Why is marijuana illegal?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Legs

Frank, what I have been reading from the fine friendly folks is "If dope isn't legal neither should alcohol be."

Respectfully, you've gotten it completely backward. The argument actually goes something like this:

- Possession and use of alcohol is (partially) legal.

- Marijuana use is far less harmful than alcohol use.

- Accordingly, there's no legitimate reason for criminalizing the possession and use of marijuana to a greater extent than we criminalize the possession and use of alcohol.

Originally Posted by Legs

They want to take something away simply out of spite.

Again, the argument is for decriminalization of marijuana, not for more extensive criminalization of booze.

Originally Posted by Legs

People that do illegal drugs risk a lot more then short term memory loss and getting the munchies. Is it really worth it?

For me, no. But I see no reasonable justification for allowing legislators and administrative agency hacks to make that decision for everyone with respect to marijuana.

The parallels between prohibition and current-day marijuana laws are striking. The Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act criminalized booze, but lo and behold, people still wanted it! Where there's a demand, there's a supplier. The result: a handful of murdering, sociopathic thugs got filthy rich and many consumers got serious ill and/or died as a result of drinking adulterated, unregulated hooch. On top of that, enforcement was a nightmare.

Today people want marijuana despite its [il]legal status. We have a brand new gaggle of sociopathic thugs getting rich off the criminalization of weed. The so-called war on drugs, by all objective accounts a catastrophic failure, costs us $10 billion to $20 billion a year.

The better course, I believe, is for the law to treat marijuana much like it currently treats booze. Earlier in the thread you said that weed is difficult to regulate. That problem is solved by partial decriminalization. Few will buy from an illegal source when they can buy from a legal one. To qualify as "legal," sellers will have to submit to whatever regulations the state sees fit to impose.

BTW, mad props and much love to godfry for being the only poster who actually took a run at answering Perry's question.

[The Jesus Lawyer]

Hang on, hang on....ummmm, wait a second....damn....what were we talking about again?


michael

[Ari]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

The problem is, everyone, Legs is expressing an opinion that is held by a sizeable number of people, if not the majority in the U.S. and Canada.

That's the unfortunate thing, many people seem to hold these opinions without any evidence to support them, sometimes just because the government says so. Most studies contradict many of the anti-drug organizations claims and those organizations have been caught lying and/or massaging the truth many times. The propaganda machine wins out.

[Legs]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The parallels between prohibition and current-day marijuana laws are striking. The Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act criminalized booze, but lo and behold, people still wanted it! Where there's a demand, there's a supplier. The result: a handful of murdering, sociopathic thugs got filthy rich and many consumers got serious ill and/or died as a result of drinking adulterated, unregulated hooch. On top of that, enforcement was a nightmare.

Strange, I feel differently about that. Alcohol was legal, part of society, in every home etc.. and then it was taken away to much upheaval in the masses.

Pot was never legal or used in mainstream esablishments. It's not like it was taken away, it was never there to start with.

So far, you pro-pot stancers have taken a good run at me but failed to get anywhere.

Not a thing any of you have said has given me the slightest pause to agree to legalized pot and in fact the 'ban alcohol then' retaliation effort has made me roll my eyes and not take those people seriously.

I am not going to join your fight to legalize pot.

If/when it does become legal I will respect that as the law and STFU about it.

I still have no sympathy for anyone who rolls the dice and risks losing their job,family, lifestyle & clean record just so they can get high.

No one has convinced me legalized pot won't hurt the younger generation when they get the 'big OKAY'

Now, I am still open to listening to some different and new arguments should anyone come up with anything novel, please let me know.

I have enjoyed some of the well written and presented posts here.

[Legs]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

So... You missed what I had to say, too? I posted up a lengthy post on my personal thoughts on this as well. You ignored that, too.

No, I read those I just didn't comment.

