legalization of cannabis and hemp

Very well, i concede in the fact that cannabis can be construed as both stimulant and depressant, and that it can be considered as having a "plethora" of psychoactive compounds, although they are all cannabinoids. What i meant by requiring similar tests of both tobacco and alcohol is the fact that you are using the statement that there is a link between cannabis and teen depression to condone its prohibition, therefore I attempted to refute it. Saying that cars are an unarguably beneficial to society is true, without transportation as it exists in today's society, today's society would not exist as it does today. However, saying that your logic does not account for the banning of these vehicles is flawed. You say that you agree that fast food should be banned as well stating that it is a perfect example of society making an improper choice. First i would like to ask you something. Are you saying that the government has the right to intervene in everyone's day to day lives using your rationale that they could be doing something detrimental to society or themselves? I feel i should go to the government now and request to begin a new agency, call it the Central Goodness Agency. Task said agents to violate the peoples constitutional rights on the grounds that they deem certain acts harmful to them and to be intervening in their best interest, be able to take away tv, all unhealthy food in the establishment, confiscate anything that can be used in any bad way. What i am saying may sound asinine, extreme and completely out of what you had in mind, or maybe its not. This scenario is portrayed in many dystopian novels, such as the novel Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin, and Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. They point out the inherent evil in the procuring of power, it simply corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What I am saying is that yes, you are correct in your statement that certain individuals cannot make good decisions. That certain people simply aren't equipped with the common sense that most of us are. But you are saying that we can't be trusted with our own well being and sound like you would rather alleviate yourself of the need to worry about your own life. All I am trying to say is that you are being irrational in your arguments, saying basically that someone like god should come down and keep us all from ourselves. And yes it is impossible to expect everyone to do what they are supposed to, even with all the restrictions on alcohol and tobacco, young people are still able to get it and despite the illegality of many things, they are still being done in record numbers and its not going to get better because we restrict people. The same people you declare as incapable of making proper decisions are still doing so despite the restrictions of the godfigure who says he knows better for you. But i digress. You say that making cannabis legal and regulating it in the same manner as alcohol will cause more harm and not justify the having of freedom. I never said that there was no potential for abuse, quite to the opposite I stated that along with television, candy and cellphones, cannabis has the infinite ability to be abused. The capacity for abuse does not pertain to the object or substance, rather the individual. What you are suggesting is a complete revamp of our constitutional rights which our forefathers found to be self evident and the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of all people. Your line of reasoning has been used by such groups as the KKK by saying that some people are made to be subjects to others, not equals, that segregation, not of race but perhaps by IQ points or some such method, is a good idea. Also, saying that the "tangible negative effects of legalization" outweigh our constitutional liberties and freedoms means that you must have conducted several studies of controlled civilizations and you know that if it were legalized that it would be outrageously bad on society and therefore should remain illegal. You say things such as civil liberties are all false premises. I do not totally contest this note because I personally believe that the government uses many means to control us by using our own morals and beliefs against us. However, once again i digress. You equate the facts of the harm cannabis causes with the Bible being true. I am not saying that it isn't harmful at all, only that along with all other legal and harmful things the prohibition of this substance is out of line. So how does one deduce when a freedom contributes to the well being and health of society? And how are we to take each case and judge it to be beneficial and good? Are we to revert to a feudal system and have a king with the "god given right" to lead us because we don't know how to take care of ourselves? Ok. People are naturally inclined to cause themselves pain and suffering. It is an integral part of life as a whole, without it there would be no meaning to good and love and happy. I would not, as indicated, argue that society has been better served, except to say that using the system the way it was intended, having all facts presented with no bias and no greed to taint it, that the people made an educated choice in regards to change, which is inherent in society as we know it, and decide to make it legal. And should it do so come November in both Oregon and California, and should such a situation occur, it would show that it was in fact illegal for a very good reason. However, it is not illegal due to such facts, but a severe misleading of the people as to the correct facts of cannabis and the lack of firm truths in defense of either side only shows further evidence that it is so unknown as to keep people from making their decisions based on truth. You close by saying that freedom can only bring pain and suffering. So what did we have before democracy? Did we fight for our independence on a false notion that we were right and should be free? Or has freedom become so misused by the few in true power as to cause us to argue over the legality of a plant that even George Washington supposedly grew cannabis himself, and even Thomas Jefferson, however I cannot say for sure because like many things that i have to use to authenticate my point, I wasn't there and didn't see for myself so I cannot say for certain. But that is applicable to all points in this argument, I haven't seen it with my own two eyes so therefore it is going to be a matter of debate until we take the appropriate steps to find out. I cannot say with total confidence that my reasons and sources are totally valid to legalize it, but i do know that why it is illegal today is not based on truth, and it needs to be adjusted.