Marijuana Should NOT Be Legalized

First, I need to implore the readers to make their votes on the basis of the logic of our arguments, not based on their personal beliefs on this issue. Thank you. You said: "Marijuana only suits one significant purpose, other than the feel good effects of use, and that is as a pain killer medication." This is demonstrably not true. Marijuana serves another very real medicinal purpose -- it stimulates appetite. There are many people with AIDS and cancer who rely on marijuana for this purpose. Either their diseases or their treatments for the diseases decimate their appetites. Medical marijuana stimulates it. Marinol, the legal alternative to medical marijuana, does not achieve this. You said: "Marijuana isn't the only pain killer on the market, after all, nor is it by any means the most effective." You are correct to say it isn't the only pain killer on the market, nor is it necessarily the most effective for that cause. So what? By your logic the government should outlaw every pain killer except the one that is "most effective" according to the government itself. This is not a legitimate role for the federal government. Where is this power authorized in the Constitution? Furthermore, you highlight an interesting reason marijuana is in fact illegal -- because drug companies would have a hard time controlling it. Make it legal and people could use it more freely for their medicinal needs. The government keeps it on the black market in order to bolster the profits of its patrons in the medical-industrial complex. This is also not a proper role for government. The government should not be picking winners and losers. Individuals constituting a free market in goods and services should. You said: "If it is reasonable to legalize marijuana on the basis that it is an effective pain killer, it would follow that the legalization of cocaine would be even more necessary as cocaine, it could be argued, has a more effective numbing effect than medical marijuana." Although I agree that cocaine should be legal for medicinal purposes, for it definitely has medicinal use -- which is why it was used medicinally for hundreds of years prior to the recent War on Drugs -- your argument does not hold. One could argue for legalizing marijuana and not cocaine because cocaine has demonstrably more harmful effects than marijuana if abused. You said: "despite the unlawfulness of alcohol use during prohibition, use has not sufficiently declined since alcohol prohibition was abolished." That's true. But use actually increased during Prohibition. That's because when you take a product and put it on the black market, prices go up. There is a premium built into the price due to the legal risk the distributors of the product face, plus the cramp in supply causing a higher price at which supply and demand are met. Profits for drug dealers are high now because of the War on Drugs. This gives drug dealers a greater incentive to "market" their product to customers -- including children. Being pro-Drug War is thus really being pro-drug dealer profits, and indirectly, pro-children using drugs. Stores don't sell kids booze or cigarettes, but drug dealers will sell them marijuana or cocaine, no problem. You said: "It would not be a responsible decision to allow for marijuana to evolve into as much a social norm as alcohol has become, where nearly every American citizen is willing to give it a try." A large majority of Americans have given marijuana a try. Most do not continue to use it because of what they perceive as negative side effects. Do you only not use drugs because they are illegal? Every drug in the world was legal in the U.S. for the first 100+ years of the country's existence. There were drug addicts back then, but no more than there are now. Why do you think other people are so different than you; that you are so much better and so much smarter than other people? Why can't people be trusted to make the right decisions for themselves? Do you really think the government is smarter than the people who elect its representatives? That's a very elitist position to take. You go on to make what sound like arguments for making both alcohol and cigarettes illegal. On what basis? Where is the federal government empowered to do this? A constitutional amendment was required to enact Prohibition. The original anti-drug laws were creatively crafted so that they fell within Congress's power to tax. But modern drug prohibition is obviously unconstitutional. You are making an argument for the continuation of unconstitutional laws. You are also missing the side effects of the Drug War. Deficit spending, high taxes, loss of civil liberties, racial disparity in prosecutions, etc., and no demonstrable decline in the rate of drug use or abuse. Instead, we have prisons full of nonviolent criminals -- either harmless users or people whose communities have been devastated by the Drug War and thus they turn to the artificially created (by the government) black market in drugs in order to earn money. This is the problem that your precious Keynesian government created. The CEO of Coors doesn't pull drivebys on the CEO of Miller Beer. That's because their product is protected by the rule of law. All exchanges are voluntary and property is protected, thus, there is no need for violence. You are making an argument in support of continued high profits for drug lords and continued violence in inner cities. There are no more Al Capones, and if drugs were legalized, there would be no more drug gangs. Marijuana is the place to start. In summary: 1. Marijuana does have medicinal benefit beyond being a pain killer. Your assertion that it does not is demonstrably untrue. QUESTION: Do you admit this? 2. Just because marijuana is not the "most effective" pain killer does not mean that it should be made illegal. By that logic, only one pain killer should exist -- probably the one owned by the drug company that gives the biggest kickback to your presidential candidate. QUESTION: Should there only be one pain killer on the market, and should all others be banned? 3. Arguing for the legalization of marijuana does not mean one has to support the legalization of cocaine, for the simple reason that everyone knows cocaine (if abused) is more harmful than marijuana. Where are you getting your information? Government propaganda films like Reefer Madness? QUESTION: Do you concede that marijuana, if abused, is less harmful than cocaine? 4. Prohibition of alcohol was a failed experiment that led to gang warfare. So too has prohibition of drugs. Furthermore, while Prohibition of alcohol was passed during a time when the government still respected the Constitution enough to amend it to implement its coercive laws, prohibition of drugs on the federal level is clearly, without question, unconstitutional. QUESTION: Do you admit that prohibition of drugs is unconstitutional, and if not, why was a constitutional amendment needed to prohibit alcohol? 5. In addition to the crime directly caused by the Drug War, there are other negative side effects: High taxes and deficit spending to fund the Drug War, a decreased respect for civil liberties by police officers and other lawmen and women, and racial disparity in the manner in which drug cases are prosecuted, to name just a few. QUESTION: Do you think that the Drug War has been worth the fiscal and social costs, especially given the fact that people still want and use drugs? Governments exist to protect our liberty. Not to protect us from ourselves. We are not children and the state is not our parent. We are adults and we can make choices for ourselves.