[Ari]

Ok this was to Stephen but I wanted to comment on some things

Originally Posted by Legs

Strange, I feel differently about that. Alcohol was legal, part of society, in every home etc.. and then it was taken away to much upheaval in the masses.

Pot was never legal or used in mainstream esablishments. It's not like it was taken away, it was never there to start with.

That is completely Wrong sorry Legs but if you really want to make arguments against legalization I would suggest doing the research.

Alcohol wasn't taken away from the masses by some evil single government unit, the temperance movement was a very large force that had been up and coming for over 40 years before prohibition and gained huge numbers by the 1910's.

Cannabis (Marijuana is actually a derogatory term used to describe what 'dirty' mexicans smoked) was perfectly legal up till the 1930's until the drug czar got a hold of it and used a racially motivated campaign to criminalize it. Until then it was often prescribed as medication and many people smoked it for recreational use. It may have not been as popular but it wasn't unheard off.

Originally Posted by Legs

Not a thing any of you have said has given me the slightest pause to agree to legalized pot and in fact the 'ban alcohol then' retaliation effort has made me roll my eyes and not take those people seriously.

You obviously aren't listening. Few to no one has said ban alcohol, they have used alcohol as an example of why it's hypocritical to ban pot.

Originally Posted by Legs

No one has convinced me legalized pot won't hurt the younger generation when they get the 'big OKAY'

And you have not provided a single reason beyond your not so educated opinion as to why it would actually hurt the younger generation (I'm not sure you even care about the younger generation since one of your last posts suggests you would rather have them eating dangerous plants than smoking pot).
I have provided a number of loose pieces of evidence suggesting it wouldn't harm the younger generation. Have you taken any time to think about those what-so ever or were they ignored?


I fear this has turned into an "I'm not listening lalalala" kind of debate.

[Legs]

Originally Posted by Ari

Alcohol wasn't taken away from the masses by some evil single government unit, the temperance movement was a very large force that had been up and coming for over 40 years before prohibition and gained huge numbers by the 1910's.

I never said it was taken away over night. I said it was legal and part of society and then it was taken away. Which is just what you said as well.

Originally Posted by Ari

Cannabis was perfectly legal up till the 1930's

I didn't realize it had been legal ~ was this across the USA or just certain states?

Originally Posted by Ari

You obviously aren't listening. Few to no one has said ban alcohol, they have used alcohol as an example of why it's hypocritical to ban pot.

Please don't make me quote them all, but that train of thought started from post 3

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Therefore make alcohol illegal.

Originally Posted by Ari

I'm not sure you even care about the younger generation since one of your last posts suggests you would rather have them eating dangerous plants than smoking pot).

huh? I said no such thing.

Originally Posted by Ari

I have provided a number of loose pieces of evidence suggesting it wouldn't harm the younger generation.

I didn't agree. you are okay with people that might not agree with you, right?

Originally Posted by Ari

I fear this has turned into an "I'm not listening lalalala" kind of debate.

I'm listening if you come up with something more compelling.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Legs

Strange, I feel differently about that. Alcohol was legal, part of society, in every home etc.. and then it was taken away to much upheaval in the masses.

Pot was never legal or used in mainstream esablishments. It's not like it was taken away, it was never there to start with.

Your statement that pot was "never legal" is absolutely false. Criminalization of weed is a 20th Century phenomenon. In any event, your observations are not germane to the point underlying the prohibition-pot analogy. I'll leave it to you to figure out why.

Originally Posted by Legs

So far, you pro-pot stancers have taken a good run at me but failed to get anywhere.

That's cool. All anyone can do is present the facts and arguments. What the recipient does with that information is beyond the presenter's control.

Originally Posted by Legs

I am not going to join your fight to legalize pot.

That's cool as well. I'm not involved in the "fight to legalize pot" either. I'm just posting on an internet message board.

Originally Posted by Legs

Not a thing any of you have said has given me the slightest pause to agree to legalized pot and in fact the 'ban alcohol then' retaliation effort has made me roll my eyes and not take those people seriously.

