Legalize it!

I don't buy the slippery slope argument as one that can honestly be used to oppose legalizing marijuana. First, the biggest gateway drug, if they exist, is alcohol. So, if you don't want to get the ball rolling in the first place, ban alcohol. Weed is usually just the second step in the chain. Second, I smoked weed as a teen, but I never had any compulsion whatsoever to use any "harder" drug and most of my friends felt the same. People who start using crack weren't made dumb by using pot, they used crack because they were dumb to start with.

I think when they say gateway drug when referring to weed, they're mainly talking about how you can get other drugs from the same guys you got the weed from. Or at least get connected through the guys that sold you the weed.

You're 16, and you want booze, you just go sit outside of 7-11 and wait for a shady looking guy to come up and give him money and ask him to buy it for you. But you can't get crack from that guy.

But with weed, you get the weed from a dealer. Then you decide hey maybe I'll try coke, or maybe the dealer pushes you to buy some coke. There's the gateway.

Not to mention that dealers sometimes lace the weed with other addictive drugs to get you to come back.

Now if you legalized weed, it takes away the gateway to other drugs, because now you're not dealing with an unscrupulous dealer. So I'll admit, there's the positive. But the corresponding negative is that legal marijuana will mean companies like Phillip Morris will produce it. And we all know how they lace their tobacco with things to make it more addictive in order to sell more. You can be damn sure they'll do the same thing with weed; and then a little weed in moderation won't be so easy to do. You'll be hard pressed to resist the urge to smoke it a lot more often.

You'd be irresponsible and a disappointment as a parent if you condoned anything illegal.

Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Does that make you irresponsible, or a disappointment as a parent?

I think society sends an inconsistent message by profiting off of town drunks day in and day out, yet adamantly opposing marijuana legalization
(especially medicinally).

What exactly are we saying to the youth?

"It's wrong to smoke marijuana, even in moderation, but if you want to go down to the bar and have at it... knock yourself out."

That's damn confusing growing up, and probably why many lose faith in a lot of the reasoning the government uses.

Yes it is sending mixed messages, but legalizing marijuana and profiting off of it would reinforce a BAD message.

Just because one bad thing is legal doesn't mean they all should be.

Personally, I don't give a damn what message the government sends to our youth. If they legalize it, don't legalize it, what the hell ever. It's the PARENTS' job to send the ultimate message to our kids.

Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Does that make you irresponsible, or a disappointment as a parent?

Silly argument, not quite applicable. Sometimes it's actually safer to go 70-75 in a 65 because the traffic is flowing at that speed.

You go 65 when everyone else is going 75, you've got a problem with speed differential and ability to react to those around you.

Yes I've broken the speed limit, gotten a speeding ticket for going 80 mph in a 55. I'm not perfect, so I hope I don't come across as high and mighty as your post seems to suggest. But would I go 80 in a 55 with my daughter in the car? Hell no. Never have, never would.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument as one that can honestly be used to oppose legalizing marijuana. First, the biggest gateway drug, if they exist, is alcohol. So, if you don't want to get the ball rolling in the first place, ban alcohol. Weed is usually just the second step in the chain. Second, I smoked weed as a teen, but I never had any compulsion whatsoever to use any "harder" drug and most of my friends felt the same. People who start using crack weren't made dumb by using pot, they used crack because they were dumb to start with.

Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.

The slippery slope argument is really old. It's a form of fallacious reasoning, and nobody should get away with using it to support an argument.

Silly argument, not quite applicable. Sometimes it's actually safer to go 70-75 in a 65 because the traffic is flowing at that speed.

You go 65 when everyone else is going 75, you've got a problem with speed differential and ability to react to those around you.

Yes I've broken the speed limit, gotten a speeding ticket for going 80 mph in a 55. I'm not perfect, so I hope I don't come across as high and mighty as your post seems to suggest. But would I go 80 in a 55 with my daughter in the car? Hell no. Never have, never would.

I posed that question because it forces you to look at the gray area surrounding the law. Moral conscience is not derived from law.

I expected you to answer the way you did. I just thought this statement was a little too absolute:
"You'd be irresponsible and a disappointment as a parent if you condoned anything illegal."

2) The US climate is not as conducive to growing weed as South American countries. If legalized, we'd be at a competitive disadvantage to produce our own weed. We'd end up importing more of it from south America than we'd export, affecting the federal trade deficit. That's real bad for the strength of the dollar, and consequently that Sony Playstation (and all other foreign goods and services) will become more expensive. Sorry for the econ lesson.

I don't buy that premise. Marijuana isn't hard to grow (there's a reason it's called "weed") -- most people use hydroponic lamps and aren't reliant on climate factors.

