Why is marijuana illegal?

[Zacharious-khan]

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/pot/blunderof37.html
i call it google...
also once laws get passed unpassing them is hard

 

[DudeistBelieve]

One more thing I forgot to mention: I'm sure we'd ban cigarettes and alcohol if we could afford to, but by the time we figured out how bad they could be, they had become an integral part of our economy, and we literally couldn't financially afford to ban them. Keeping marijuana illegal isn't so much about fairness, it's more like keeping more things like cigarettes and alcohol (i.e. harmful but necessary) from making their way into standard economy and practice. I'm personally in favor of keeping it illegal. I just don't see why people want it so bad.

Some of us just believe in the freedom and liberty ideals the USA was suppose to represent.

you are free to do whatever you want. it's just that there will be consequences.

Those consquences shouldn't involved jail time. That's the government telling us what we can or can't put into our own bodies. It's unconstitutional.

 

[Eggsnham]

its illegal yet cigarettes and alcohol kill alot more than marijuana does.

that's because it's not legal so less people smoke marijuana.

"and there's plenty of evidence suggesting that there are anti-carcinogens in marijuana smoke. Meaning that the shit could potentially help in the fight against cancer".

well okay then but do you have cancer? people who are given medical marijuana are smoking it because they in need of it. people without cancer just want to get high

It doesn't just help with cancer, it can help eating disorders, AIDS, joint pain and arthritis (since it's a powerful anti-inflammatory), certain heart conditions, trouble getting to sleep, and boredom.

Marijuana is suited as both a medical treatment, and a recreational drug, so why keep it from being one or both?

It's like alcohol (barring the potential poisoning, hangovers, damage to several vital organs, and severe impairment of motor skills) in that people would likely be doing it in their own homes, privately.

 

[reg42]

also it doesn't make you hallucinate

It can, if you get really good stuff.

I think the stuff you're buying is laced. I think you'd have to get REALLY high to start hallucinating. Or use other in addition.

I took ambian, smoked, then played Nazi zombies one time. That was crazy as hell! It was like the map turned into an MC Esher painting with zombies, and I was inside the game. I eventually completely forgot what game we were playing and thought I was playing Gears of War and Call of Duty 2. I downed like 3 cans of Dr Pepper in a couple minutes and didnt even realize when the cans were empty.

It isn't laced. It's only happened when I smoked Jack Herer. Obviously I mean they cause mild hallucinations, like a couple of patterns and such - not the type of thing you'd see on magic mushrooms.

 

[Entropyutd]

If it's bad for me, shouldn't it simply be my choice not to take it? For me, that's where the argument of its health risks end; it's my body, it should be my choice.

If there were some way to garantee every drunk or drugged up person out there would remain in a safe place where their drunken/stoned actions could not effect another human being, then I'd be all for that.

But this isnt about your health, Most would say they don't give a crap about the user as an individual, More the damage you can potentially cause whilst in that state to others. Thats why the laws exist, and they don't discriminate, hence why people who are content to waste their lives smoking pot in their parents basement tend to have such a problem with them.
No it's not you mowing down people in a Tony Montana style hail of bullets, but you still take drugs and need to be watched.... just in case.

 

[Entropyutd]

Answer me this: scientific studies have shown that marijuana is less toxic and less damaging that either alcohol or tobacco, and it has none of the addictive qualities. Therefore, with this information acknowledged by both sides of the debate, what arguments do you have to support why marijuana should be illegal? If something is illegal, there should always be clear reasoning behind it. What is it about marijuana itself that poses such a threat that it must be kept illegal?

From where I and plenty of others are standing, there is no reason for marijuana to remain illegal. The science doesn't support it, the economics don't support it, and the ethics don't support it. Therefore, it is up to you to prove us wrong and tell us why it should be illegal.

I await your response.

People like you who pull heresay scientific information out of their asses are one of the big problems behind a sensble pot debate.
Could you please quote your sources?
Because a 2008 study done by the pharmacology dept at Cambridge University (Leslie L Iverson), showed that 10-30% of cannabis users would develop a dependancy, with 9% becoming a serious addiction.
So to say it has no addictive qualities is total hogwash.

Let me give you some stats from the same study, approximately:-

32% Tobacco users will become addicted
23% Heroin users will become addicted
17% Cocaine users will become addicted
15% Alcohol users will become addicted

Lets take the 9% point of addiction shown in the Cannabis study (10-30% showing some dependancy)
Still think its not remotely additctive?

