Just like ending prohibition solved some problems and started others. But the net effect is to allow freedom of choice and try to deter the problems.

Pot gets people into other drugs. Not because it is some hook, but because it introduces people to the black market, where other drugs are available. If Pot was decriminalized, then it would significantly hurt the drug dealers. Not only the pot dealers, but keep people from straying into coke and Extasy, etc. It would generate large tax revenue, especially if itwas taxed highly to keep prices anywhere close to current levels.

Problems would be that there would be an increase in usage, but it can't be said how much. And that would be volentary demand, not being forced on people. There would also be maybe an increase in people stoned and working or driving. But in reality, I would rather be on the road with someone stoned, than drunk.

So looking at the cast/benefit ratio, it might work out to legalize and regulate endign up better. Eliminating the illegal activities, money for criminal activities and subsequent violence in the drug trade, and reducing the number of people moving on to harder drugs may outweigh the costs. There is also the whole victim less crime issue. And the medical effects are less than cigarettes or alcohol.

And the medical effects are less than cigarettes or alcohol.


smoking one joint is said to be the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes. Blunts are prolly a hundred times worse.
Alcohol in moderation is fine, and actually healthy for you. i dont know where you got your facts from.

Have you heard of addiction. Speaking of facts. Cigarettes and Alcohol addict you in then kill you. Look at the mortality rates of cigarette users and alchoholics. That is a price to pay.

You joint = pack fact is a distortion. I would think that is a lot for just one person to smoke a day and not something they do everyday. Sure, if you are stoned every minute of the day, then the health effects could be the same as cigarettes, but that is not the frequency, manner or volume a casual pot smoker takes. Nor are they physically addicted to the drug.

You casual drinker has no ill effects but a casual pot smoker would have minimal effects too. Based on some studies, you are right, the alcohol sounds like it is better for you. But then again that is eliminating all alcoholics from the medical cost, which is not honest. This is where the medical cost is great and outweighs even the rastafarian level of pot smoking.

The reason to ban pot compared to cigarettes and alcohol is not for the medical comparison. It is for the social one. Cigarettes only give a mild "high" and Alcohol can be used in moderation. But smoking pot is not something that you can only have "one of" and not be effected. It is a significant "high" every time it is used. That is why socially unacceptable. If pot was so mild that you could have a hit at lunch and return to work, like a cigarette or a beer, it would be legal. It is just too flagerent.

Look at the mortality rates of cigarette users and alchoholics

Well, whether you smoke or drink or not, youre gonna die.

so let's ban cigarettes and alcohol since they are so deadly. Ok, if we go that far, why not foods like red meat, butter, bacon, chocolate, etc. those kill too, and those can be addictive just like alcohol and smokes. Live baby, live!

sorry about that last post everyone. it seems that we get off on a tangent in these discussions. i answered the original question in my first response and others have said it too.

First of all, i have smoked on numerous occasions. I actually love too. however, it would cost 2 much. it would be taxed, and the gov. isn't going to sell a gram for 20 bucks. they would test the market, and drive the price as high as they could. I truly think weed is not a drug. but when a local addict could run around the corner and buy a bag for 10 bucks, then thats no longer available, he would likely turn to something else, or try to rob where its at. i live in new york, the newest craze is stealing and selling cigs. they say it worse then the height of crack in the late 80's and early nighties, and cigarettes are legal. Great idea, but with bad repercussions. if your worried smoke at home, and don't be dumb enought o get caught

We've been fighting the war on drugs since Nixon, and have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars that could have actually accomplished something. We have made some serious creeps very wealthy into the mix. Total failed policy.

For 10% of the money we spend on enforcement and interdiction, we could offer high level treatment to all that require it. If drugs were freely available, we woudl also eliminate a tremendous amount of theft.

Sure, there will always be druggies, but it's always cheaper to sweep out the gutters than it is to fight a war. I am tired of paying for failed policy.

oc

Financially, it would save the US government huge amounts of money, HUGE amounts. Roughly half of the inmates in US prisons are there due to drug related offences (can't remember the source, but I'll look it up sometime), the majority of them are from marijuana. Less money would have to be spent on drug operations, or reallocated to combat harder drugs.

I don't believe the increased social welfare costs argument, but I'll avoid the sidetrack. But mainly, suddenly the government has a great new thing to tax in absurdity (which they would do).

Big cash bonus, but I don't see it happening.

I quit smoking pot one day way back in college. Literally, one day. No big deal. I'm still trying to quit smoking cigarettes. So I don't believe in the addiction ploy.

People who will smoke pot when it's legalized are already smoking pot. Just because you legalize it doesn't mean it's socially acceptable. Try being a cigarette smoker in California if you don't see what I mean.

The resources spent trying to stop something that obviously CANNOT be stopped, vs. the money gained from legalization and taxation, cause this decision to be a no-brainer. Maybe thats why folks like GWB can't figure it out!

because I'm so stone... nevermind.

I can't think of anybody that I know who is even remotely familiar with pot (tried it, knows someone who has, etc.) that thinks it should be illegal.

Hell, in some cases it should be mandatory. >> >>