NationStates Jolt Archive

I've heard a lot of debate regarding legalizing marijuana (or all drugs, for that matter). I've heard economists and columnists and junk call for legalization in order to stem demand for the Mexican cartels' products, but I don't know if that would work. Any thoughts? Would you be in favor of legalization?

Isn't that why it's still illegal?

Only one way to find out now isn't there?

Some cartels would suffer, but some of the more ruthless and powerful ones like RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris will probably adapt. :p

I would guess no, because the drug cartels would likely just switch over to something else. A few organizations may fall but more would likely take their place as the new product was found to make cash fast...

Isn't that why it's still illegal?

The argument is that legalization would allow government-regulated businesses to supply the country with its drug demand, and the cartels would be left in the dust. The legal drugs produced by the businesses could then be taxed, etc, and the government could make a buck.

I would guess no, because the drug cartels would likely just switch over to something else. A few organizations may fall but more would likely take their place as the new product was found to make cash fast...

True. Which is why I was skeptical, especially when people call for marijuana only to be legalized. Then the cartels would still have good old cocaine and heroin to fall back on.

yes. it works for the same reason we don't worry about mexican drug cartels cornering the lettuce market. without the illegality jacking up the prices, pot would be dirt fucking cheap and so there would be absolutely no incentive for the whole murder and mayhem aspect of it.

and since the cartels are making the majority of their money off of marijuana, it would be a huge hit to their bottom line.

Look at what happened to Al Capone when alcohol prohibition ended. The same thing would happen to the drug cartels. Furthermore, legalizing pot would also save millions, if not billions of dollars, as we'd no longer have to enforce prohibition laws, and we could tax it as well.

True. Which is why I was skeptical, especially when people call for marijuana only to be legalized. Then the cartels would still have good old cocaine and heroin to fall back on.

Because no one is producing, trafficking and selling any of those in the US as of now, am I right?:rolleyes:

True. Which is why I was skeptical, especially when people call for marijuana only to be legalized. Then the cartels would still have good old cocaine and heroin to fall back on.

except they are already there and those markets are already maxed out. unless you are proposing that there are vast numbers of potential coke-fiends out there who have been thus far neglected...

yes. it works for the same reason we don't worry about mexican drug cartels cornering the lettuce market. without the illegality jacking up the prices, pot would be dirt fucking cheap and so there would be absolutely no incentive for the whole murder and mayhem aspect of it.

and since the cartels are making the majority of their money off of marijuana, it would be a huge hit to their bottom line.

My understanding is the murder and mayhem has to do with Cocaine smuggling routes more so the pot growing.

Rolling squid;14673960']Furthermore, legalizing pot would also save millions, if not billions of dollars, as we'd no longer have to enforce prohibition laws, and we could tax it as well.

i believe the estimate for enforcement costs is $7ish billion per year

i believe the estimate for enforcement costs is $7ish billion per year

And when you consider the 'run-off crime', so to speak, from the massive marijuana drug smuggling, it'd be even more.

If marijuana becomes legal i expect to see pretty much the same prices on it as you do now. Most of the cost though would be the government taxes put on. Growing at the mass that it would require to keep the constant supply up would cost lots of money. In the long run it seems *from experience* that they probably make more money keeping it illegal and really just letting the police choose to take someone to jail or not. I live in Michigan so if you go to norml.org you can get a taste of the fines from MI and other states.

Marijuana is illegal because of some of its many positive medical benefits: An effective anti-emitic for cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy or chemotherapy, etc. There's even a new study saying that marijuana use can kill brain cancer cells. Best of all, marijuana is something people are able to grow on their own property.

Most likely, politically connected drug companies fear the potential of marijuana, and that is why politicians of almost every stripe (with a few heroic exceptions) fight to maintain its illegality.

When I was popped for having marijuana I ended up giving the gov't over 700$. That adds up when most of the state uses it. So I think that more over than not is a big reason why it is still illegal.

politicians of almost every stripe (with a few heroic exceptions) fight to maintain its illegality.


Or maybe they fight because
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7150274.stm
Inhaled cannabis smoke has more harmful toxins than tobacco
...
The Canadian government research found 20 times as much ammonia, a chemical linked to cancer, New Scientist said.

The Health Canada team also found five times as much hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides, which are linked to heart and lung damage respectively.