Once again, backward.

Originally Posted by Legs

If/when it does become legal I will respect that as the law and STFU about it.

Please don't do that. The marketplace of ideas is a good thing, IMO, and we're all a bit poorer when a participant withdraws.

Originally Posted by Legs

No one has convinced me legalized pot won't hurt the younger generation when they get the 'big OKAY'

Also cool. I'd only point out that asking people to prove a negative might be deemed a bit unreasonable.

[D. Scarlatti]

Legs, when you tell someone to leave a thread because they're not posting to your personal standards of satisfaction, you'd be well advised not to use one of their comments in the aftermath to support your "argument," particularly when that comment was so obviously facetious that everyone except you understood that it was.

[Legs]

Well that's because you never left the thread... lurking about like you do

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

The problem is, everyone, Legs is expressing an opinion that is held by a sizeable number of people, if not the majority in the U.S. and Canada.

Which is one reason why "vote by mail", "get out the vote", and "vote or be fined" approaches scare the hell outta me.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by Legs

I never said it was taken away over night. I said it was legal and part of society and then it was taken away. Which is just what you said as well.

Well more specifically it seemed you were suggesting it was an unpopular decision but in reality people cheered when they dumped beer and whiskey into the ocean. The temperance movement blamed alcohol for everything. The banning of alcohol was seen as the coming of a new age with no more problems. When things didn't get better but worse it was a smack in the face for many, and prohibition was eventually dropped.

Unfortunately the current war on drugs seems to follow in those footsteps and pegs drugs as the cause of all sorts of evils in society (often with no or dubious evidence and an unwilliness to listen to anything that contradicts their preconcieved notions).

Originally Posted by Legs

I didn't realize it had been legal ~ was this across the USA or just certain states?

Yep all states. Before the 30's it wasn't considered an evil drug at all, many people smoked it as medicine (I believe even some of our presidents indulged) and the plants were used to make hemp products (there is a semi-unsupported belief that Dupont and other cotton producers pushed for the ban for fear hemp would overtake their industry).

Originally Posted by Legs

Please don't make me quote them all, but that train of thought started from post 3

Although I remember one person saying we should ban alcohol and make pot legal, I don't remember anyone actually suggesting alcohol should be illegal along with pot but used it as an example of why illegal pot is hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Legs

I didn't agree. you are okay with people that might not agree with you, right?

Sure thing.
I can also say it's quite ignorant to respond to arguments with nothing else but 'I don't agree'.

Originally Posted by Legs

I'm listening if you come up with something more compelling.

Tell me then, what do you see as "more compelling"? What could be said that you wont dismiss outright?

[Legs]

I have to go to bed Ari, I'll read over your last post and respond tomorrow.

I am in Canada by the way and not up on my US History.

You might be interested in this - from last week.

Canada Scraps Plans to Legalize Marijuana

Canada's new Conservative Party Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Monday that Ottawa does not intend to reintroduce legislation to legalize small amounts of marijuana.

Speaking to the Canadian Professional Police Association, Harper received applause when he reiterated that the legislation drawn up by the previous Liberal Party government would not be reintroduced when the new Parliament sits Monday.

The bill, which had alarmed law enforcement officials in Canada and the United States, died on the floor of the House of Commons after the Liberal Party lost elections in January.

Under the bill, getting caught with about half an ounce or less of marijuana would have brought a citation akin to a traffic ticket, not a criminal record. While possession of marijuana would have remained illegal, the bill was intended to prevent young people from being saddled with a lifelong criminal record

Link to article

[Ari]

Ok.

