The deep problem with the legalization reasoning that you've outlined in Battle Born is this - you're assuming you will get the chance to deem legalization a failure or not.

That's not how things work in a democracy. Typically, once a restraint is lifted, it is good as gone (try bringing back 50's standards for today's movies). What has to happen is that things have to hit an extreme which could be incredibly destructive for "remoralization." Prohibition started because of amazing amounts of alcoholism while the country became more materialistic and decadent and the urban centers collapsed under the sheer human mass they were harboring. And that sort of "remoralization" was a catastrophic failure.

As much as I hate how we are prudish about pot, I think its safer to let it be illegal. It isn't exactly helping anyone, except cancer patients, and look at the awful job we've done giving it to those who really needed it. Thinking through it, I wonder if the traditional notion of "controlled substance" contains a wisdom all these libertarian gambles can't possibly match.

I guess I'm more conservative than you are on this issue. I'm opposed to legalizing marijuana, except for medical purposes.

We claim to want freedom for social security investment and other resonsibilities associated with a free country, so I think it is our responsibility to teach kids about responsible marijauna use and consequences and let them start using it when at a legal age (21). It would make good politics to say you want to control behavior, but it will be better off if more people make free market choice between using and not using.

The solutions will come down to good choices on the parts of individuals. All blogs and pundits seem to know what is best for people, but if there is adequate information for people, any "poor decesioons" made is merely a consequence of an open society. What we think is a bad decision is a good decision for half the country. We have lasted 200+ years like that and will continue that way for a thousand more if we let free thought and choice rule our decisions.

Marijuana growers want to keep it illegal,because
that keeps the price artificially high, and
keeps the competition down.They don't want to
compete with Big Business.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, legalization would
allow law enforcement to concentrate on crimes
with actual victims. There is no shortage of
those. It would not only save money there, but
the taxes generated could be substantial.

Makes too much sense for modern-day politicos.

This is one of the issues on which I've tended to disagree with most cons. At least medicinal marijuana ought to be legal, and I'm not sure that the harmful effects of marijuana are much worse than the harmful effects of alcohol and/or cigarettes. As a compassionate society, we have to get on the same page, either legalizing not just alcohol and tobacco but gambling and marijuana (and beginning to address addictions in a meaningful way) or ban them altogether.

Half measures express the ambivalence that may well be how our society feels about these things. There is so much to be learned about how the mind works through an understanding of addiction, but this half morality where people can smoke tobacco and drink alcohol but not smoke marijuana or bet on sports online doesn't make sense. Either accept addiction as part of people's coping and address it righteously or ban everything addictive, which may soon include video games and the internet.

The main reason I think it shouldnt be legalized is that I remember what it did to my friends that used it. Even if they havnt been high in a week, you can see it in their eyes, they think slower and talk differant. It isnt automatic, it takes about a year. But anybody who knows a pot head can see that there are lasting effects.

I agree with the first 3 posts. I don't deny the unwanted effects of pot but criminalizing it demonstrably hasn't been the answer. I keep coming back to one thing.

No prohibition of personal use choices has ever really been successful in the history of man and usually exacerbates the problem. Believing this to be almost always true I have to think we need to try a different approach.

Honest mainstream research on the long term effects and education have started changing the use of cigs and alcohol. Although not a quick fix this is the best way for a long term lasting cultural change. Take the money, time, effort, etc... in criminalizing pot and use it for the crack/meth/herion folks who cause much more serious problems.

As a cancer survivour I can attest that pot does help in several ways.

First the relaxation effect, not knowing if your going to be around soon is very stressful...go figure...lol. Sometimes avoiding reality is OK.

The munchie effect is welcome as chemo and radiation leave you not wanting to eat. I found myself going all day and not eating which isn't healthy.

The relief from nausea is real and effective.

Telling someone, who's terribly sick and possibly not surviving not to use something that provides all the above is ridiculous.

We need to have an honest open dialog in this country about these personal choice issues as the current approach doesn't work well and is inconsistent with the other items(cigs, etc) that are legal.

My main problem with legalizing it is that at the same time they are legalizing marijuana, they are banning and restricting tobacco use.

If they legalize medical marijuana, does that mean someone under a "prescription" for it's use can light up at their desk inside an office building, while tobacco smokers must stand outside away from everybody?

If they legalize marijuana, does it fall into the same category as tobacco? Meaning, do the anti-smokers start a fresh campagn demonizing it right away or wait for a while?

I feel both should be legal, or both should be banned.

Never!

Although I think your everyday joe shouldnt have access to pot (as I explained earlier) I do however see nothing wrong with its use as medicine. Heck, I think its use should be allowed the second you are allowed to pull your social security too.

But of course... I have seen NOTHING good come from it when its used by teenagers etc.

