Seems fair to me!

Comments?

Seems fair to me!

Comments?


Deciminalize Pot

Legalize pot

If the government legalized and taxed pot like it does alcohol and cigarettes, just think how much money the government could make.  I've always said if my kids had to be in a car with someone who was drunk or someone that was high, I'd pick high everytime.

If the government legalized and taxed pot like it does alcohol and cigarettes, just think how much money the government could make. 

Haa, there's the rub.  You, I and everyone can grow the weeed in our back yards, and so not get taxed, and deprive the booze industry of their inexhorbanant profits.

Hmmm hadn't thought of that, I suppose if they did it they would make it illegal to grow it.

Wait it's not legal.. oh no i'm a criminal ::)

I think it's fair.

Consider this.. Alchohol = (in many cases) aggression... Weeeeeed = Nap time  ;D which is worse

Now I have got myself in to a tricky situation.. which is better The Beer or the Bud.. i will say i prefer a beer cus i often find myself sleeping after the Ganj has gone around...

I have said this before, I think it should be legalized-as long as it is used responsibly. For one thing, there are many medicanal uses-glaucoma, cancer treatments, AIDS treatments, etc. that it helps. I, myself have used it from time to time for cramps, headaches, etc. (and maybe once or twice for recreational purposes  ;)) I have seen too many drunks get very belligerent, obnoxious, and violent. Everyone I have seen who was stoned, usually ends up laughing a lot or ends up very sleepy. It is a very natural herb that has been used for centuries for many different reasons. There has never been one marijuana-related death. How many alcohol-related deaths has there been? I personally have seen an alcohol-related death and it was not pretty.




Cat

It's an asinine state of affairs that we have at the moment.  All the money goes to the worst people in society, and they have a huge incentive to try and force drugs onto new recruits.

I'd never do pot. I've never smoked, Hell I've never taken a sip of beer. But I don't have nothing against the stuff just as long as you don't smoke around me for the simple fact that I like to run and be in shape and that smoke F's up my lungs.

As far as Mary Jane is concerned, I say legalize it, it ain't gonna hurt no body, but I think it ought to have the same laws as alcohol, don't smoke while driving, and don't kill no body in a fight over it.

I say the only problem with Mary jane is that people could make it into worse stuff that can F you up for good, but I guess the arguement against me once again comes down to choice.

As far as Mary Jane is concerned, I say legalize it, it ain't gonna hurt no body, but I think it ought to have the same laws as alcohol, don't smoke while driving, and don't kill no body in a fight over it.


Good points. No smoking while driving, no driving under the influence, no intoxication in public. Need ID to get it, and "No Smoking" means none of any kind.

If the government starting taxing it's sale like they do with tobbacco, they'd make a TON of money. It ain't gonna go away, so at least make it a positive.

Wait it's not legal.. oh no i'm a criminal ::)

Shhhh.... ;)

I say at least decriminalize it.  I agree, commercial tobacco cigarettes are form more toxic than marijuana.  Alcohol is not only more toxic, it is much more socially destructive than pot.
Above all, I think it is a tremendous waste of resources chasing down and locking up pot smokers.  The drug war hurts far more people than it helps, especially where pot is concerned. 

    Yes, I also think it is much less dangerous then the bottle. In the morning you don't suffer from a hangover either.  I wonder how much money the government makes off of fines and fees collected from the thousands of people busted for it each year.  I think it's a waste to lock people up for it if they are not a dangerous criminal.

I say the only problem with Mary jane is that people could make it into worse stuff that can F you up for good, but I guess the arguement against me once again comes down to choice.


I've never understood why people think that smoking pot will make you go for the harder drugs.  Why would that be more true for pot than for alcohol?  If there's any truth to that at all, IMO it's because people have to go to, let's say, undesirables to get the stuff.  If they could buy it at the store there would not be the temptation to try the other drugs. 
It's the government that has labeled pot as a Gateway drug and they did this in an attempt to cause concern and alarm people.  Just like the posters they used to put up showing a man killing another man so that he could get his weed.  I've never heard of anyone jonesing so badly that they killed someone over it.

