Another huge issue is how terrorism is heavily funded by drug money.

It's sort of a vicious cycle, the war on drugs helps terrorist sell drugs, which helps them create terror, which then fuels the war on the terror.

Actually, the war on drugs has been used by many groups, including the US government, to suit their own interest

There are multiple instances of CIA supported drug trafficking to fund war efforts.

The private prison industry is growing at a rapid rate, faster then ever before, thanks to millions of innocent drug users being thrown in prison.

End the drug war, legalize or at least decriminalize all substances.

Other countries that have decriminalized drugs, such as Amsterdam, actually have experienced a decrease in drug use rates. One can't say for certain if that would necessarily be the case with the states. I doubt that usage rates would get out of control, they might see an increase at first, but after being legal for awhile, drugs will just become another part of our culture. Doing drugs would be like having the occasional beer.

Amsterdam is not a country, it's a city in Netherlands .. And the last time I read about the effects of legalization in that country, it didn't seem like a success story at all so unless you have some sources to back up that statement, I'm not buying it. ;)

I think it would turn into more of a success story if more countries legalized it. As things are now I think the Netherlands has become a magnet for people who just want to go somewhere to do drugs, which probably causes a lot of problems. If legalization happened throughout the west I'd imagine it would negate these problems.

^From what I can remember, drug tourism was definetly a problem and also drug-related crime.

Who cares if more people start using marijuana? It is less harmful than alcohol, and far less addictive. It also sucks.

only the brown stuff.

In my opinion it all sucks. I tried various types and still didn't like the feeling.

most people i know only go to the netherlands to do drugs. nothing else. purely cannabis related.

This argument "less harmful than alcohol" comes up so often, yet it's so incredibly narrowminded and naive that it's practically irrelevant. First of all, how actually does the legalization of alcohol mean you should legalize marijuana? When something which is bad to you is legal, it automatically makes sense to legalize everything else which is at about the same level of bad or less? You somehow think the negative effects of alcohol and marijuana on society can't add up?

Second of all, it doesn't even begin to scratch the effect legalization will have on society - which will be extensive. All the argument really does is make it seem like you don't know/haven't really thought about the effects legalization will have.

I don't mean to offend you personally (maybe you didn't think long and hard before posting), but that argument is moronic and you can't expect politicians to justify legalization with something that stupid.

^well,, a lot of people smoke marijuana now that it is illegal and they have no problems whatsoever. It would be practically better if they could just go to a shop and buy marijuana than to sneak in some dark corner waiting for the dealer. At least that is how it's done here. And if a harmful substance (alcohol) is legal, why should a less harmful substance (marijuana) be illegal?

http://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/47...ic-attack.html

Does it really have to be written down?

Because whether or not it will have a negative effect on society does not fully depend on the effects of another drug. Marijuana can still have negative effects on society, regardless of whether or not alcohol is legal. Obviously when deciding yes or no to legalization, you should look at the effects the legalization will have, not how it compares to other drugs with other effects and whether or not they are allowed.

edit :

Also remember that negative effects of marijuana on society doesn't only mean what effect pot has on physical health of it's users. What about international relations? For Netherlands, drug tourism is a problem. What about supporting illegal narcotics industries? What about a potential increase in traffic accidents? What about children who neglect schoolwork because they'd rather smoke? There are tons of potential negative effects, some smaller and some larger. I think a lot of people should expand their thinking a bit on this subject.

I finished medical school and I have learned a lot about this. It is probably not just marijuana related. The other factors probably played a major role.


that is just like saying that something isn't true just because it is secret

I find it funny how people that live outside the US can have such insightful opinions as to what's best for the US.

In the states, marijuana decriminalization is building momentum. Alaska has already legalized it, states like Colorado, California and Oregon already have widespread distribution of medical marijuana, and the way I see it, marijuana has a good chance of being completely decriminalized in the United States within my lifetime. Maybe not in places like the Southeast and Midwest, but that's to be expected with the traditions that still cling to societal norms in those regions.

That being said, I'm not a pot smoker. I used to smoke at every opportunity, but not anymore. But my experience with it has shown me that it's one of the most harmless drugs in the world. Much less than alcohol and tobacco. So if it works for you, have at it.

