Marijuana: Legalize or Ban?

Should we legalize marijuana or keep it banned?

I do not support the use of drugs in any way, however I do not think they should be illegal either. Here are five reasons drugs should be legalized:

It would cause the crime rate to drop:
When something is illegal, the prices for that certain good is ten times more expensive because it is dangerous to sell those goods. When drug addicts can not finance their addictions anymore they resort to crime to get money, so that they can afford those drugs. In a 2 1/2-year study of Detroit crime, Lester P. Silverman, former associate director of the National Academy of Sciences' Assembly of Behavior and Social Sciences, found that a 10 percent increase in the price of heroin alone "produced an increase of 3.1 percent total property crimes in poor nonwhite neighborhoods." Armed robbery jumped 6.4 percent and simple assault by 5.6 percent throughout the city. If drugs were to be decriminalized, the price of drugs would go down because it would be safer to sell them...with the price drop, it would be more affordable and less people would have to resort to criminal activity to afford it.

It would practically eliminate the prison overcrowding problem:
According to the Justice Policy Institute: "The United States leads the world in the number of people incarcerated in federal and state correctional facilities. There are currently more than 5 million people in American prisons or jails. Approximately one-quarter of those people held in U.S. prisons or jails have been convicted of a drug offense. The United States incarcerates more people for drug offenses than any other country. With an estimated 6.8 million Americans struggling with drug abuse or dependence, the growth of the prison population continues to be driven largely by incarceration for drug offenses." It's no wonder we have a prison overcrowding problem, we have more nonviolent offenders then we do violent offenders! If we decriminalize drugs, we could completely eliminate our prison overcrowding problem.

It would save tax money:
Billions of our tax dollars go into fighting the drug war. If we decriminalize drugs, that's all the more money we would save which would help reduce the deficit. It would also save more money to go towards prosecuting violent offenders. It's a waste of police resources to have SWAT teams busting down doors to arrest people for smoking a plant.

It would cripple organized crime:
The gangs of the country stand to lose billions in drug profits from legalization. The underworld became big business in the United States when alcohol was prohibited. Few others would risk setting up the illegal distribution networks, bribing officials or killing a policeman or competitor once in a while. When alcohol was re-legalized, manufacturers resumed production. The risk of getting caught and the high profits disappeared from the alcohol trade. Without the risk of alcohol smuggling, many organized gangs disappeared off the radar and crime went down exponentially. We can stand to learn a thing or two from the prohibition. It isn't so different from our current "War On Drugs".

It would shrink the size of government:
The War On Drugs is giving an incredible amount of power to police and federal agents. In an effort to keep drug crime down, police often pull random people over to check them for drugs. Entire federal agencies were even created specifically to keep drug use down. If we were to decriminalize drugs, several federal agencies would disappear and many powers given to police and federal agents would disappear. Also, it would get the government out of one more thing! It's not the government's business what you put in your body, and it only gives them more power over you if they are able to control that. I do not endorse the use of drugs, and I know the harmful effects, but I believe people should have a choice. The use of drugs really only harms the person smoking the drug. If we allow the government to use force and coercion to determine what we can put in our body, we are essentially allowing the government to claim our bodies. Also, if we allow the government to control what we put in our body...where is the line drawn? Soda is pretty unhealthy. The chemical aspartame has been proven to be one of the most dangerous chemicals put in any food or drink. Maybe we should ban sodas. Fast food is pretty unhealthy. Perhaps we should ban that too. Cigarettes are as well. Alcohol too. Where is the line drawn? Allowing the government to make health decisions for us is a very slippery slope. We could start a trend of the government making all personal decisions for us, which is already starting to happen. If we aren't free to make bad decisions, are we really free?

Thoughts? Opinions? Questions? Concerns?

Your poll refers to marijuana only, not all recreational drug use, but your arguments are not marijuana specific. By not legalizing all recreational drug use most (if not all) of your arguments fail.

Hasn't this question been asked and answered about a billion times now?

ttwtt78640 said:

Your poll refers to marijuana only, not all recreational drug use, but your arguments are not marijuana specific. By not legalizing all recreational drug use most (if not all) of your arguments fail.

Click to expand...

I'm a bit lost with what you're trying to say. Are you saying that his arguments aren't good arguments if he doesn't support the legalization of the recreational use of other drugs?

ttwtt78640 said:

Your poll refers to marijuana only, not all recreational drug use, but your arguments are not marijuana specific. By not legalizing all recreational drug use most (if not all) of your arguments fail.

Click to expand...

I do support the legalization of all recreational drug use, however marijuana is arguably the subject of the most debate at this time so that's why I made the thread specific to marijuana.

TeleKat said:

Should we legalize marijuana or keep it banned?

