Cons to legalizing marijuana?

correlation is not causation. Do you have any evidence that legalization is causing more crashes, rather than more people are smoking and have detectable levels weeks or months after use and more drivers are being tested?

D Rumsfield wrote:

I've never understood why people need drugs at all. Maybe I'm unique in that I see no benefit. I have good days and bad but the idea that I would need to smoke a joint at night to relax as someone else mentioned makes me terribly sad for you. I guess some people simply can't deal with the normal day-to-day reality of life and need something else.

I don't understand why you believe this personal need or desire not to use drugs is a valid basis for public policy? I mean, maybe you don't, since you don't really state this. I'm assuming you don't advocate locking up anybody who wants to have a beer or a glass or wine?

If you want marijuana, you can find it. It is not that hard, I have never smoked any amount of anything in my life and I know 15 or more people that, if I asked, would help me get it, or just get it for me.Also, the war on drugs is a complete failure, you can look at the stats yourself and I believe someone else posted some rough numbers earlier in the thread. The number of lives lost in drug related crime and the number of dollars spent incarcerating people with drug offenses (any drug offense can result in 25 or more year with the 3 strike policy) is much greater than traffic fatslities where the person had THC in their system (doesn't men they were high at the time), or any other ways that marijuana may or,may not have contributed to the death of one person. You are basically saying "if my law can prevent even one person from dying, it is worth it", yet you fail to recognize the 100 other people that died from drug crime and the millions of dollars wasted incarcerating, all to save one person.This next argument is highly debatable but I think marijuana use will go down, as only the true stoners will keep using. Lots of people (think the hobbyjoggers of smoking marijuana) smoke weed because it is illegal and they think they are "cool" because they are breaking the law. Its kind of hard to explain unless you know someone like this, but essentially, if it isn't illegal, it isn't cool.

Since marijuana had become easier to obtain and regulated in the US, cartels from Medico have lost money and have supplemented that by pushing harder drugs across the border.

Fentanyl. Heroin. Combinations of the two. The supply has increased markedly because the cartels cannot make the money they used to with pot.

It's a gateway drug. If more people are exposed to weed, they'll prob start doing crazy shit like crack or heroine. That's just no good

TJR25 wrote:

You are basically saying "if my law can prevent even one person from dying, it is worth it", yet you fail to recognize the 100 other people that died from drug crime and the millions of dollars wasted incarcerating, all to save one person.

No. I'm saying remove it from Schedule 1. Treat it like illegal possession of opiates, which carries far less severe penalties and draws far less resources in the so-called war on drugs.

There is no valid argument you can make that isn't solved by making pot medical and removing it from Schedule 1. Not. A. Single. One.

Animal Lover Tree Hugger wrote:

I'm super pro legalizing and taxing marijuana but some people, shrinking daily, are still against it. Why? Literally why? I don't understand...

1. Doped driving.

2. Sometimes stink stinkweed horrible smell.

(Some stuff smells g-great.

3. Gateway drug to smoking for idiots.

4. Newbies not knowing it takes edibles sometimes 2-4 hours to come on...and they've gotten behind the wheel and start hallucinating.

5. "Nothing in the marijuana business happens on time or how it was promised it will happen."

6. Your daughter becoming a whole a at a festival. (True story, brah.)

Upsides:

1. Far more docile wage slaves.

2. Panty separators.

3. Doctors prescribe fewer anti-depressant and anti-anxiety meds.

4. Famous musicians and actors might stay away from Opioids and live.

5. Dumb people stay home and off the roads.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Really the best pro-pot argument is that it is none of the government's business what I choose to put in my body. Pro-freedom.

Sounds like exact same logic of gun nuts. Maybe potheads and gun nuts are more similar than they think.

Cankles '16 wrote:

If it is legalized, it is regulated. If it is regulated, it is taxed. If it is taxed, it may be more expensive. If it is more expensive, you may have to get a job.

Sorry dude.

Agreed. I read that they taxed the ish out of it in WA state, so much so, at every step of the distribution and sales process theirs another 25% tax... Greedy politicians...go so greedy hoards of growers ran back into the underground markets.

