Marijuana: 0

[Lemur]

I don't smoke, but I really, truly don't understand why we spend money and man-hours keeping marijuana illegal. And why do we spend money locking citizens up for smoking the stuff? Can anyone formulate a rationale for this policy? 'Cause it seems completely nonsensical to this prosimian ...

The Florida report analyzed 168,900 deaths statewide. Cocaine, heroin and all methamphetamines caused 989 deaths, it found, while legal opioids — strong painkillers in brand-name drugs like Vicodin and OxyContin — caused 2,328.

Drugs with benzodiazepine, mainly depressants like Valium and Xanax, led to 743 deaths. Alcohol was the most commonly occurring drug, appearing in the bodies of 4,179 of the dead and judged the cause of death of 466 — fewer than cocaine (843) but more than methamphetamine (25) and marijuana (0).

[CountArach]

Because pollies like to appease conservatives.

[Fragony]

Maybe it's just harder to detect I don't know. I smoke it myselve, marihuana and traffic, a big nono from here. I'd be more comfortable behind the wheel with a few beers then a few smokes.

//hugs bike

[PBI]

The more I think about this issue, the less I can see any good reason for keeping it illegal. I don't much like it or the effects it has on people but I am struggling to see why it should be banned. Legalise it, regulate it, restrict it's use in public. I can make my peace with that. Just don't smoke it when I'm around.

Oh, but have strict penalties for driving whilst stoned; I would guess your figures probably don't include those deaths.

[naut]

Because it's a great scapegoat.

[Viking]

I don't smoke, but I really, truly don't understand why we spend money and man-hours keeping marijuana illegal. And why do we spend money locking citizens up for smoking the stuff? Can anyone formulate a rationale for this policy? 'Cause it seems completely nonsensical to this prosimian ...

The Florida report analyzed 168,900 deaths statewide. Cocaine, heroin and all methamphetamines caused 989 deaths, it found, while legal opioids — strong painkillers in brand-name drugs like Vicodin and OxyContin — caused 2,328.

Drugs with benzodiazepine, mainly depressants like Valium and Xanax, led to 743 deaths. Alcohol was the most commonly occurring drug, appearing in the bodies of 4,179 of the dead and judged the cause of death of 466 — fewer than cocaine (843) but more than methamphetamine (25) and marijuana (0).

Death has never been an argument against marijuana anyhow.

[LittleGrizzly]

I'd be more comfortable behind the wheel with a few beers then a few smokes.

I have quite a few friends who have drove both, i can tell you drunk drivers seem to have an air of confidence about them (created by the drink) and then whenever i have watched my friends drive stoned they are almost always slower because they have alot less confidence, also because thier stoned there is an extra worry about the cops, so they try to drive normal.

but I really, truly don't understand why we spend money and man-hours keeping marijuana illegal. And why do we spend money locking citizens up for smoking the stuff? Can anyone formulate a rationale for this policy?

Im just assuming its somewhat similar in America but over here we have a majority of people (im mainly thinking the middle classes) who assume its a terrible thing just because of the name drugs, i can't tell you how many people i have had to explain that tobacco and alcohol are also drugs (and far worse ones at that) anyway back to the name, drugs, the other thing that really doesn't help over here is articles in the daily mail like, man kills man after 6 hour drug binge.... the man had been smoking marijuana several hours previously... the daily mail seems to make an effort to find anything crazy done by anyone on marijuana and then link to two repeatedly until it becomes like a mantra, if we could just convince rupert murdoch to have a go at weed and he decided he didn't mind it then we would only have 50 odd years of propaganda to reverse..... plan!

I think the other part of the problem outside of the daily mail and papers like it is all the propagnada the govermnet put out itself, alot of the dodgy old anti-marijuana productions the goverment made are in the minds of older people and have spread to younger people through word of mouth, the goverment havng been saying its bad and wrong for so long they have alot of people convinced

Lastly the problem is politicians, outside of holland i think it would be political suicide or at least here in the UK it would be, if the labour party did it definetly, if the conservatives did it probably, the storm over here created by a mix of the moralising middle classes and the rupert murdoch papers, needless to say a majority in the country would be left in no doubt that legalising marijuana would cause the downfall of society

[Fragony]

You are a smoker as well LittleGrizly you know it dulls the senses and that you cannot react as fast in an emergency it can be up to a full second delay, it doesn't have to be the stoned driver causing the situation but having to react to one can be deadly. That is the same for medicine of course, that is why I kinda doubt the numbers in the NYT link Lemur posted, sounds like they are basing a story on a lack of particular data.