I do not support the use of drugs in any way, however I do not think they should be illegal either. Here are five reasons drugs should be legalized:

[Thoughts? Opinions? Questions? Concerns?

Click to expand...

Do you support the use of alcoholic beverages, and do you support the use of prescription narcotics? I think these two questions need to be seriously considered in any question regarding the banning or legalization of marijuana. A case could pretty easily be made that marijuana is less harmful overall and over the long run, than either booze or prescription narcotics as a whole, and we have large number of people imprisoned for pot, which isn't even associated with violent behavior- just people taking up space in our prisons, (which are already overcrowded), for getting high, just as you and I have a cocktail to take the edge off, after a stressful day.

Robbie Loucks said:

I'm a bit lost with what you're trying to say. Are you saying that his arguments aren't good arguments if he doesn't support the legalization of the recreational use of other drugs?

Click to expand...

Yes. The argument is similar to saying that legalizing only 3.2% beer, yet keeping all "harder" drinks illegal would be a realistic option. Note that the very first OP argument is heroin specific - since marijuana is easy to grow in many climates and requires no processing it is doubtful that its cost to produce (or obtain) is an issue. The same is true of the second argument since it makes no mention of the specific drug involved - the percentage of "drug offenders" that involved only marijuana is never mentioned. The likely outcome is neither complete legalization nor a complete ban but some compromise like taxation and heavy regulation - just as we now "enjoy" with alcohol.

ttwtt78640 said:

Yes. The argument is similar to saying that legalizing only 3.2% beer, yet keeping all "harder" drinks illegal would be a realistic option. Note that the very first OP argument is heroin specific - since marijuana is easy to grow in many climates and requires no processing it is doubtful that its cost to produce (or obtain) is an issue. The same is true of the second argument since it makes no mention of the specific drug involved - the percentage of "drug offenders" that involved only marijuana is never mentioned. The likely outcome is neither complete legalization nor a complete ban but some compromise like taxation and heavy regulation - just as we now "enjoy" with alcohol.

Click to expand...

Alright, thanks for the clarification. However, I'm a bit hesitant to say circumstances for marijuana is the same for all drugs. For example, look at how rohypnol (Also known as "roofies", I probably misspelled it) is used compared to marijuana. While marijuana is often used for personal recreation, rohypnol is used more often than not to help engage yourself in a "date rape" situation by slipping it into the victim's drink without their knowledge. Sure, more liberty is generally a good thing, but there's certainly more "negative" liberty to come from legalizing a drug like rohypnol than "positive" liberties.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for marijuana legalization, but I'm hesitant to say the effects of marijuana legalization are the same for all drugs.

TeleKat said:

I do support the legalization of all recreational drug use, however marijuana is arguably the subject of the most debate at this time so that's why I made the thread specific to marijuana.

Click to expand...

Then the appropriate poll question would be "Any personal recreational drug use - legalize or ban?". There are many that favor different restrictions on beer than distilled liquor even though both are "legal". There is much middle ground such as with prescription use only for drugs or allowing the OTC "licensed dealer" sales but no unlicensed or vending machine sales. Even now we have dry counties, heavily restricted sales, hundreds of regulations, may not be used "in public" and age restrictions for alcohol.

Legalize it, and coke, and meth, and crack. Make it total personal responsibility to use and or become addicted to. Let society sort it out. One round at a time.

Here's a quick little marijuana benefits story:

A few days ago I woke up and was feeling HORRIBLE. I started throwing up uncontrollably every 30 minutes like clockwork, after about 5 cycles of this, I decided to light up, because I had heard how much it helps with leukemia patients throwing up. I IMMEDIATELY felt better and was able to eat and drink. My vomitting reduced itself to once every 4 hours instead of once every half hour. That extra time allowed me to get badly needed rehydration and eased my suffering tremendously.

Now, why would ANYBODY want to deny someone an insanely effective medicine? Why should I have just suffered and had one of the worst days of my life instead of taking a little medication and feeling better?

Keep it illegal, there is no rational reason to bring a schedule I substance down to OTC for the purpose of abusing it to get high. We need more substance restriction, not less. We have a public health crisis, allowing for the legal use of marijuana to get a high will likely only make things worse. We already have alcohol and tobacco and that's bad enough.

digsbe said:

Keep it illegal, there is no rational reason to bring a schedule I substance down to OTC for the purpose of abusing it to get high. We need more substance restriction, not less. We have a public health crisis, allowing for the legal use of marijuana to get a high will likely only make things worse. We already have alcohol and tobacco and that's bad enough.

Click to expand...

So there's a great question, do you really think it should be a schedule one substance? Do you really think there's ZERO medical benefits whatsoever?

What about in post #11 where I describe my experience? What about Leukemia patients who get massive relief from it? Seizuring children? Glaucoma? PTSD? All bull****?