Yes I heard about that, and it made me annoyed. Their proposed reduced criminalization is quite similar to what california has (only national so they wouldn't have the problems of the feds equivalent harassing people like they do in california). Part of the point is to reduce police force time and money towards real crimes and harder drugs. Unfortunately there seems to be a large section of people who would rather have their beliefs (or in the case of many drugs, what the government tells them to believe) shoved on everyone else than to support truth, proper health care, and good money and police management.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Legs

Well that's because you never left the thread... lurking about like you do

That isn't the point, Legs. And at any rate I wasn't aware you were inviting me not only to stop posting in the thread, but to stop reading it altogether. In retrospect I appear to have underestimated your generosity. (Presumably the "liar" smiley is a dash of cuteness for good measure.)

The point is, you've rather blatantly misrepresented the position of many people that have posted in the thread. And when that is directly but politely demonstrated to you by at least two other people, you retort with an offhand, facetious remark made by the same person you asked to leave the thread because you essentially found his contributions worthless, but suddenly not so worthless that you can't (mistakenly) cite them to support your (mistaken) contention.

I do apologize for intruding again, but the irony was far too priceless to withhold comment.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Legs

I'm listening if you come up with something more compelling.

Excuse me, Legs, but why bother? It's obvious you do not read what is placed right before you.

But...just in case, start here.

[Kevlar]

Legs, I respect your position, but you really should read a little bit about the history of drugs in America before taking such a hard line. In the 1800's drug use was rampant, espcecially opium based drugs. Heroine was created as a supposedly "safe" alternative to opium. Hash candy and cocaine were sold in general stores. I saw an old advert for hash candy showing a family sitting around the Sunday afternoon picnic, getting high on candy. The most popular example of drugs in American culture is the cocaine in the Coca-Cola.

Now, I'm not saying I wish things were this way again, I'm just pointing out that your argument that pot (and many other drugs) were never legal, is absolutely false. I would also recommend reading about the rise of the drug czars, and the ludicrous propoganda machine they employed.

It seems you keep saying "won't someone please think of the children!", which doesn't seem like a genuine argument to me, more like a panic reaction. It's also an argument that was born out of outrageous propoganda. No one would be giving the kids the "go ahead" to smoke pot, any more than they get the "go ahead" to drink alcohol.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Legs

Alcohol is a lost cause at this point, I'm sure you realize that.

What do you mean it's a lost cause? Are you saying that the only reason alcohol is legal is because it's been widely accepted for so long? Bullshit. Alcohol is legal because its negative effects do not justify the government criminalizing its use. The government should not be able to restrict a particular freedom without a compelling interest. Some people used to think the government had a compelling interest that justified making alcohol illegal. They were wrong. Some people still think the government has a compelling interest in making marijuana illegal. They're wrong. Many people think the government has a compelling interest in making heroin illegal. They're probably right.

The burden of proof should be on the people who want to restrict freedom, not on those who want to extend it. It is none of the government's business if adults choose to injest a potentially unhealthy substance, except in extreme cases. Marijuana is not an extreme case.

BTW, today is 4/20.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Your statement that pot was "never legal" is absolutely false. Criminalization of weed is a 20th Century phenomenon.

1932 to be exact. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 75 of the 230 years our country has existed.

[Dingfod]

I wish they would legalize hemp. These manila ropes are scratching up my wrists.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

1932 to be exact. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 75 of the 230 years our country has existed.

Local ordinances proscribing weed date back to 1914, but yeah, the notion that marijunana was "never legal" in the U.S. is just plain wrong.

[viscousmemories]

It's not a load of empirical evidence, but the pot laws in my hometown of Ann Arbor, Michigan are famously lenient, and it consistently ranks among the most desireable locations to live in America.

Of course it's also responsible for the Thomas More Law Center, but nobody's perfect.

ETA:

[Kevlar]

Now I'm desiring to live there.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Local ordinances proscribing weed date back to 1914, but yeah, the notion that marijunana was "never legal" in the U.S. is just plain wrong.

George Washington certainly wasn't breaking the law. Of course I don't advocate using slave labor to harvest your hemp as he did.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by NC_Kev

Now I'm desiring to live there.

You'll need three jobs to pay your rent but it's a pretty town.