more than 850,000 Americans were arrested for marijuana in 2010 alone, 88 percent for mere possession.

jdmd wrote:

The fact that alcohol is as harmful as it is would indicate that we don't need even more alcohol out there (aka legal weed). That's seems fairly obvious to me, but maybe it's not. In other words, based in the context of your writings, the people who prefer weed and do not consume alcohol would ADD to the harm and costs in society. You'd be increasing the number of drug users.

the most effective and cheapest policy response is treatment. prohibition for any substance is not nearly as effective as treatment.

See Portugal.

jdmd wrote:

No, I disagree. We should not at all get entirely rid of enforcement. How else are you going to stop people from driving under the influence or selling to minors or etc? Sure, I'm all for ADDING more support for rehab, but to completely remove any enforcement or regulation is extremely dumb.

prohibiting/limiting consumption is ineffective.

operating machinery when impaired is a crime. Doctors on perscription pills, dentists high on nitrous - none of these people should drive.

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

How is using marijuana a burden on society? More than alcohol?

The pro-pot movement needs to stop comparing pot to alcohol, it's terrible logic. Yes, alcohol is a terrible drag on society, but it's impossible to outlaw. And yes, pot is also a drag on society, perhaps less so than alcohol, but it doesn't mean we should throw a stamp of approval on it.

I've heard some really good arguments for pot legalization, but this isn't one of them. If you want to sway the opposition, you need to convince us how endorsing recreational drug use is a good thing.

BTW, why did the other thread get deleted? These days it seems a link to the front page is the fast track to deletion.

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

jdmd wrote:

No, I disagree. We should not at all get entirely rid of enforcement. How else are you going to stop people from driving under the influence or selling to minors or etc? Sure, I'm all for ADDING more support for rehab, but to completely remove any enforcement or regulation is extremely dumb.

prohibiting/limiting consumption is ineffective.

operating machinery when impaired is a crime. Doctors on perscription pills, dentists high on nitrous - none of these people should drive.

Well at least we know you're a troll. For anyone taking him seriously, prohibiting and limiting consumption of drugs IS hugely effective.

neanderthal dream wrote:

...

I've heard some really good arguments for pot legalization, but this isn't one of them. If you want to sway the opposition, you need to convince us how endorsing recreational drug use is a good thing.

...

It is not a matter of endorsing recreational drug use. The government does not need to endorse such use. It simply needs to err on the side of the most basic freedom of being able to consume into my own body that which I choose to consume. How in the world anyone could think that telling me that I am not to consume pot (I am a non-user by the way, a non-drinker as well for fairness sake) is something that the government should be doing is beyond me.

Here is a chart outlining the costs of various drugs to one's self and society

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

Clearly drug use takes a toll on societies. But not all drugs are created equal.

If we assume there will be a certain amount of recreational drug use - call it X hours wasted /year using various drugs - then I think most of us would agree a shift from alcohol to marijuana would be of net benefit to all. The total time/output X remains the same, but more people are smoking weed, less drinking. This would be the preferred policy outcome by almost any measure.

Some posters are worried that X will increase, and this is understandable. However, as others have pointed out, in states/countries that have decriminalized weed, alcohol related arrest/incidents decline.

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

Here is a chart outlining the costs of various drugs to one's self and society

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

Clearly drug use takes a toll on societies. But not all drugs are created equal.

If we assume there will be a certain amount of recreational drug use - call it X hours wasted /year using various drugs - then I think most of us would agree a shift from alcohol to marijuana would be of net benefit to all. The total time/output X remains the same, but more people are smoking weed, less drinking. This would be the preferred policy outcome by almost any measure.

Some posters are worried that X will increase, and this is understandable. However, as others have pointed out, in states/countries that have decriminalized weed, alcohol related arrest/incidents decline.

Thanks for the chart. How did they measure the costs? What about the benefits? I wonder where white rice, sugar, bacon, soda and chocolate would wind up on a fair and balanced analysis.

Are the costs (murders, beheadings, etc) associated with the activities of the drug cartels included in this? The costs of fighting these cartels? The costs of failed states that are largely held captive by activities that are simply defined as criminal by creating this "war on drugs"?

More to the point, I would very much like our government to err on the side of freedom. Alcohol should be legal and regulated. Engaging in dangerous activities (driving) under the influence should be kept illegal. Same for recreational drugs. Although I do not indulge in any of these things, the thought that the government should be telling people that they cannot drink/smoke/... is something that I find repugnant.

Some things are obvious wrote:

It is not a matter of endorsing recreational drug use. The government does not need to endorse such use. It simply needs to err on the side of the most basic freedom of being able to consume into my own body that which I choose to consume. How in the world anyone could think that telling me that I am not to consume pot (I am a non-user by the way, a non-drinker as well for fairness sake) is something that the government should be doing is beyond me.

I see what you're saying, but I feel that the fact voters are making it legal is, in fact, endorsing its use.

