Legalization of Marijuana

[PerpetualImperfexion]

I am not going to get into how dangerous or not dangerous weed is. All I'm going to say is that it is no more dangerous than a cigarette. I would instead like to outline the effects it would have on our economy, crime rate, and youth. If marijuana was legalized imagine how much money could be saved not enforcing the current laws. How much money is earned by taxing tobacco? What if a similar tax was put on marijuana? So much money would be going toward the economy rather than toward drug dealers. The only problem I see in this is that it may end up like cigarettes. In other words the big corporations may end up putting crap into it like tar, rat poison, nicotine, etc. I would like to point out thought that if you just smoked plain old tobacco its a whole lot better than pre-wrapped cigarettes. Now as for how it would affect our future generations. If weed was legalized it would be a whole lot harder for kids to get their hands on these drug. Prohibition helps nothing.

[IanMilo]

I don't do drugs, and nor do I care much about them. But I figure if someone wants to do it, might as well make it legal and save everyone a lot of trouble. Obviously it would have some restrictions like age and such, but people ought be able to make their own choices.

[Wicked_Syn]

I know for a fact that if Marijuana was legal, I'd be less likely to smoke it. Part of the fun that I used to get when I used to smoke weed was that I'm doing something illegal and I need to travel in order to get it. So yeah, if it was legalized, less youths' would be using it

[Angel Androgynous]

I am for the legalization of marijuana. Simply for all the reasons you have just stated! Also, it really isn't that bad....

[HaydenM]

I'm against it just as I am against cigarette smoking, it is depremental to your body but more importantly, those around you. I don't wanna be walking down the street to work and get high, then go in to work, random drug test, and then loose my job do I?

Tests show that smoking be it cigarettes or pot is bad for you, yet you want it why?

[zuluman78]

It should be legal, but just like smoking be prohibited in certain areas, mainly public areas such as schools,work place, hospitals etc. It would indeed save alot of money and crime rates would decrease. It can be used for health related issues such as cancer. Besides it's legal in the Netherlands and thats one of the most crime free countries there is

[KylieEatWorld]

Why all of your reasons for legalizing pot are stupid. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/)

[Perseus]

I'm against it just as I am against cigarette smoking, it is depremental to your body but more importantly, those around you. I don't wanna be walking down the street to work and get high, then go in to work, random drug test, and then loose my job do I?

Tests show that smoking be it cigarettes or pot is bad for you, yet you want it why?

If smoking isn't allowed in public places, what makes you think pot would be?

[TheMatrix]

Besides it's legal in the Netherlands and thats one of the most crime free countries there is
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/562900/facepalm.jpg
Take this from a Dutchie: NO!
You clearly haven't been to the Netherlands. My grandparents have been robbed 3 times already. And you better keep your wallet close to you in big cities such as Amsterdam and Utrecht, or you're going to find yourself a couple hundred euros poorer.

[justin78f]

legalize it for all the reason the OP said.

[Peace God]

Why all of your reasons for legalizing pot are stupid. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/)
Did you even read the article? It's pointing out a few bad legalization arguments. It doesn't state or even attempt to prove that legalization is a bad idea.

Exaggerating and misrepresenting flawed arguments of one side, never makes the opposite side right....your post is pointless.

[KylieEatWorld]

Did you even read the article? It's pointing out a few bad legalization arguments. It doesn't state or even attempt to prove that legalization is a bad idea.

Exaggerating and misrepresenting flawed arguments of one side, never makes the opposite side right....your post is pointless.

Did you even read my sentence? It's directed at the OP because every reason he used was on the list of stupid Pro-Marijuana arguments. Like the author of the article I have no side on the matter.

Trying to correct someone who's obviously not wrong and assuming you know their intent from a single sentence. Your post is pointless.

[Donkey]

image (http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/562900/facepalm.jpg)
Take this from a Dutchie: NO!
You clearly haven't been to the Netherlands. My grandparents have been robbed 3 times already. And you better keep your wallet close to you in big cities such as Amsterdam and Utrecht, or you're going to find yourself a couple hundred euros poorer.
It doesn't help when you try to use first-hand experiences as evidence in a debate; you need to provide secondary data in this case to be taken seriously - i.e. give us some statistics or evidence. You seriously need to reconsider: not only are you lucky enough to live in Europe, which is relatively crime-free in the first place (try comparing it to Africa or South America), but you live in one of the richest countries in Western and Northern Europe. You have a huge level of a human development over there, and the overall crime rate is in fact very low.

A general guide to this can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

A homicide rate of 0.93 per 100,000 people is quite impressive; the US' is 5 and the UK's is 1.28, with practically every African country on top. The global estimate is also 7.6, so compare that with 0.93 and you might realise that you live in quite a nice place after all.

