Why REALLY is marijuana illegal?

[Stoicheion]

I don't understand why people should be forced to give up their freedoms for a false sense of security. The way i see it, education would and should be on the other side of the balance scale if everything considered a drug was legal.

there's a really interesting article on why marijuana (spelling?) is really legal.

here's the link
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/ ... legal.html

[curiosityandthecat]

Here's your reason why it's illegal:

[youtube:pwispgo3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZdhcNegZgU[/youtube:pwispgo3]

[rlrose328]

Did some of the latest research indicate that marijuana is just as, if not more, dangerous than tobacco?

Don't get me wrong... if people want to poison their lungs either either weed or tobacco, more power too them, as long as they are limited to doing it in their own home and not anyplace public where it can poison my lungs or those of my son... I'm good.  I'm very glad that they are not allowed to smoke in restaurants here.  I can finally go to a few of my favorite restaurants again (it wasn't banned in restaurants in Oregon until a few years ago).

I also don't want people driving while under the influence of weed...

So... smoke it and stay home.  If you can guarantee that, I'll vote to legalize it.  

[Stoicheion]

So... smoke it and stay home.  If you can guarantee that, I'll vote to legalize it.  

I agree actually. With the same type of regulations as other legal drugs, it would be possible.

as much of an idealist as i am. I don't think that in this day and age the world as a whole isn't ready for the legalization of all drugs, nor will it be in anytime relatively soon in the future.

For now, the decriminalization of weed would make me happy.

[Squid]

Did some of the latest research indicate that marijuana is just as, if not more, dangerous than tobacco?

A recent paper claims that marijuana smoking increases the onset time of Bullous lung disease.  I haven't had a chance to read this paper yet but I am skeptical due to the fact that this report flies in the face of many other studies over the years which have repeatedly not found such a connection.  There's often way too many politics in marijuana research and this has effected the scientific results.  As compared to tobacco and alcohol, marijuana is by far, much less hazardous.  If it were regulated just as tobacco and alcohol there would be no problem.  Some states do not even arrest you for amounts under a certain amount.  Marijuana is up there with cocaine and heroine because people don't like to think on their own, do their own research and critically think - they'd rather accept those ridiculous commercials than anything.  For many years I smoked...a lot.  I did way more than just sit on my couch and do nothing.  The lack of motivation to do something is not a behavioral property brought about by marijuana - most of those people are lazy asses to begin with.  Baaahhh, I'm rambling now.

[Jolly Sapper]

For an interesting short term nonscientifical video'd experiment regarding how pot affects health you can always watch "Super High Me."  

Doug Benson kinda did the same thing as the guy in "Super Size Me" but somewhat less seriously.  It was a pretty good movie in my humble opinion.

[Asmodean]

I'm not going to go into the whys of things, but I'm glad that illegal narcotics are illegal and that controlled ones are controlled. A smoke of one can well lead to a sniff of the other. A sniff of the other can lead to a stick with the third.

What people do in their homes I don't give a flying potato about, but as long as I can't take as many as 10 steps from the central train station in our capital without being offered every denomination of dope or begged for money for every denomination of a good purpose, they are an annoyance to me.

And the fact that the stuff is illegal gives the police the right to harrass dope dealers and users alike and thus, an opportunity to keep them away from me.

[SteveS]

I don't understand why people should be forced to give up their freedoms for a false sense of security.

Well said.  For my part, I don't understand how a crime without a victim is a crime.

I'm willing to believe that marijuana is perhaps less hazardous than tobacco or alcohol, or at least no worse, but I think this is irrelevant to whether or not it should be legal.  Simple matter to me: if we value liberty and individuality then a person owns their own life and their own body.  Want to light up?  Go ahead.

In other words, suppose that marijuana did carry certain risks with its use.  Depending upon a person's desires and goals, this fact could be a good argument for them not to smoke it, but would remain a bad argument for making it illegal to do so.

