Should Marijuana be legalized?

fredmertz said:

I 100% believe it should be legalized. But I know people personally who have smoked it and there is an obvious effect to there ability to think. They do become slower than they were previously at connecting the dots. This is not deniable. I hear different claims based on studies as to the effect or lack of effect it has on us. But I know from my own observations that there is indeed an effect.

So I wish it to be legalized. But I first wish the population to become truly educated as to what harm it does. It does harm! But adults do harmful things constantly that they feel is worth it. Let's just be fully informed and let each adult make their decision. I value my brain and thoughts enough to not want to decrease its already limited ability and so I choose not to join the fun. But I see no reason others shouldn't be allowed.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not! It does not do harm as my link in my signature discusses. What harm do you think it does?

Zyphlin said:

Okay, couple of points if you want to have an honest discussion here.



Yes, it was a joke. Yes, its things used in the past by some that have been against marijuana. Its still essentially belittling those that oppose your position from the onset and suggesting from the beginning that their view point is ridiculous based on the arguments of the least rational on that side.

This would be like me starting a thread about keeping Marijuana legalizd and after making a legitimate case for it going "Or you could say it should be legalized because it has absolute 0 negative affects to anyone at any time so is absolutely safe to use before, during, or after any activity, even driving, and is less dangerous than water".



An image from a random blog isn't really going to sway those that don't agree with you.

An image from a random blog with zero indication as to how those numbers are found makes it even less likely.

Are drunk driving individuals labeled under the Alcohol listing? Are deaths from driving under the influence of marijuana alos included then? Negligent acts while under intoxication, are those included? Death attributed to long term use, if they're used how does it certify that a death occured due specifically to a specific substance? Is this just based on deaths from overdoses? Etc.

No, something like what you posted above wouldn't "Make me reconsider".

Now, at the end of all that, I'm for legalization. I think we have many of the tools in place in crafting the laws for regulating it and allowing it into the legalized market place. Sell it in situations akin to hard liquor, IE in most states, within an authorized ABC store with a 21 years old age limit (frankly I think alcohol should go down to 18, but it should be the same as alcohol). Have similar laws regarding intoxication and use in public, driving under the influence, etc that we have with Alcohol. Also use cigerettes as a baseline idea in regards to laws of indoor smoking of it in public. While I'm generally not in favor of public smoking bans, if they're in place in the state they should be applied to marijauna as well. Similar to Tobbaco in some states I imagine you'd start to see "bars" that cater specifically to marijuana users with the proper ventiliation required to be able to have it geared towards that. I am not sure of the legitimacy of a contact high in a bar situation (I know in a very confined space its possible, but more difficult for such to happen in a large open area room), but depending on that it would potentially be a more realistic raeson why to keep it out from places of business specialized in its use as it would potentially make the notion of a designated driver impossible in bars if there's a chance one with a low tolerance for such things could get a contact high.

But utlimately I see no reason not to legalize it. Its short term affects on a person ranges from less to about on par with alcohol, its long term danger is less, its intrusiveness on others around you is around the same as smoking, and its addiction level is low. It would potentially reduce the violence some on the border, would free up law enforcement resources, would generate jobs and revenue both in the private sector and public sector. Decriminalize it at least, legalize it preferably.

Click to expand...

That graph is completely accurate...surely you know in 10,000 years of usage there has never been a SINGLE recorded death from Marijuana.

BCR said:

That graph is completely accurate...surely you know in 10,000 years of usage there has never been a SINGLE recorded death from Marijuana.

Click to expand...

Again, that hinges on how the data was collected.

Death from direct usage? IE overdose?

Death from related health affects? IE Lung cancer? And if that's the case, how much proof of the cause and the reason for death was required to consider someone having died from that drug?

Death from the related mind or body altering affects? IE drunk driving deaths? Again, how is this determined and totaled.

That information is paramount to know to be able to take the chart seriously, both in regards to the amount of deaths attributed to marijuana and to other drugs on the list.

there have been studies that show Marijuana has zero correlation with lung cancer...

don't take my word for it though, listen to the qualified doctors including a Harvard medical professor speak about it.