Or maybe they fight because
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7150274.stm

Government finds more harmful crap in stuff it's trying to suppress with all of it's efforts. Very believable. "You see, Marijuana is 10,000 times as harmful as tobacco, so please, please, please, don't smoke it! God, please, just get off of it all, end all of our troubles! Please! END THIS MADNESS!"

Thanks for the link! News I didn't know about...though I don't know if it will detour me away from it :P. I did already know that cannabis contains more tar than cigs... though unlike cigs us cannabis users can reuse our tar!

Or maybe they fight because
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7150274.stm

even assuming this is true, so fucking what?

Marijuana is illegal because of some of its many positive medical benefits

man, i hate pothead conspiracy theories

lol in my "rehab" class I had a chance to do a one on one kind of thing. I actually disproved a lot of the information they were providing about weed.

Or maybe they fight because
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7150274.stm

While this may be true on a mass by mass basis, what studies like these leave out is amount consumed. It's not uncommon for a smoker to smoke a pack or two a day, while even the biggest pot head I know smokes around 2-3 grams a week.

wow. I'd say on a usual basis we usually go through 14grams in a week. Just to myself and not smoking with other people...it would be extremely less.

The argument is that legalization would allow government-regulated businesses to supply the country with its drug demand, and the cartels would be left in the dust. The legal drugs produced by the businesses could then be taxed, etc, and the government could make a buck.

Man I hope they don't legalize it. Marijuana is so cheap and if the government started regulating it, it would probably double or triple in cost. Like cigarettes and alcohol.

Man I hope they don't legalize it. Marijuana is so cheap and if the government started regulating it, it would probably double or triple in cost. Like cigarettes and alcohol.

Stupid sin tax. If they want to tax sin, why don't they tax condoms?

Stupid sin tax. If they want to tax sin, why don't they tax condoms?

You really want more expensive condoms so less people use them?

The gov't makes a boat load off of marijuana smokers already when they bust them. Like I said before I had to shell out 700$+ to my local and state gov't for having around 2grams.

Stupid sin tax. If they want to tax sin, why don't they tax condoms?

Because condoms are a really really really useful thing to have cheep and readily available.

man, i hate pothead conspiracy theories

I've never even smoked pot before...

Yeah...if I would have spent more money on condoms instead of weed...I wouldn't have two little boys running around...though I love them! :P

Man I hope they don't legalize it. Marijuana is so cheap and if the government started regulating it, it would probably double or triple in cost. Like cigarettes and alcohol.

haha, what?

I've never even smoked pot before...

you should start, you'll fit right in.

you should start, you'll fit right in.

:confused:

:confused:

I do believe she/he is implying that most posters on this forum are high, drunk or otherwise intoxicated when they post or at least thats what I think she/he is implying...

I thought most marijuana was grown and sold in the US. I also thought that the cartels made most of their money from harder stuff, like cocaine and heroine.

In any case, I doubt that legalizing marijuana would make a huge difference in the profit margins of the cartels - it's a fairly inexpensive substance already. What it would do, though, is bring cultivation into the open, tighten up quality control, allow people who actually need it (medical marijuana) to get it without the stress of having to evade the police and bring another taxable item onto the books.

I can't see a downside.

Alot depends on which state you live in. California (as always) is considering legalization.
research indicated $1.3 billion in tax dollars could immediately head into the state's coffers from the fee on marijuana and the sales tax on medical pot.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/02/legalize_it_ammiano_to_introdu.php

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/02/legalize_it_ammiano_to_introdu.php

Still waiting to see what comes of this.

I can't see a downside.

Well theres the whole Gateway Drug aspect, the aspect that it could be more harmful than cig if smoked and such though I guess if legal most of those would evaporate/disappear rather quickly...

Cigs and Alcohol are the real Gateway Drugs

You really want more expensive condoms so less people use them?

I'm not against condoms, I'm just trying to point out how ridiculous it is to tax something because its "sinful."

I thought most marijuana was grown and sold in the US. I also thought that the cartels made most of their money from harder stuff, like cocaine and heroine.

In any case, I doubt that legalizing marijuana would make a huge difference in the profit margins of the cartels - it's a fairly inexpensive substance already.

the estimates typically put mj as the source of about 60-70% of the profits of the cartels. which makes sense, given the level of demand for pot vs that for heroin and what not.

check this graph from 538 (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/why-marijuana-legalization-is-gaining.html):
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5049/potuse.png


and inexpensive? shit runs up a couple hundred bucks an ounce, and higher when split further. compare that to rolling tobacco, which is under $10

haha, what?