This marijuana issue is one of pure principle to me:  I don't personally smoke it, never tried it, don't have any desire to.  But, I do strongly favor personal liberty and freedom.  Why mandate that other people should be unhappy simply because of our own preferences?  Must we all agree?  Or, can we make some allowance for individuality?  Can we separate the realm of human desires and preferences neatly into a black and white division of "right" and "wrong", or are these judgments subjective by their nature?

[NoFearNoLimits]

I remember in Sam Harris's book End of Faith he made some really good points, on how legalizing it could help out our economy.  Less people sent to jail for possession, which means less taxes for us.  He mentioned some other ideas, but I can't remember them.

[rlrose328]

So the argument is:  Does the government have the right to protect us from ourselves?

Should driving drunk be illegal?  It's my right to drink and get behind the wheel of a car and there's no guarantee that I'll kill someone or myself, so I have that right... right?

It's the same with smoking marijuana... it can impair your judgement if you smoke it and attempt any number of things.  I smoked it several times as a teen... and I lost my virginity after I'd smoked it because it eliminated my inhibitions and I said, What the hell... why not.  My mistake, I was young and stupid and stoned.  But should the government have the right to protect me from that?

<crap, I'm rambling again, aren't ?>

What about smoking cigarettes.  It's been proven that second hand smoke can be as dangerous as smoking... or worse.  Why aren't THEY illegal but marijuana IS?  Makes no sense to me... until you take into account Big Tobacco's involvement in politics.

Ban them all?  Allow them all?  Is it really that black and white?

[Stoicheion]

Black and white it is not, you're right rlrose328. Mary Jane is a gateway drug. I'm not going to argue with that. My sister started smoking week and i watched her go on a downward spiral towards more drugs and illegality. I've seen what it can do to a person. That was partially stupidity on her part to do something because its illegal and "cool".

Driving while drunk is idiocy but it still happens. Why? because simply our judgment is impaired and our brains can't send signals to the neurons and bla bla bla.

Yet there's ads out there - in ads of alcoholic beverages! - that say please drink responsibly or designate a driver. And there are programs in schools to teach about the dangers of alcohol and regulations in society regarding its consumption. People still drink. Its just a part of our world. Even though drinking can lead to several medical problems, people still do it.

People still smoke weed and tobacco no matter the consequences. Here's an excerpt from a website i just looked up about alcoholism: (http://www.righthealth.com/Health/Relat ... 2F000944-s)

"Alcoholism is a type of drug addiction. There is both physical and psychological dependence with this addiction. Physical dependence reveals itself by withdrawal symptoms when alcohol intake is interrupted, tolerance to the effects of alcohol, and evidence of alcohol-associated illnesses.

Alcohol affects the central nervous system as a depressant, resulting in a decrease of activity, anxiety, tension, and inhibitions. Even a few drinks can result in behavioral changes, a slowing in motor performance, and a decrease in the ability to think clearly. Concentration and judgment become impaired. In excessive amounts, intoxication may result.

Alcohol also affects other body systems. Irritation of the gastrointestinal tract can occur with erosion of the lining of the esophagus and stomach causing nausea and vomiting, and possibly bleeding. Vitamins are not absorbed properly, which can lead to nutritional deficiencies with the long-term use of alcohol. Liver disease , called alcoholic hepatitis, may also develop and can progress to cirrhosis. The heart muscle may be affected. Sexual dysfunction may also occur, causing problems with erections in men and cessation of menstruation in women.

Alcohol affects the nervous system and can result in nerve damage and severe memory loss. Chronic alcohol use also increases the risk of cancer of the larynx, esophagus, liver, and colon. Alcohol consumption during pregnancy can cause severe birth defects. The most serious is fetal alcohol syndrome, which may result in mental retardation and behavior problems. A milder form of the condition which can still cause lifelong impairment is called fetal alcohol affects.

The social consequences of problem drinking and alcohol dependence can be as serious as the medical problems. People who abuse or are dependent on alcohol have a higher incidence of unemployment, domestic violence, and problems with the law. About half of all traffic deaths are related to alcohol use. "

Okay with that in mind, lets talk about the prohibition of alcohol that went on in the US's not too distant past. Here's part of an article from that same website.