YouTube - Wait... what? How Dangerous Is Marijuana Again?

Is individual liberty a controversial item?
This is a individual liberty issue.

BCR said:

Simple but controversial question. It's a well know fact that it is less dangerous than Tobacco and Alcohol yet we imprison almost 1 million people every year for simple possession. The government spends billions every year fighting Marijuana yet it just proves to be futile. It is also considered medically useful for over 200 diseases and illnesses.

Ok my intro is somewhat biased

to counter my point

Marijuana makes black people go crazy and rape white women. It also kills brain cells and takes away all motivation and turns you into a pacifist!

Click to expand...

All drugs should be legalized, outlawing the use of any substance is a violation of the right of self ownership.

Of course marijuana should be legalized. Especially since there are many worse drugs out there that are legal.

I voted other. I do not believe marijuana should be legalized, but I do believe that they should lessen the punishment for possessing/smoking marijuana. It should be treated as a low class drug and the penalty should be a small fine or something. It shouldn't be treated the same as far worse illegal substances.

If some damn fool wants to put some chemical in his body to give him the twitches or wreck his perception of reality, or just give him a hardon for a day or two, that is absolutely his business, not mine, not yours, and most certainly not the government's.

If that damn fool tries to do something that clearly presents a real hazard to others, such as driving a motor vehicle, wandering randomly on foot in traffic, or while in charge of a minor child, or similar circumstances, the law can be applied to regulate that behavior.

But punishing people for possessing a "substance"? Ain't a word in the Constitution authorizing that.

Also, the arguments on legalization of marijuana shouldn't be "to boost the tax base". If the politicians can't discuss the moral and legal issues objectively, they should be heaved out of office, because they're not serving the public's interest, but their own.

MaggieD said:

I wonder what would happen to the price of MJ if it were legalized. Taxed like cigarettes, I would think we'd still have an underground market. Don't know. Never bought any.

Click to expand...

That would depend on how much taxation you're talking about. There's a black market on cigarettes because of the absurd taxes on those stupid things.

If there's enough gap between the cost to take the product to market, and the additional superfluous burden added by government, then there will be people willing to cut out the parasitic government and deal with the customer on a more unofficial basis.

Risk raises price.

Tax somethin high enough, and the profit for taking the risk of skipping the taxman emboldens some to take the risk.

Also, there's absoulutely no reason, none whatsoever, for ANY product offered for retail sale to be taxed at a different rate than others.

What? I heard someone say sales of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs should be taxed to cover the cost of rehab clinics. Shame on you. There's no constitutional authority for anyone to be taxed to provide elective services like that. There's no Constitutional authority for the government to provide any health care functions at all.

Zyphlin said:

Now, at the end of all that, I'm for legalization. I think we have many of the tools in place in crafting the laws for regulating it and allowing it into the legalized market place. Sell it in situations akin to hard liquor, IE in most states, within an authorized ABC store with a 21 years old age limit (frankly I think alcohol should go down to 18, but it should be the same as alcohol). Have similar laws regarding intoxication and use in public, driving under the influence, etc that we have with Alcohol. Also use cigerettes as a baseline idea in regards to laws of indoor smoking of it in public. While I'm generally not in favor of public smoking bans, if they're in place in the state they should be applied to marijauna as well. Similar to Tobbaco in some states I imagine you'd start to see "bars" that cater specifically to marijuana users with the proper ventiliation required to be able to have it geared towards that. I am not sure of the legitimacy of a contact high in a bar situation (I know in a very confined space its possible, but more difficult for such to happen in a large open area room), but depending on that it would potentially be a more realistic raeson why to keep it out from places of business specialized in its use as it would potentially make the notion of a designated driver impossible in bars if there's a chance one with a low tolerance for such things could get a contact high.

But utlimately I see no reason not to legalize it. Its short term affects on a person ranges from less to about on par with alcohol, its long term danger is less, its intrusiveness on others around you is around the same as smoking, and its addiction level is low. It would potentially reduce the violence some on the border, would free up law enforcement resources, would generate jobs and revenue both in the private sector and public sector. Decriminalize it at least, legalize it preferably.