That's right, you heard me. Cigarettes would be something like $0.75 a pack if the government didn't tax the shit out of them and the companies that make them. And don't even get me started on liquor laws. Did you know that most establishments that sell alcohol pay more or less for a liquor license depending on how much business they do? If that's not a progressive tax, then I don't know what is.

the reasion it illegal is cuz the drug corpations can't make a pretty penny

MI just raised taxes on cigarettes and rolling tobacco. It's somewhere around 25bucks for a bag of it.

the estimates typically put mj as the source of about 60-70% of the profits of the cartels. which makes sense, given the level of demand for pot vs that for heroin and what not.

check this graph from 538 (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/why-marijuana-legalization-is-gaining.html):
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5049/potuse.png


and inexpensive? shit runs up a couple hundred bucks an ounce, and higher when split further. compare that to rolling tobacco, which is under $10

So really, not much price change - it was $45/quarter for good stuff when I was involved with it. And a quarter could last a while if you were careful.

the reasion it illegal is cuz the drug corpations can't make a pretty penny

Its illegal because the gov't makes fat loot from it.

That's right, you heard me. Cigarettes would be something like $0.75 a pack if the government didn't tax the shit out of them and the companies that make them.

yes. but legal pot would still be significantly cheaper than now, even if taxed 10 times the rate done for tobacco.

yes. but legal pot would still be significantly cheaper than now, even if taxed 10 times the rate done for tobacco.

I don't know...just depends on how they sell it...by the bulk or if they will produce them in cig form. Again it is "more dangerous" than cigs :P

I don't know...just depends on how they sell it...by the bulk or if they will produce them in cig form. Again it is "more dangerous" than cigs :P

Pound for pound, I think it is. But, people don't tend to smoke as much of it. And in some cases (cancer patients, glaucoma patients) it can make a positive difference in quality of life.

I don't know...just depends on how they sell it...by the bulk or if they will produce them in cig form.

what legal leafy plants are you familiar with that sell for anything like $3000.00+ per pound?

Pound for pound, I think it is. But, people don't tend to smoke as much of it. And in some cases (cancer patients, glaucoma patients) it can make a positive difference in quality of life.

Oh for sure! I wish my dad would have considered smoking when he was alive with cancer.

what legal leafy plants are you familiar with that sell for anything like $3000.00+ per pound?

Hmm not sure where you're going with that...

I think that depending on how they would produce it to the public would adjust the price accordingly. Not sure what kind of prices the gov't would set.

yes. it works for the same reason we don't worry about mexican drug cartels cornering the lettuce market. without the illegality jacking up the prices, pot would be dirt fucking cheap and so there would be absolutely no incentive for the whole murder and mayhem aspect of it.

and since the cartels are making the majority of their money off of marijuana, it would be a huge hit to their bottom line.

Ah, the age old lettuce is marijuana argument. Perhaps part of the reason is that lettuce isn't mind-altering, or addicting in the US... rather than it merely being legal.

Perhaps tobacco, or alcohol would've been a better, reasonable argument... but please... stick with comparing the nuances of marijuana legalization and... lettuce....

or addicting in the US...

Neither is pot.

Ah, the age old lettuce is marijuana argument. Perhaps part of the reason is that lettuce isn't mind-altering, or addicting in the US... rather than it merely being legal.

Perhaps tobacco, or alcohol would've been a better, reasonable argument... but please... stick with comparing the nuances of marijuana legalization and... lettuce....

ah, so the mexican drug cartels are running the tobacco industry, leaving a trail of bodies in their wake?

seriously, i'm confused as to your objection. do you think the cartels just happen to like mind-altering substances, and will try to control their production and distribution regardless of profitability?

Hmm not sure where you're going with that...

where i'm going is that unless pot production drops down towards that of saffron, its price will fall until it looks more like any other leafy plant, and less like a precious metal.

I think that depending on how they would produce it to the public would adjust the price accordingly. Not sure what kind of prices the gov't would set.

wait, what?

where i'm going is that unless pot production drops down towards that of saffron, its price will fall until it looks more like any other leafy plant, and less like a precious metal.



wait, what?

Like if you can by it by bulk or by packs like cigs. Which ever way I believe would change the price its sold at.

