Seer

IMHO, it’s better than loosing a horrendous amount of money over something that will be just as available if legal... I just don’t see any evidence that laws against marijuana do anything but: 1) allow the market to proceed without taxes 2) allow the market to go unregulated 3) thus, stimulating market growth over time despite drastic increased funding and efforts to halt such growth.

__________________

Locke9-05

Just because something is "as available" when it's legal as when it's illegal has little bearing on the rate of use. There's really no standard to compare your findings to, as marijuana hasn't been legal in United States society for a good number of years. I showed how criminals will be criminals regardless of marijuana prohibition:

As can be seen, ironically enough, decriminalization of marijuana in the Netherlands, which wasn't even full-out legalization coincided with a huge spike in the Netherlands crime rate, more specifically, a tripled murder rate. So the Netherlands decriminalized marijuana and crime went up. Then you take Japan, a country that shares the United States prohibition of drugs like marijuana, and reveres it with an even stricter vigor. Japan enjoys a crime rate a fraction of the United States. How does that play into what you were saying? You were telling me you just can't see any evidence that laws against marijuana do anything. Well it seems plainly obvious that decriminalizing--let alone legalizing--it would hardly have a fortuitous effect upon this society and crime, considering the Netherlands spike in crime upon decriminalizing marijuana. Crime costs money. Society usually ends up paying for it.

As for evidence to support laws against marijuana, Japan does just fine with their restrictions, so what conclusions does that leave us with? As shown above, the most logical one is that factors such as enforceable laws against crime are culture related and nothing more. It's easy to see what effects decriminalization of such substances would have on a society, and it also seems obvious that such laws against marijuana are successful based on several dependent factors, cultural values--promoted ideals, and the way they are enforced.

**I do respect your views on this, Seer, I believe we have a mutual understanding of each other on this topic and where we're both coming from on our separate sides and you've more than opened my mind to a more libertarian philosophy than ever before, and I respect you for that. So I would say we've probably accomplished a great deal and made a great deal of progress in understanding and acceptance of one another's ideas since the beginning of this a, which is admirable from both our ends. I'll probably never quite get over my views, as I would guess you'll stick to yours, but the important thing is the understanding that's come from the discussion, and I'm glad like you said in your [incredibly well-researched mind-blowing] post (it was really impressive ), you were hoping to not so much debate as just discuss this so as to understand and learn about the topic--I think that helped me do the same as well.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

Schadenfreude

Putting aside the fact that marijuana has been shown to provide benefits to those with certain medical conditions, there is no "beneficial use to the collective of this society" for, say, soda pop, as well. It, in fact, causes obesity, tooth decay, diabetes, etc.

I wasn't aware that any substance had to provide benefits to society as a whole in order to be permissibly used or possessed.

I thought there was something about preserving citizens' right to the "pursuit of happiness" in there, though.

Locke9-05

You are indeed correct. However, maybe you missed the posts of mine in which I extensively discussed the balance between the pros (benefits) and the cons of such substances.

The fact that marijuana doesn't benefit society in any way in and of itself has no consequence on society--like you said, it doesn't matter. That factor alone would make the issue neutral on a balance and there would be no problem. However, recreational marijuana poses many unnecessary risks not only to the health and safety of the user, but ten times more importantly, it can and often does contribute to creating an unpleasant, unhealthy, unstable, and sometimes potentially dangerous environment for those around the user. When that is added to the neutral factor of no benefit to society, it tips the scale to show a recreational substance that

A. Not only has no productive contribution to society, but also...
B. Carries with it the unnecessary risk factor to those around the user as well as the user.

If the only factor involved was A, then there would be no problem, like you said. Pop doesn't contribute to society, but it doesn't have any directly harmful effect on those around the user, and therefore is perfectly okay. It fits within condition A.

Condition A = fine.

Condition A + Condition B = Not happening (the scale becomes too negative, to harmful--not worth it)

Therefore, with no pros, and plenty of cons, there's no reason to legalize/decriminalize it.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

Schadenfreude

Actually, I did catch all that.

Precisely what aspects of marijuana use affect society at large negatively? I predict your answer will be mainly:

A: The possibility that someone high on marijuana will drive a car on public roads, thus endangering other peoples' lives.