Also.. its funny how this is the first subject EVER (including simple "Today is a nice day" subjects) that the moonbats havnt pounced on... hmmm.. They must be out back token it up.

"I have seen NOTHING good come from it when its used by teenagers etc."

No arguments from me on that score. Looking back on it now it didn't destroy me but it sure didn't help.

"Also.. its funny how this is the first subject EVER (including simple "Today is a nice day" subjects) that the moonbats havnt pounced on... hmmm.."

Probably because our discussion doesn't fit their idiotic stereotypes of us knuckle dragging republican types.

The Dutch were - and still are - harshly condemned internationally for their different approach to "soft drugs" in general and marijuana in particular: treating (soft) drug use and abuse as an health-issue instead of a law enforcement issue. But more and more countries, states and cities are seeing the benefits of our approach and its successes and are coming around.
This different approach isn't only met by "legalizing marijuana", most importantly it requires a different approach (and funding) in education and health care.

Your denigrating remarks towards the Dutch - who are being governed by a christian-conservative cabinet for quite some time by the way - is just silly and childish, you just can't help making an ass of yourself. Nice way to treat your allies too.

I believe Nevada has also legalized prostitution? My oh my oh my. What's next. Gay marriage? Euthanasia?

I guess I spoke too soon. They were just crouching in a bush waiting to pounce.

People who know my conservative stance on so many issues are surprised by my position on drugs. If making drug use illegal would actually have much of an impact, I'd be in favor of it. But the harsh reality is that anyone who really wants to get anything, any kind of illegal drug at all, can get it.

So I step back from the use of the drug to the impact of having it illegal, and to me the cost to society of the smuggling, the dealing, and the associated activities, are greater than the cost of actual use.

I believe that if drugs were available legally, gangs would be cut off at the knees. I don't have facts to back this up, but it is an intuitive response to the fact that so many young poor kids are lured out of schools and into gangs because they can make so much money fronting for adult gang members by holding their dope and money, as juveniles. If we could interrupt that cycle, and strip the profits of illicit drug traffic from every level involved in it now, I think that would be an improvement over the current situation.

I'd love to see a real solid study on the costs, both financial and societal, of the drug culture of today, as compared to a projection of the costs of legalizing drugs.

If we were to take the huge amount of money we spend on the useless War On Drugs and apply it to education and rehabilitation, we might be ahead of the game. Add the taxes gleaned from drug sales, and there would be plenty of money to treat drug users when they got to the point of seeking help.

I also believe that a lot of drug use comes from the adolescent desire to buck the system, from the thrills of breaking the law.

On the other hand, I would never be in favor of allowing drug use to become glamorized. I think drugs should be rigidly controlled, sold only in dreary unattractive stores by matronly women who look like the worse teacher we ever had, or grumpy old Aunt Mildred. No posters, no advertising, no pizazz.

Make one or two really big laws (smuggling, providing to minors) and attach really big penalties, and then enforce those laws to the max.

I am completely against drug use. I was a hippie in the 60;s, and I saw first hand what drugs did to an entire generation. I have family members who were full of promise who are now just lost to society and their families. But I am pragmatic enough to realize that what we have been doing, or trying to do, for so long has simply not worked. And I wonder if by making such a big deal out of drugs we have not inadvertently made them seem more attractive.

And finally, to be quite blunt, it has to eventually come down to personal responsibility.

Educate, provide reasonable safeguards to protect the youngest and most vulnerable, and then let the chips fall where they may.

Regarding education, we could just take Silly Willy around to schools as an example of what happens when people do use drugs. Scare the little buggers straight!!!

Well, Almiranta. For once, you finally made sense. How annoying those "liberal dutchies" were telling that the world for ages. Isn't it?

"How annoying those "liberal dutchies" were telling that the world for ages. Isn't it?"

Even a broke clock is right twice a day.

I support medicinal marijuana use. Now, if we could just get the support needed to actually do the research needed to make its medicinal use more uniform, just think of the good that could come from it. We might find out what it is about pot that helps with the nausea, increase in appetite, etc and create drugs with less harmful side effects from the original.

Recreational use is still very dangerous, but part of that is not knowing what else is included with the pot. And the fact that it is often used as a "gateway" drug to encourage experimentation with hard drugs. Maybe we could find out the addiction trigger? Again, that would mean that the Feds would allow research.

Willem,

What passes for conservatism in Holland would be considered socialist in the United States...and even with an allegedly conservative goverment, the whole thrust of law and bureaucracy in Holland is towards the left. You'd have to conduct a political revolution in order to get genuine conservatism in Holland.

I think it would be a huge mistake to legalize pot. Growers can not control the amount of THC in the plant. Also, each part of the plant has a different amount of THC. So, let's say the government allows a certain amount as "legal", then the feds go and conduct a random test in the field, and the THC levels are excessive. The crop is destroyed. Also, just because one plant comes within the "guidelines" in one area of the country, doesn't mean it will in another. It would be difficult to regulate.