 

[funguy2121]

Apologies. Double-post.

 

[funguy2121]

its illegal yet cigarettes and alcohol kill alot more than marijuana does.

Check out the documentary Grass sometime, as they articulate it much better than I'm about to.

Bear in mind, marijuana and cocaine both used to be legal.

The term "marijuana" didn't exist when Mexican immigrants began coming over the border and brought weed with them. It was called cannabis, so the guy you know from the coffeeshop who uses the term may not be so pretentious as you think. That's the real name for it, the scientific name. Blockbusters, journalists and the government liked to use batshit racist ideas of more-newly-arrived groups to the US to make money and distract from their own scandals/fuckups. Drugs and the general populace's lack of understanding regarding them helped to fuel this slander writ large. One of the biggest perps was the Hearse media empire, forebearers to Fox News. Before Hearse got really really big, a reporter would include his opinions in an article, and wouldn't attempt to maintain a false veneer of impartiality or objectivity (which of course is impossible). The Fox-isms "fair and balanced" and "We report. You decide." are an intellectual debt owed to Hearse. The parchment of the day was hemp, made from the very same plant as marijuana. Everybody wrote and typed on it. Hearse inked a deal with Dow Chemical to take advantage of a new patent to get exponentially more paper from tree pulp for dirt cheap. So they started printing articles about the "demon weed," coined the very term "marijuana," which sounded alien and scary to the good white folk here in the States, and released headlines such as "Marijuana Turns Negros into Superhuman Rapists of White Women" (paraphrased, but not very much). Since their competitors still only had hemp available to them, you can imagine what happened to them. And everyone went apeshit.

The prohibition had ended, and there were quite a few cops out of jobs. The department of the treasury created a new division, that would one day become the DEA, to bust users and dealers of the drug. This lasted until flower power hit. Youths simply didn't care about the illegality of the drug, as they were rejecting the consumerist culture of their parents, amongst a great many other things. Marijuana was legalized in several states. Then some Kennedies and some black leaders got shot, and the progressive dream was laid to rest for a couple of decades. Opportunistic politicians crafted new baseless rhetoric designed to prevent people from even considering the possibility that this godawful ruiner of lives may actually not be terribly harmful, or that it may even have tremendous medical benefit for sufferers of Alzheimer's, tremors, Cerebral Palsy, Nail Patella Syndrome, Cancer, impotence, nausea, Glaucoma and cataracts, among others. An entire generation was raised under Nancy Reagan and her "Just say no" campaign. The most useless excuses for musicians jumped on board and D.A.R.E.d. The religious right emerged and threw their full support behind any anti-drug campaign. Then some towers fell out of the New York skyline, and A Partnership for a Drug-Free America told us all that it was all the fault of marijuana (oh, and that it is a date-rape drug, which would be funny if it weren't so sad).

In case anyone is wondering, I don't use illegal drugs.

 

[Nudu]

its illegal yet cigarettes and alcohol kill alot more than marijuana does.

First of all, "alot" is not a word.

Secondly, I'm all pro-legalization. But I'm going to side with Cracked on this one.

*Ahem*

Yep, booze and cigarettes are pretty fucking bad for you. Deadly, even, if they're abused. Hell, I had a doctor tell me straight up that if I didn't quit drinking entirely, I'd be dead within the next five years. I've never heard a doctor tell someone that about their weed smoking. Drunk driving and smoking-related lung cancer have literally killed millions.

In fact, here's a not-at-all-retarded rebuttal from a legalization advocate in response to a "Foundation for a Drug-Free World" pamphlet that claims pot is more dangerous than alcohol. In case you didn't read that, it's exactly what you'd expect from a site that runs its articles over a background of marijuana leaf gifs, versus a highly generalized and exaggerated claim from an organization that is obviously anti-pot. The argument being, "Pot is worse than booze!" "Nuh-uh, alcohol is worse!"

But here's the thing about that entire debate: It doesn't fucking matter.

Throwing out death tolls from tobacco smoke, drunk driving and liver disease makes perfect sense as an argument for making those things illegal. It makes zero sense when trying to convince somebody to make pot legal. Don't you understand that "It will kill fewer people than cigarettes!" could apply to fucking anything? You could pass a law that lets 12 year olds carry concealed guns to school and it'd kill fewer people than drunk driving.