Dmb fcks.

It seems the worst thing about pot (and alcohol) is the possibility of people driving under the influence...which means once self-driving cars are the norm, these drugs will have almost no downside.

laakskdjjfhbbbcuuipppw wrote:

It's a gateway drug. If more people are exposed to weed, they'll prob start doing crazy shit like crack or heroine. That's just no good

The whole "gateway drug" thing is not correct. Yes, users of "harder" (which really is a weird term as many of these don't really go together) drugs are likely to smoke marijuana and users of marijuana are more likely than the general populace to do other drugs. This is because the people who use marijuana are, on average, likely to seek out other consciousness altering experiences.

The disconnect is that the act of using a lesser drug does not outright lead to someone using a harder drug. Eating a pot brownie will not compel one to seek out other mind altering experiences. Someone who takes ecstasy won't want to take heroin (dancing vs essentially taking a nap). This way of thinking is analgous to domino theory w/r/t communism, - if one city is red, soon we will have a red continent.

Another way to think about it: The last time you talked to someone who smoked weed(or used a "party" drug) did you think "Wow, I wonder what they will do next"?

David Lenson's "On Drugs" offers a good perspective on the view and use of drugs in our culture if anyone is interested.

WRONG in almost every possible way.

Reason #1 (and really the only reason needed): FREEDOM

ADULTS should be able to decide for themselves what recreational drugs to use. ADULTS really don't need their nanny to make this decision for them.

Secondary (but still obvious and tremendous) reason: Making recreational drugs illegal creates massive incarceration rates and corresponding criminal problems here at home while simultaneously creating massive drug cartels and the near collapse of the effective government of our nearest neighbor. These costs (without even counting the direct policing/military costs of enforcement) outweigh any potential benefit by a factor of a thousand or more.

Conclusion: Making and keeping MJ illegal is astonishingly stupid, intrusive, tyrannical, arrogant, and costly.

I love kush

I live in Colorado. There are no cons, trust me. Don't listen to the BS about car accidents. It's propaganda promoted by RWNJ idiot prudes.

The reason it can be a gateway drug is the person selling you the weed likely has other items far sale. You could likely get a new customer discount on his other items.

Again, this is the same ideology of the right-wing gun nuts. I did not address this argument originally because it is very weak. Yes, you have the freedom to put anything in your body, and so long as you do so in the privacy of your home and do not subsequently venture out into public where you may become a menace, there is no consequence. But the second you put yourself in a public place, there are and should be consequences.

And again, treat mj like oxycontin and the vast majority of this argument goes away.

I don't think it is the government's role to protect people from themselves. So, although I think smoking weed is downright stupid and leads to nothing productive, if you choose to do it, go for it.

But, I think the government has a role to play in two areas. The first is to regulate the quality of what it is that is available and to help inform people to make intelligent choices. That is no different than any food or drug product on the market now.

The second is to protect others. While it is okay with me if you choose to smoke, the second you do something to put others at risk, I draw the line. So, smoke all you want, but if you choose to get in a car and drive while you are impaired, we should throw the book at you.

Likewise, I favor dropping the drinking age to 18 but at the same time increasing DUI penalties to make them very severe. I lived in the UK for awhile where this is the case, and I can tell you that young people didn't even think about driving if they had been drinking... at least the ones I was around.

We should regulate the behavior that results from use of these things, but not the use of them per se.

Pro-MJ sf resident wrote:

The biggest con I can think of is that it seems incredibly difficult to define/enforce standards of operating under the influence for marijuana, unless the standard continues to be that you can't operate a motor vehicle after consuming any quantity

This should be the standard for all drugs, including alcohol. It is a fantasy to think that a driver can, "handle his alcohol".

jewbacca wrote:

There is no GOOD reason for recreational use. The pendulum sometimes swings too far ---> the swing from schedule 1 to legal is exactly that.

You are a fool. You have a slave mentality. There is no GOOD reason for alcohol being legal or recreational use. You are thinking about liberty backwards.

You think everything should be illegal until the government deems that it is "good". I think everything should be legal until it is proven to be a dramatic societal bad.