I don't believe it's necessary for me to make a case 'against' legalization in order to participate in this discussion. If it is, then I'll gladly bow out of the thread.
I'm not saying "bow out", I'm saying that to me it appears your agenda despite you trying to dance around it is pretty evident and the tactics you're using throughout this thread are rather see through and useless.
It's not clear to me, for instance, whether legalizing marijuana would result in an increase or decrease in usage.
There are varying opinions on it. I've still asked you to provide links to people in this thread stating it would decrease across the board and not just speaking of juvenille's. That said, in a general sense, what does it matter if it increases or decreases its usage in regards to whether or not it should be legalized?
If it is increased do you think that is a reason for legalizing it, not legalizing it, or doesn't matter? Same for decreased.
It's not clear whether California will be a destination for drug 'tourism' and how that will be handled. (Clearly, my state won't be legalizing it anytime soon.)
Again, varying opinions on it. So what? Do you believe that it becoming a destination for drug tourism is a reason against legalizing it? If so, why? If not, why does it matter?
It's not clear to what extent legalization of marijuana would reduce our overall drug enforcement expenditures... either in California or in the U.S. as a whole.
In general it seems that the general consensus is that it would at least reduce it some, how much varies however in opinion. That said, again, if it doesn't change the overall drug enforcement expenditures in any largely substantial way is that a reason you feel it shouldn't be legalized? If not, what does it matter?
It's not clear whether advocates of this bill would also support legalization of 'hard' drugs. One of the main arguments favoring marijuana legalization is that it's relatively harmless. But then a number of posters have suggested ALL drugs should be legalized. So who's distorting the issues?
You, for equating the argument that marijuana should be legalized to those saying all drugs should be legalized.
If I say shop lifters should be the only theives prosecuted and someone else says "no, ALL thieves big and small should be prosecuted", are you going to say that we should prosecute no one simply because we don't agree on how far to take it or would you say lets start prosecuting shop lifters and then see where the discussion goes from there?
Some people arguing that all drugs should be legalized does not directly pertain to the discussion that marijuana should be legalized.
But so what? Are you saying that if people that support the legalization of Marijuana ALSO support the legalization of all drugs then that is a reason for not legalizing it? If so, why? If not, what does this matter?
Is this thread to be limited to a discussion of marijuana only or the War on Drugs in general?
It seems primarily focused on Marijuana. It touches on the War on Drugs in so far as Marijuana is a part of it, but its primary focus is Weed.
I know that Californians will be asking these kind of tough questions. So if these questions are seen as 'distorting the issue,' then they face a tough battle ahead.
Yes, I'm sure you're right. Californians will be asking these questions. Why? Because, like you, they can't actually come up with a legitimate reason why it SHOULD be illegal, so instead they have to try and create confusion and dissention and distortion in the various reasons and stances as to why people think it should be legalized. They, like you, don't have an argument against legalizing it so you instead simply try to screw with the plethora of actual legitimate arguments for the legalization.