If the argument is that pot is the safer choice, then by that rationale, it's also safer than deep-throating a cactus or mouth-fucking a rattlesnake. Is someone obligating you to choose between the two? There's not a third option of just not doing either of them? That has baffled me for years, and I still don't understand it. But I've heard it. A lot. As if the legalization of one unhealthy activity obligates us to legalize every single thing that's less lethal than that.

You have to remember that the people who have the power to change these laws are old, rich, stuffy white guys who for the most part don't smoke weed. When they hear rebuttals like this, they're picturing a six year old kid stomping his foot and screaming at his mother, "Why can't I play that game? Jimmy's mom lets him play GTA, and that's way worse!" The end result is still that you're arguing for the right to make things worse than they were before.

Source [http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping_p2/]

A good point. We should criminalize alcohol. Man, why didn't anyone ever think of this before?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

its illegal yet cigarettes and alcohol kill alot more than marijuana does.

First of all, "alot" is not a word.

Secondly, I'm all pro-legalization. But I'm going to side with Cracked on this one.

*Ahem*

Yep, booze and cigarettes are pretty fucking bad for you. Deadly, even, if they're abused. Hell, I had a doctor tell me straight up that if I didn't quit drinking entirely, I'd be dead within the next five years. I've never heard a doctor tell someone that about their weed smoking. Drunk driving and smoking-related lung cancer have literally killed millions.

In fact, here's a not-at-all-retarded rebuttal from a legalization advocate in response to a "Foundation for a Drug-Free World" pamphlet that claims pot is more dangerous than alcohol. In case you didn't read that, it's exactly what you'd expect from a site that runs its articles over a background of marijuana leaf gifs, versus a highly generalized and exaggerated claim from an organization that is obviously anti-pot. The argument being, "Pot is worse than booze!" "Nuh-uh, alcohol is worse!"

But here's the thing about that entire debate: It doesn't fucking matter.

Throwing out death tolls from tobacco smoke, drunk driving and liver disease makes perfect sense as an argument for making those things illegal. It makes zero sense when trying to convince somebody to make pot legal. Don't you understand that "It will kill fewer people than cigarettes!" could apply to fucking anything? You could pass a law that lets 12 year olds carry concealed guns to school and it'd kill fewer people than drunk driving.

If the argument is that pot is the safer choice, then by that rationale, it's also safer than deep-throating a cactus or mouth-fucking a rattlesnake. Is someone obligating you to choose between the two? There's not a third option of just not doing either of them? That has baffled me for years, and I still don't understand it. But I've heard it. A lot. As if the legalization of one unhealthy activity obligates us to legalize every single thing that's less lethal than that.

You have to remember that the people who have the power to change these laws are old, rich, stuffy white guys who for the most part don't smoke weed. When they hear rebuttals like this, they're picturing a six year old kid stomping his foot and screaming at his mother, "Why can't I play that game? Jimmy's mom lets him play GTA, and that's way worse!" The end result is still that you're arguing for the right to make things worse than they were before.

Source [http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping_p2/]

A good point. We should criminalize alcohol. Man, why didn't anyone ever think of this before?

Did I say that, dear reader?

No. If you read what I wrote, I'm pro-legalization. However, I think this is one of the poorer arguments. The only one you need is "I wanna get high and I don't want the government to stop me". And that's fine by me. Just don't expect me to pay for any of your health problems.

 

[funguy2121]

its illegal yet cigarettes and alcohol kill alot more than marijuana does.

First of all, "alot" is not a word.

Secondly, I'm all pro-legalization. But I'm going to side with Cracked on this one.

*Ahem*

Yep, booze and cigarettes are pretty fucking bad for you. Deadly, even, if they're abused. Hell, I had a doctor tell me straight up that if I didn't quit drinking entirely, I'd be dead within the next five years. I've never heard a doctor tell someone that about their weed smoking. Drunk driving and smoking-related lung cancer have literally killed millions.

In fact, here's a not-at-all-retarded rebuttal from a legalization advocate in response to a "Foundation for a Drug-Free World" pamphlet that claims pot is more dangerous than alcohol. In case you didn't read that, it's exactly what you'd expect from a site that runs its articles over a background of marijuana leaf gifs, versus a highly generalized and exaggerated claim from an organization that is obviously anti-pot. The argument being, "Pot is worse than booze!" "Nuh-uh, alcohol is worse!"

