The deadweight loss our economy suffers through this legislation is reason enough to overturn it. In 2005, a thorough report on its impact on our federal budget was sent along with a letter signed by 500+ economists (including Milton Friedman) to Washington calling for a re-examination of the regulation debate. It's available here: http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html

The big problems confronting this issue are simple and unfortunate:

1) Who generally argues for legalization?

By and large, people who don't vote, or don't square their votes with their views on this issue.

2) How and where do they do so?

By bitching incessantly louder, from within their living rooms. They also practically never argue for legalization in public, organize to do so, or support organizations that will. Until more people join those of repute like William F. Buckley, Thomas Friedman, and others, and make it a point not to risk but to lend their reputation to this debate, it's not going anywhere.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the alcohol and tobacco lobby were behind the continuation of the drug's scheduling. Racism fueled making it illegal, competition and manufactured social pressure (I think) keep it illegal, and only a retooling of that social pressure will make it legal again. The problem is that it takes enormous resources--money, research, and people--in order to change the legal status of something like this.

A lot of the groundwork has been laid as far as research goes, but it's been stymied by bans or unreasonably Draconian restrictions inhibiting future research. Without the funds and votes, it's all for naught, though.

---

Quote :

"UJustWait84: you can blame the Nixon administration for this whole mess"

Amen.

---

Quote :

"cyrion: it is the rare part that ppl like to whine about"

And why are they unjustified? The government doesn't mandate that you only rarely eat french fries, or even rarely drink alcohol. People would "whine" rather loudly if they did...

---

Quote :

"bgmims: Therefore, tended ditchweed should be included in the illegal category and not the "wild, natually growing waste of time destroying" category."

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the weed was growing wild before it was discovered and "tended."

---

As far as Randy's incredible evidence of its harmful effects go:

Quote :

"The linkcorrelation between cannabis and psychosis is well established, and recent studies have found a link between use of marijuana and depression"

There is a well-established link between the sales of ice cream and violent crime. That doesn't imply indulging your sweet tooth on a summer afternoon is going to turn you into Mr. Hyde. Read the study. There are serious scientific issues of ethics raised by presenting such conclusions as substantiating claims that marijuana causes anything.

It's an irrelevant point anyway. The issue isn't over whether or not smoking marijuana is unhealthy. It is. So are Thickburgers. And bacon. Plenty of things are unhealthy. That doesn't give the government the right or obligation to prevent you from coming into contact with them.

If anything, consumers ought to be more educated about the risks associated with the substances they put in their bodies, not denied the freedom to take those risks. Surgeon General warnings suffice for cigarettes, why not marijuana? Any legalization effort that expects to have credibility needs to address the consumer education portion of the risks involved.

Otherwise, I say light up. This is a pretty senseless waste of government money and a pretty useless denial of your liberties.

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 3:10 PM. Reason : ...]

9/8/2006 3:08:10 PM

nice post ^

9/8/2006 3:11:09 PM

OH MAN!

I totally feel sympathy for you here, me and my family have grown industrial ditchweed as a cashcrop for many generations to support our super strong economy dependant upon ditchweed growers, ( who are the chosen children of mother nature ). We got shut down by that damn white plant with those little puff balls, it totally wrecked our world, what will we do now, that we can't grow ditchweed@!

9/8/2006 3:25:10 PM

I'm glad crack and heroin are illegal

9/8/2006 3:26:18 PM

i think all drugs should be legal.

9/8/2006 3:27:09 PM

Anyone got some ditchweed so I can run my computer?

9/8/2006 3:28:04 PM

I'm glad that crack and heroin are illegal, too. That doesn't mean I feel completely justified by it.

9/8/2006 3:33:36 PM

Quote :

"The issue isn't over whether or not smoking marijuana is unhealthy. It is."

This is off topic, but there is evidence to support that marijuana doesn't contribute to lung cancer and could actually help prevent it by encouraging cells to die before they become cancerous. I know it only focuses on one area, but how many unbiased studies about the health effects are there for us to go by?



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12943013/

9/8/2006 3:36:16 PM

some people think anything that doesnt harm others should be legal

^anything you burn and inhale is not good for throat/lungs/respiratory system

even though some of teh cannabanoids are bronchial dilators

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 3:37 PM. Reason : .]

9/8/2006 3:36:26 PM

It's been a while since I've heard the argument. Remind me why people justify keeping something illegal even if it can't be shown to harm others?

9/8/2006 3:40:56 PM

look, marijuana is going to physically kill anyone

it just makes some people dumber than they were before

that's about the only 'harmful effect' i see from it

people really just need realize that it was banned for being socially undesirable, not a life threating drug

9/8/2006 3:41:25 PM

Quote :

"Remind me why people justify keeping something illegal even if it can't be shown to harm others?"

because while i agree that people can use things like alcohol, marijuana, etc in a fairly responsible way

I dont want the public to turn into a bunch of baseheads, even if they arent directly affecting me

dont think it would be good for the country at all

9/8/2006 3:42:24 PM

this thread is really boggling my mind when it comes to treetwista's responses. can we confirm the ip? i mean, his name is fucking treetwista.