Marijuana stops child's severe seizures - CNN.com

The little girl in the picture has Dravet Syndrome. She has hundreds of seizures a week without cannabis oil. With it she has 1-2 a week. Can you honestly sit there and tell me you would have the gumption to look this little girl in the face and say "Hey, I'm sorry, but your medicine doesn't actually work, so I'm going to take it from you."

She literally would've died by now without it, and it was the very last medication they tried.

RabidAlpaca said:

So there's a great question, do you really think it should be a schedule one substance? Do you really think there's ZERO medical benefits whatsoever?

What about in post #11 where I describe my experience? What about Leukemia patients who get massive relief from it? Seizuring children? Glaucoma? PTSD? All bull****?

Marijuana stops child's severe seizures - CNN.com

The little girl in the picture has Dravet Syndrome. She has hundreds of seizures a week without cannabis oil. With it she has 1-2 a week. Can you honestly sit there and tell me you would have the gumption to look this little girl in the face and say "Hey, I'm sorry, but your medicine doesn't actually work, so I'm going to take it from you."

She literally would've died by now without it, and it was the very last medication they tried.

Click to expand...

Re-read what I posted. I specifically said OTC.

For the record, we do have "medical marijuana" in the form of THC as Marinol being a prescribed medication. There is a difference between providing a drug for medical care and making a drug OTC for the purpose of being abused (with it not being a treatment for something but existing as an agent to get high). If you are arguing for the legalization of cannabis as a plant for medical use that's one thing. But decriminalizing it and making it OTC is another.

Dragonfly said:

Hasn't this question been asked and answered about a billion times now?

Click to expand...

Memory loss, a small side effect. :mrgreen:

digsbe said:

Re-read what I posted. I specifically said OTC.

For the record, we do have "medical marijuana" in the form of THC as Marinol being a prescribed medication. There is a difference between providing a drug for medical care and making a drug OTC for the purpose of being abused (with it not being a treatment for something but existing as an agent to get high). If you are arguing for the legalization of cannabis as a plant for medical use that's one thing. But decriminalizing it and making it OTC is another.

Click to expand...

Marinol has massive side effects that natural cannabis does not. Even if we discount that, why should something in a natural form be illegal while the allegedly same chemicals produced in a lab by a company should be legal? Do you not see that the only reason for that is to protect corporate interests?

Secondly, so you're saying that someone who's taking a prescription to alleviate pain is perfectly fine, but someone who is taking the same exact thing with no pain should be locked in a cage? If I take prescription Prilosec for heartburn after a spicy meal, that's ok, but if I take it when I don't have heartburn I should be in jail? How can you justify a qualifier like that?

And lastly, don't act for a ****ing second like you haven't been vocally opposed to medical marijuana on here before.

I'll go ahead and toss in that not just all drugs, but all "vice" crime as well, to include prostitution and gambling. By keeping them illegal, we maximize the profits of criminals, and yield only negatives.

If made legal, new industries, and new avenues for tax revenue open up, and police resources are freed to focus on more serious crime.

There is no realistic way to control these behaviors, regardless.

I'd support a minimum age limit for purchase, but we have more important issue that we need these limited resources for.

If we can't solve more than a fraction of murders, why are we focusing on vice?

RabidAlpaca said:

Marinol has MASSIVE side effects that natural cannabis does not. Even if we discount that, why should something in a natural form be illegal while the allegedly same chemicals produced in a lab by a company should be legal? Do you not see that the only reason for that is to protect corporate interests?

Secondly, so you're saying that someone who's taking a prescription to alleviate pain is perfectly fine, but someone who is taking the same exact thing with no pain should be locked in a cage? If I take prescription Prilosec for heartburn after a spicy meal, that's ok, but if I take it when I don't have heartburn I should be in jail? How can you justify a qualifier like that?

Click to expand...

List those side effects using a medical source and a paper contrasting them to cannabis.

Natural =/= best or even good. Does having it made in a lab make it bad? THC may be therapeutic, marinol is essentially synthetic THC to be delivered in a specific dosage form to treat illness.

And yes, someone taking a prescription pain reliever is doing so as treatment under supervision of a healthcare provider. Someone who is using it illicitly for a high is abusing the medication. There is a reason why we have our medical model in place and why patients cannot legally self treat. You aren't entitled to go to a pharmacy and just buy the medications for blood pressure, insomnia, cholesterol, or anything else you might want. The state deems that as a public health issue and that such conditions need to be diagnosed and therapy planned in accordance with healthcare providers. You are making straw man arguments by comparing scheduled narcotics for pain with OTC heartburn meds that aren't commonly abused or produce a high. The qualifier is that abusing drugs is illegal as it is a harm to society and public health. Certain medications are also only allowed to be accessed via a prescription and dispensed by a pharmacy. They aren't all equal.

Marijuana is not harmful for adults, no reason for it to be illegal.