In my opinion, I think ecstasy, LSD and cocaine should be legalized and taxed as well. If something like alcohol is readily available to the masses 21+, I don't see why any of these others shouldn't be. And the funny thing is, they were all legal in this country within the past century.

Well, a lot of the pros and cons would go for any nation really. Besides, I don't think it should surprise americans people outside their nation might take an interest in american politics. USA is a huge, influential nation and has a strong influence on the rest of the world. It's not like you're completely isolated over there. Finally, you have to remember that this is a thread on a international public forum called "Should US legalize marijuana"?

I'm not fanatically against legalization. It's a stance I've come to take after weighing some of the what I think are pros and cons against eachother. I think the reason I got interested in the discussion in the first place is there are so many people who have opinions about this who don't really think much further than their own usage. They think marijuana is nice so it should be legal. They think "what's best for me?" and go from there instead of thinking for everyone. Not everyone who's pro-legalization think like that of course, but it seems a fair amount do.

That's fine to base an opinion on, but perhaps a bit short-sighted perspective to base something that's gonna change a whole nation with hundreds of millions of people on. At least, that's what I think and it makes me take an interest.

^ I can respect that. I understand that the world at large is very critical of the decisions that are made by our government, which has become very fast and loose. But the issues that are effecting most Americans these days are
A) having our troops over in the Middle East, blowing the shit out of people and getting the shit blown out of them,
B) a financial crisis that doesn't seem to have an end and has probably been piloted by world banking interests, and
C) a runaway Supreme Court which is trying to legalize unlimited corporate funding in our presidential elections.

But in my opinion, everybody in the world gets lied to everyday. We get lied to about the reality of things like drugs, sex, politics, war, life, death and religion. And it goes without saying that our government will only legalize and distribute drugs that will keep people happy and producing from inside of a cubicle. They don't want people to have drugs available to them that might expand their mind beyond the idea of the Puritan work ethic.

Either way, legal or not, people will continue to procure these substances, and our government, behind the guise of the ultimate benefactors, allow these drugs to hit every street in every city in my country. It's a win/win situation for them: control the flow of drugs onto the streets, and arrest people when they catch them with it. A sick joke, yes, but also a grim reality.

First of all, Panic attacks (and whatever other anxiety based psychological disorder) are not CAUSED by smoking pot. Does it exacerbate the effects of people who suffer from anxiety? Yes, of course it does. A lot of other things do as well, even caffeine. But the point is, is that it's the duty of the person afflicted with an illness to not partake of a substance that will make their condition worse. It is not the duty of the government to outlaw every substance that is able to be abused by a group of people.
Everyone knows that eating junk food will probably cause you big problems later on, but you have the choice to eat what you want regardless, and many people do. Do you want that choice to be stripped away from you? Of course not. We live in a society that allows food that statistically causes more conditions and deaths than most other things you can even think about besides cigarettes (which we all know is legal) and still, we choose to eat that crap. Why? because we should be allowed to decide what substances we enjoy and what we can put in our own bodies. Anti-pot activists somehow don't have a problem with junk food, cigarettes, alcohol, and all the other crap that really falls in the same category... they just have a problem with pot. Why? I have no idea.

Ultimately, when you strip away the years and years of propaganda bullcrap that has been pinned on pot for political and racist reasons over these many many years, you simply have a substance that people enjoy, and BY COMPARISON, does not create as many problems as A LOT of other things do.

You keep harping on the fact that pot should be treated independently of comparison of other things and their effects on society... but it's absolutely DEPENDENT on comparison, because otherwise all you're doing is ignoring the fact that nothing we do is completely perfect and good for us... and that we can't simply ban every freakin' thing that isn't perfectly good for us...
If we did that, we would have nothing. No freedoms, no commodities, nothing... all because the big dark entity wants us to be so goddamned healthy and perfect that we no longer have the capacity to decide anything for ourselves at all.
And when you THINK you can try and decide for yourself, you'll most likely end up becoming a criminal for the rest of your life.
(And we all know how great THAT is for the economy...)

Think about it.


