Cannabis Legalization

The videos to the right are my sources (7), (12), and (13) respectively. 1. a) Besides the fact that your specific example sounds more like someone with a condition treating it's symptoms, there is a simple reason your argument is invalid. As you pointed out, marijuana is not addictive in the physical sense; therefore, the issue is psychological addiction, as you also pointed out. However, anything that is in some way interpreted by the brain has the ability to be addictive psychologically (internet, sex, candy). Does it then follow that everything that is in some way interpreted by the brain should be deemed illegal and dangerous? If not, I fail to see the relevance of marijuana's psychological addiction potential with regards to legalization. b) Good. c) As my source supports, there simply is no reliable or conclusive evidence supporting cons claims of marijuana causing complacency (1). As it follows, con's arguments on the matter are cognate with the fallacy of confusing association with causation (2). d) Simply put, the gateway theory claims that because and only because one has smoked marijuana they will move on to other drugs. However, because there is no evidence that marijuana itself CAUSES a user to move on to other drugs, this exact logic is parallel with a fallacy (the same fallacy mentioned in the previous point) (2). e) I have addressed your response to point 1c. However, I must point out that point 1c is referring to the health effects of marijuana while 1e refers to the general effects of intoxication (munchies, mellowness, and giggles). f) It most certainly is factual. It is clearly easier for youth to obtain marijuana now because all they have to do is call a dealer (which isn't hard to find) and have the necessary funds. However, once legal, it would be taken out the hands of street dealers and be regulated; both similarly to alcohol (refer to point 2f to argue this statement). Then the only access would be in stores that enforce the age restriction and require identification, which naturally makes it much harder to obtain (also similar to alcohol). In addition, we already have an example of the success of more sensible cannabis policies with regards to use youth in the Netherlands (3). Also, your argument is faulty as alcohol and tobacco have been portrayed in movies for years. And despite this, because of education and regulation, we do not have an epidemic of adolescents using the drugs just because they see them in movies. g) Any argument against legalization is relevant to this debate, and this is one of the latest. Many prohibitionist claim that the potency of marijuana is stronger than in the past and therefore the drug is more dangerous. However, should you choose to argue this as well, I point you to my source (myth 3) (4). 2. a) Firstly, your source on the matter is weak and unreliable. This is for two reasons. One, the writer of the article does nothing more than provide unsupported conjecture. Two, the article's author is a former DEA head (as stated in the article) and that itself give us reason to doubt. The author comes from the DEA, an amoral government agency that profits from the illegal drug trade and would lose billions upon marijuana (and other drug) legalization. "With taxed and regulated marijuana, federal and state governments would suddenly free up $26 billion spent annually on the failed drug war" (5). They destroy lives and harm innocents (even children) to combat the growing support and acceptance of integrated marijuana and keep it illegal (source (5) second paragraph). They support marijuana remaining a schedule 1 drug although marijuana is the exact opposite, and opposes any legitimate research (6). Furthermore the head of the agency refuses to answer simple questions regarding the topic and provides incredible inconsistencies in her comical responses (7). Are the articles, sources, and claims of such an agency (and those associated) even credible? Secondly, my claim is most certainly based on fact (read the executive summary page) (8). Since this does not take into account all the expenditures of prohibition and the potential revenue from taxation or the hemp industry, I would consider the potential gain to be quite substantial. b) As for your question of what benefits I point you to my source (9). As for your quotes regarding the immune system, they are unfounded (10) (11). For source (11) simply skip to the myth "Marijuana Damages the Immune System" if you wish. c) Basically, with legalization, regulation necessarily follows. Following regulation, you have understanding and societal integration. And, just like with alcohol, we can adapt to any adverse effects (although there probably won"t be any significant ones) marijuana may have on society. For instance, there are no reliable/practical methods of determining if a driver is DUI of weed. However, if legalized, it could be better studied and an effective method of DUI's could be developed. It would then follow that law enforcement could more effectively enforce such policies (this is one of many examples). d) First off, drug dealers and users already "walk amongst society" and always will. Second, I ask what it is about a responsible adult smoking at home after a hard day's work deserves prosecution. What about someone using marijuana to treat their symptoms is criminal (12)? Criminalizing contributing (or past contributing) members of society for a victimless crime and robbing them of the ability to contribute for using a medicinal herb, for whatever reason, is detrimental to society. e) Basically, once legalized, prices for cannabis in legal stores would be improved, as would quality, product options and security, purchasing environment, and accessibility (for responsible adults of course). Therefore, it follows that underground dealers would lose customers and consequently have much less to fight over with regards to the underground weed market (just like alcohol). My source explain this much better (13). f) You merely need some basic hemp knowledge to understand what I mean (14). g) No government or anti-drug sources provide an accurate portrayal of marijuana and its effects. And, unfortunately, those looking to be educated are likely to find (and believe) these sources and be miseducated. 3. a) The main difference between rape and marijuana is that rape is an act and marijuana is a good. As my source (13) supports, any illicit good with demand is increased by prohibition because of demand and despite enforcement. While an act has no demand, therefore, it necessarily goes down following prohibition, due to enforcement. b) There was no anarchy after the repeal of alcohol prohibition. What reason do we have to believe your claim? Also, we have no reason to believe use would increase from legalization. Even if it did, so what, the negative affects you suggest are still being debated. c) I don't see how those responses refute my point. Plus, I've already addressed them. 4. a) Regardless of the technical definition, our particular government has the responsibility to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all as stated in the declaration of independence (political weight irrelevant). When the government tells us how to live, it SHOULD extend only as far as our impact on other people which protects life (such as your ending statement supports). Otherwise, it is a disregard of the right of freedom. Since smoking weed is a victimless crime, the government is infringing on our right of freedom by prohibiting it. Source (1) . http://www.drugscience.org... (2) . http://www.theskepticsguide.org... (3) . http://www.erowid.org... (4) . http://listverse.com... (5) . http://readersupportednews.org... (6) . http://leisureguy.wordpress.com... (7) . http://www.youtube.com... (8) . http://www.cato.org... (9) . http://norml.org... (10) . http://www.erowid.org... (11) . http://norml.org... (12) . http://www.youtube.com... (13) . http://www.youtube.com... (14) . http://thehia.org...