Click to expand...

Great post. Legalizing pot would remove a revenue source from criminal drug cartels, free up law enforcement resources, reduce related government spending, provide new tax revenue, and generate jobs.

I have yet to hear a solid argument why marijuana should remain illegal. Unless you long for the good old days of prohibition, I really can't fathom why you would favor continuing our failed drug policy. I can understand being a little more reluctant towards legalizing harder drugs, but marijuana is relatively safe and not very addictive.

The biggest mistake some pro-pot advocates make is overstating their case, acting as if marijuana has no adverse affects, causes no impairment, and is basically a wonder drug. Making those kind of claims removes any sense of credibility.

Psychoclown said:

The biggest mistake some pro-pot advocates make is overstating their case, acting as if marijuana has no adverse affects, causes no impairment, and is basically a wonder drug. Making those kind of claims removes any sense of credibility.

Click to expand...

What adverse affects are there? As you can see from my sig (it is my site) I am making the claim that the are no long term harmful affects.

Yeah, I think it should be legalised, since it seems to be no more harmful than alcohol.

It shouldn't unless the manufacture, distribution and sale of are all legalized at the same time.

BCR said:

there have been studies that show Marijuana has zero correlation with lung cancer...

don't take my word for it though, listen to the qualified doctors including a Harvard medical professor speak about it.

YouTube - Wait... what? How Dangerous Is Marijuana Again?

Click to expand...

Wonderful, now show me where there's any indication of the fat that the chart you showed is speaking about deaths caused by overuse of the drug itself and its related health affects.

As it stands, it doensn't. It just says "Deaths", which is ambiguous, and gives no indication of how they collected the data which immedietely throws the whole thing into question because there's no way to verify it because there's no way to know what its actually looking at. It also makes it hard to see how questionable some of the health criteria may be. For examples some studies seem to suggest the increased heart rate from the initial beginning of smoking could increase the chance for heart attack; however are heart attacks while smoking marijuana considered something that is applied to the drug or not?

reefedjib said:

What adverse affects are there? As you can see from my sig (it is my site) I am making the claim that the are no long term harmful affects.

Click to expand...

i have anecdotal evidence it can cause schizophrenia (a friend of mine developed schizophrenia from marijuana), but thats anecdotal, and of no value in a debate, and the jury is still out on whether it causes mental illness or not.

spud_meister said:

i have anecdotal evidence it can cause schizophrenia (a friend of mine developed schizophrenia from marijuana), but thats anecdotal, and of no value in a debate, and the jury is still out on whether it causes mental illness or not.

Click to expand...

My anecdotal evidence is the opposite. It doesn't cause Bipolar, but it can relieve the symptoms. It is self-medication.

reefedjib said:

My anecdotal evidence is the opposite. It doesn't cause Bipolar, but it can relieve the symptoms. It is self-medication.

Click to expand...

fair enough, thats why anecdotal evidence doesn't count, it varies from individual to individual, though from an ironic point of view it makes sense "marijuana giveth, and marijuana taketh away"

reefedjib said:

What adverse affects are there? As you can see from my sig (it is my site) I am making the claim that the are no long term harmful affects.

Click to expand...

Reef, you're better than that. You're creating a strawman.

Psycho paraphrased - "There are adverse affects possible"

Reef paraphrased - "What?! You're wrong, there's no risk of long term adverse affects"

His argument was not concerning specifically long term.

There are unquestionably potentially adverse short term affects related to marijuana use. Altered state of consiousness, heart rate increase, disruption of short-term memory, slower reaction time, weakened attention span, anxiety, and decreased motor skills.

Those are all potential short term adverse affects, so to say it has "none" is a bald faced lie.

In regards to long term, even that is questionable and depends how you term it.

There's studies showing that long time heavy users who are still currently using can result in a decreased IQ. While not a long term AFTER affect, IE continuing on after its use, it could be considered a long term affect.

A study in 2002 in the Journdal of the American Medical Association found that long term users performed worse than short term users and non-users in regards to tests concerning memory and attention.