[Peace God]

Did you even read my sentence? It's directed at the OP because every reason he used was on the list of stupid Pro-Marijuana arguments. Like the author of the article I have no side on the matter.

Trying to correct someone who's obviously not wrong and assuming you know their intent from a single sentence. Your post is pointless.
Ahhh, I didn't look like you were directing it at OP. I thought you meant pro-legalization people in general.

Also, from what I see OP used only like 1-1.5 out of 5 of those arguments but umm ok.

I'm glad you admire my post's structure. :D

[PerpetualImperfexion]

I'm against it just as I am against cigarette smoking, it is depremental to your body but more importantly, those around you. I don't wanna be walking down the street to work and get high, then go in to work, random drug test, and then loose my job do I?

Tests show that smoking be it cigarettes or pot is bad for you, yet you want it why?


Alright you bit. You would have to smoke 4,000 pounds of marijuana in 15 minutes to overdose. It does not cause lung cancer and neither does tobacco without all the extra additives. It does not cause brain damage or IQ loss. There are arguements on both sides as to whether or not pot is a gateway drug and the most reliable one I read said that only 1/104 people who smoke marijuana go onto a harder drug. I can cite that if you would like. Marijuana is in no way harmful to a fully developed body. As to whether or not its good for children is still up for debate, but either way there should be an age limit. If the drug was legal you wouldn't be in trouble if you had to take a drug test.

[KylieEatWorld]

Ahhh, I didn't look like you were directing it at OP. I thought you meant pro-legalization people in general.

Also, from what I see OP used only like 1-1.5 out of 5 of those arguments but umm ok.

I'm glad you admire my post's structure. :D

He used #5 and #2. And those reasons were his entire argument except for a short area where he went off and hurt his own point by explaining a reason NOT to have it legalized. (Why do they do that?)

I do. Continue making post structures that I can mock for shits and giggles.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

He used #5 and #2. And those reasons were his entire argument except for a short area where he went off and hurt his own point by explaining a reason NOT to have it legalized. (Why do they do that?)

I do. Continue making post structures that I can mock for shits and giggles.

#5

Every little bit counts. Pumping 6.2 billion dollars into the economy would definitely help.

#2

Show me one case where pot alone killed somebody.

[Peace God]

He used #5 and #2.
He didn't use 5.

2 ("it's not as dangerous and booze or cigs") isn't that bad of an argument. Either legalize weed or make alcohol and tobacco illegal as well.

[KylieEatWorld]

He didn't use 5.

I would instead like to outline the effects it would have on our economy,

If marijuana was legalized imagine how much money could be saved not enforcing the current laws. How much money is earned by taxing tobacco? What if a similar tax was put on marijuana? So much money would be going toward the economy rather than toward drug dealers.

Yes he did.

Alright you bit. You would have to smoke 4,000 pounds of marijuana in 15 minutes to overdose. It does not cause lung cancer and neither does tobacco without all the extra additives. It does not cause brain damage or IQ loss. There are arguements on both sides as to whether or not pot is a gateway drug and the most reliable one I read said that only 1/104 people who smoke marijuana go onto a harder drug. I can cite that if you would like. Marijuana is in no way harmful to a fully developed body. As to whether or not its good for children is still up for debate, but either way there should be an age limit. If the drug was legal you wouldn't be in trouble if you had to take a drug test.

Please do cite this. Because I have read quite the contrary to almost everything you've stated here.

[Peace God]

Yes he did.
When does he say that it will save the economy?

[PerpetualImperfexion]

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101849
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5490

I realize there are arguments supporting both sides.

[Korashk]

Why all of your reasons for legalizing pot are stupid. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/)
http://forum.nationstates.net/images/smilies/sm_facepalm.gif
Did you seriously just quote Cracked to make your point? And you're defending your source? Seriously?

Yeah, some of those arguments are stupid, because only stupid people use those arguments (unlike what the comedian who wrote it claims, not all of them are hurting the cause or are stupid). Nobody worth listening to thinks legalizing pot would bring America out of the recession, but it would help.

2 ("it's not as dangerous and booze or cigs") isn't that bad of an argument.
Yes it is, because the whole "argument" centers around a logical fallacy.

I'm against it just as I am against cigarette smoking, it is depremental to your body
My body is none of your concern.

but more importantly, those around you.
As has already been mentioned, you're assuming that if pot were legal, people would just be smoking it in the streets. This is not the case.

I don't wanna be walking down the street to work and get high, then go in to work, random drug test, and then loose my job do I?
Well, this doesn't happen. Being around smoke for a second or two will not cause you to fail a drug test.

Tests show that smoking be it cigarettes or pot is bad for you, yet you want it why?
What do you care?