P.S. "Children that neglect schoolwork because they smoked pot"??? Are you serious? You have to be kidding me....
Please don't tell me you took that "Because I got High" song seriously.
Instead of banning pot, how about we ban TV. Education will improve, I guarantee you.

That's very nice, FB. I don't think it's a good idea for the US to legalize marijuana and you immediately connect that with extremist super-commy thinking about the government having to remove all freedoms of american citizens and the man not having a duty to prohibit everything which is not good. Do you know how incredibly exaggerating and paranoid your post comes across to me?

Not legalizing does not equal the US government stripping away all commodities and freedoms from US citizens. How are you even supposed to be able to feasibly discuss politics if you jump the gun like that every time someone makes an argument for prohibition? You'd think I was supporting concentration camps. If I was to use your way of arguing, I could say that legalizing pot will eventually lead to legalization of all other freedoms like rape and murder. Oh wait, that wouldn't really make sense, would it?

Maybe you should learn how to read between the lines. The example was merely meant to illustrate that negative effects of marijuana on society doesn't just come in the shape of things that reduce physical and/or mental health. It can be many small and even trivial things.

gaiz if weed isn't illegal it won't be like so totally hArDcooore to smoke!!!

I have to admit I've been skimming this thread at best, but based on this post it sounds like you're missing half the equation here, Tore. What about the all the negative consequences of illegality on society? For one thing, as the US experienced during the 1920s, prohibition can lead directly to an increase in organized crime. It also, in the case of marijuana, has lead to a whole bunch of people people being thrown in jail, something which causes huge unpleasant ripples throughout society: children growing up without parents, minor offenders being turned into hardcore criminals by their prison experience, the resources of the police and courts being squandered when they could be focusing their attention on violent crime, prison overcrowding, etc.

At this point, I need a bit of subversiveness to enhance my weed buzz.

I would say yes. If people wanna smoke pot then let them do it. As long as they don't try anything stupid and somehow end up putting others in danger (which no one would obviously want). In the grandiose world of drugs it's not nearly as dangerous as some others and as mentioned earlier would help cut down on organized crime and the cops could focus on more important things. If all the things about it are true on the various health websites, then that's just a risk the user would be willing to take. It's just one of those things. If someone's obese and dies of diabetes due to complications with overeating and an obsession with fast food, it's their fault. Leave it up to the user and let them make their own decision

That's a very good point and the only argument so far which makes me doubt illegality. So far, I've assumed that legalizing pot will lead to new kinds of crime. Taxation of marijuana would lead to a government versus black market situation against homegrowers and black marketeers selling tax-free. I also assume it would result in an expansion of the black market. Harder drugs and crimes relating to them could piggyback and use many of the same channels and that could happen regardless of whether or not taxation takes place. I've assumed that the amount of drug users would increase and that would greatly add to these problems. Add that I think legalization will support the drug cartels and a belief that marijuana is potentially bad for you and the weight shifted against legalization. A lot of these are assumptions and I don't know for sure if they are correct.

Last time I read about who gets jailtime because of marijuana, it was by far mostly people with more serious stuff on their criminal records and that most first-time offenders were sent home with a fine. If that's true, it takes a lot of relevance out of your argument. If most who get arrested are criminals, marijuana arrests may part reflect crime at a greater scale. However, reading pro-legalization sites, they try to convince you the opposite is taking place, that first time offenders and otherwise innocent people go to jail.

Because of conflicting information, it's hard from here to tell who really goes to jail for marijuana possession today - if it's people who's only crime is posession of marijuana or if those who go to jail are people with more on their records, such as traficking of harder drugs. I agree that sending otherwise innocent people in jail is extremely detrimental to society for the reasons you mention and if that really takes place, then that could change my no position into a maybe or perhaps even yes.

Let me add at the end, though, that if there's a problem with how the law is enforced, it might be possible to alter the law or alter the way it is enforced without removing it.

True^

Besides, the only reason it's illegal and alcohol and tobacco aren't is because the government haven't found a way to justify making money from it yet.

Sorry for coming off that way. I think I'm probably too passionate about this.

Anyway, I just wanted to highlight the principle behind the matter. I'm not sure how much you know about pot historically, but I can tell you for certain that it was banned not by careful study and thought for the benefit of society... at least not in a way we might consider noble... but by outright deceit, racism, and political maneuvering.
Anti-pot laws began passing as early as 1915 and snowballed along with alcohol prohibition and has been a part of our legacy for years.