So really, not much price change - it was $45/quarter for good stuff when I was involved with it. And a quarter could last a while if you were careful.

The Mexicans never bring the good shit. The good stuff is from Canada or home grown.

Well, the main thing, I think, isn't necessarily funding directly the cartels or not funding directly the cartels; the thing is that the networks potheads set up locally to move marijuana -whether local or important - can then be used to move anything else.


It's like how the 21 drinking age makes it a lot easier to obtain false identification for other purposes.

Or maybe they fight because
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7150274.stm

While the amount of toxins is higher in marijuana, according to some studies, this does not cause more health problems.

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
...

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

I realise this is counter-intuitive. You would expect it to cause cancer at the same or higher rate due to the higher amount of carcinogens, but when we test that hypothesis, it doesn't seem to pan out.

Ah, the age old lettuce is marijuana argument. Perhaps part of the reason is that lettuce isn't mind-altering, or addicting in the US... rather than it merely being legal.

Perhaps tobacco, or alcohol would've been a better, reasonable argument... but please... stick with comparing the nuances of marijuana legalization and... lettuce....

It's not addictive for most of the population. For those of us who are actually addicted to it, the withdrawal symptoms are about three days of irritability and trouble sleeping. OH NOES! So, criminalising something becuase it causes such mild withdrawal reactions is a bit unreasonable.

Why should something be illegal if it's mind altering? No one has ever given me a good answer to this question. I won't hold my breath.

I do believe she/he is implying that most posters on this forum are high, drunk or otherwise intoxicated when they post or at least thats what I think she/he is implying...

We are. Drunk in my case. *nods*

I realise this is counter-intuitive. You would expect it to cause cancer at the same or higher rate due to the higher amount of carcinogens, but when we test that hypothesis, it doesn't seem to pan out.

yeah, turns out the cancer-fighting aspects of marijuana cancel out the cancer-causing aspects of smoking it with regards to lungs. and then it just gets busy fighting other cancers as well. thc is eventually going to be a prominent cancer treatment. fucked up, says i, but that's where the evidence points.

yeah, turns out the cancer-fighting aspects of marijuana cancel out the cancer-causing aspects of smoking it with regards to lungs. and then it just gets busy fighting other cancers as well. thc is eventually going to be a prominent cancer treatment. fucked up, says i, but that's where the evidence points.

To quote (or most likely papraphrase) Schlock Mercenary:

Most important scientific discoveries don't start with the word 'Eureka'. They start with the words 'Hmm, that's funny...'.

yeah, turns out the cancer-fighting aspects of marijuana cancel out the cancer-causing aspects of smoking it with regards to lungs. and then it just gets busy fighting other cancers as well. thc is eventually going to be a prominent cancer treatment. fucked up, says i, but that's where the evidence points.

And oddly enough no studies on THC either eaten or vaporized.

For those of us who are actually addicted to it, the withdrawal symptoms are about three days of irritability and trouble sleeping.

Which are the same symptoms as that of caffiene withdrawal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Tolerance_and_withdrawal

and this is one of the other negative aspects of having policy driven by hysteria and inertia rather than evidence and argument. its bad enough to criminalize people engaging in relatively harmless fun for no good reason, but the drug war has apparently delayed our finding out that a really common substance has significant anti-carcinogenic properties for probably decades longer than it would have taken otherwise.

fuck you, drug warriors, fuck you.

Which are the same symptoms as that of caffiene withdrawal

man, have you seen someone in the depths of a caffeine binge? those guys are unpredictable and dangerous.

Society as a whole is the victim of cannabis use. It is not in the interests of society to facilitate the intoxication of its citizens. Cannabis use stops people from reaching their full potential. Cannabis users in general are likely to lack motivation, concentration and be less able to perform complex long-term tasks. In the case of school-children, those who smoke cannabis play truant more often than other children.

One of the immediate effects of cannabis is apathy, a distorted sense of time, disordered thoughts and mental confusion. After prolonged use of cannabis users often develop permanent memory loss, difficulties forming new memories and an inability to concentrate, even after a period of abstinence. It is therefore very unlikely that addicts will be capable of completing a voluntary drug treatment programme.