Placing the same type of warning labels and taxing it as it is done with cigarettes and alcohol also seems like the thing to do.

It looks like many of us agree! :D

Why hasn't the government been able to see this, get it, and understand our kind of reasoning? It drives me nuts.

Locking-up people for possession, especially those who are otherwise law-abiding citizens without as much as a traffic ticket in their history, is insane, IMO.

Why hasn't the government been able to see this, get it, and understand our kind of reasoning? It drives me nuts.

Locking-up people for possession, especially those who are otherwise law-abiding citizens without as much as a traffic ticket in their history, is insane, IMO.


It is insane, I think. I can't understand why the government can't see it either, I guess they're just stuck in their ways.

Here in England things have changed for the better somewhat. Now if you just have a small amount on your person the Police wont want to lock you up or anything. If you have a large amount (i'm afriad i don't know the exact amounts) then you will be taken in as it is viewed that you are looking to supply.

Yeah, they've lightened up a bit on pot... but it still means that any money you're spending on the stuff goes to dealers who'll cut it with anything they can find.

IMO the main reason that politicians haven't gone for this is emotional, not rational: they think the majority of the population won't like it, so it'll lose them votes.  They may be right: the majority probably hasn't given it any real thought.  Sigh.

Placing the same type of warning labels and taxing it as it is done with cigarettes and alcohol also seems like the thing to do.

It looks like many of us agree! :D

Why hasn't the government been able to see this, get it, and understand our kind of reasoning?

The polls don't back that up.  And neither does the voting.  It seems every general election a referendum to legalize pot is on the ballot in the state of Alaska, and every time it fails, big time.  Also Oregon voted down a bill to make it easier to get pot for medical purposes.  Remember, this messageboard is much more to the left than the general American public.

I agree with the legalization and decriminalization of pot. Pot is equal in the effects of nicotine and alcohol. I still believe that the reason it isn't legalized is because the government wouldn't neccessarily profit from it since you can basically grow it yourself. Thus, if the government can't necessarily pocket anything, legalization won't occur.

Tanya

There is a very interesting film called "Weed" that is about how much $$ this country has put into the "war on pot" and what has it accomplished? Not much beside the spending of mega-bucks. If you get a chance to watch it, I recommend it.




Cat

It's interesting to see how many people actually smoke pot.. i can only think of 4 people i know of the top of my head that never have (to my knowledge) not one of them (bar one) has ever done anything harder and probably wouldn't. (and he was always gonna end up a mess)

Pot is not a big problem, it's naturally occuring, can be used medicinaly, could make the government a large profit and more than likely would free up the prisons to the n'th degree.

The polls don't back that up. And neither does the voting. It seems almost every general election a referendum to legalize pot in a state is on the ballot in Alaska, and every time it fails, big time. Also Oregon voted down a bill to make it easier to get pot for medical purposes. Remember, this messageboard is much more to the left than the general American public.

I guess the voting majority of the US public hasn't got on-line yet... I can't understand anyone voting down a bill to enable medicinal pot - like I said earlier, it smacks of an emotional response from people who've not given it any serious thought.

As I've said in a thread on this topic a while back, there is IMO only one argument for keeping pot illegal which isn't hogwash: the problem is that it's not currently possible to measure intoxication level with pot in the same way as you can for alcohol.  So it's not possible to test whether a person is driving under the influence... just that they were driving having used the stuff at some point in the previous few weeks.  All other reasons for keeping it illegal ("legalisation sends the wrong signals", "gateway drug", "more carcinogenic than tobacco", etc) simply don't hold water, especially when you see what the benefits to society would  be from legalization.

This opinion may seem a bit uninformed, and may be completely wrong:

If a drug can be used for medicinal purposes, why is it illegal?

Think about it...


...The government are being paid by the tobacco companies to keep weed illegal.

I agree with the legalization and decriminalization of pot. Pot is equal in the effects of nicotine and alcohol. I still believe that the reason it isn't legalized is because the government wouldn't neccessarily profit from it since you can basically grow it yourself. Thus, if the government can't necessarily pocket anything, legalization won't occur.