I'm not saying that current study of pot's effects are null and void just because prohibition had no foresight to these effects. Certainly there are negative factors we should consider when talking about legalizing pot. But the most damaging effect pot has had on society is the black market, cartels and crimes that were created BECAUSE of prohibition.
Look at alcohol prohibition and the ensuing birth of the mafia and the horrible crimes that resulted. You can't ignore the parallels.
Drug cartels survive because they monopolize the market of illegal drugs. If you lift the prohibition on pot, tax and regulate it, you pull the rug out from under the pot cartel's feet.
Looking over California's attempt to pass their state's decriminalization of pot, you see that it would be legal to buy, sell, grow, and possess pot. This means that there would literally be no black market involved. It would be akin to owning, manufacturing, and selling your own brand of beer. Aside from minors using against regulation, you cut the crime resulting from possession and distribution, the costs of enforcing it, and gain economic advantages by selling and taxing it at a state level.

What you're left with are concerns relating to psychological and societal side effects, which are still largely debatable at best.
Out of the years and years of study of the long term physical and psychological effects of using pot, there STILL aren't any definitive results that justify continued prohibition. Results that are published are usually questionable and/or so insignificant and non-relevant that one has to wonder about the motivations behind this clawing, grabbing attempt to keep pot out of the hands of functioning, responsible adults.

In a world where outlawing proven dangers to yourself and others is second behind creating black market violence, criminal records and spending billions to do so over a substance who's theoretical effects are largely subjective should pull your head forward and scream into your face that this IS a matter of principle and priority, and that any supposed negative effect that still can't be quantified pales in comparison to the damage that prohibition has done and will continue to do if we don't re-think this thing.

wasn't pot partly illegalized because big corporations complained?

That doesn't really seem like good justification:/

Here's a link for a basic overview:
http://www.mpp.org/states/connecticu...-based-on.html

If you want to look up the related laws, I encourage you to do so. It will take a while to put everything together, but fortunately it's already been done for you by millions of people who watched it transpire through the years.

This pretty much says it all. Theres not a legit argument against this point that could possibly be more logical and practical.

You seem to think of alcohol as a paralell to pot, but it's not. Of course bootleggers and mafias had a hard time on the legal market because they did not make Cognac, Gammel Dansk, Aquavit, Scotch, bitters and the multitude of other distilled liquors and alcoholic beverages out there. All they could offer on the legal market was a tiny, tiny piece of the variety of booze available, probably not even at a very high quality. They were not really very able when they had to compete.

Now, perhaps pot isn't pot, but it's certainly a lot closer to a truth than alcohol being alcohol. Changing the black market into a market doesn't mean cartel products won't be viable and even competitive. Saying it's a paralell is misleading. From what I've read from american history and pot, the amount of users rose drastically when drug laws were softened in the 70s when several states decriminalized and Alaska legalized and if that would happen again, it would mean a vast expansion of the market - a scenario that has also taken place in other countries. That could easily help make up for loss of customers to other producers.

In a world of legal pot where growers are abundant, people are gonna sell (taxation or not) and the government will have no way of regulating that market. Cartels and other exploiters/criminals could thrive in such an environment and use it to push harder drugs which would still be illegal. I'm sure they'd love the opportunity.

In Netherlands after legalization, organized (and unorganized) crime increased drastically. The amount of users also increased, both for marijuana and harder drugs. Netherlands has also since become a large exporter of drugs to other countries, such as XTC pills. In Portugal, decriminalization led to an increase in users and drug-related deaths (homicides/suicides/overdoses). You should assume the same thing can happen in the US.

This bit is quite manipulative because you write that negative effects of pot are at best debatable. Yes, in a way they are, but probably not in the way you think. What scientific studies show is that marijuana use does correlate positively with problems like anxiety, depression and schizophrenia. What's debatable is why that is. People who are pro-legalization desperately want to believe that the marijuana is not a causal factor in all this, that it's just a trend that sick people like to smoke or at worst exacerbate their problems or cause "latent" illnesses to emerge. Exacerbation of such problems would be a very negative effect and so should anyways be taken into account when considering legalization.

