Similarly to what the other responses were on your statistics, the increase in crime is interesting but there is many other factors that could of effected crime.

You said that pot and alcohol should be restricted because they are dangerous and lighter restrictions can be used even if it isn't flat out outlawed. I remember in the past alcohol had an "excess tax" because of its uselessness for society and a high tax could be placed on pot if it is legal to slightly restrict it and try and make up for its damages. The increased tax on cigarettes was used for healthcare for children to try and make up for its harm, so a tax on pot can also be used for healthcare.

Even if the criminals are the ones that commite the crimes when it comes to making policies you can't just say "its there fault" and avoid the problem when people commit crimes, but you need to try and look for a cause and effect to try and make the person stop doing harm. This obviously can be taken too far but the reasons for crimes, and if they are avoidable at all, is important.

Yes, I know and I've acknowledged that a few times now. I was simply emphasizing that the law cannot be blamed for crime when the law is what deems such useless and negative behaviors to be criminal (so as to discourage or at least enforce consequences upon those who do not comply) in the first place.
Think of what you're saying here. The tax can go to healthcare, which will--in all probability--provide services for those children and people affected by those useless drugs, both addicts and non-users alike... Secondhand smoke, those who are forced to deal with the anxiety of dealing socially with addicts experiencing psychologically unstable side-effects, people encountering intoxicated drivers on the road, etc. So let's make useless substance with completely negative effects on society legal, tax it, and have the taxes go to pay for services that will be put to work negatively by that very same useless substance... That's an infinite loop of completely useless negatives. That's the whole reason why marijuana should not be legalized and it probably never will be. Because it's not worth the trouble. The "taxation" will balance out in the end, and it will in all probability cause more harm than "good"--if you can even consider monetary value gained from taxing something as useless and negative as marijuana "good."
Sure you can. Especially in this case. You can't look at society's laws as if the laws are to blame in a case like marijuana use. Do criminals who use marijuana choose to use marijuana? Yes. Isn't there a law that says it's illegal to use recreational marijuana and that there will be consequences faced if one is caught using it? Yes. So why then, would that law be to blame--considering that law is threatening and promising action to be taken against those who break it? The law is reasonable. The law preserves the rights of those who choose not to use marijuana, those who choose to find "happiness" in life naturally and those who choose not to "indulge" in a substance that is unpleasant, unhealthy, and potentially hazardous to themselves and those around them.

So then, who is to blame for the individual criminals breaking that totally reasonable law just to satisfy their individualistic and downright selfish craving for an unnatural "high" that will in all probability create an unpleasant, unhealthy, and potentially hazardous environment for themselves and those around them? They are of course. They made the choice. If your argument is emphasizing some peoples' idea that society should assess a situation and try to work with that situation/scenario to try and prevent crimes, then let me assure you right now--crime cannot be prevented. Why? Because once again--criminals and the choice to commit the crime is the deciding factor. Society's job and the job of the justice system is to enforce consequences for those who do not willingly comply with society's reasonable laws and standards.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"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

Most people who exersise are not in danger of a heart attack even if they are overweight.
Depression it used to be called the blues
anorexia and bolumia are choices made by people who think they have to look a certain way to survive in America this is societys gift be thin and poular or else.
You've seen the taxes put on cigaretts.
If they have no use they could always lower them and jack up the tax on fast food.
There is taxes to be had in legalisesing marijunia.
Although I've seen taxes on cigaretts go up and down.
I've saw health premiums go up I've never seen them come down.
We are talking about health premiums across the board right?

ya it's called using correlation to establish causality and it's another logical fallacy

i am not at all saying that large taxes on marijuana will cancel out the negative affects of it. I am just saying that a large tax revenue will be brought in because of the legalization of pot and that money can be used to help the health problems of marijuana.


This still doesn't contridict what i said and i agree with you that people who break laws should face the punnishments because it is there choice alone. I was making another point that since there is a large trend of marijuana use that can't be successfully countered by making it illegal, like alcohol, to a degree the law is pointless. Obviously, if marijuana is legalized it will increase its use overall, but the drug is unavoidable in largescale use.

Your point about marijuana protecting people who choose not to use it is interesting because it does improve their lives but even if it does protect them it certainly does not protect their rights. People have a right to live the way they want to as long as it doesn't hurt others. Currently overall marijuana does hurt others who don't use it because of crime and wasted money on its prevention.

.
marijuana are legal i n Canada and this dont shift nobody.
.

That's fabulous for Canada. Canada doesn't recognize marijuana legalization as the individualist issue that it is, apparently. Canada would apparently rather heed the selfish demands of selfish individuals (due to the individualistic nature of recreational marijuana use) over the rights, health and safety of the collective populace. Albeit extremely illogical, that is the Canadian government's prerogative. That's one of the major things that separates Canada from the United States. What else is there to say? This is a true collectivist nation based on the principles of the framers of our constitution and political philosophers like John Locke himself. We do not pretend to try and meet the needs of the collective, we are bound by the constitution itself to meet the needs of the collective.