Tanya


But you can brew beer yourself.  That isn't illegal as long as you don't try to sell it.

This opinion may seem a bit uninformed, and may be completely wrong:

If a drug can be used for medicinal purposes, why is it illegal?

Think about it...


...The government are being paid by the tobacco companies to keep weed illegal.


Have a read of "The Emperor wears no clothes" by Jack Herer, that gives some insight. Cocaine & Heroin are also medicinal drugs (I hear there's a massive store of both at Fort Knox), but they're illegal in most countries. I think the very fact that drugs can be used medicinally, also indicates they are of a strength that may also cause harm.

I think tobacco companies would benefit massively from legalisation. They already have the infrastructure in place (other than the raw material) to be able to swamp the market with packaged cannabis, and I do think this would be the outcome of legalisation. Tobacco growing isn't prohibited in most countries, but who grows their own tobacco? I believe several tobacco companies in the 70's prepared labels for branded cannabis on the back of expectation of legalisation, such as Camel, Romeo & Julietana. I've seen these stamps pressed in gold on top of kilo blocks of imported cannabis in the UK, I have wondered in the past what connection the product has with the stamp used, anyone know? That being said, I'd hazard a guess that most of you haven't seen the blocks of resin I'm talking about, as most of it's imported from Afghanistan/ Pakistan. I understand the domestic markets in the US & Canada to be fed by internal sources & mainly 'herbal' cannabis (weed as opposed to 'hash'), is this correct?

William F. Buckley, well-known as the arch-conservative host of "Firing Line" and editor of "The National Review", has for many years advocated the legalization of currently-illegal recreational drugs, including the legalization of marijuana, for adults only ... with STIFF PENALTIES for those who provide those drugs to minors.

Possible reasons why marijuana is still illegal in America:

(1) Widely-held mistaken belief that it is a "gateway" to heroin and crack.

(2) Lingering racism tied to pot's history in the jazz culture.

(3) Lingering fear tied to the hippies' anti-war and anti-establishment attitudes.

(4) Puritanical aversion to the fact that marijuana intensifies sexual pleasure.

(5) Conservative-establishment-aversion to the fact that marijuana expands the associative-linking processes of the mind, which can then lead to seeing-through the propaganda and mind-games foisted on the general public by the controlling elite and the advertising conglomerates.

(6) Economic opposition from the textile industry, since hemp is a cheap natural fiber that could replace many comparatively expensive synthetic fibers made from hydrocarbons.

(7) Economic opposition from the petroleum industry, since hemp is a cheap natural fiber that could replace many comparatively expensive synthetic fibers made from hydrocarbons.

(8) Economic opposition from governments who fear loss of tax revenue due to the ease with which one can grow one's own pot on one's own private property, if the fear of search and seizure and imprisonment was removed by legalization.

How about the flip side of this argument: If you're in favor of legalizing marijuana, then QUIT B*TCHING ABOUT US CIGARETTE SMOKERS!!! I hate it when people are inconsistent on this issue. On the left you have people who complain about how bad the government is for outlawing cannabis, which they claim is harmless (it's not... it's freakin' SMOKE!), yet they applaud the government's efforts to pass restrictive laws toward smoking tobacco in public places, and they feel like it's perfectly all right to treat smokers like we're ignorant sh*tbags. On the right, you have people who will fight tooth and nail to defend the tobacco industry, while at the same time they churn out anti-drug propaganda to try and justify wasting billions of our tax dollars trying to stamp out a plant that, if used RESPONSIBLY, is basically no more harmful than tobacco or alcohol. Either be FOR both or AGAINST both. Otherwise, you're being hypocritical.