If you want a scientific source, you could take a look at this recent paper :

Link : Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review : The Lancet

Those who are undecided or pro-legalization should be aware that there is a massive amount of propaganda coming from your side of the debate which glorifies the effects legalization and decriminalization has had on other countries, that exaggerate positive scenarios as the only possible outcomes of legalization and say that marijuana does not have negative effects on mental health and more.

Of course there's some propaganda coming from the other side as well, but they tend to be way less fanatical about it (pro-legalization could be called a movement, but I don't think you can say the same about those who oppose) and either way, science and history has often produced results such as presented in the paper quoted above or in political reports.

Uh...overdoses on what?

Because suggesting that decriminalization of marijuana led to overdoses on other drugs is a horrible post-hoc argument.

Possibly, although it was supposed to be all of them (including drug-crime related murders) together, the source being the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. As far as I know, the number of overdoses alone have not gone up. Neither am I against decriminalization. The argument was meant to counter the assumption that legalizing marijuana means less market/less organized crime.

edit :

If anyone's interested, there's an official report from 2007 about the effects of decriminalization of drugs in Portugal.

THE EFFECTS OF DECRIMINALIZATION OF DRUG USE IN PORTUGAL

The DEA isn't a reliable source for information regarding legalization / decriminalization statistics. Their objective is to retain the funding they receive from the federal government, so there's an absurd conflict of interest when they investigate decriminalization issues. How would it reflect upon their budget (read: JOBS) if marijuana was legalized / decriminalized?

However, the Beckley Foundation actually seems like a reliable, impartial and comprehensive source for information. And if you read through it, there's actually a lot of positive effects from Portugal's revision to drug policy.

The US Department of Justice puts out misleading information? Not saying I don't believe you, but that actually sucks quite a bit. :(

Either way, about the report - you interpret it positively, but it's actually quite indecisive on whether it was a good move or not. It concludes that there are indeed positive effects, but not as much as expected. It mentions a growing concern about the message decriminalization may be sending to new users and towards the end mentions that it's popularity may be waning and that it could go either way in the future. I still think some sort of decriminalization rather than legalization might be a better answer to some of the problems in America.

@ Tore:

How is that not a parallel if you apply the same situation to pot prohibition? And why would you think it would be any different? Once alcohol prohibition ended in the US in 1933, the mafia lost its alcohol income plain and simple. Furthermore, you don't seem to know a lot about marijuana to begin with if you think imported pot is anywhere NEAR the quality and potency and desirability of a crop from a well made hydroponic lab, of which there are many in the US. So why do pot cartels make so much money off us? Because their product is extremely cheap, even at the expense of quality, and that often leads the market.
If pot were legalized in the US and you could start your own business selling pot you yourself grow, then cartels across the border would have to do A LOT to change the quality of their product, while keeping their prices more attractive than domestic prices. I can tell you right now that it would be economically infeasible for them and wouldn't happen. The competition would be overwhelmingly uneven. You'd know this if you had any background in the consumer side of marijuana. There would simply be a superior domestic product without the shipping and smuggling costs, and availability would drive domestic costs even lower. Economics 101. And in the regulation side of things, if the US mandated that pot was not to enter the US from foreign countries, then you have even more reason to buy domestic product, and cartels would have even less reason to smuggle.
I honestly don't understand how you're not seeing a correlation between the two concepts.

Of course the amount of users will rise. It's freaking not illegal to use something, then people aren't going to have legal reservations about using it. You don't have to explain that to me.

Yes, an organized criminal group who's main income is derived from drug sales would take a hit from the loss of pot sales... And would try to make up for it by focusing efforts in the sale of other drugs. But you have to realize something... If you're a company and one of your products are lost and no longer in your inventory/demand, to maintain a margin of profit you will have to raise prices of your remaining inventory to compensate for the lost income. What this does is make it harder for the buyers of your other inventory to afford those products. You can either lower your profit margin or take the loss. In the case of drug cartels, the lost inventory is a pretty huge loss, and the lost customers due to higher prices can equal a high loss. So at least you know that you're putting a huge dent in their wallets, or shutting them down from that specific market, or both. Economics applies to drug cartels just like it applies to any other business. The same concepts are in play.

