Hot Topic #4--Marijuana Legalization?

This is a topic I actually am pretty indifferent about. Which is rare, trust me. As you know, I usually have something to say. Heh.

I won't lie. I have never smoked pot. And I am not stating that in a politician kinda way, I truly have not. I have no idea why, I have just never been interested. It was not readily available in my social group in high school, and by college, I had lost any interest. I (and I openly admit this), have always been a goody goody, and was always worried about getting in trouble. Plus, I was afraid of looking stupid. I have not smoked cigarettes either, so I did not want to look *dumb* not knowing how to "take a puff".

Enough about me though, on to the topic.

There is much dicussion in this country today about marijuana being legalized, or even just medical marijuana being legalized nationwide.

I for sure support medical marijuana being legalized everywhere. If a doctor truly thinks someone who is very ill would feel better or benefit from this, great, Prescribe it, and let those who are very sick feel a little bit better. I don't find anything wrong with that whatsover.

I really don't think that marijuana is ANY worse than smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol.

Making marijuana legal totally? Well. I think the smoking of pot kinda makes people "temporarily" kinda stupid. And, it kills brain cells. So, why we would want people to be able to legally do that seems lame to me. On the other hand, I hate government interference, and, if people want to participate in activities that kill brain cells and/or temporarily behave in a lazy manner, whatever. I don't care what others do. I get a massage on a regular basis, just to relax and be lazy for a moment. So, relaxation for me=massage. others=smoking a joint.

Anyway.

For sure, I think that if we legalize it, we should tax the HELL out of it and make some money off of it's use.

I looked online for some pros and cons for you,, outside of my rambling. Below, for your viewing pleasure, some interesting things to think about. I got this from this link: http://www.legalizationofmarijuana.com/marijuana-for-and-against.html

FOR:

Prohibition must be weighed against the loss of personal freedom. Countries have a responsibility to respect individual free will and the right of self-determination.

The immorality of marijuana use can only be based on one set of moral beliefs. For example, it is discriminatory to claim that Judeo-Christian abstinence from intoxication is the correct set of moral beliefs.

The War on Drugs serves the immediate interests of politicians. By taking a "moral" stand against recreational drugs, or fighting the evils caused by the illegal drug trade they increase their popularity amongst constituents.

Legal prohibition does not stop consumers from consuming drugs, it does not stop trafficants from producing and selling it. The price of the final product increases to abnormally high values because of the black market status, which together with the powerful effects of drug addiction causes users to commit crimes in order to fund their addiction.

Critics of the War on Drugs advocate the partial or complete decriminalization of illegal drugs, combined with a system of regulation, as happens with alcohol and prescription drugs. By providing legal supplies of currently illegal drugs the price will fall, leading to a collapse in the illegal drug industry, and a reduction in crimes committed by both drug suppliers and users. They also argue that the reduction in the price will lead to little, if any, growth in drug addiction, due to the inelasticity of demand. Some even state that in a strictly regulated market, drug use may fall overall, by removing the marketing activities of the illegal drug industry.

It is not worthwhile for a law to forbid people from willingly exposing their own bodies to harm by using drugs, any more than by overeating or bungee-jumping. Obesity is a national epidemic, killing millions every year, but the government has no right to regulate how much citizens eat.

Drug users exercise free will when they chose to use drugs; a person has the right to give up his or her own freedom. A Government does not have the right to dictate them. No drug eliminates free will. It is possible to quit using any drug. Many banned drugs are significantly less deleterious to free will than legal alcohol or tobacco. Severe physiological addiction has been demonstrated for tobacco (stronger than cocaine), but no strong physiological addiction has been shown for marijuana.

Legalize marijuana and reduce health care costs by reducing the probability of overdoses and accidental ingestion of an unintended drug through standardization of drug purity by state-sponsored production and sale.

There is no clear and obvious third party harm. Such examples are caused by related activities that can be illegal without blanket prohibition. For example, driving while intoxicated is illegal, while drinking alcohol without driving is not.

Harm caused to children by their parents' excessive drug use is criminal insofar as it constitutes child neglect; drug-specific laws are unneeded.

If drugs were legalized, the companies that manufacture and market them would be sued, such as cigarette companies have been exposed to lawsuits. Legalization of drugs would work to increase liability on producers forcing health standards.

Legalization would allow greater regulation. Cigarettes come with warnings. Alcoholic beverages are clearly marked with the amount of alcohol. Currently legal drugs contain a listing of all active and inactive ingredients. Illegal drugs could be sold legally with ingredients lists, warnings and purity levels clearly marked.

Recreational drug has no clear and obvious harmful effect on anyone besides the user (who chooses to accept those risks). The War on Drugs, on the other hand, places non-users' friends and loved ones in jail. The War on Drugs does have clear and obvious harmful effects on third parties.

Countries who have experimented with legalization have had positive results.

AGAINST:

A State cannot be involved with the distribution of substances considered immoral by relevant lots of the population. A substance considered unhealthy cannot be produced and distributed with the help of the state, because the goal of the state is to protect citizens' health and not to expose them to risk.

The easy availability of drugs would create new consumers rather than rescuing current ones.

Drugs are addictive. They rob the user of free will. A drug user cannot make an informed and rational decision to continue using drugs because the use of the drug eliminates that user's ability to think logically. Nor can they disseminate themselves from drug taking.

Drug use is dangerous to persons besides the user, in the rise of health care costs, violence associated with the use of drugs, neglect of children by drug-addicted parents, and other third party effects.

The use of soft drugs, such as marijuana, leads to the use of hard drugs (the Gateway Theory).

Drug dealers will sell to anyone, including children. Merchants who legally sell alcohol and tobacco are not allowed to sell to children. Many high school students report that it is easier to obtain illegal drugs than alcohol and tobacco.

Legalizing drugs will send a message to children that drug use is acceptable.

So, tell me what you think! :). Convince me to believe, one way or the other.