How about the flip side of this argument: If you're in favor of legalizing marijuana, then QUIT B*TCHING ABOUT US CIGARETTE SMOKERS!!! I hate it when people are inconsistent on this issue. On the left you have people who complain about how bad the government is for outlawing cannabis, which they claim is harmless (it's not... it's freakin' SMOKE!), yet they applaud the government's efforts to pass restrictive laws toward smoking tobacco in public places, and they feel like it's perfectly all right to treat smokers like we're ignorant sh*tbags. On the right, you have people who will fight tooth and nail to defend the tobacco industry, while at the same time they churn out anti-drug propaganda to try and justify wasting billions of our tax dollars trying to stamp out a plant that, if used RESPONSIBLY, is basically no more harmful than tobacco or alcohol. Either be FOR both or AGAINST both. Otherwise, you're being hypocritical.


Power down.  Please.  Neither marijuana smoke nor tobacco smoke should be allowed in public situations where such smoke will contaminate the lungs of non-smokers, but both products should be 100% legal for adults.

If I want to keep my lungs healthy, then I don't want to be forced to inhale somebody else's marijuana smoke or tobacco smoke in an enclosed public space. 

I am 100% in favor of discriminating against both marijuana smokers and tobacco smokers in enclosed public spaces.

I am also 100% in favor of both tobacco and marijuana being legal for adults.

This opinion may seem a bit uninformed, and may be completely wrong:

If a drug can be used for medicinal purposes, why is it illegal?

Think about it...


...The government are being paid by the tobacco companies to keep weed illegal.



Why I find very interesting is that a natural herb, like marijuana is illegal but they put out all these synthetic sh*t like Vixxox, Celebrex and others that have caused more harm than good.



Cat

Watch "Reefer Madness" for the truth about pot! :D ;D

Watch "Reefer Madness" for the truth about pot! :D ;D



Yeah, right.



Cat

I think opposition to marijuana legalization in America comes down to the politics of money ... all other arguments are nothing more than smokescreens ... 8)

The "it's not a gateway drug" argument is such crap.  It's only the first step from what I can tell, as is gay marriage to polygamy and "under God" in the pledge.  You want just this one, but then what happens after we give it to you?  Cocaine?  Meth?  To say "pot should be legal because you can have tobacco" and then in your next breath saying that crack and all those other drugs should remain illegally is more hypocritical then a vegetarian with leather shoes.

As for the "tax it to death" crap, that is well....crap.  If you're going to legalize it, don't punish people for wanting to smoke it with a super high tax, or any tax on it at all.  The one and only reason I can see legalizing this junk (and it is junk, to all the people who talk like pot is some kind of a health drug) is to reduce crime.  But if you tax it to death like some of you are suggesting, you only make the addicts less able to get it, and like with alcohol they'll rob people to get money to buy the pot, or just steal the pot itself, and thus we have more drugs on the street and the same amount of crime.  If you want it to be legal, fine, but don't tax it.

And finally the "if alcohol is legal, why not pot?"  Pot kills.  That is basically saying "if guns are legal, why not anti-tank rocket launchers, they both kills what's the difference?"  The fact is simple, and it is hypocritical, but it is simple: the vast majority of Americans want alcohol to be legal but not pot.  Most like the taste of alcohol, and hate the chocking smell of smoke I guess.

As for me, I personally don't care.  Part of me says have compassion for the, as Michael Savage puts it, red diaper doper babies.  And the other part of me says, this is Darwin as work, kill all the filthy pot smokers, let them basically commit suicide along with the booze-hounds.

Power down.  Please.  Neither marijuana smoke nor tobacco smoke should be allowed in public situations where such smoke will contaminate the lungs of non-smokers, but both products should be 100% legal for adults.

If I want to keep my lungs healthy, then I don't want to be forced to inhale somebody else's marijuana smoke or tobacco smoke in an enclosed public space. 

I am 100% in favor of discriminating against both marijuana smokers and tobacco smokers in enclosed public spaces.

I am also 100% in favor of both tobacco and marijuana being legal for adults.

Powering down.  :)

To be honest with you, I don't have a major problem with tobacco smoking being banned in most public places, except for bars. We could both argue this point until we're blue in the face, but I feel that a person should be able to sit down and enjoy a smoke with his/her drink.