It's directed at the OP because every reason he used was on the list of stupid Pro-Marijuana arguments.
You don't even know what your source is about, awesome. It's not about stupid arguments. It's about arguments not helping the legalization effort from the POV of a comedian. Are some of them stupid; yeah. However, that's not the article's topic.

Another argument, not mentioned on your comedic list. The legalization of pot would let millions of people out of jail who've never committed real crimes. Saving government the millions of dollars spent to keep them in jail, and billions of dollars they now no longer have to spend putting future offenders in.

[KylieEatWorld]

Did you seriously just quote Cracked to make your point? And you're defending your source? Seriously?
http://files.myopera.com/drlaunch/albums/37656/ya-rly001.jpg

Yeah, some of those arguments are stupid, because only stupid people use those arguments (unlike what the comedian who wrote it claims, not all of them are hurting the cause or are stupid). Nobody worth listening to thinks legalizing pot would bring America out of the recession, but it would help.

Just because someone uses humor does not mean they do not have a worthy opinion. The creator of that article cites many sources in his writing and makes much more sense than half of the people in ROTW.


You don't even know what your source is about, awesome. It's not about stupid arguments. It's about arguments not helping the legalization effort from the POV of a comedian. Are some of them stupid; yeah. However, that's not the article's topic.

I reserve the right to nickname anything in existence whatever I please.

[TheMatrix]

Just because someone uses humor does not mean they do not have a worthy opinion. The creator of that article cites many sources in his writing and makes much more sense than half of the people in ROTW.
Careful who you insult. Choose the wrong people, and neg-rep and hatred will rain down like you wouldn't believe. I speak from experience.
You will even have those "half of the people in ROTW" against you. The others will probably not support you because, well, they're not going to commit "political suicide" like you might. Jus' sayin.

[Perseus]

Careful who you insult. Choose the wrong people, and neg-rep and hatred will rain down like you wouldn't believe. I speak from experience.
You will even have those "half of the people in ROTW" against you. The others will probably not support you because, well, they're not going to commit "political suicide" like you might. Jus' sayin.

Why would she care about rep on a website?

[KylieEatWorld]

Careful who you insult. Choose the wrong people, and neg-rep and hatred will rain down like you wouldn't believe. I speak from experience.
You will even have those "half of the people in ROTW" against you. The others will probably not support you because, well, they're not going to commit "political suicide" like you might. Jus' sayin.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l5zxi2GuCT1qcs8tgo1_500.jpg

Nyannyan.

[RoseyCadaver]

Why would she care about rep on a website?

Agreed.

You should speak what you have to say,and not care what overs think about it,learned that one from personal experience.


I most defiantly think it should legalized,the benefits overly out weigh the cons.There should be laws of old you are to smoke it,because a bunch of impressionable(stupid) children would more then likely get into it and smoke it too look cool :cool:.I think people should be able to grow it if they want though,I know that if does come legal more then likely you'll need some license to grow it.

image (http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l5zxi2GuCT1qcs8tgo1_500.jpg)

Nyannyan.

I love that pic XD.

[Korashk]

Just because someone uses humor does not mean they do not have a worthy opinion.
I'm aware.

The creator of that article cites many sources in his writing and makes much more sense than half of the people in ROTW.
And what exactly do those sources say? I'll tell you. They say that legalization would be good for the economy. They say that hemp can be used to make rope and paper. They say that pot has medicinal properties, and negative health effects. They say that pot is not chemically addictive.

The article is NOT anti-pot. It's a critique of how advocates make their case.

I reserve the right to nickname anything in existence whatever I please.
"Nicknaming", is that what they call ignorance now?

[KylieEatWorld]

The article is NOT anti-pot. It's a critique of how advocates make their case.

And neither am I.

"Nicknaming", is that what they call ignorance now?

No. Nicknaming is when I don't bother looking up the exact name of a book, movie, article, object, or person and just call it something that's close enough. I am fully aware as to what the article entails as I read it once by myself, another time to a friend, and once to my dad who demanded to read each website that it cites. I knew what link I was giving this debate now stop being a condescending douche.

[Korashk]

No. Nicknaming is when I don't bother looking up the exact name of a book, movie, article, object, or person and just call it something that's close enough.
What do you think ignorance is, exactly? The fact of the matter is, that only one or two of those arguments are stupid on face value. If you don't take them on face value, none of them are stupid. However, you insist on calling them stupid throughout the course of this thread using said article as evidence of their stupidity.

"Close enough", what a laugh.