Additionally there is conflicting studies in regards to the potential cancer risks associated with marijuana as well as simple damage to the lungs. Additionally in some studies the long term affect has either been present but too small to make a judgement, or large enough to back the conclussion but minor enough to suggest discounting. This could be due to the difficulty in actually conducting real studies on this type of thing in the U.S. with any kind of decent sample size. With it being illegal you're limited for the most part of testing current marijuana users only if they're on medical marijuana, which is a smaller sample size and presents other factors within the situation basd on the reason why they are using.

This is ignoring the ambiguous "other" category of negative affects. Conflicting studies regarding the affects on unborn children when smoked by pregnant mothers. The psychological addictive possabilities of the drug. The potential withdrawl symptoms that, while mild, are at times present. The potential for increasing the risk of triggering other psychological issues.

At the very least one would have to say that the affects of cannabis beyond the immediete short term is at best inconclusive due to conflicting research and legal limitations with regards to the ability to conduct legitimate, substantial, long term research.

To counter someone saying there are adverse affects by trying to imply there are no adverse affects is exactly what Psycho is talking about in regards to the end of his post and is exactly the type of thing that will continue to assure that it takes longer then needed to legalize marijuana. Propoganda will be met with Propoganda and when that happens people either tune our or tend to go down whatever side they've traditional been on. Until the legalization side's primary spokesmen and vocal majority become able to talk about this in an adult fashion, honestly, openly, and realistically, acknowledging that it is not a wonder drug or has no adverse affects what so ever or making arguments like "its safer than water" then its going to have a extremely hard time winning over enough of the American people to see legalization happen.

spud_meister said:

i have anecdotal evidence it can cause schizophrenia (a friend of mine developed schizophrenia from marijuana), but thats anecdotal, and of no value in a debate, and the jury is still out on whether it causes mental illness or not.

Click to expand...

From what I understand and read, and I'm sure CC could give more insight into this, Marijauna cannot "cause" schizophrenia". What it can do is act as a "trigger", or essentially something that increases the risk factor, for schizophrenia to manifest in someone whose mind is already predisposed to it.

To put it in a different, more humorous, and probably not exactly correct way (but we can always use some levity). If you have a girl that is not extremely sexual, not just in outward action but internally as well, having a few glasses of a mixed drink isn't likely to suddenly make her start acting sexually provocative. However, if you have a girl that is usually rather reserved sexually in an outward sense, but internally thinks about it constantly and has a desire to be more sexually transparent, and she's having a few glasses of mixed drinks its more likely that she's going to start acting more sexually provocative.

This is not the alcohol "causing" her to behave this way, however it is helping to create the psychological and physiological conditions to make that latent potential more likely to manifest fully.

From what I understand that would be a better way to think of Marijuana with regards to some mental illnesses. The Marijuana doesn’t “cause” it “create” it but acts as a potential trigger

Zyphlin said:

From what I understand and read, and I'm sure CC could give more insight into this, Marijauna cannot "cause" schizophrenia". What it can do is act as a "trigger", or essentially something that increases the risk factor, for schizophrenia to manifest in someone whose mind is already predisposed to it.

To put it in a different, more humorous, and probably not exactly correct way (but we can always use some levity). If you have a girl that is not extremely sexual, not just in outward action but internally as well, having a few glasses of a mixed drink isn't likely to suddenly make her start acting sexually provocative. However, if you have a girl that is usually rather reserved sexually in an outward sense, but internally thinks about it constantly and has a desire to be more sexually transparent, and she's having a few glasses of mixed drinks its more likely that she's going to start acting more sexually provocative.

This is not the alcohol "causing" her to behave this way, however it is helping to create the psychological and physiological conditions to make that latent potential more likely to manifest fully.

From what I understand that would be a better way to think of Marijuana with regards to some mental illnesses. The Marijuana doesn’t “cause” it “create” it but acts as a potential trigger

Click to expand...

while it can act as a trigger for a predisposition, my friend in question had no family history of mental illness, this was all thoroughly looked at when he was diagnosed, and he didn't drink or anything like that, marijuana was his only vice, and the fact that marijuana does alter brain chemistry means that it could render a permanent change, much like alcohol, and stronger drugs.

and on another note, i found an interesting read on the health effects of marijuana, and its more or less unbiased.
Marijuana: Health Effects

reefedjib said:

Absolutely not! It does not do harm as my link in my signature discusses. What harm do you think it does?