But here's the thing about that entire debate: It doesn't fucking matter.

Throwing out death tolls from tobacco smoke, drunk driving and liver disease makes perfect sense as an argument for making those things illegal. It makes zero sense when trying to convince somebody to make pot legal. Don't you understand that "It will kill fewer people than cigarettes!" could apply to fucking anything? You could pass a law that lets 12 year olds carry concealed guns to school and it'd kill fewer people than drunk driving.

If the argument is that pot is the safer choice, then by that rationale, it's also safer than deep-throating a cactus or mouth-fucking a rattlesnake. Is someone obligating you to choose between the two? There's not a third option of just not doing either of them? That has baffled me for years, and I still don't understand it. But I've heard it. A lot. As if the legalization of one unhealthy activity obligates us to legalize every single thing that's less lethal than that.

You have to remember that the people who have the power to change these laws are old, rich, stuffy white guys who for the most part don't smoke weed. When they hear rebuttals like this, they're picturing a six year old kid stomping his foot and screaming at his mother, "Why can't I play that game? Jimmy's mom lets him play GTA, and that's way worse!" The end result is still that you're arguing for the right to make things worse than they were before.

Source [http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping_p2/]

A good point. We should criminalize alcohol. Man, why didn't anyone ever think of this before?

I should have known better than to expect everyone to play nice on this forum. I don't get how legalization would make everything worse. How are Denmark and Canada worse than the US? Unless Michael Moore's been lying to me, many Canadians don't lock their doors. Tell me, American Escapists, do any of you leave your houses and cars unlocked? I sure as Hell don't!

...but what it would mean is that people like George McMahon, whom I've met, who unlike him do not get their weed from the Federal government, can get their medicine without fear that the DEA will storm their doors and but some bullets through their windows over a friggin' plant that isn't going to result in a drunk driving accident or an alcohol poisoning resulting in death or a date rape. "Isn't as bad as alcohol?" Try marinol, or one of the many inhalers available in freer places, or buy a vaporizor. No threats to your heart and lungs that way. Smokeless weed will not kill a soul.

 

[Nudu]

snip

Cracked and you have misunderstood the argument here. The only real arguments against marijuana apply just as much and for the most part more to alcohol and tobacco. The article says "The end result is still that you're arguing for the right to make things worse than they were before." I urge you(not actually "you", but whoever wrote the article. Just so we're clear.) to ask yourself whether you think we were better off during Prohibition. Also, I can imagine a plurality of the people who want to keep pot illegal also drink alcohol, which blows all intellectual consistancy right off the table.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

snip

Cracked and you have misunderstood the argument here. The only real arguments against marijuana apply just as much and for the most part more to alcohol and tobacco. The article says "The end result is still that you're arguing for the right to make things worse than they were before." I urge you(not actually "you", but whoever wrote the article. Just so we're clear.) to ask yourself whether you think we were better off during Prohibition. Also, I can imagine a plurality of the people who want to keep pot illegal also drink alcohol, which blows all intellectual consistancy right off the table.

First off, you straw-manned my argument, which, to be fair, dear reader, isn't cool

Secondly, they have a point. "Booze is worse" is a perfectly good point... in a debate about puting a restriction on it. It has little to no bearing on this.

Hell, I don't drink, or smoke, but I want people to have the freedom to make their own choice in the matter. I just don't think "Tobacco is worse" is a very good argument.

 

[Dragunai]

Smoke too much pot and you will suffer issues with your brain and lungs - Ban it!

Smoke too many cigarettes and you will have serious issues with your lungs, heart and circulatory system - Let it run

Drink too much alcohol and you will have serious issues with your kidneys, liver, heart and brain - let it run

Eat too much cake and you will suffer from obesity which can cause a cavalcade of health issues - let it run! (or not as the case may be lardo)

Everything on this list when used to excess will cause rapidly occuring, easily detected health issues.

However only 3 of them have been linked to fatal issues - Cigarettes, Alcohol abuse and Obesity.

'Nuff said

And yes I am aware of the cotton story its just that now a days the bleeding hearts and do gooders use the above reasoning to get their own way because they can't get laid or something.