Once it is legalized, why bother to buy an imported product when you can grow it just as easily in your garage?

1) You can't test it to see how stoned is too stoned for driving.

2) The US climate is not as conducive to growing weed as South American countries. If legalized, we'd be at a competitive disadvantage to produce our own weed. We'd end up importing more of it from south America than we'd export, affecting the federal trade deficit. That's real bad for the strength of the dollar, and consequently that Sony Playstation (and all other foreign goods and services) will become more expensive. Sorry for the econ lesson.

3) It will be sold all over the place, increasing accessibility to youth who otherwise would be deterred. I know you guys were all able to score it, but believe it or not, there are a number of kids out there who were always a bit too afraid of getting caught by the cops.

4) Ciggarrettes and booze already have enough of a deleterious affect on our society. Tobacco increases the cost of healthcare for us all dramatically. More cancer, more heart disease, more emphysema equals higher cost of care. We all pay for it in health premiums. Alcohol results in rehab treatments, liver problems, fights, drunk driving deaths, gun accidents, all of which cost lives and money. We'll never be able to go back and ban these, which our society would be better off without - boon to standard of living notwithstanding. Why add another substance to the list?
1) I agree with that 100%, that wasn't my point.

2) I really disagree with that assessment. Marijuana is conductive to growing in South America now because DEA agents aren't flying helicopters over fields destroying the crops. Marijuana grown using hydroponics would also negate any climate factors. If it were to become legalized, then there would be no problem providing more than an adequate supply.

You don't think, with the decline in cigarette smoking, that tobacco farmers around the country wouldn't jump out of there pants at the opportunity to grow more crops? I think the economic implications would most likely be beneficial.

3) You're absolutely right, I cannot argue with this here.

My only defense is that introducing something legally, will most likely lower the taboo associated with it, and thus decrease the demand to pursue it.
Also, you eliminate the possibility of accidentally consuming "laced" marijuana. It would be coming from a controlled environment and thus wouldn't pose as many risks.

Generally speaking, across the board those that want to score pot will do so. It's also safe to assume that those trafficking marijuana probably have an increased chance of being convicted of other crimes, including violent ones. You eliminate the potentially risky middle man, and the overall safety of the young (and usually stupid) population is increased. Sounds like a lot of random arguing, but the logistics are there.

4) Yes this is true, but marijuana would be about as high on that list of destructive substances as caffeine. I don't see much of a deleterious affect on society, other that the over-consumption of snack foods.

I truly believe pot will be legalized in this country within the next 25 years. The baby boomers are soon leaving power and the younger generation, across party lines, have a much more libertarian view on marijuana.

If tobacco is legal, there's no reason pot should be prohibited. Weed won't give you lung cancer. And contrary to tv commercials, the majority of pot smokers won't run over little girls on tricycles leaving a drive thru.

If pot is taxed like cigarettes, there is much money to be made for both government and R&D.

[COLOR=black]1) You can't test it to see how stoned is too stoned for driving.

There are already devices that can detect if someone has consumed more than the legal limit of alcohol for driving. I think it's reasonable to assume that the same type of technology would be available in a relatively short manner. Once legalized, there will be many, many entrepreneurs and companies scrambling to come up with the patent for it.


3) It will be sold all over the place, increasing accessibility to youth who otherwise would be deterred. I know you guys were all able to score it, but believe it or not, there are a number of kids out there who were always a bit too afraid of getting caught by the cops.

This gets back to parental responsibilities. Are the kids who are deterred by trying to acquire it really worried about being busted, or dare I say that some kids understand the dangers, and stay away based on their own well being? We will always have the problem of keeping kids away from drugs, tobacco, and alcohol regardless of the substances' legal status. The real difference will be the removal of the criminal stigma attached to marijuana. Once it is common and easily attainable, you'd be surprised what can happen to its mystique.


4) Ciggarrettes and booze already have enough of a deleterious affect on our society. Tobacco increases the cost of healthcare for us all dramatically. More cancer, more heart disease, more emphysema equals higher cost of care. We all pay for it in health premiums. Alcohol results in rehab treatments, liver problems, fights, drunk driving deaths, gun accidents, all of which cost lives and money. We'll never be able to go back and ban these, which our society would be better off without - boon to standard of living notwithstanding. Why add another substance to the list?

So we should criminalize any activity that leads to an increase in the cost of healthcare? Would you agree that people with larger families can also affect the overall cost of medical coverage? A family of three for instance, wouldn't contribute as much to a rise in healthcare as would a family of five right? So would you propose legislation regulating how many children a couple can have?