Marijuana ought to be legalized

Thank you for your response to my arguments in this debate. You say that marijuana poses little to no health risk. This is no doubt true, as it is for other drugs, if used in moderation. However, your other statement, that dependence on and addiction to this drug is not possible, is not true. But you are not alone with this misconception: medical professionals and federal and local government health departments in my country (Australia) have also made similar statements to the one you quote from your country. However, I know, from my own personal experience with marijuana and from my experiences working in a treatment and rehabilitation modality for addicts, that addiction to this drug does occur. And, in a person in which dependence is established, serious physical, mental and emotional health issues arise, as they do with other drugs. Such health issues impose a cost on the individual (bad physical health, unsuccessful or no relationships, financial problems, dysfunctional family, emotional problems, shortened life-span, etc) and on society (lost productivity, provision of health services, etc). Nobody could argue against a statement that says that a sense of freedom is desirable and in fact enjoyed whenever present. However, the idea of freedom when talking about enjoying a sense of freedom, and the idea of freedom when talking about behaviours and the freedom to do as I want, are two very different things. Unless this distinction is made, the emotive attraction of the idea of freedom can lead to fallacious arguments in a debate of this kind. Of course, I am free to overeat, to kill myself slowly by using the drug of nicotine via the smoking of tobacco, and all the other choices I can make that actually reduce the quality - and enjoyment - of my life. Society, over time and through laws and the traditional cultural values passed from generation to generation, has developed a framework to make the clash of all our individual freedoms manageable. Sometimes the laws that are implemented have unforeseen consequences or are later found to be ineffective. The prohibition of drugs is such a law: there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 'the war on drugs' and making drugs 'illegal' do not work and create more and perhaps even more serious problems than they solve. And there can also be no doubt that laws that have a negative impact on the community, which they are meant to regulate to its advantage, should be changed. So, why am I arguing that marijuana should not be legalised? In short, I believe that legalising marijuana without revisiting the broader issue of drug use generally would be a missed opportunity and simply lead to the same outcomes as those that followed from the legalisation of alcohol and for which we are all paying very dearly. It may be necessary for you to do some personal and local research into the cost of alcohol use and abuse (which goes with the use of any mood or mind altering drug by the approximately 10% of Caucasian populations who are genetically predisposed to becoming addicted to them) and to break through the collective denial (which exists at least in Australia and the European countries I am familiar with) and purposeful misinformation by vested interests (including all news propagating media that depend on advertising). There is no doubt in my mind that the very serious problems created by the drugs of alcohol and nicotine in our present circumstances would be increased substantially if marijuana were added to the freely available and free-market-wise promoted drugs. I didn't say that "public health services need to be consulted" as you quote me. I said "the community must have an informed debate and an agreed educational strategy about the consequences of abuse and possible addiction to drugs in people who are genetically predisposed" and that "public education, preventative measures and addiction treatment facilities should be agreed upon and funded by public health services prior to the change of law you are proposing".