"Although it was highly controversial, Prohibition was widely supported by diverse groups. Progressives believed that it would improve society and the Ku Klux Klan strongly supported its strict enforcement as generally did women, southerners, those living in rural areas, and African-Americans.

Distilleries and breweries in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean flourished as their products were either consumed by visiting Americans or illegally imported to the U.S. Chicago became known notoriously as a haven for disobeying Prohibition during the time known as the Roaring Twenties. Many of Chicago's most notorious gangsters, including Al Capone and his enemy Bugs Moran, made millions of dollars through illegal alcohol sales. By the end of the decade Capone controlled all 10,000 speakeasies in Chicago and ruled the bootlegging business from Canada to Florida. Numerous other crimes, including theft and murder, were directly linked to criminal activities in Chicago and elsewhere in violation of prohibition."

Sound familiar? It sounds familiar because it is. The underground market for drugs is huge. You're more likely to get rich off of selling coke on the street than selling stocks on wall street. ESPECIALLY with the economy today.

I just think that with the proper regulation, we could control how people obtain and use these drugs. But wait. "But people already know how to make drugs on their own like Meth et cetera!" True. But people also make beer at home. People also still can grow a nice batch of Mary Jane in their backyard. You might say that that is an unfair comparison, but i think its perfect. If prohibition still stood they would equate to the same thing.

The only cure for stupidity is knowledge. Like you, SteveS, you've never been baked your entire life. Because you know what will happen, never mind the legal stuff, if you do. And we're all smart enough to observe what will happen to the average Meth user. We can see it, plain as day, in our society.

Imagine if drug dealers had to get a license. Alcohol vendors have to do the same thing right? If they sell without a license they get arrested. Not for having it but for doing without the government being able to track their sales and distributions. Imagine if you had to be of a certain age to do these drugs. The exact same with alcohol. But minors still drink. It's going to happen no matter what. The best we can do is enforce it the best we can in the most reasonable way we can.

Let me restate again that no matter the consequences, health or social or psychologically related, people will always do drugs. People will also always drink. And furthermore, people are always going to do stupid things because of drugs and drinking. Is all the government spending on the war on drugs really necessary though? I don't think so. They could just as easily take care of it without using tax dollars. That money could be spent in much better places.

phew! that took alot of energy to write

[rlrose328]

Let me restate again that no matter the consequences, health or social or psychologically related, people will always do drugs. People will also always drink. And furthermore, people are always going to do stupid things because of drugs and drinking. Is all the government spending on the war on drugs really necessary though? I don't think so. They could just as easily take care of it without using tax dollars. That money could be spent in much better places.

phew! that took alot of energy to write

I can SEE how much energy that took!  Whew is right!  

[SteveS]

Hey Stoicheion, yes, I've never been baked in my entire life, but I do drink and I am one of the people who makes beer at home.  One nice thing about drinking beer at home is that you don't have to drive home.  Speaking of which, the old "DUI" comparison inevitably seems to come up in these discussions, so let me just make it clear that I don't think a person who chooses to use any drug (pot, alcohol, blow, whatever) should be magically freed of their responsibilities.  I don't think you can reasonably claim to have no responsibility for your actions as a result of intoxication.  One did, after all, make an unimpaired decision to impair one's self, right?

Anyway, this discussion mostly comes down to political philosophy in my opinion.  As rlrose asks, what does the government have the right to do?  Speaking to this directly, rlrose, how about the other thread where you express dismay that the government is trying to stop gay couples from marrying?  Specifically, you express outrage that they would make people behave in certain ways just because it is what they believe is the right way to behave.  How is that different from making drugs illegal?

A lot of folks are probably thinking that I'm missing the point of the argument, which is that tobacco, alcohol, pot, and other drugs have clear and unavoidable health consequence related to their use:

Stupidity will always reign supreme, no matter how much the scientific and medical community study drugs and alcohol or publish reports on its toxic effects on humans.

This, then, isn't like the homosexuality issue because there is an objective risk to your health with drugs.  So, there is simply no good argument that one should ever indulge, so all this "civil liberty" business just doesn't apply in this case.  Using drugs is stupid because it is dangerous to your health.  Period.