9/8/2006 3:46:04 PM

yeah but i mean

Quote :

"Registered : 5/24/2001 (1933.6 days ago) "

9/8/2006 3:48:04 PM

he realized he had to quit smoking pot before people would take him seriously as a Republican

9/8/2006 3:48:30 PM

nah i just realized i could get away with what i was doing in school but not working a job full time

9/8/2006 3:49:33 PM

besides, who tells the truth on here?

9/8/2006 3:49:50 PM

Actually UJustWait84...

Originally, it was banned by playing off of racism against Mexicans. Then it was unbanned because of Timothy Leary's Supreme Court Case. Then it was banned to discriminate against a new socially undesirable group: hippies. Timothy Leary was later sentenced to 95 years for possession of one joint, and named "the most dangerous man in America" by Richard Nixon.

This drug's got a rather glorifying affect on our legal system and political institutions...let me tell you.

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: I dont want the public to turn into a bunch of baseheads, even if they arent directly affecting me dont think it would be good for the country at all"

I don't understand. How is this different from believing it'd harm others?

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 3:51 PM. Reason : ...]

9/8/2006 3:50:01 PM

again though, im in agreement. i dont want more reasons for people to act retarded, drive under the influence, and be more worthless than they were before.

poor decision making and lack of productivity are certainly ways to hurt others.

9/8/2006 3:50:05 PM

0/10

Ban TWW!

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ...]

9/8/2006 3:52:46 PM

i wont lie. i didnt even read your long ass post.

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 3:55 PM. Reason : but read the rest of the thread (ok i lied again, i read the part talking to me)]

9/8/2006 3:55:22 PM

^^^^im not talking about weed

im talking about crack, heroin etc

if somebody wants to go smoke crack in their home, it probably wont affect me at all

however if crack was legal i think plenty more people would get addicted, and society would suffer, so that would affect me

9/8/2006 3:55:29 PM

And thus demonstrably harm others.

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 3:57 PM. Reason : ...]

9/8/2006 3:55:55 PM

sorry, my eyes hurt from being on this stupid crt all day.

9/8/2006 3:56:36 PM

weed is healthy for you

9/8/2006 3:58:50 PM

I don't even know (or care) if legalizing crack would mean that more people got on it. But I don't just want to keep it from spreading, I want to come as close to eradicating it as is humanly possible.

But, with regards to marijuana, I don't really think legalization/decriminalization would lead to a marked increased in habitual use, and I don't see the need to eradicate it, so why bother with it at all? Save some money.

You know, for the hangings.

9/8/2006 3:58:59 PM

I suspect most anti-legalization advocates are long on emotional appeals and short on rational, fact-based arguments...

9/8/2006 3:59:13 PM

^^^^^you could say that about weed if you wanted to

its a gray area in what affects only you and what affects others

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 3:59 PM. Reason : ^x5]

9/8/2006 3:59:38 PM

if somone planned on smoking crack im sure the fact its illegal didnt make a difference.

Because of this a few people make loads of money off of idiots addicted to crack. Thus causing drug crime.

hmmmmmmmmmmmm

9/8/2006 4:04:03 PM

Using Randy's rationale, alcohol should be illegal. Its a much more dangerous drug than marijuana. But then again politicians would get run out of town if they did that. The policy for marijuana is much more a product of misunderstanding than substance. If I remember, the reason it was banned intiailly was a concerted effort by Southern cotton farmers to eliminate competition from hemp (a much more productive crop per acre) by demonizing all crops as being narcotic.

9/8/2006 4:05:04 PM

Who the fuck would smoke some crack if only it were legal? I think if you're at the point in your life where you're doing that to yourself, you probably don't give a fuck.

9/8/2006 4:19:12 PM

^^ It was timber.

TreeTwista10:

You still have yet to establish how either can be stretched in any rational way at all.

I'd argue that the best one can say is this: Crack & heroin create a measurable biophysical compulsion many orders of magnitude greater than marijuana, such that defiance of legal, ethical, and moral obligations to respect the rights--property and other--of others are markedly and measurably greater in those who've addicted themselves to those two drugs than who smoke marijuana.

Frankly, I view crack and heroin addictions as extreme self-programming, which everybody does to different extents. The problems those drugs create in and of themselves are social in nature, only spilling out into the lives of others due to the problems regulation introduces (read: black market). The compelling mandate of our government isn't to ensure that its citizens remain productive by removing their choices. It's to preserve their freedom to make them.