You do know Pot wasn't the only thing decriminalized right? I've actually been to Amsterdam and enjoyed it for several days before the more recent crackdown on shrooms and the many coffee houses, leading to a massive consolidation. The headshops there contained all the crap that's illegal in the states... 2cB and all its cousins, Salvia, Shrooms, and even peyote cacti. To pin crime increase on Marijuana in Netherlands specifically is something you're going to have to prove with specific statistics.
And if you can actually sit there and say the amount of marijuana users increased drastically in the Netherlands and NOT attribute it to the tourists who go there all the time for multiple purposes, then you're leaving out pertinent details. As for where the increase of crime is coming from, I would naturally ask for your statistics, but then I'd already naturally assume they came from the increase of tourism and the number of people going there, that contributed to the increase of instances, whether drug related or not.
I'm pretty sure if pot and shrooms were legal all over the world, Amsterdam would be a pretty quiet place. So using that as a comparative is wildly speculative.
As far as your Portugal comparison.. I'm going to have to ask you what drug you're talking about, because I can bet my life there hasn't been a weed overdose in the history of weed. Also, Ecstasy is illegal in Netherlands as well. That has nothing to do with decriminalization policy of pot in the US.

First of all, The Lancet? The same folks who headed the horribly flawed Autism - Vaccine study in 98' and had to retract? Ok I'll let that slide and just concentrate on Marijuana, a highly controversial subject with plenty of political ramifications... Absolutely no influence there...

According to your source, fewer attempts were made to make a connection between smoking pot and Depression, Suicidal thoughts, and Anxiety... so they didn't include that in their interpretation... Aka, they couldn't find any links substantial enough. But what's convenient is that they were able to find a link between pot use and, get this, Psychosis. Do you know how broad of a term that is in terms of mental illness? Also, why is this report so vague? Please include statistics. We need to know the amount of people studied, and their respective usage, and resulting illnesses. (And not an umbrella "psychosis" term).

There doesn't need to be any current propaganda against pot now days. Pot has been demonized since the early 1900's. It has been branded with evil long long before the effects of pot were even comprehended by the U.S. It is ingrained in the average American's mindset as a loser drug, a drug that will make you stupid, psychotic, a killer, a rapist, a washout no good nobody. This has been happening for years and years, my friend. We don't need any more "this is your brain on drugs" commercials... it's practically a part of our manipulated subconscious.
Government has literally made smoking pot a morally negative thing. We've actually allowed government to influence our very own morals. That's gonna stick for a long, long time before it's rectified.
Any propaganda the pro-pot side can put out wouldn't nearly equalize any belief system between the two sides for a long time.
I don't think you'll have to worry too much about that.

Freebase Dali, the cartels are viable market competitors because despite what you think about transportation costs and so on, they can easily make up for that by producing a lot for next to nothing. They can have acres upon acres of cannabis with people working for them for superlow wages and the same goes for other drugs like cocaine. These people are already incredibly rich and have a lot of power in their respective countries .. I think you're underestimating them. You also assume that their products will be crappy, but that seems a little naive to me. You don't think they can adapt to suit the market? What if they grow better stuff? What if they establish production in the states?

About your criticism against the source, the Lancet is the name of the journal. They don't hire people to do science. It's just one of the journals scientists can go to with their papers to get them on print.

As for the content, you critizise their use of the word "psychotic" when you think that's too broad. Actually, it has a specific meaning and furthermore, their conclusion is quite clear "we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life". That's not hard to understand. It's also a conclusion made by people with expertise who have spent a lot of time studying this. Although you don't have to believe them, you should be open to the fact that studying that is/was part of their job and they likely know more about marijuana than you do. Furthermore, maybe you missed it, but it's a review. They've studied other results and so it should be seen as a sort of consensus or summary of what several studies have come up with so far.

Don't be one of those who support science only up until the point where it says something they disagree with.

Here are some more studies :

>> ScienceDirect - Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry : Adverse effects of cannabis on health: an update of the literature since 1996


>> Cannabis Use and Cognition in Schizophrenia


>> Cannabis and cognitive dysfunction: Parallels with endophenotypes of schizophrenia?


>> Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people -- Henquet et al. 330 (7481): 11 -- BMJ


>> http://www.ukcia.org/research/RiskOf...izophrenia.pdf


I'm posting all this to prove a point. For every paper you criticize, discard or discredit, there are lots more backing up the same results. Believe me when I say I'm really just scratching the tip of the ice-berg here. I think you should acknowledge the possibility that these people might actually be on to something.

I would, if you'd acknowledge the possibility that we might be on to the fact that pot prohibition is doing more harm than good.

Honestly, I can't understand how an intelligent human being can't see that much... It's sad. I really do feel sorry for you. A lot.

Is this cause by a direct effect of cannabis itself damaging the brain or a cascading effect of the drug on the brain, that could also be cause by other things? I heard in some cases of schizophrenia, the first time it occured was after that person's first sexual encounter. So are some people just predisposes to have those mental issue because of their genes and it is just the cannabis or sexual experience that triggers it in that part of the brain. (this is not a rebuttal to what you wrote, I'm just curious in a objective way to what really causes those problem.) Like with depression imo cannabis doesn't create but exacerbates the condition of depression.

My personal veiw is the brain is not only a organ of cells but also an electrical/chemical/hormonal computer (a want for a better word) and I wouldn't want to introduce any kind of drug in my body (e.g. cannabis) to upset the natural balance. I don't care if it sounds corny or whatever, I know enough instances where drugs disrupt people lives.

Who's brain are we talking about here?

I do and I did only a page back in response to Janzsoon's post.

I just don't agree with the idea that it removes organized crime and that marijuana has little to no harmful effects on society. I also think once you legalize, it might be near impossible to go back should it prove to be negative because removing freedoms/rights by law in a modern democracy is not easy. I recognize that there are problems with a wasteful battle against drugs in the US which claims the lives or at least criminal records of some innocent victims, but one should look into alternatives such as decriminalization before you legalize. I believe legalization, while it may solve many of the current problems, comes with a bunch of new ones.

I'm not as much against it as you probably think.

Well, as far as I know and I'm not an expert .. it runs in families and there's definetly a strong genetic component. It is caused by problems with your brain chemistry and I don't think you could ever get schizophrenic from cannabis without being predisposed. Although schizophrenia is a bit of an umbrella term, I don't think people in general can just get it without having a predisposition for it. I've talked with one guy who's schizophrenic and had tourettes syndrom and severe OCD. He'd make sounds uncontrollably, do little rituals just to get up the stairs (like walk halfway up, then down again, then up etc) and his parents were both mentally ill. I noticed he was calmer than he'd been the last time I'd seen him and so I asked him if he'd gotten any new medications and he said yeah, but that it was worst after puberty and that he also got better as he was getting older. The way he talked about it made it seem very clear that it was a problem with unfortunate biochemistry and not so much psychology.

I think marijuana can exacerbate or trigger "latent" schizophrenia because a lot of users struggle with anxieties and my guess is that it's the anxiety that does it, not marijuana itself. People who are not predisposed might suffer from anxiety, but would not develop schizophrenia. At least that's my personal hypothesis. Possibly, I'm wrong about a lot of it and if you're really curious, read some of the articles posted above.

I think it should be legalized.

The government could regulate it and make money off of it. They could put restrictions on it regarding public use and usage near schools or in the work place and stuff like that if they wanted.

Anything in excess is bad for you. Weed is no different. It's a non-addictive 'feel-good' drug. It just enhances everything. A lot of folks come home from work and kick back a few beers around the house or a glass of scotch. Is coming home and lighting a joint any different? Not really.

Allow people to grow on their own property. It's just a plant! Smoke within the confines of their own home and I don't see a problem.

The reason it's going to be awhile til it's legalized is because no politician is going to put their neck out there and risk their career by legalizing it. Too many old people would be outraged, not understanding what weed really is. As for health complications, I don't really see how that even plays into it. The government makes a KILLING off of cigarettes (literally and financially) and alcohol is also bad for you. The government doesn't really care about your health. They want you on THEIR drugs. Just look at the pharmaceutical market and how prescription pills have boomed over the decades.