Fair enough, but consider, then, why the hell do we "allow" people to climb Mt. Everest?  Or participate in solo round-the-world sailboat races?  Or race really fast cars?  All of these activities are clearly dangerous and regular participation will clearly lead to significant risk of death and/or severe injury.  So - why do we feel people should be free to do these things?  Sure, these people accept the risk and find they want to do them anyway, but shouldn't we save them from themselves?  Haven't all the scientific reports that extreme sports and auto racing are dangerous convinced everyone to stop engaging in these "stupid" pastimes?

Now, how is this different from using drugs?  IMHO the answer is simple: we tend to view mountain climbers and race-car-drivers as "athletes" or "heroes" and we tend to view drug users as "losers".  In other words, we say "it is right and noble for a man to risk death by climbing a mountain", but we say "it is foolish and stupid to waste one's life by doing drugs".  Which is nothing more than projection of our own irrational values onto others.  Why are they irrational?  Because who can rationalize human preferences?  Does it make more sense to like blue better than yellow?  To like football more than theatre?  To like music more than painting?  Is there a logical argument to support one over the other?  I don't see how.  Different people have different likes.

So now, if we feel that a drug user "wasted" their life, that implies that there is a proper or absolute purpose to life after all.  If there is no proper purpose to a person's life, then how can they "waste" it?  We might not approve of their choices personally, but shouldn't they be free to make them?  Just like as above, should everyone prefer music to painting?  No.  Different people have different likes.  It would be wrong to force everyone to play music rather than to paint simply because this is how I personally feel.  Right?  Now, consider the arguments in this light:

1a) Risking physical health to enjoy the good feeling one gets from climbing a mountain is okay.
1b) Risking physical health to enjoy the good feeling one gets from smoking marijuana is not okay.

Does this make sense?  Is this fair?  If the answer is "yes", then why is this wrong:

2a) It is okay to enjoy the feeling of love if one is male and the object of one's attraction is female.
2b) It is not okay to enjoy the feeling of love if one is male and the object of one's attraction is male.

[Jolly Sapper]

Now, how is this different from using drugs? IMHO the answer is simple: we tend to view mountain climbers and race-car-drivers as "athletes" or "heroes" and we tend to view drug users as "losers". In other words, we say "it is right and noble for a man to risk death by climbing a mountain", but we say "it is foolish and stupid to waste one's life by doing drugs". Which is nothing more than projection of our own irrational values onto others. Why are they irrational? Because who can rationalize human preferences? Does it make more sense to like blue better than yellow? To like football more than theatre? To like music more than painting? Is there a logical argument to support one over the other? I don't see how. Different people have different likes.

You forgot about collateral damage.  

Mountain climber goes to Mt. Everest.  The climber makes the proper preparations, training, equipment, planning.  The climber's family know what the climber is doing and are prepared for the consequences.  The death of the climber only affects a relatively small number of people who are probably somewhat prepared.

I snort a pound of coke and go on an insane rampage through my local Wal-Mart with a baseball bat, denting the domes of anybody within range.  I wind up hurting lots more people who weren't prepared for the incredibly small probability of being killed while at Wal-mart  by a coked up guy with a baseball bat.  There is no reasonable way to prepare for such an unlikely outcome.

I'd imagine that the reason why there are laws against/restricting drug use are because the drugs tend to decrease the likely hood of acting like a "normal/rational" human being.  

So on one hand there are those who are pretty responsible with their illicit behaviors (sex, booze, pot, heroin, LSD, etc) who want to be allowed to use.  On the other hand are those who want to see the use restricted or banned because some of the worst consequences can effect more than the person using the illicit substance.

I guess a shorter explanation would be, if I can trust you, do what you will.  If I don't trust you, I don't want you doing stuff that will get me killed.

[Stoicheion]

I guess a shorter explanation would be, if I can trust you, do what you will.  If I don't trust you, I don't want you doing stuff that will get me killed.

I agree. The government would probably have success with some such program with drugs like they do with... credit? lol that would be interesting.

good credit?
bad credit?
No credit?
No problem! We can get you 6oz of weed for one flat rate every month!