It is not in the interests of society to facilitate the intoxication of its citizens.

the interests of art and literature and science and just living a good life disagree.

elaborate.

elaborate.

drugs, and particularly marijuana, do vastly more good than harm.

creativity is good. self-reflection is good. fun is good.

drugs, and particularly marijuana, do vastly more good than harm.

creativity is good. self-reflection is good. fun is good.

He admitted he was trolling on another thread. I'm willing to wager he's trying to troll you here.

drugs, and particularly marijuana, do vastly more good than harm.


Hallucinogenic drugs can help with creativity and understanding etc.... But most of the proper hard drugs don't have this, so I wouldn't say drugs in general do good.

Hallucinogenic drugs can help with creativity and understanding etc.... But most of the proper hard drugs don't have this, so I wouldn't say drugs in general do good.

for drugs that don't have noticeable benefits other than just pure enjoyment of the substance, my position is that the argument about how to deal with them cannot ignore that fun is good. we have to weigh that enjoyment against actual downsides. for example, the fact that people may become addicted isn't by itself a good reason to prevent them from doing it. to see this we only need look at alcohol. yes, alcohol addiction is terrible and fucks shit up, but for the overwhelming majority of alcohol users, it is a life-enhancing experience and does not lead to addiction, etc. it's only when that sort of situation begins to reverse itself that the case for making something illegal gains force.

drugs, and particularly marijuana, do vastly more good than harm.

creativity is good. self-reflection is good. fun is good.

But it comes with a lot of health risks: schrizophrenia, it can affect the heart and it can cause lung cancer.
I however do not wish to ban tobacco. I might have to look at my postion could be a bit hippocritical.

He admitted he was trolling on another thread. I'm willing to wager he's trying to troll you here.

No, I am not.

Hallucinogenic drugs can help with creativity and understanding etc.... But most of the proper hard drugs don't have this, so I wouldn't say drugs in general do good.

Most hard drug users start with cannabis

But it comes with a lot of health risks: schrizophrenia,

Do you have any evidence to indicate that marijuana induced psychosis is more prevalent than alcohol induced psychosis?

it can affect the heart

Do you have any evidence to indicate this?

and it can cause lung cancer.

This is simply wrong. There is a link to a medical study in this very thread that disproves this claim.

Most hard drug users start with cannabis

I think you mean alcohol.

But it comes with a lot of health risks: schrizophrenia, it can affect the heart and it can cause lung cancer.
I however do not wish to ban tobacco. I might have to look at my postion could be a bit hippocritical.



No, I am not.



Most hard drug users start with cannabis

Honestly smoking pot can only really cause problems with the lungs...because it is smoke in the body. The drug doesn't cause cancer, nor has any cases been brought to my attention about it. Just like you don't see doped driving accidents on the news...but you see drunk driving! And most hard drug users might smoke cannabis...but usually start with things like drinking and smoking cigarettes...which in my opinion are the real gateway drugs!

Plus cannabis doesn't cause the inabilities of choice that alcohol does...unless you consider the choice of what fast food restaurant you're going to eat at...

Do you have any evidence to indicate that marijuana induced psychosis is more prevalent than alcohol induced psychosis?

No, HOWEVER most people who drink alcohol drink it in moderation which can be good for your body.

Do you have any evidence to indicate this?

http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/DrDrew/health.html#heart

This is simply wrong. There is a link to a medical study in this very thread that disproves this claim.

Care to show me it?

I think you mean alcohol.

No, I mean cannabis http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-395704/Cannabis-gateway-harder-drugs.html

No, HOWEVER most people who drink alcohol drink it in moderation which can be good for your body.

In other words, you have no idea if alcohol is better or worse than marijuana in terms of causing people to go crazy.

http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/DrDrew/health.html#heart

From the link:

Some research has suggested that cannabis can cause lung cancer in its own right in heavy users, and this is something all users should be aware of. On the other hand, there has as yet been no connection drawn between cannabis use alone and heart disease. Bear in mind though that cannabis does, at least, produce tar when burnt even without tobacco: investigating the barrel of any given cannabis pipe will prove that.

Care to show me it?

The link is right here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html).

No, I mean cannabis http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-395704/Cannabis-gateway-harder-drugs.html

You do realise that study was done on rats, right? And that it may not be applicable to humans, and therefore doesn't really show that marijuana is more of a gateway drug than alcohol. Try again.

for drugs that don't have noticeable benefits other than just pure enjoyment of the substance, my position is that the argument about how to deal with them cannot ignore that fun is good. we have to weigh that enjoyment against actual downsides. for example, the fact that people may become addicted isn't by itself a good reason to prevent them from doing it. to see this we only need look at alcohol. yes, alcohol addiction is terrible and fucks shit up, but for the overwhelming majority of alcohol users, it is a life-enhancing experience and does not lead to addiction, etc. it's only when that sort of situation begins to reverse itself that the case for making something illegal gains force.