Click to expand...

Yes that's what your signature suggests. What harm do I think it does? Well, I could copy and paste what I already wrote which is what I think (and what you responded to, so I assume you read it?). My point is that for every 'study' that claims there is no adverse effect on the individual smoking, there is a study claiming the effect is a negative one involving. For every person, such as myself, that have noticed negative effects of marijuana on my friends, there is a student who just got accepted into DUKE who smokes the reefer. My point is that it has a 99.99% chance that it has negative effects. Because everything does if taken beyond moderation.

I want it to be legalized. But I want to know what those negative effects are. So I think there needs to be real studies done by people that can not be refuted by another study. I just want full disclosure. And then if you choose to smoke it, that's fine with me. Whatever you want. But let's not let companies sell something, such as alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana, without making them tell us the consequences. Why should pot be any different?

Zyphlin said:

Reef, you're better than that. You're creating a strawman.

Psycho paraphrased - "There are adverse affects possible"

Reef paraphrased - "What?! You're wrong, there's no risk of long term adverse affects"

His argument was not concerning specifically long term.

Click to expand...

Well, I didn't mean to crate a strawman. It's worse than that from my miscommunication. As you would see from my site, I am claiming that marijuana does not do harm to other people! I am not disputing harm done to an individual smoker, either short term or long term. I agree more studies are needed. This harm to self is not pertinent to the Harm Principle which should govern whether it is criminal to smoke. As others have said, it is your choice what harm you cause yourself, as long as you are fully informed of the risk of that harm.

There are unquestionably potentially adverse short term affects related to marijuana use. Altered state of consiousness, heart rate increase, disruption of short-term memory, slower reaction time, weakened attention span, anxiety, and decreased motor skills.

Those are all potential short term adverse affects, so to say it has "none" is a bald faced lie.

Click to expand...

Can I use this list of short term harms on my website? I want to address "harm to self" more directly. Is heart rate increase harmful?

In regards to long term, even that is questionable and depends how you term it.

There's studies showing that long time heavy users who are still currently using can result in a decreased IQ. While not a long term AFTER affect, IE continuing on after its use, it could be considered a long term affect.

A study in 2002 in the Journdal of the American Medical Association found that long term users performed worse than short term users and non-users in regards to tests concerning memory and attention.

Additionally there is conflicting studies in regards to the potential cancer risks associated with marijuana as well as simple damage to the lungs. Additionally in some studies the long term affect has either been present but too small to make a judgement, or large enough to back the conclussion but minor enough to suggest discounting. This could be due to the difficulty in actually conducting real studies on this type of thing in the U.S. with any kind of decent sample size. With it being illegal you're limited for the most part of testing current marijuana users only if they're on medical marijuana, which is a smaller sample size and presents other factors within the situation basd on the reason why they are using.

This is ignoring the ambiguous "other" category of negative affects. Conflicting studies regarding the affects on unborn children when smoked by pregnant mothers. The psychological addictive possabilities of the drug. The potential withdrawl symptoms that, while mild, are at times present. The potential for increasing the risk of triggering other psychological issues.

At the very least one would have to say that the affects of cannabis beyond the immediete short term is at best inconclusive due to conflicting research and legal limitations with regards to the ability to conduct legitimate, substantial, long term research.

Click to expand...

So if we were to construct a list of possible, yet unproven, negative long term harms to a smoker, that list would be: decreased IQ, memory, attention, cancer, pregnancy complications, psychological addiction, withdrawal, and increasing the risk of triggering other psychological issues.

To counter someone saying there are adverse affects by trying to imply there are no adverse affects is exactly what Psycho is talking about in regards to the end of his post and is exactly the type of thing that will continue to assure that it takes longer then needed to legalize marijuana. Propoganda will be met with Propoganda and when that happens people either tune our or tend to go down whatever side they've traditional been on. Until the legalization side's primary spokesmen and vocal majority become able to talk about this in an adult fashion, honestly, openly, and realistically, acknowledging that it is not a wonder drug or has no adverse affects what so ever or making arguments like "its safer than water" then its going to have a extremely hard time winning over enough of the American people to see legalization happen.