[PBI]

if we could just convince rupert murdoch to have a go at weed and he decided he didn't mind it then we would only have 50 odd years of propaganda to reverse..... plan!

Umm, last I checked Murdoch owns the Times and the Sun, but not the Mail. I think I would`agree that the world would be a better place if he spent more time stoned and less time running his empire, though.

[Lemur]

I kinda doubt the numbers in the NYT link Lemur posted, sounds like they are basing a story on a lack of particular data.

Well, looking back over it, no, they do not appear to be counting deaths due to operation of heavy machinery, but rather toxicity-related deaths. They're also not counting any deaths from ill-advised fights that got started after too many brews, either.

I don't think stoned driving is a sufficiently compelling reason to keep marijuana smoking illegal in this country. Remember, when we put someone in jail it costs a minimum of $20k per year to keep the fed and locked down. You need a pretty good justification to cost me and mine that much money.

[drone]

I don't think stoned driving is a sufficiently compelling reason to keep marijuana smoking illegal in this country. Remember, when we put someone in jail it costs a minimum of $20k per year to keep the fed and locked down. You need a pretty good justification to cost me and mine that much money.

OK, how about "Marijuana makes the illegals and blacks want to rape your daughters!" Isn't that the original reason for it's ban?

Edit-> Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Think of the children!

[Fragony]

Well I don't care if it is legal or not, there is always such a thing as turning a blind eye. Works here in the netherlands, but the USA, how.

[Ice]

For about the 1000th time the benefits of legalization far outweigh the costs. It should be legal and I should be able to purchase it like I do alcohol.

[Xiahou]

I think the "counter-culture" mystique about marijuana only serves to increase it's popularity. As such, I'm in favor of making it boring. I'd like to see casual usage and possession treated more like a speeding ticket that a serious criminal offense. Keep individual possession and use outlawed, but allow certain establishments to be setup for the purpose buying weed and smoking it on the premises only.

I don't ever see this happening, but I think it could work out nicely. I'd still never use the crap, but people that choose to could do so- hopefully without bothering anyone else.

[Ice]

I don't ever see this happening, but I think it could work out nicely. I'd still never use the crap, but people that choose to could do so- hopefully without bothering anyone else.

Bad experiences, Xiahou? I've never seen marijuana use bother anyone else. Usually the people smoking it are careful not to due to the fact it is illegal and they could get busted,fine, and/or sent to jail.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If it's restricted to within your own home, to people above or at the age of whatever the legal cigarette smoking age is, fine. Also taxed and regulated.

[El Diablo]

Legalise dope.

Tax it.

Put up the tax on chocolate, fast food and chocolate flavoured milk.

Government will be rolling in $$ and can take care of the rest of society...

[Fragony]

Would be taxing the legalised crime behind it, good luck explaining that.

[Lemur]

Fragony, could you unpack that idea? 'Cause I'm not quite understanding it as it's currently phrased. "Taxing the legalized crime"? Um, okay, if something's no longer illegal, and then you tax it, I guess you're taxing a legalized crime. Now that miscegenation laws have been struck down, do the fees paid for mixed-race marriage licenses count as "taxing a legalized crime"?

No, I'm probably completely misunderstanding your point. If you've got the time, please expand so that we can respond without making these flailing motions ...

[Somebody Else]

I have to agree - legalize the stuff, but in a highly restricted manner (something our current government knows all about). Anyone producing the stuff outside the framework gets hammered, hard (Admittedly, this would be tricky to discover, I suspect - more expense). Meanwhile, the legal version gets taxed to the hilt. The people who smoke cigarettes are miles more intelligent, and they still pay through the nose, so this lot'll be easier to extort money from. Oh, and people have to sign something or other to say they are users - perfectly legally, but I'd still not employ them - I've seen just how feckless, useless and mind-numbingly tedious to be around.

The extra cost should be paid for by the taxation, and there should be some more extra (judging by the number of people who seem to use the stuff, despite protestations otherwise... the number of student would-be politicians I know...)