Feel free to disagree with me, but consider it. If I'm a 15 year old kid, and I know that my dad voted for legalization, how can he justify being angry with me for using it? I would throw that in his face all day long.

The government and our laws are merely an extension of our collective societal views and opinions. By having a government that bans recreational drug use, we as a society are saying we do not support it. However, by removing such laws, we as a society say that it is ok, and I would go so far as to say that we endorse it.

Let's reduce the penalties for possession and use, as our current justice system is flawed in relation to pot, but let's not legalize it.

I see what you are saying and it is not entirely unreasonable. But I would ask why not treat pot in a manner similar to how we treat tobacco or alcohol? These are legal for adults but (as far as I know - I am no expert) generally illegal for those under 18 or 21. They are regulated and taxed thereby bringing these industries into the legal system, allowing the light provided by open public discourse to educate the general public, and generating revenue to operate our government and to treat the damages caused by these products. To me these all seem like good things. And none of this is endorsing these products nor making it OK for a 15 year old kid to use them.

The world is not a perfect place but given the alternatives I think that the way the government in the US treats alcohol and tobacco is largely sensible - far more sensible than how it treats recreational drugs.

neanderthal dream wrote:

By having a government that bans recreational drug use, we as a society are saying we do not support it.

But we do that already - alcohol is legal.

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

neanderthal dream wrote:

By having a government that bans recreational drug use, we as a society are saying we do not support it.

But we do that already - alcohol is legal.

This is a really tired argument, and I feel that it is one of the weakest that the pro-pot movement has. Essentially you're saying, "Well, we already have one bad legal substance, so let's add to the list."

No I am saying we already sanction some substances, for very arbitrary reasons.

Well, this is really the core of the issue, isn't it?

To be honest, all of the discussion since election day has softened my views somewhat. I've been able to see the other side's view a lot better and see that there are actually some valid points, whereas before it was just a black-and-white issue to me.

The one compromise I can see that would get me to vote for legalization of pot, and possibly any drug, is to tax the hell out of it, the way we do cigarettes. Then we get all the benefits of legalization that you have outlined, but it would also be a clearly discouraged practice.

I feel strongly that the government should avoid legalization for the sake of making money. We should not fund our gov't by condoning the use of harmful substances.

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

No I am saying we already sanction some substances, for very arbitrary reasons.

I don't think the backlash we saw during Prohibition is arbitrary. It just didn't work.

I'm not saying the current system is perfect. But I think we're jumping the gun by simply legalizing it. There may be better solutions that haven't been examined.

The outcomes from legalization/decriminalization of any drug is increased use. This happened when prohibition was repealed. Drinking and death from cirrhosis went up. However, violence went down. So, there is a choice.

People will not always do what is in their best interests. That is a fact of life. So policy makers can either deal with this fact, and enact laws like they have in Portugal, where all drugs have been decriminalized (not legalized) and the savings is put into treatment, or policy makers can punish users.

Either way, recreational drugs exist, and they exact a cost on society. So we can either deal with the cost, or wish it away by saying, "you shouldn't do that".

If heroin were made legal, I wouldn't start using it, and neither would you. In fact most people wouldn't. Nor would they start smoking weed. Just as they do not pour vodka in their morning coffee. Some people, however, will. And that is just a fact of life, which we all have to deal with and pay for, one way or another.

neanderthal dream wrote:

Well, this is really the core of the issue, isn't it?

To be honest, all of the discussion since election day has softened my views somewhat. I've been able to see the other side's view a lot better and see that there are actually some valid points, whereas before it was just a black-and-white issue to me.

The one compromise I can see that would get me to vote for legalization of pot, and possibly any drug, is to tax the hell out of it, the way we do cigarettes. Then we get all the benefits of legalization that you have outlined, but it would also be a clearly discouraged practice.

I feel strongly that the government should avoid legalization for the sake of making money. We should not fund our gov't by condoning the use of harmful substances.

I really don't think it is a manner of condoning the use of anything so much as simply recognizing that this is something that people like to do so our role as the government is NOT to tell people what they can and cannot do but rather to regulate and tax as appropriate.

By the way, most economists would argue that taxing harmful behaviors (ala taxing the shit out of tobacco) is exactly what we should do not just in this case but in general.

neanderthal dream wrote:

I don't think the backlash we saw during Prohibition is arbitrary. It just didn't work.

Do you truly and honestly believe marijuana prohibition is "working?"

The pro-pot people here are trying way to hard. Here's why pot should be legalized:

- Take away a huge source of income for gangs

- Make $ for the gov't (and save a lot)

- Less people would die in the drug war and gang related violence.

- Prohobition doesn't work!!!

It's really that simple

Mr. Obvious wrote:

neanderthal dream wrote:

I don't think the backlash we saw during Prohibition is arbitrary. It just didn't work.

Do you truly and honestly believe marijuana prohibition is "working?"

It's flawed, and I agree the system needs to change. I'm just not sure legalization (or decriminalization, if you prefer that word) is the answer.