Legalize it!

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

But in terms of legality, other than the driving aspects, I don't see why it shouldn't be legal.

I'm not against taxing it, but I don't see that as being the deal breaker in your argument.

It frees up tons of resources to focus on heroin, crack, etc...

I think substances in moderation, such as food, alcohol, and marijuana increase the quality of living. The governments job isn't to restrict something that has little/no long term ill effects.

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?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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?

You're right, weed will grow just about anywhere and in almost any moderate climate.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

[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.

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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?