As for marijuana smoking in public places, I feel that if marijuana was legal, then it should be legal for people to open their own establishments (private clubs) where pot smoking is allowed, like the hash bars they have in the Netherlands, and (especially) restaurants. Wouldn't it be great if you could go to a fine Italian restaurant where you could sit down, order a joint, smoke it before dinner, and then be treated to a nice big steaming pile of lasagna??? MMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!

Powering down.  :)

To be honest with you, I don't have a major problem with tobacco smoking being banned in most public places, except for bars. We could both argue this point until we're blue in the face, but I feel that a person should be able to sit down and enjoy a smoke with his/her drink.

As for marijuana smoking in public places, I feel that if marijuana was legal, then it should be legal for people to open their own establishments (private clubs) where pot smoking is allowed, like the hash bars they have in the Netherlands, and (especially) restaurants. Wouldn't it be great if you could go to a fine Italian restaurant where you could sit down, order a joint, smoke it before dinner, and then be treated to a nice big steaming pile of lasagna??? MMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!


I think a bar should be legally permitted to permit tobacco smoking under the following conditions:

(1) Every employee of the bar freely chooses to sign an informed-consent document stating that they freely accept the health dangers of being exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke.

(2) The bar-owner's insurance providers (fire, liability, and health insurance providers), and every employee's personal insurance providers (health insurance providers, etc), also freely sign informed-consent documents stating that they are 100% willing to provide full health, liability, and fire insurance coverage for the bar, its owners, its employees, and its customers.

(3) The applicable town/city, local, and state government agencies license the bar to allow tobacco smoking on the premises in the presence of all employees and customers.

(4) No one under the age of 21 is permitted to even enter the bar.

Given the above four conditions, I have no problem with a bar letting people smoke tobacco on its premises.

And I approve of your idea of Netherlands-style "hash bars", so long as the same four conditions are applied to them as are applied to the tobacco bars.

Consider this.. Alchohol = (in many cases) aggression... Weeeeeed = Nap time  ;D which is worse

Now I have got myself in to a tricky situation.. which is better The Beer or the Bud.. i will say i prefer a beer cus i often find myself sleeping after the Ganj has gone around...


Welllll, a hit or 2 of the devil's weed makes me hungry, and not just for munchies if you follow my drift.  I get very "oral".

I say the only problem with Mary jane is that people could make it into worse stuff that can F you up for good, but I guess the arguement against me once again comes down to choice.



You need to fill me in on this one.  Opium can be turned into heroin (both bad stuff), Coca leaves (chewed in the Andeas) into cocaine into crack (bad and worse), but what can you turn pot into?  I never heard that it could be "enhanced".  Please explain.

The polls don't back that up.  And neither does the voting.  It seems every general election a referendum to legalize pot is on the ballot in the state of Alaska, and every time it fails, big time.  Also Oregon voted down a bill to make it easier to get pot for medical purposes.  Remember, this messageboard is much more to the left than the general American public.


I think it was P.T. Barnum who said "there's a sucker born every minute" and Abve Linclon who said "you can fool some of the people all of the time..."  Unfortunately, too many people in this country don't know how and why pot got criminalized (the Booze lobby had lots to do with it, along with scare films like Reefer Madness.  So pot has been demonized, associated with depraved blacks and Mexicans wanting to rape white women etc.  What BS.

I think tobacco companies would benefit massively from legalisation. They already have the infrastructure in place (other than the raw material) to be able to swamp the market with packaged cannabis, and I do think this would be the outcome of legalisation. Tobacco growing isn't prohibited in most countries, but who grows their own tobacco?


There are several probl;ems growinmg tobacco.  Most importantly, it requires a long growing season and lots of cultivation, and if you are a smoker, you want your pack a day.  Except for the rastermen, who smokes the equivlant in pot?  You'd be totally stones 24/7.  For most pot smokers, a took or 2 once in a while is enough, so you could grow your own stash even in New England.

William F. Buckley, well-known as the arch-conservative host of "Firing Line" and editor of "The National Review", has for many years advocated the legalization of currently-illegal recreational drugs, including the legalization of marijuana, for adults only ... with STIFF PENALTIES for those who provide those drugs to minors.