B: Second-hand marijuana smoke can expose unwilling bystanders to the effects of the drug, and its health consequences.

Both noble concerns.

However, these are not consequences of marijuana use per se, but rather of, shall we say, irresponsible marijuana use. Certainly, there are many elements of modern life that carry a degree of risk to society at large. Automoblies, in particular, kill many thousands of Americans each year, yet the consensus is that their utility outweighs their negative aspects. (When you factor in such other minuses as pollution and the massive-scale use of fossil fuels, perhaps this should be reconsidered.) Similarly, it makes no sense to outlaw something for the possible negative consequences of its irresponsible use.
How, exactly, does the private use of marijuana in the home of an adult (who does not foolishly get behind the wheel of a car after smoking) negatively affect society at large?

Locke9-05

I was thinking of many things--those factors you mentioned flashed across my mind yes, among other things, but they were not the only ones. The side-effects of the drug alone are unpredictable and unstable at best, and leave those around the user in an unpredictable social environment, oftentimes unpleasant and unhealthy environment, and sometimes a potentially dangerous environment. The direct-side effects of a recreational drug (emphasis on recreational--meaning for nothing more than individualistic "pleasure") are enough to raise considerable concern as to the health, reasonable living conditions and even safety of those living around marijuana users--if such a drug were to be any more widely available--therefore, there is simply no logical reason to legalize it. If people are going to isolate themselves within their own homes, doing whatever it is they do, affecting no one but themselves, then fine--but that's by far not reason enough to legalize it. That only gives those individuals reason to either stay "under the radar" so to speak or find more overall responsible and natural ways to get that "high."

Besides, who's to tell how long the effects of a high last? It varies from person to person. The length of how long the side-effects vary from person to person. The intensity of the side-effects vary from person to person. There are so many possible scenarios and if someone was to take all the "precautions" you mentioned, and yet even so endanger someone else because it still wasn't enough based on a drug that screws with human brain chemistry for nothing more than individualistic pleasure, then that's it. Game over. That's the whole idea. It's not worth the risk. Not when all it's for is a recreational drug used for individual pleasure that can and should be found in much more responsible and natural ways that don't have any unnecessary risk factors to them.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

Twilightsfire

I'll just say "no" and leave it at that.

(Had there been an option for medical use, I would have voted for that qualifier.)

emptypepsi

As there have been numerous other threads on this, I'm not sure whether I've even posted on this one. I'll just say that while Locke makes very strong arguments, he has only made my feeling that of Decriminalization as the best route in this regard, not legalization.

I only say this because I sympathize with Locke's worry about the effect on society, but I still do not think that smoking marijuana should be a felony. This position may be mainly due to the fact that I have done it in the past for a short period of time, and I don't see a reason why someone who does it should be labeled a "criminal". It just seems ridiculous to me when I think of what other things we as society deem "ok".

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

Schadenfreude

You make these claims so confidently, although you claim to have never used marijuana. I have used marijuana literally tens of thousands of times, and let me tell you, the effects are far from “unpredictable.” The side-effects are fairly consistent from person to person, as is the duration of the high. It is not a crapshoot that carries the possibility of the user running amok in the streets, to put it mildly.

You also seem to be somewhat disdainful that marijuana is used “only” for pleasure. What is so wrong with pleasure? The time we spend on this planet is short, and for many people it is a hard and difficult life for much of the time. Just because you are, for whatever reason, anhedonistic (averse to pleasure), what right do you have to deny them contentment wherever they happen to find it. Perhaps you have a career you find challenging and rewarding, a loving family, a nice home, etc., and these things are enough to keep you happy. But many people don’t have these things, and you have no right to deem the methods they use to find life bearable “weak” or “perverse.”

Finally, you say that whatever benefits there are to cannabis use, it is not enough to legalize it. Perhaps you don’t realize that before the government, for racist and classist reasons, decided to outlaw cannabis, it was legal, which is the default state of all natural substances. Making marijuana legal would simply be a reversion to the way things were before puritanical and xenophobic persons interfered.

HenryDavidThoreau

Using your logic people with already unstable brain chemistry such as bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, clinical depression etc. should be forced to take medications against their will to ensure the safety and well being of the populace for the greater good.

__________________
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
-George Orwell