Many states in the US have passed medical use and the restrictions are pretty lax. California has been doing it since 1996 and low and behold it hasn't fallen apart yet. 2 of our states have passed recreational use. I bet they won't fall apart either. I wonder how much money and lives it will save.
It isn't a question of whether society will fall apart, as much as it is whether it will be decremental to society. Something doesn't have to induce societal collapse for it to be criminalised.
And boy, do I not want the government to be deciding what is and what isn't detrimental to society. I'm a liberal, a democrat, I'm not in favor of small governments. But when the government gets blanket rights to illegalize anything they see as detrimental to society (detrimental to society being a very nebulous term anyway -- for instance, would it be detrimental to society if I and a thousand other people decided to live like traditional "bushmen tribes"?), that's when 1984 stuff starts happening.
Things that a government could illegalize if "detrimental to society" were the only requirement:
*It could ban books
*Liberalism or conservatism
*Languages other than English
See why this is a problem? See why it confuses/worries me that the government thinks it has the authority to tell me whether I can burn a plant and inhale the fumes, or consume a mushroom, or even synthesize a pseudo-organic acid and allow it to enter my bloodstream, but (so far at least) claims that doesn't represent a cause of concern in my ability to, say, eat ice cream, or consume alcohol, or watch Vlogbrothers for hours and hours and hours straight?
It isn't that black and white. Some parts of its use is negative, mildly so and some parts are positive. I think the positives outweigh the negative and lord knows prohibition doesn't work. The damage caused by the penalties should not be worse than the drug itself. Especially since it is so much worse.
I agree there is a case for penalty reform, but that isn't the same thing as decriminalisation.
The two states who just passed it are going to ignite an anti-drug shit-storm though. They definitely are speeding the process up but the federal government plans on suing the states and enforcing anti-cannabis laws anyways. I'm not sure how exactly this is going to happen, or even to what extent it will, but we won't really get to see what pure legalization in the states looks like for a while probably.
Of course if the majority of people favor changing the laws the federal government will cave in eventually, no matter how hard they fight it.
Yeah, sounds about right.
The damage to the frontal lobe that you are speaking of was only recorded in adolescents and young adults, or individuals whose brains had not finished developing yet. A person would have to be 21 to purchase legal marijuana in the states and as the brain is fully formed by the time a person is around 24.
1) Untrue. It has also been recorded in the brains of adults. While teenage brains are more susceptible to damage, the adult brain is not invincable
2) Do you really think that legalising cannabis is going to somehow stop younger people getting hold of it? No. It's going to increase it. We see the same problem with cigarettes. Legalising will make more young people use it, even if you put an age cap in place.
So what I'm trying to say is that yes marijuana does do the body harm, but that's the person's choice.
Unacceptable. The body's harm is long term and gives the possibility of harming other people as a result of psychological damage. Psychosis is unpredictable by nature.
I never said underage people wouldn't smoke weed, after all they smoke weed now. The point was that legally you would be at an age where you were trusted to make your own decisions. Whether it is legal or not, people will continue to smoke weed, but this discussion is about the pros and cons of the legalization is it not?
Exactly, and the con of legalisation is that you will increase usage by the kinds of people who need to use it least. Young people.
I really want to read where you're getting this information about psychological damage and marijuana. All I can find is its influence on memory. Could you post the links?
And crucially, this study undermined the so called "Self medication" argument.
They also found that in those who were already using cannabis at the start of the study, continued use increased the risk of persistent psychotic symptoms. There was no evidence for self-medication effects since psychotic symptoms did not predict later cannabis use, they said.
Just because something is addictive and causes harm is NOT a reason to make it illegal. One must balance freedom of choice and quality of life with the dangers. Many of our libations are both harmful and addictive. Cigarretts and liquor and video games come to mind for examples. Sometimes other things can too. I for one have gotten used to sleeping pills and often abuse tylenol pm. It is cheaper than just sleeping pills and the chronic use can and will mess up your liver. OH and I forgot the main one. I am a real bitch without my coffee.
So is the second hand smoke a reason, in your mind, enough reason to make it illegal?