Anyone supporting the War on Drugs as it currently exists is a racist who enjoys the fact that black people are being maintained as a perpetual underclass in modern American society and a steady supply of prison labor, full stop.

<baitset>

I am fully for legalizing it. As can be seen in this thread there are more than enough arguments for and against it and even though i totally disregard the ones against it, for some people they might seem valid or even strong enough to counter the ones pro legalization. I see little need to repeat any of them, except maybe one, medical reasons. I know of course that this is common practice in quite some countries, but in a lot of them it is not, or tied to other legal consequences as it would be in my case.
I smoked weed regularly for recreational purposes for about 15 years not caring much about the possible legal consequences. Weed was and is widly aviable in most places, cheaper than alcohol and had, at least on me, less negative impact. I got along quite well with life in terms of going through university and working but stopped smoking weed about two years back because my wife preferred it and i saw no reason not to humor her. Some month back i was diagnosed with MS and had two attacks since, each lasting about three weeks from start to full remission of the symptoms. Stopped drinking alcohol, stopped smoking tobacco, but i am back to smoking weed via a vaporizer and it really helps (at least during the attacks, the rest of the time it is just for fun ;) ). But i am, aswell, forced back to illegal dealings to get my weed which i really would like to avoid. I could get THC oil via prescription, but that would mean turning in my drivers license for good with pretty much no chance to get it back, ever. Since that sucks in oh so many ways i just hope to not get busted. :P

It'd be nice if the legalizers could make an argument without resorting to terrible analogies and/or claiming that other things are bad too so why not have legal pot.

If you think that argument is a winner, it is not.

"@Spyman

"'Having a law that millions routinely break with no consequence, however, is fertile soil for growing disrespect and contempt of the law. This is a bad thing."

This sounds to me more like an argument in favour of legalising it."

Of course it's an argument in favour of legalising it. How is that not obvious?

Putin have you ever tried pot?

Sorry Octavious. I see that now. You were presenting points for and against.

" It'd be nice if the legalizers could make an argument without resorting to terrible analogies and/or claiming that other things are bad too so why not have legal pot."

You know what else would be nice, Putin? If you could enter a debate without dismissing anyone that disagrees with you as idiots even before you start talking.

Anyway, it should be legalized so the state can can tax it and get its share of the revenue's.

There you go, Putin. No analogies and no other bad things. Happy now?

@ spyman

No worries. In truth I'm marginally in favour of legalising it, but I don't feel particularly strongly about it, and my view comes as much from ideology as anything else. Putin is correct in the sense that very few of the arguments hold much water.

I will never understand why capitalist economies would not want to impose the discipline of the market on such a great revenue raising product.
If they were really worried about the health of the youth they would stop funding the arms industry and they would put a special tax on shit food ...... pathetic hypocrisy and double standards.

Take Nigs' argument, for example. A sieve holds more water than that.

To be honest though, Octavious, it should be legal by default because people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't harm anyone else doing so. If the state is gonna limit that freedom they damn better well have some really good reasons for that. In the case of smoking pot, I haven't seen any such reason.

''a special tax on shit food''

great idea, the only problem being how to define shit food...

@oscar

That is pretty much my position, although I find the reasons against strong enough to give me some pause. It clearly has nothing to do with the tax on fast food or the US arms industry, however.

@Octavious, i'm not sure i'll support an arguement about the arms industry - at least in countries which have reasonable gun control laws... but the claim that all consumer items should live up to some standard of 'do no harm' and treated equally is one which would stand up in many courts on the basis of 'natural justice' - that is claiming a law was immoral on the basis of the natural fair thing being ignored.

Of course this is usually used in cases where the law itself is unclear, or not written with the specific events of the case in mind, you can use a concept of natural justice to argue in court that your position is correct. There are only a few justice systems where natural justice actually takes priority over the law (i think Scotland, and one US state... looking at this map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png )

Take the basis of common law legal systems: ''A common law system is a legal system that gives great potential precedential weight to common law, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.'' - source wikipedia.

And this:

''Historically, Scots common law differed in that the use of precedents was subject to the courts' seeking to discover the principle that justifies a law rather than searching for an example as a precedent, and principles of natural justice and fairness have always played a role in Scots Law.''

So most places will just use precedent, but Scottish law allowed previous precedent to be overturned on the basis of fairness. You could then bring up the comparative damage of Fast Food in a Scottish court.