Click to expand...

I agree. This is why I asked what harm is done: to be more accurate and straight up on my site so that it isn't propaganda.

I meant harm done, by smoking marijuana, to other people, not done to the individual smoker. That is the violation of the Harm Principle. You can do yourself harm without violating it. My greatest frustration is that smoking marijuana is a criminal offense. What crime is committed?

reefedjib said:

I meant harm done, by smoking marijuana, to other people, not done to the individual smoker. That is the violation of the Harm Principle. You can do yourself harm without violating it. My greatest frustration is that smoking marijuana is a criminal offense. What crime is committed?

Click to expand...

When I said 'harmful' I didn't mean 'harmful to others' I meant harmful to the smoker. But like you say, what crime is committed there? I don't see a reason why it should be a crime. But I do believe we should know what risks the smoker has. And I want it to be proven so that people can make informed decisions. That's all that I ask. But still, it's not something that should block passage in Congress.

reefedjib said:

Well, I didn't mean to crate a strawman. It's worse than that from my miscommunication. As you would see from my site, I am claiming that marijuana does not do harm to other people! I am not disputing harm done to an individual smoker, either short term or long term. I agree more studies are needed. This harm to self is not pertinent to the Harm Principle which should govern whether it is criminal to smoke. As others have said, it is your choice what harm you cause yourself, as long as you are fully informed of the risk of that harm.

Click to expand...

And there's the issue. I'm going to try to be helpful because you're honest and up front about this and I see now this is your own project which I can respect you trying to do.

The vast majority of people in this country are not going to approach this issue from a libertarian-esque mindset because the vast majority of people in this country don't subscribe actively to said mindset. So while to you the need to say "other people" when talking about the adverse affects is not present. However, to the vast majority of people who read "I am making the claim that the are no long term harmful affects" they are assuming you mean affects in general, including to themselves.

Indeed, its rather unusual to think of a statement like that about "long term" affects of a drug and assume you're meaning "long term affects to OTHER people".

Aside from the point Psycho was making, and I've made for a while here, in regards to the damage done to the movement by those who are simply the mirror image of the anti-pot propogandists your post illustrates the next most difficult hurdle the movement will need to overcome. This cannot be fought primarily or singularly from the logical stand point of a libertarian. “Harm Principle” cannot be your overriding argument if you want to win people over to this. This is actually at the heart of my issue with Ron Paul back during the primaries.

These types of arguments cater SPECIFICALLY to a rather small niche of the population (libertarians) while having a good deal of variation with regards to its impact with the vast majority of the population. The problem with that is that the people you are wanting to convince are not going to be libertarian types, as they are most likely going to be the ones already in favor of what you’re wanting.

Instead what you need to do is, instead of identifying what’s important to you and why you want it legalized identify what’s important to your target audience and then find out how to relate reasons for legalization to that crowd.

Can I use this list of short term harms on my website? I want to address "harm to self" more directly. Is heart rate increase harmful?

Click to expand...

You’re more than welcome to. I by no means suggest its thorough, complete, or well detailed though but I have no issues with you using it as I think all of those are pretty solidly factual. For the most part they’ve been gathered from various articles ranging from both sides of the fight as well as wiki and a few other sources.

In regards to heart rate, I believe one study I had saw that mentioned it stated that within the first hour of smoking weed one can experience their heart rate rising up to 4 times its normal level. The belief is that this could potentially raise the risk of heart attacks for those with heart conditions (doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen, but simply creates a better circumstance at that point for such). Similarly it could cause issues with people with existing anxiety or panic disorders. Beyond that it’s a mild thing like increased body heat, etc.

So if we were to construct a list of possible, yet unproven, negative long term harms to a smoker, that list would be: decreased IQ, memory, attention, cancer, pregnancy complications, psychological addiction, withdrawal, and increasing the risk of triggering other psychological issues.