[TheMatrix]

No. Nicknaming is when I don't bother looking up the exact name of a book, movie, article, object, or person and just call it something that's close enough. I am fully aware as to what the article entails as I read it once by myself, another time to a friend, and once to my dad who demanded to read each website that it cites. I knew what link I was giving this debate now stop being a condescending douche.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QCcMTHCBJ4c/TQXcprLfD_I/AAAAAAAADqc/3K0igrASrTM/s1600/Cat%2BPushing%2BWatermelon%2BOut%2Bof%2Blake.jpg

"Close enough". What a joke.

[Modus Operandi]

It, in my view, should be legal because I don't feel it's the government's place to stop people from doing whatever the fuck they want to themselves. That's the way I feel about any victimless crime.

I DO, however, think it is the government's place to stop people from harming their fellow man. As such, I do not support the legalization of "hard" drugs which could lead to mental instability in the user, possibly bringing harm to others.

From what I know, marijuana ITSELF does not cause violent behavior. However, dealers fighting over turf DOES cause violence. The same thing happens with other drugs as well. The way I see things, if marijuana was legalized and regulated, relegated to licensed dispensers, there would be absolutely no harm that could come to anyone other than the user of the drug.

[KylieEatWorld]

Neither of you explain why you think "close enough" is a joke. So there is different wording. There is still the same meaning.

[Korashk]

So there is different wording. There is still the same meaning.
Except, there isn't the same meaning. "Stupid" does not mean the same thing that "doesn't help the legalization effort" in the context of this discussion. At least it doesn't to me, or anybody else posting in this thread. Save you.

[KylieEatWorld]

Except, there isn't the same meaning. "Stupid" does not mean the same thing that "doesn't help the legalization effort" in the context of this discussion. At least it doesn't to me, or anybody else posting in this thread. Save you.

No. You are just being a prick about word choice. I explained the difference and still you go on. It's just me nicknaming the title whatever I so choose because I don't bother looking at the exact title. I can call something a cup if it's really a mug. I can call something a couch even if it's a futon. Using someone's simple mistakes to try and discredit them does not make you seem more intelligent.

[curtlaw]

As for Proposition 19 that was placed forth in November by the Californian government, the bill in the end was shot down by the public by a little over 7%. Prop 19 could've helped California's economy by injecting a little over $1.7 BILLION.

[Schizothemia]

No one I've met who is pro-legalization ever believed that legalization would save the economy, but they do understand it would help.

The money saved from it's legalization isn't necessarily what is saved in revenue, or even from lessening the forces needed for this "war on drugs." It releases a large portion of individuals who were jailed for a crime that doesn't amount to much when compared to the harms provided by thieves, murderers, etc. Possessing pot nor the consumption of it affects anyone but the user. And yet people in possession are put in jail because of some arbitrary law that causes more harm than good.

I am going to mention prohibition because it is something worth mentioning. If we did learn one thing from prohibition in the 1920's it's this: people will find a way to get it. While that is applicable to a lot of things, when it comes to the less harmful things like pot, purposely creating a black market does nothing but waste money when we could ultimately be saving it.

[huginnmuninn]

legalizing marijuana would ruin jobs it would start being outsourced just like everything else and the people who sell it now would lose out to bigger buisinesses taking control of it and selling at a cheaper price than the current sellers could hope to match. it wouldnt boost the economy it would let the big businesses ruin even more local businesses.
i say no to legalizing marijuana.

[Schizothemia]

it wouldnt boost the economy it would let the big businesses ruin even more local businesses.
i say no to legalizing marijuana.

Local businesses that are currently illegal in numerous states in the US? That would be busted and sent to jail and be removed from the "economy" anyway?

Also, what jobs exactly? Again, this is a situation where the trade of pot for money is illegal (unless living in a state that has it legalized for medicinal purposes.) So, basically, the elimination of the black market for pot is a bad thing because it would become regulated, cheaper to buy, and would eliminate large issues of turf wars and unnecessary jailing?

[Sporadica]

I agree with your statements about prohibition and I would not just want marijuana legalized and taxed, I'd want everything legalized

Prostitution
Heroin
Marijuana
Cocaine
Crack Cocaine
Opium
and any others that are illegal

I believe we aren't free unless we can decide anything we want to do to ourselves without legal repercussions

[Peace God]

legalizing marijuana would ruin jobs
No, it would create real jobs and eliminate opportunities for criminal activity.

it would start being outsourced just like everything else
It's illegal in most of those outsourcing countries.

and the people who sell it now would lose out to bigger buisinesses taking control of it and selling at a cheaper price than the current sellers could hope to match.
What's wrong with that?
The people who sell it now are part of the drug trade. What's wrong with legitimate businesses winning over drug cartels?

it wouldnt boost the economy it would let the big businesses ruin even more local businesses.
and by "Local Businesses" do you mean unregulated and untaxed money producing criminal activity?