It has medical benefits and provides a good high. There is nothing wrong with wanting to get high to relax. No way we should put people in a cage for that.

digsbe said:

And yes, someone taking a prescription pain reliever is doing so as treatment under supervision of a healthcare provider. Someone who is using it illicitly for a high is abusing the medication. There is a reason why we have our medical model in place and why patients cannot legally self treat.

Click to expand...

And that reason is what?

Why is it the concern of the state if I kill myself taking any sort of drug?

digsbe said:

Re-read what I posted. I specifically said OTC.

For the record, we do have "medical marijuana" in the form of THC as Marinol being a prescribed medication. There is a difference between providing a drug for medical care and making a drug OTC for the purpose of being abused (with it not being a treatment for something but existing as an agent to get high). If you are arguing for the legalization of cannabis as a plant for medical use that's one thing. But decriminalizing it and making it OTC is another.

Click to expand...

recycled old post of mine for a rebuttal:

marduc said:

Got to love a world where a synthetic version of a substance replaces one that is easily and readily attained naturally. But then again a drug company could not really profit off from natural THC, or related cannabinoids which would be able to be purified and processed to pharmaceutical standard with ease, and at a fraction of the cost.

I love when Marinol gets touted as the universal answer to medical marijuana, when there are over 60 cannabinoids that have been isolated from cannabis. THC is but one of a whole class of substances in the understudied cannabinoid family.

Little is known about which cannabinoids have which specific medical benefits, so they release a synthetic version THC as a generic panacea to say "see we are not overlooking its medical value", while overlooking a whole myriad of potential uses for the entire class substances, many of which are non intoxicating.

Being pure THC (even synthetic) marinol is good at one thing, getting the user very high; unfortunately most users report that cannabis itself is much better at alleviating their nausea, and promoting appetite without such a complete and overwhelming stoned feeling from pure THC.

So, no Marinol is not the cure all for the problem as it is being touted, rather exploring what it is specifically in the whole class of cannabinoid drugs, and which ones specifically have which benefits is. Doing this could very well result in finding a much better solution (processed from natural cannabinoids working in tandem) that can be tailored to have the desired results, while minimizing on the intoxication effects that result from THC alone.

Medical marijuana patients often tailor the strain of cannabis they use to maximize the desired combination of cannabinoids. Different strains and different ratios of THC to other cannabinoids produce different effects, and even different intoxications, some more beneficial than others for a specific user or problem, and this does not necessarily equate to maximizing THC content and the associated intoxication.

Marinol -clocking in at 100% THC (synthetic)-, most certainly does maximize THC content, and as such is not what the doctor ordered for many medical marijuana recipients, so no, Marinol is not a viable alternative for many.

Click to expand...

Ok, so we make all these drugs legal. The price will come down and more people will be able to afford it. Can you imagine how full the hospitals will be with overdoses and addicts who just don't know when to stop? The price will be reasonable so they will be able to get high more often. If you think the healthcare system is over whelmed now, just go ahead and legalize herion, meth, cocaine, marijuana etc.

Amanda1858 said:

Ok, so we make all these drugs legal. The price will come down and more people will be able to afford it. Can you imagine how full the hospitals will be with overdoses and addicts who just don't know when to stop? The price will be reasonable so they will be able to get high more often. If you think the healthcare system is over whelmed now, just go ahead and legalize herion, meth, cocaine, marijuana etc.

Click to expand...

Legalization of marijuana, and the legalization of other drugs are separate issues.

Now, you can't overdose on marijuana, it is not physically addictive, and the high it produces doesn't make people go crazy and go commit crimes. There are also no negative health consequences that can't be associated with other legal substances.

There is no reason for marijuana to be illegal.

Amanda1858 said:

Ok, so we make all these drugs legal. The price will come down and more people will be able to afford it. Can you imagine how full the hospitals will be with overdoses and addicts who just don't know when to stop? The price will be reasonable so they will be able to get high more often. If you think the healthcare system is over whelmed now, just go ahead and legalize herion, meth, cocaine, marijuana etc.

Click to expand...

Highly Doubtful. It's not as if the population is going to become ignorant of the dangers of heroin, meth, and cocaine if it was legalized and just start buying it in huge numbers and any harm that comes with marijuana is not enough to land you in the hospital.

Your Star said:

There is no reason for marijuana to be illegal.

Click to expand...

And also not alot of good reasons to legalize it. Personally, I dont care if say, Colorado legalizes it. In fact, I wish my state would give people arrested several times for possession of marijuana the following benefits:

-A get out of jail free card
-free bus passes to Colorado
-vouchers for three months of free apartment rent

Colorado could then reap the benefits of having new consumers for their product.

At the end of the day, I think the costs to Colorado from becoming a drug tourism destination are going to out weigh the benefits.