.

re: smuggling

Well, as that is not a personal freedom issue, it is not one of the things we are looking at legalizing. So the government can still feel free to bust up those damn immigrant smugglers. Unless we get to free borders, which is another issue.

Sure it's a personal freedom issue. The government is curtailing people's freedom to get what they want, or to sell what they want.

re: illegal arms sales

Depends. We are not talking about anarchy- I endorse freedom of choice, as it pertains to the individual. Do what you want with your own body. But don't leave a bag of pot on the counter for a kid to eat. Likewise, you need to have a gun locks, or a gun safe if you have children. That is a gun control issue, and a bit different. Some countries, like the U.S., have a right to carry tradition, while most of europe does not. I am for legalized gun possession, but it will have to be regulated. No arms for convicted felons, and I don't want Jim Bob to have an RPG. Some things are best left in the military. Now, older collectables with firing pins removed, such as WWI and WWII things- well, we have pretty good regulations for that.

So basically, you're all for limiting people's personal freedoms if there is the potential for a certain level of harm?

The USA might one day take a lesson from the Dutch and experiment.

Isn't that what got us into the slave trade, though?

Currently, the illegality of marijuana hurts many thousands of people who have to severe prison sentences for possession. It also hurts law enforcement bodies, because they have to focus on crimilising marijuana users rather than real criminals.

Agreed on both counts.
But that's no reason to make it legal, just to lessen the penalties.
Where I live, if you're caught carrying pot for personal use, you get a ticket and a fine, not jail time.
Still illegal, but not filling up jails and ruining lives.

It hurts the economy, because people can't buy and sell as they please.

Seeing as I just mentioned the slave trade, I'll bring it back up again.
Ending slavery hurt the economy quite a bit. Does that mean that we shouldn't have done it?
Or, just possibly, can it be that economic gain is not the end-all, be-all of existence? That there are things that are more important?

It also hurts the taxpayer, because they have to pay for the DEA and prison cells for users while missing out on the revenue that legal marijuana would give.

The ticket & fine method does this just as well, without making things legal. The government has revenue coming in from the fines, and the prisons don't fill up with casual potheads.