Possible reasons why marijuana is still illegal in America:

(1) Widely-held mistaken belief that it is a "gateway" to heroin and crack.

(2) Lingering racism tied to pot's history in the jazz culture.

(3) Lingering fear tied to the hippies' anti-war and anti-establishment attitudes.

(4) Puritanical aversion to the fact that marijuana intensifies sexual pleasure.

(5) Conservative-establishment-aversion to the fact that marijuana expands the associative-linking processes of the mind, which can then lead to seeing-through the propaganda and mind-games foisted on the general public by the controlling elite and the advertising conglomerates.

(6) Economic opposition from the textile industry, since hemp is a cheap natural fiber that could replace many comparatively expensive synthetic fibers made from hydrocarbons.

(7) Economic opposition from the petroleum industry, since hemp is a cheap natural fiber that could replace many comparatively expensive synthetic fibers made from hydrocarbons.

(8) Economic opposition from governments who fear loss of tax revenue due to the ease with which one can grow one's own pot on one's own private property, if the fear of search and seizure and imprisonment was removed by legalization.


Well stated.

Didn't know about Buckley but always thought he was a "smart" conservative (an oxy... nevermind).

How about the flip side of this argument: If you're in favor of legalizing marijuana, then QUIT B*TCHING ABOUT US CIGARETTE SMOKERS!!! I hate it when people are inconsistent on this issue. On the left you have people who complain about how bad the government is for outlawing cannabis, which they claim is harmless (it's not... it's freakin' SMOKE!), yet they applaud the government's efforts to pass restrictive laws toward smoking tobacco in public places, and they feel like it's perfectly all right to treat smokers like we're ignorant sh*tbags. On the right, you have people who will fight tooth and nail to defend the tobacco industry, while at the same time they churn out anti-drug propaganda to try and justify wasting billions of our tax dollars trying to stamp out a plant that, if used RESPONSIBLY, is basically no more harmful than tobacco or alcohol. Either be FOR both or AGAINST both. Otherwise, you're being hypocritical.


Interesting rant, but as a tobacco smoker, I must disagree.  I would not favor legalizing pot smoking in inside public places just as agree that we "tobacco heads" need to respect those who wish to avoid the stench of our nasty habit.  If I have a drink in a public place I am the only one who feels the effect.  If I light up, all within range get some of my smoke.  I hope you see the distinction I am driving at.

The "it's not a gateway drug" argument is such crap.  It's only the first step from what I can tell, as is gay marriage to polygamy and "under God" in the pledge.  You want just this one, but then what happens after we give it to you?  Cocaine?  Meth?  To say "pot should be legal because you can have tobacco" and then in your next breath saying that crack and all those other drugs should remain illegally is more hypocritical then a vegetarian with leather shoes.

As for the "tax it to death" crap, that is well....crap.  If you're going to legalize it, don't punish people for wanting to smoke it with a super high tax, or any tax on it at all.  The one and only reason I can see legalizing this junk (and it is junk, to all the people who talk like pot is some kind of a health drug) is to reduce crime.  But if you tax it to death like some of you are suggesting, you only make the addicts less able to get it, and like with alcohol they'll rob people to get money to buy the pot, or just steal the pot itself, and thus we have more drugs on the street and the same amount of crime.  If you want it to be legal, fine, but don't tax it.

And finally the "if alcohol is legal, why not pot?"  Pot kills.  That is basically saying "if guns are legal, why not anti-tank rocket launchers, they both kills what's the difference?"  The fact is simple, and it is hypocritical, but it is simple: the vast majority of Americans want alcohol to be legal but not pot.  Most like the taste of alcohol, and hate the chocking smell of smoke I guess.

As for me, I personally don't care.  Part of me says have compassion for the, as Michael Savage puts it, red diaper doper babies.  And the other part of me says, this is Darwin as work, kill all the filthy pot smokers, let them basically commit suicide along with the booze-hounds.