SE

[Fragony]

Fragony, could you unpack that idea? 'Cause I'm not quite understanding it as it's currently phrased. "Taxing the legalized crime"? Um, okay, if something's no longer illegal, and then you tax it, I guess you're taxing a legalized crime. Now that miscegenation laws have been struck down, do the fees paid for mixed-race marriage licenses count as "taxing a legalized crime"?

No, I'm probably completely misunderstanding your point. If you've got the time, please expand so that we can respond without making these flailing motions ...

Of course taxing it is legalising crime because you are taxing every aspect of it, the end-product isn't just something that just shows up. ' Taxing' it would be more like ' taking a cut'.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have to agree - legalize the stuff, but in a highly restricted manner (something our current government knows all about). Anyone producing the stuff outside the framework gets hammered, hard (Admittedly, this would be tricky to discover, I suspect - more expense). Meanwhile, the legal version gets taxed to the hilt. The people who smoke cigarettes are miles more intelligent, and they still pay through the nose, so this lot'll be easier to extort money from. Oh, and people have to sign something or other to say they are users - perfectly legally, but I'd still not employ them - I've seen just how feckless, useless and mind-numbingly tedious to be around.

The extra cost should be paid for by the taxation, and there should be some more extra (judging by the number of people who seem to use the stuff, despite protestations otherwise... the number of student would-be politicians I know...)

SE

Brilliant post.

[Ice]

The people who smoke cigarettes are miles more intelligent

That's a bit insulting. How do you come to this conclusion?

[Tribesman]

Of course taxing it is legalising crime because you are taxing every aspect of it, the end-product isn't just something that just shows up. ' Taxing' it would be more like ' taking a cut'.

How so ?
If it is legal then it is legal . Growing it would be legislated , shipping it would be legislated , where does this taking a cut of illegal business come into it ?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Anyone producing the stuff outside the framework gets hammered, hard (Admittedly, this would be tricky to discover, I suspect - more expense).

Why shouldn't you be able to grow it if you want to?

Meanwhile, the legal version gets taxed to the hilt.

Thus guaranteeing that people will grow their own and deal it like they do currently. Brilliant. Sin taxes are for prudes and people for whom "healthy" is their religion.

The people who smoke cigarettes are miles more intelligent, and they still pay through the nose, so this lot'll be easier to extort money from.

Cigarettes don't really do anything besides make you wobbly unless you are addicted and they're quite unhealthy. Marijuana gets you high and his minor health effects.

Oh, and people have to sign something or other to say they are users - perfectly legally, but I'd still not employ them - I've seen just how feckless, useless and mind-numbingly tedious to be around.

Textbook example of prejudice...

Although somebody supports legalization, if anyone wonders why most people don't support it it's because of this kind of ignorance and prejudice.

[Somebody Else]

That's a bit insulting. How do you come to this conclusion?

I lived in a flat with 3 of them for a year.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Coming home every day to a flat wreathed in that foul-smelling smoke by 3pm was one of the more unpleasant features, I won't mention their personal habits

An absolute bloody nightmare, them and their friends. Not met a single one, and I have met several, none of whom I would trust in a position of any responsibility.

SE

[Ice]

I lived in a flat with 3 of them for a year.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Coming home every day to a flat wreathed in that foul-smelling smoke by 3pm was one of the more unpleasant features, I won't mention their personal habits

An absolute bloody nightmare, them and their friends. Not met a single one, and I have met several, none of whom I would trust in a position of any responsibility.

SE

Looks like you are just living with a bunch of idiots. Like I've been saying for a while here, don't judge all weed smokers off a small sample of people.

[Geoffrey S]

Of course taxing it is legalising crime because you are taxing every aspect of it, the end-product isn't just something that just shows up. ' Taxing' it would be more like ' taking a cut'.

Not now - but when legalized, I see no reason why the production of marijuana shouldn't be just as legal as the distribution.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Looks like you are just living with a bunch of idiots. Like I've been saying for a while here, don't judge all weed smokers off a small sample of people.

The people who smoke weed on a regular basis are the same here, and where I was in Canada, etc., etc.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The people who smoke weed on a regular basis are the same here, and where I was in Canada, etc., etc.

I'm sure there are potheads and alcoholics everywhere. But people who smoke aren't the same as potheads just like people who drink aren't the same as alcoholics. You guys seem to be suffering from some confirmation bias.