Click to expand...

Yep. And if one was to be fair you’d need to point out that the majority of the long term affects if present are primarily apparent only when actively still partaking in the drug regularly. For example, in regards to the IQ/Memory/Attention they found definite decreases in these for long time, regular users, however people who had previously smoked or smoked only occasionally throughout the year did not present these symptoms.

I’d say withdrawl is one of those things that you could go into on its own as its almost a separate matter as it’s not an affect of the drug, but of leaving the drug. It’d be important to point out that it is one of the weakest drugs in terms of the severity of its withdrawl symptoms, and they do not manifest in every user. Symptoms are generally “mild” compared to other drugs and include things like irritability, anxiety and physical tension, decreases appetite and mood, insomnia, and sweats. While someone could have significant cases of these symptoms, the symptoms themselves are relatively benign compared to detox from others. So while its untrue when people suggest “there is no withdrawl issues with Marijuana” you’d likely want to be a slight bit more thorough then saying that there is withdrawl since that word can mean a lot of things to different people.

A way to think of it is the warnings on pills. If 4 versions of a type of pills say “warning, use of this drug could cause complications including heart attack, stroke, paralysis, or death” and 1 version says “warning, use of this drug could cause complications” and that’s all people know of that type of pill, they’re going to assume that 5 pill has similar “complications”. However if it the last pill said “warning, use of this drug could cause complications such as exhaustion, fatigue, and dizziness” then people are likely going to go “oh, yeah they’re not good but its not like its DEATH”. If they just left it off completely though, without any warning, people would naturally be distrusting.

Say Marijuana has the potential for withdrawl symptoms, though generally weaker than many other substances including Alcohol. Those symptoms are [list of symptoms]. All users may not experience withdrawl from the substance.

I agree. This is why I asked what harm is done: to be more accurate and straight up on my site so that it isn't propaganda.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. And its great to see you open and honest about wanting to find that kind of stuff out and being receptive to it. It’s a quality more in the active community for this needs to have. American’s are conditioned to think of harm not just in what it does to others but what it does to ones self, so behind honest about those will help as it will show that the affects are generally not horrible comparatively.

I meant harm done, by smoking marijuana, to other people, not done to the individual smoker. That is the violation of the Harm Principle. You can do yourself harm without violating it. My greatest frustration is that smoking marijuana is a criminal offense. What crime is committed?

Click to expand...

Again, you’re viewing this from that libertarian scope.

Here’d be my advise to you honestly in regards to your site.

Do not abandon the “harm principle” notions and the government getting out of peoples private business notions. Those aren’t bad. Don’t make it your sole focal point though.

Hit on the fiscal issues of it. The amount of money we spend yearly in regards to enforcement and incarceration of individuals because of this. Look at the amount of money that could potentially be generated both in the private sector due to manufacturers, government due to taxes, and the economy in general by bringing cash out of the black market. Push how it will help spur job creation as growers, factory workers, retail locations, businesses catering to it, etc will all open up. Between the increased government funds for democrats, increased economical funds for republicans, and increased jobs and decreased money spent on law enforcement for both, you have a factual and useful argument that actually has the chance of touching a base of people your strictly libertarian argument may not.

You can do this one the Social side as well. Highlight the potential aid it could provide for border relief as it takes one of the main goods causing the smuggling and violence associated with it to occur out of the equation. Highlight how low level offenders who’ve done nothing criminal other than partaking in the use of it would no longer being hounded by the system. Point out how by no longer putting it essentially on par with far harder drugs you reduce part of the “gateway” nature associated with it because you no longer have situations where someone goes “I’m having to hide this activity and I could get in legal trouble for it, so what more harm can come from doing additional things”.

Obviously the libertarian point is not reaching a broad base, as evident by their generalized numbers at the polls, their numbers of people that self identify as such, and the general issues with legalization as it stands. The more you and others branch out and start thinking “what will convince them” rather than “what would convince me” I think there’s going to be a larger chance of getting some change in a far faster time span.

I’ll give you site a peak though and look over once I’m home and on my computer. Anxious to see it.