Facepalm wrote:The_Hangman wrote:Well, I don't actually smoke marijuana so I find it a little hard to care about the debate, but one of the more compelling arguments for its legalization is the curbing of the drug war, especially since it's a tremendous problem here in California. That seems far more important to me than "legalize marijuana because its not that bad for people." Unfortunately, I don't 100% understand the Drug War argument so I can't really make any claims against it.
Anyone want to elaborate?
From what I understand, marijuana takes up most of the time and resources of drug police, which is problematic because there are obviously more serious drugs out there that should get priority. But because marijuana possession is just as illegal as heroin or meth possession, it clogs up the system.
It also clogs up the legal and penal systems. It's definitely a problem, but legalising it would create just a new slate of problems, in my view. Once again, you don't need it. If people weren't so stubborn about the ability to dope yourself up, we wouldn't have any of these problems. Passing blame does nothing. If you cared about the problems it created, you'd stop using it.
You know, we don't need video games either. Maybe we should just ban those, and throw people who play 'em anyway in jail!
meh, my example is kind of lame but you know what I'm saying. Personal freedoms that have absolutely no effect on the lives of others shouldn't be banned simply because they're recreational tools and therefore 'aren't needed'.
You wouldn't happen to be a Puritan, would you?
Now, if you'd please, I'd like to know the problems marijuana creates that aren't directly linked to the fact that it's illegal in the first place. In other words, no, you can't cite crime, or the amount of money spent on fighting the drug, or the 'gateway drug effect', or things like that. Basically... what would this 'slate of problems' be if marijuana were legalized?
Its carcinogenic effects aren't as profound as dangerous legal alternatives (such as cigarettes), and there's no definitive link between marijuana and long term health issues (other than schizophrenia, but that's still not definitive and only those who were very susceptible to schizophrenia beforehand - a small percentage of the population - are at risk. Driving while under the influence of marijuana is dangerous, but not comparable to driving while drunk, and an education campaign like the Don't Drink and Drive wouldn't be difficult to fund at all with the tax revenue that the federal government would receive if they'd legalize and tax.
In other words, I'd understand your standpoint a little better if weed were anywhere near as dangerous as tobacco, alcohol, or even many of the addictive and/or destructive drugs pharmacists and physicians in America peddle (many of which could be phased out if marijuana became a largely-used medical tool). But it's not.
i meant 1900's ahh u know. If it was in the 90's i wonder what would have happened? 