 

[funguy2121]

I should have known better than to expect everyone to play nice on this forum. I don't get how legalization would make everything worse. How are Denmark and Canada worse than the US? Unless Michael Moore's been lying to me, many Canadians don't lock their doors. Tell me, American Escapists, do any of you leave your houses and cars unlocked? I sure as Hell don't!

First off weed isn't legal in Canada (except for medical reasons), we just aren't as freaky about it. Cops for example routinely smoke...err...confiscate small personal amounts of weed they might find on you without charging you. Several police chiefs have asked for it to be made a summary offense (they write you a ticket, no criminal record), or to make possetion of small quantities legal. Basically for the small stuff you only get busted if you deserve to be busted for some reason. Dealers however get the cuffs.

Secondly all Michael Moore does is lie. He makes no secret that his movies are entertainment, not documentaries. For example in that famous door scene it took him a day to find an unlocked door.

Fair enough. Did he lie about the murder rates in Canada?

 

[tehroc]

War on Drugs is what fuels the Prison-Industrial Complex prevalent in the US. It an easy way for the state to gain control of the populace by pacifying it's youth with threats of incarceration and stigma to career.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Well I've done more stupid things when I'm drunk then when I'm high but I've been drunk more times. But being high doesn't feel that all bad, plus it does less damage and is less addictive than tobacco but it may have worse psychological effects. I don't see why they can't legalize it so its seperated from hard drugs with dealers.

 

[NEMESIS 94]

Because the US is making more money of it because it's illegal right now. If that changes they might legalize it because then its just like why not ya know?

 

[Trinketeer]

Just because marijuana isn't as bad as alcohol or cigarettes means we should make it legal? Here's a hypothetical situation so humor me. Guns are legal in school but knives aren't. If a bunch of kids were complaining that they should be allowed knives because it was less deadly than guns, would you allow it?

Fallacious argument. Cigarettes and alcohol are not comparable to guns, and weed is not comparable to knives. Analogies only work when there is a similarity between the two. You're dragging knives and guns into a debate that is about marijuana. Even if kids were allowed to take knives into school, what the fuck does that have to do with smoking weed?

[...]

I say this everywhere I go, but I must disagree. You can compare anything to anything, there's just some comparisons that doesn't do the work they attempt to do.

His comparison was fine except for some differences (there's probably many, but here's the two I noticed that are the most important)
First of all, we've gotten the idea of bringing some thing to school mixed into this. Guns being legal to posess does not automatically mean you can bring it with you to school, and similarly, even if weed was legal to posess, doesn't mean everyone would be free to smoke it everywhere they please.

The other, most important difference I see, is that weed is only affecting the person who brings the weed. You could argue that it can affect other people who are nearby - which is why it should not be allowed in school.
Guns and knives, of course you can use those on yourselves, and I think you should be allowed to if you really want to, but once you bring it where there's a lot of other people, it becomes dangerous to more than just the person with the gun, which is where it becomes a problem.

Besides, the only reason people bring up the "it's not as dangerous as alcohol or cigarettes!" is to show how hypocritical the law is. It's quite simple, really;

Weed is allegedly illegal because it's dangerous.
Alcohol is not illegal, therefore one can assume that the law considers alcohol to be less dangerous than weed.
If that is the case, the law would be wrong, therefore the law is hypocritical.
It's not an outcry that attempts to say "Alcohol is legal, so legalize ours too! ", it simply shows off that the law is put together in a hypocritical way.

It still all boils down to this:
Are people free to do what they want with their own bodies?

If yes, then the discussion is over, and all drugs should be legal.
If no, then we can dive down and begin discussing all these things about why it should be illegal.

But if the answer is no, then I think we have a problem, because to me it seems that freedom is something that people see as a positive thing (The Land of the Free). But if we're willing to punish people for doing things that only affect themselves, then why the hell are we waving this banner of freedom around all the time?

 

[Darth_pipsqueak]

I think that, that whole suect is pretty stupid. C'mon. If a man or a woman wants to take drugs they shouldn't be prohibited to do such a thing should they? Yeah, Pushing is ad, ut shouldn't the cops then take EXTRA CARE for drug dealers outside elementary schools or parks were kids and teenagers are all the time? I mean seriously? We know it's ad and it's worse than alchohol and cigarettes but you can't ban marijuana without banning alchohol and cigarettes as well. None of those things should be banned, IF you ask me.