On the whole, with sufficient and accurate information required along with its sale (think terror alerts, but for "addictive potency"), I HIGHLY doubt many would find roboticizing themselves with harder drugs attractive enough for it to become the widespread pandemic common in sensationalist literature. This hypothesis hasn't exactly been tested, so I don't really know one way or the other if my intuition is right on this one, but it seems to me that law isn't the only thing keeping people off crack and heroin. That seems to get lost in a lot of drug debates.

People have more reasons for stopping at stop signs than the law. They don't run stop signs because they don't want to die in a fiery auto accident and know the risks of that occurrence are greatly increased in doing so. Hard drugs like crack and heroin have more than a legal stigma attached to them, they have a mortal and financial risks associated with them, too.

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 4:20 PM. Reason : ...]

9/8/2006 4:19:13 PM

Quote :

"I HIGHLY doubt many would find roboticizing themselves with harder drugs attractive enough for it to become the widespread pandemic common in sensationalist literature."

people wouldnt be more likely to try them if they were legal to try?

9/8/2006 4:23:21 PM

sky diving and cliff jumping are legal.....

no way in fuck im doing those two things

9/8/2006 4:25:33 PM

^^ They would, sure. I doubt significantly. Trying drugs isn't harmful to othes. Allowing drugs to dominate every aspect of your existence, however, can be very harmful to others.

Thing is, we have laws against the harm you can cause others. If they ought to be more strict to prevent people who seek to regularly release more dopamine from their brains (which I'd argue is their property) from becoming negligent parents, thieves, murderers, and whatever, then so be it. Those are clearly addressable problems.

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 4:37 PM. Reason : ...]

9/8/2006 4:32:57 PM

tww should be illegal so we could prove it's cooler when prohibited

9/8/2006 4:39:08 PM

so basically it isn't legal because we haven't found a way for wealthy business owners to profit from it

9/8/2006 4:41:20 PM

Quote :

"Trying drugs isn't harmful to othes."

but drugs like crack and heroin are highly addictive which could lead to long term use

which, just like you said, could negatively affect society, which harms others

9/8/2006 4:42:44 PM

Having a high addictive potential isn't the same thing as guaranteeing addiction (as you recognized: "could lead..."), or negative consequences to others. The negative effects on society are already regulated against. Prohibiting those harder substances is nothing more than adding insult to injury. But all of that's a digression. We really should limit the discussion to marijuana to respect the threadmaker.

Make a drug war thread if you're that interested in having the debate. I'll shut up about the other drugs for now.

Suffice it to say I think marijuana ought to be legal. Period.

9/8/2006 5:01:14 PM

Quote :

" Originally, it was banned by playing off of racism against Mexicans. Then it was unbanned because of Timothy Leary's Supreme Court Case. Then it was banned to discriminate against a new socially undesirable group: hippies. Timothy Leary was later sentenced to 95 years for possession of one joint, and named "the most dangerous man in America" by Richard Nixon."

well, if you want to get technical it was banned in 1937 after that bullshit tax act was passed

but you are right though, Southwestern America blamed crime and racial tensions on pot smoking Mexican Americans, just like New Orleans blamed it on pot smoking blacks.

William Randolph Hearst didn't help things either, or DuPont.

9/8/2006 5:01:54 PM

and coke was banned because of the blacks and opium because of chinese immigrants, etc

9/8/2006 5:02:45 PM

well that's partly true

they were also banned because housewives, doctors, teachers, etc became addicted to over the counter remedies countaining a physically addictive substance they didn't know was present

9/8/2006 5:06:34 PM

Bayer put out heroin pills in the 1890s, I believe

who didnt write a paper in high school on why weed should be legalized??

9/8/2006 5:09:03 PM

And because an American Medical Association official lied on the floor of Congress.

I mean, if you wanna get technical...

9/8/2006 5:09:13 PM

Coca Cola used to have cocaine AND alcohol in it

9/8/2006 5:09:39 PM

Not for very long.

THC is also the active ingredient in Marinol, a prescription drug available in the United States. Odd how marijuana's scheduling states it has no medical use though it is smoked for its THC...

9/8/2006 5:11:58 PM

the point is Twista, is that you keep lumping marijuana, cocaine, and heroin into the same category

people like you are why it's still banned today

9/8/2006 5:11:58 PM

i also lump in alcohol and nicotine and aspirin because they are all drugs

^^there are hundreds of other cannabinoids...marinol sucks...its not like smoking weed

9/8/2006 5:13:28 PM

Reminds me of...

If gay people get married, people'd be able to marry sheep, and toasters could marry coffee makers, knives to forks, cats to dogs!!1

9/8/2006 5:13:30 PM

lets you fags arent calling me a pothead left and right

9/8/2006 5:14:41 PM