What about for the overwhelming majority of Heroin users?

What about for the overwhelming majority of Heroin users?

good question. anyone have any stats on heroin use vs heroin addiction and life-outcomes?

From the link:


The real link from cannabis to heart disease is the munchies inspired trip to White Castle. ;)

Absolutely. I think it would free up massive amounts of resources to fight those drugs that are too dangerous to legalize, at least with current levels of medical technology. I have a feeling if we took the billions spent on losing the drug war and applied them instead towards isolating, minimizing and eliminating the health risks of substance use we would benefit considerably as a society.

In general, the goal should ultimately be harm minimalization; the "quit or die" and prohibition approaches towards drugs have consistently and repeatedly failed to do anything to realistically curb consumption of these substances and will never succeed in eliminating their consumption whatsoever. Frankly, I don't even see why it would be desirable to do so; you'd effectively be not only destroying a potential economic windfall but also molding people in to something they don't want to be.

Forcing everyone to confirm to some standard of health is ridiculous, especially since it presumes everyone shares the obsession of living as long as possible; you might die younger if you drink a lot or smoke, but if you enjoy it it's well worth it.

I believe wholeheartedly that our society would be far bleaker and far more destitute culturally, intellectually and socially were it not for recreational substances, and that's not a world I want to live in. Does that mean all drugs are good? No, no more than any other category of product is universally good. Does that mean all people should use drugs? No, it's a personal choice and one with plenty of alternatives should you seek enjoyment elsewhere.

I do believe she/he is implying that most posters on this forum are high, drunk or otherwise intoxicated when they post or at least thats what I think she/he is implying...
I for one have never played NS (the forum part) without having at least some alcohol or something better in my system.

I don't mean I usually play NS drunk/stoned, I mean I don't play it if I'm not, ever.

The only way we can properly discuss the legalization of marijuana is to get high and come together. Our blazed minds will be as one.

In general, the goal should ultimately be harm minimalization; the "quit or die" and prohibition approaches towards drugs have consistently and repeatedly failed to do anything to realistically curb consumption of these substances and will never succeed in eliminating their consumption whatsoever. Frankly, I don't even see why it would be desirable to do so; you'd effectively be not only destroying a potential economic windfall but also molding people in to something they don't want to be.

yeah, exactly. the problem isn't that prohibition doesn't work - it's that prohibition isn't right.

Honestly smoking pot can only really cause problems with the lungs...because it is smoke in the body. The drug doesn't cause cancer, nor has any cases been brought to my attention about it. Just like you don't see doped driving accidents on the news...but you see drunk driving! And most hard drug users might smoke cannabis...but usually start with things like drinking and smoking cigarettes...which in my opinion are the real gateway drugs!

Plus cannabis doesn't cause the inabilities of choice that alcohol does...unless you consider the choice of what fast food restaurant you're going to eat at...

Even if most hard drug users start with cannabis, his point doesn't stand. Do most cannabis users use hard drugs on a regular basis? I doubt it.

One of the immediate effects of cannabis is apathy, a distorted sense of time, disordered thoughts and mental confusion. After prolonged use of cannabis users often develop permanent memory loss, difficulties forming new memories and an inability to concentrate, even after a period of abstinence. It is therefore very unlikely that addicts will be capable of completing a voluntary drug treatment programme.

I'm guessing you've never smoked cannabis.

So is anybody high right now?

Society as a whole is the victim of cannabis use. It is not in the interests of society to facilitate the intoxication of its citizens. Cannabis use stops people from reaching their full potential. Cannabis users in general are likely to lack motivation, concentration and be less able to perform complex long-term tasks. In the case of school-children, those who smoke cannabis play truant more often than other children.

It is also not in the interests of society to infringe on their citizens' right to become intoxicated. You're giving reasons why a person would not want to use cannabis, not why it should stay illegal.

As a matter of fact, I recall something I heard a while back that when the Netherlands legalized marijuana, it's use actually went DOWN. I'll try to find substantiation for that.