Seems to me that dismissing other poeople's arguments as "crap" without producing evidance to refute either their logic or their evidance is itself "crap".  On a personal note... no, I woun't go there, but I do wonder what joy... never mind.

The "it's not a gateway drug" argument is such crap. It's only the first step from what I can tell, as is gay marriage to polygamy and "under God" in the pledge.

If it's such a gateway drug, then why are there an estimated 10-20 million people in this country who've tried pot, but tens of thousands who've gone on to the harder stuff?  Sure, most people on harder drugs started with pot as their first illegal drug, but that's because it's the most available - you could equally argue that alcohol is a "gateway" drug as just about everyone who's tried pot has had an alcoholic drink beforehand.

And gay marriage leads to polygamy?  You should get out more...


You want just this one, but then what happens after we give it to you? Cocaine? Meth? To say "pot should be legal because you can have tobacco" and then in your next breath saying that crack and all those other drugs should remain illegally is more hypocritical then a vegetarian with leather shoes.

IMO *all* of them should be available on prescription: once you're hooked, the state'll provide your fix.  Face it, it's a fudge of a lot cheaper than clearing up all the burglaries and petty crime caused by addicts: but mainly it's a way of ensuring that the humungous quantities of money involved don't go to the drug dealers.  Of course, it'll never happen 'cause of the sanctimonious rantings from idiots who don't know wtf they're talking about...

If it's such a gateway drug, then why are there an estimated 10-20 million people in this country who've tried pot, but tens of thousands who've gone on to the harder stuff?  Sure, most people on harder drugs started with pot as their first illegal drug, but that's because it's the most available - you could equally argue that alcohol is a "gateway" drug as just about everyone who's tried pot has had an alcoholic drink beforehand.

And gay marriage leads to polygamy?  You should get out more...
IMO *all* of them should be available on prescription: once you're hooked, the state'll provide your fix.  Face it, it's a f*c* of a lot cheaper than clearing up all the burglaries and petty crime caused by addicts: but mainly it's a way of ensuring that the humungous quantities of money involved don't go to the drug dealers.  Of course, it'll never happen 'cause of the sanctimonious rantings from idiots who don't know wtf they're talking about...




And you didn't get warned for this (I'll certainly not complain).

As I've said in a thread on this topic a while back, there is IMO only one argument for keeping pot illegal which isn't hogwash: the problem is that it's not currently possible to measure intoxication level with pot in the same way as you can for alcohol.  So it's not possible to test whether a person is driving under the influence... just that they were driving having used the stuff at some point in the previous few weeks. 
I agree with this statement, and it strikes a particular chord with me. As a CDL (Commercial Driver's License) holder, I am subject to random drug tests. Additionally, if I was ever to get into an accident where injuries or fatalities were involved, I would automatically be required to take a drug test, regardless of whether or not I was at fault. Because of this, I have not used marijuana in several years. Personally, I think it is unfair that they don't make the distinction between recreational drug use on my own time versus getting high on the job (which I would NEVER do). However, I accept it because driving an 80,000 lb tractor-trailer requires considerably more attention and skill than driving a regular passenger vehicle, and I already see enough truckers driving like jerks as it is, and if it wasn't for mandatory drug testing the situation would be that much worse.

The "it's not a gateway drug" argument is such crap.  It's only the first step from what I can tell, as is gay marriage to polygamy and "under God" in the pledge.  You want just this one, but then what happens after we give it to you?  Cocaine?  Meth?  To say "pot should be legal because you can have tobacco" and then in your next breath saying that crack and all those other drugs should remain illegally is more hypocritical then a vegetarian with leather shoes.

As for the "tax it to death" crap, that is well....crap.  If you're going to legalize it, don't punish people for wanting to smoke it with a super high tax, or any tax on it at all.  The one and only reason I can see legalizing this junk (and it is junk, to all the people who talk like pot is some kind of a health drug) is to reduce crime.  But if you tax it to death like some of you are suggesting, you only make the addicts less able to get it, and like with alcohol they'll rob people to get money to buy the pot, or just steal the pot itself, and thus we have more drugs on the street and the same amount of crime.  If you want it to be legal, fine, but don't tax it.