Recreational marijuana is not a need. It is a selfish want. Recreational marijuana yields many side effects that are unstable and that create an environment around the user that is generally unpleasant, unhealthy and potentially hazardous to those around the user as well as themselves. This is no different from something like speeding, but you don't hear "chronic speeders" bitching and moaning about how it should be "their right" to speed in a motor vehicle. If people keep undermining the authority of the government--which allows the government to enforce their rights, those very rights (the most important ones) will lose value. Those of us who are negatively affected by idiotic selfish behaviors like marijuana take societal priority over those who par take in the "activities" that negatively affect others. The "activities" that have no societal benefit, are individualistic in nature, and have only negative results except to the selfish individual have no place in a civilized society. The rights of those around people who "want" to get high take so much more precedence over the selfish desires of those who want to get high off their asses. The same goes for any other foolish activity that yields no societal benefit, yet has negative results as well--such as speeding in a motor vehicle. It's illogical and the government and society recognizes it.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"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

Your arguement about speeding can not be related to marijuana can't be made be smoking marijuana is something that only effects the person who chooses to smoke it. The reason that we have speed limits is mostly to protect other people because if someone drives fast than it is more easy for them to hit other people. In a sense if marijuana is legalized it will not even be as bad as tobbacco because I am sure that marijuana will not be allowed to be smoked in public, so second hand smoke will not be a problem while second hand smoke from cigarettes harms people who don't even choose to smoke it.
To make another relation to something else... do you support the legalization of suicide? If someone wants to kill themselves, it only affects them, (besides phycological affects of people close to them). Unlike legal ciggarettes, maijuana will only affect the person who chooses to smoke it. We have laws that prevent smoking indoors and the reason that it exists is that it causes other people to be harmed from cigarrette who don't choose to smoke them.

Marijuana is a selfish want though, but this is America and we normally prize ourselves for allowing our people to choose their own paths in life, even if it is dumb.

About the whole collectivism arguement i would actually say that America tries to protect individuals much more than in Canada and other European countries. We have much less taxes on rich individuals and less restrictions for buissinesses, even if the restrictions will increase energy efficency or something with collectively positive effects. America is one of the most individualistic industrialized countries anywhere.

I would say that the reason that we don't allow marihuana has to do with being hard on crime and being afraid of different lifestyle chooses than allowing selfish individuals to do what they want.

So is tobacco. So is alcohol. So are lots of other things, yet they are not made illegal and criminalised in the same way that marijuana is. Although I wouldn't extend what I'm about to say to "hard" drugs, I don't feel that marijuana constitutes anymore of a threat to society than, say, alcohol or tobacco, so I don't see why it should be subject to different laws.

All drugs should be legalized. It's not that they're not harmful, but drug prohibition is one of those cases where the solution exacerbates the problem, and creates new problems. Here's material from a presentation I did about minimizing the harm associated with the drug problem:

1. Separate the Real Criminals from Regular Citizens: Do not Incarcerate People for Drug Offenses Alone:

*Our prisons and jails are strained with overpopulation, and society benefits more from keeping murderers, rapists and thieves behind bars longer instead of drug users/dealers.

*Prison time turns some non-violent drug offenders into violent offenders, which increases serious crime.

*Prison time destroys lives. Ex-cons are almost unemployable and disenfranchised with their families left behind. People should only be imprisoned when they harm another’s person or property.

*If a criminal commits a crime against another because of his/her drug addiction, then that criminal should undergo mandatory drug treatment while serving time for harming another.

2. Legalize Illicit Drugs, and Regulate Them Like Legal Drugs:

*No matter how many people we imprison, or how many pounds of marijuana our government seizes, there will always be somebody out there who is willing to take risks or even kill for the high profits of a black market. (this applies more to harder drugs, but still applies to a lesser extent to marijuana)

*A regulated market will reduce the health costs of drug use by allowing users to know exactly what they are taking and the risk associated with that use.

*The regulated market would eliminate most of the organized crime in America by depriving gangs of their source of profit. (remember Al Capone? His career was made possible by alcohol prohibition).

*Reasonable excise taxes could be levied on various drugs based upon the public health costs associated with the specific drug. (The tax would still need to be low for marijuana, as it can be grown by almost anybody at home).

*The costs of illicit drugs would drop dramatically, and drug-addiction-induced economic-compulsive crime would be reduced.

3. Educate by Increasing Demand-Reduction Strategies

*Many studies show that drug use rates vary with public opinions on drug use.
As long as a demand for drugs exists, the supply will exist, regardless of the penalties.

*Exaggeration of the risks associated with various drugs, especially marijuana, has damaged the effectiveness of demand-side reduction policy. Kids know peers that use marijuana, and see that they don’t move on to heroin, so they wonder what other lies they have been told.

*Only a truthful, demand-reduction campaign is effective in curbing long-term drug use rates.

If we continue to pursue a zero tolerance prohibitionist strategy, we may have fewer drug users, but more problems for drug users over the full spectrum of one-time to lifetime use. Some call that justice. Others call it the senseless destruction of lives. If we pursue a strategy of harm minimization and legalization, we may pay for less crime and premature death with more drug use and addicts. The benefits are reasonably certain, and the risks less so. Some people may try marijuana who otherwise would not have due to legalization, while others may not see it as interesting if it became legal. Even if the risks do come true, drug legalization would still be a net benefit for society.

Consider Holland. It has the most lenient drug policy in the world. Marijuana has been partially legalized, and other drugs fully decriminalized. The Dutch drug policy gives priority to health care and prevention (harm reduction), but targets high level dealers. Result: Drugs that are illegal in America are used at rates consistently at a third to a half of the rates in the United States.