@Octavious

Enlighten me. What are those reasons against pot that are so strong as to give you some pause?

"It'd be nice if the legalizers could make an argument without resorting to terrible analogies and/or claiming that other things are bad too so why not have legal pot.

If you think that argument is a winner, it is not. "


Complete and utter HOGWASH! Our legal systems is replete with the use of precedent for creating law. Therefore, if there is a legal precedent for the legalization of a substance (alcohol) which is arguably equivalent or MORE harmful than pot, then the argument for legalizing pot shut be cut and dry.

Again, Putin is an intellectually inconsistent buffoon.

@Krellin, I disagree, there is clear precedent under the law for pot being illegal. That is how courts have ruled in the past and they are bound by those precedents - with the possible except of Scotland, where the courts can (or historically were able to) ignore precedent based on natural fairness as you claim.

I don't think any common law system would support that position.

Fun fact. For the last 20 years the US have had a president that smoked pot at least at some point in there life.

I mean IF, and only IF, there was no precedent for pot already being illegal, then yes, it would be a new circumstance where the court could set a precedent.

That would be like an unknown chemical (being used as a recreational drug) and the court having to decide if it should be treated as a narcotic or more like alcohol.

Fun fact, nowhere in the world is 'But the president did it' a form of legal arguement.

Orathaic, your argument basically comes down to: it should be illegal because it is illegal. Epic fail dude.

@oscar

The impact on health and wellbeing, obviously. It is clear that a great many people smoke pot and are convinced it does them no harm. It is equally clear that a significant number of people have smoked pot and firmly believe it, to use the colloquial expression, fucked them up. It is quite possible that they are mistaken, but rather more likely that there is at least some truth in it. If they are right then we can be confident that the law puts off some people from smoking who otherwise would have had their lives adversely impacted.

That gives me pause.

I didn't make that arguement. That is the common law position, the Civil law position is very similar. Only is a system where 'natural justice' trumps common law can you argue otherwise.

I'm not talking about what *should be* merely what is. I'm making an arguement about which courtrooms these arguements would be valid. Nothing about legislative changes which could be made based on popular demand/perception. Or even based on medical/economic advice.

@Octavious, are you saying you'd expect to see an increase in usage? That people don't use because of the law, rather than because of their own preconcieved ideas of damage?

Because that is largely demonstrated to be incorrect, based on countries which have legalised weed and not seen any dramatic rise in usage.

@Ocatavious

Yeah, smoking pot fucks some people up. No doubt about it. Do you believe that anything that can fuck you up should be illegal? Even if many people use it without being fucked up? Why doesn't the same reasoning apply to alcohol, tobacco and french fries?

Also, you know what can fuck you up even more than pot? I'll tell you: serving a couple of years in prison. So, if wellbeing is the issue here, how does that justify incarcerating people for smoking pot rather then say providing them with addiction treatment? Especially considering that the latter is much cheaper.

Sorry dude, if health/wellbeing is your only argument for criminalizing pot, then that's the weakest ass argument I have ever seen.

And no, criminalizing pot does not put some people off smoking it. This is pretty obvious from the fact that area's where smoking pot is legal (or at least not prosecuted) do not have a higher percentage of people smoking pot than area's where it is.

I was only somewhat kidding earlier. This is Americentric so if you're from Europe or wherever else, obviously this doesn't apply nearly to the same extent, if at all.

The argument for eliminating the War on Drugs, and legalizing pot, is that the WoD is the direct source of two major societal ills:
- mass incarceration of minorities, particularly blacks, by enforcement of drug laws in a manner that is unequivocally racist and has led to the destruction of minority communities
- militarization of the police force, which has encouraged the trampling of other essential freedoms under the jackboots of thuggish cops that are decreasingly recognizable as protectors of societal law and order and decreasingly distinguishable from common criminals

Good lord, just walk through the mall and look at all the Obese women in stretchy pants and I’ll tell you without question there are a lot of things fucking people up in this country: twinkies, soda pop, McDonald’s food, potato chips, ice cream, refined sugar in general, packaged food, etc…so I suppose all these things, which are clearly harmful to the human body and condition should be made illegal?

@orathaic

I expect the numbers who would be inclined to try it would increase significantly. Whether the number of regular users changes dramatically is far less certain. I would be highly cautious of extrapolating the experience of nations that have already legalized the drug to the rest of the world, however. You need only look at alcohol use to see that how different national populations handle the same drugs very differently.