And finally the "if alcohol is legal, why not pot?"  Pot kills.  That is basically saying "if guns are legal, why not anti-tank rocket launchers, they both kills what's the difference?"  The fact is simple, and it is hypocritical, but it is simple: the vast majority of Americans want alcohol to be legal but not pot.  Most like the taste of alcohol, and hate the chocking smell of smoke I guess.

As for me, I personally don't care.  Part of me says have compassion for the, as Michael Savage puts it, red diaper doper babies.  And the other part of me says, this is Darwin as work, kill all the filthy pot smokers, let them basically commit suicide along with the booze-hounds.

Wow, I don't know where to start. Cannabis is only a gateway drug because it's illegal, therefore it has been categorized by the government as a taboo. This brings 2 results- people have to contact illegal sources to obtain it, who may also have access to other illegal drugs; also, previously law-abiding citizens may feel that once they've taken the step of smoking pot, they've crossed the legality barrier & may as well 'go all the way' with other drugs too. Alcohol & tobacco are both more physically addictive & dangerous than cannabis, yet many people stick to those two drugs, because of their legal status. If cannabis were legalised & became as socially acceptable as tobacco & alcohol, users may not stray further into 'harder' drugs.

There is no hypocrisy is seperating cannabis from drugs such as heroin, crack & meth. All 3 of those latter things are physically addictive, and deadly in overdose situations. Contrary to your opinion, pot does not kill. You might die while DUI, or be killed by a 20-ton block of it dropping on you, but usage in itself is never immediately deadly. There has not been enough worthwhile research to discern whether cannabis is more harmful physically than tobacco in the long term. I'd argue that as both alcohol & tobacco are both more physically addictive than cannabis (indeed, more akin with heroin & crack, respectively), then they should be proscribed and cannabis legal, and that the law is currently hypocritical. Obviously it'll never happen; I seem to recall, at the height of the early 90's rave culture, 3 of us actually wearing T-shirts that stated 'criminalise alcohol' to rave parties (and nearly getting beaten up by a crusty Special Brew salesman)...

Nobody said 'tax pot to death'. Whilst I realise the US Far Right may think of taxes as a way of punishing people, or modifying their behaviour, people here seem to be suggesting a reasonable level of tax, which I think is pragmatic. Surely, GWB, your lot would love to have those low-life hippy dollars spent on cannabis, in order to fund your foreign policy of attempting to control major hard drug areas by force? (Think Vietnam, Colombia, Afghanistan...)

You also seem to be misled about the level of 'addiction' cannabis induces. Whilst most would agree it's possible to become mentally dependant on pot, it doesn't induce physical dependence; therefore the level of negative addictive behaviour (stealing to feed the habit, behaving anti-socially when withdrawing) is very much less than with major drugs of addiction. I know people who've regularily smoked pot for 20 years+ and never commited a criminal act, other than that related to the possession of the pot in the first place; compare that to anyone who has drank alcohol or taken hard drugs for that period of time, and you'll generally find the latter parties can't make the same boast.

I don't know what the answer is. In the UK we have reduced the 'criminality' of cannabis to that of illegally-held prescription drugs, which seems to have resulted in little more than more teenagers openly smoking dope in the street. Legalisation of hard drugs would, I feel, lead to increased usage. I'm not sure about Philbo's idea of the state supplying drugs; the cost of maintaining an addiction is a serious deterrent, once realised; it was only this that stopped me falling into full-time heroin addiction some years ago. If I knew I could get that high, then the state maintain it, I would have carried on headlong on to the point of no return. Currently, you have to register as an addict to obtain any sort of maintenance or assistance here, which I think is pragmatic. I think (and I'm at odds with my girlfriend here, who's involved in drug & alcohol treatment) that legalisation of all drugs is not the answer, as it would remove the stigma & shock, horror, danger effect that the current law creates- despite the fact that many people would become addicts whatever the situation, I think the current law is a valuable deterrent, and cannot think of a more reasonable solution.