I think it would be a huge mistake to legalize pot. Growers can not control the amount of THC in the plant. Also, each part of the plant has a different amount of THC. So, let's say the government allows a certain amount as "legal", then the feds go and conduct a random test in the field, and the THC levels are excessive. The crop would be destroyed.

Also, just because the plants stay within the "guidelines" in one area of the country, doesn't mean they will in another. (ie. the properties of the plant can not be controlled and it will adjust to the environment; a plant grown in Kentucky will not be exactly like a plant grown in California) So, it would be difficult to regulate.

Your denigrating remarks towards the Dutch...

Whose remarks? Mine? Mine are mostly towards you, Willemena. I've been to the Nederlands, tiptoed thru the tulips. The Dutch are fine people, for the most part. It's the far left commie socialists such as yourself who give the Dutch, and Europe as a whole, a bad name amongst us free-thinkers.

As a layman, i.e., an armchair quarterback just like the majority of the posters here, my knowledge of the subject is limited. I the effects of pot depend on who uses it. I've known potheads who were burned-out beyond recognition, and I've known users who functioned as normally as anyone else. Sort of like alcohol users.

The main problem, as I see it, is that the illegal trafficking of pot has become unenforcable. We may as well legalise pot, and tighten laws on the sale and transfer of the "hard stuff." However, will this happen, or will it be a trickle-down effect, where today we legalise pot, and tomorrow we ease restrictions on coke and heroin? The way the political climate is in America today, scientists can be bought and persuaded to say anything. Before you know it, they'll be claiming that the use of hard drugs is good for weight loss and prevents all types of major diseases.

Okay, I'm getting a little silly, so I'll stop. Free thinkers get the picture, I hope...

It's tough to say whether there would be a trickle down effect. There could certainly be a strong case made for legalizing a drug like pot but keeping heroin, methamphetamines, cocaine and others illegal with the assumption that they are poisons. It's going to be quite difficult to overdose on marijuana in a way that kills them, most people would just pass out unless there's something else in it.

Sure, people lose sight of something more important when they smoke pot, just as they do with alcohol. Pot ruins lives just like alcohol does. But if we put the energy going into enforcement into prevention education and addiction treatment, and began to make the (dare I say) moral case, or even if we just showed kids in schools a room full of dulled pot heads still in their addiction trying to talk about politics, I have a sense the kids would be laughing at them, not with them. It's not at all that I'm for stigmatizing those with an addiction, but it would have to be real for them, not some celebrity who's about to go get high or some recovering person who now looks clean.

kjs, you are right in saying that marijuana is often a "gateway" drug. But it is still available, just glamorized because it is illicit.

My brother told me that many heroin addicts who receive their drugs from the government not only lead fairly normal and productive lives, once their focus is not just on how to get their next fix, many simply get tired of being hooked and drift away from the drug.

And making their drug legal and available eliminates the crime associated with the desperate need to get money every day to feed the habit. It does not condone the habit, or encourage it, but it does accept the fact that it exists and must be dealt with.

I believe that making drugs humdrum, no big deal, actually kind of a nuisance or a bother, might be a better approach than making them a symbol of rebellion and risk and a weird sort of glamor.

Making drugs appear to be as stupid as they are might be a more productive approach, now that we have learned that we simply cannot keep them away from those who want them.

I once did a favor for a man I worked with and hired his son, and that is where I came up with the idea of taking this guy around to schools and pointing at him and saying "If you want to be THIS "cool", just do what Robert did." The guy had an IQ buried in there somewhere, but practically speaking he was a total blithering idiot, who could not understand the relationship between objects. He would have been a very scary object lesson.

I do think that many young people start using drugs because they are at the age of questioning authority, as well as wanting to rebel against it. Drugs right now seem kind of cool, partly by nature of being banned and making authority figures very upset, and partly because drug dealers tend to look kind of cool in TV and movie portrayals. At least they are shown as having money and driving cool cars, and having power---very attractive to kids, especially boys.

So take all that away. Show drugs as what losers do, because they are too weak to handle life, and show how it just makes them more loser-ish than they were when they started. Make them ordinary and unglamorous and stupid.

I hate the fried egg "brain on drugs" ad. I would like to show bubble wrap, with a "these are your brain cells" comment, and then pop those cells one by one to show the effect of drugs. And I wonder why the anti-steroid campaigns never seem to mention that anabolic steroids cause the testicles to shrink up to nearly nothing---it might take away from the desire to look like a big man by having big muscles, knowing that everyone who saw those muscles would let their eyes drop a couple of feet to the south in a speculative manner.

We're missing the boat. I like your idea of doing more research on finding the addiction trigger. But we also need to address the psychological reasons for self-destructive behavior. And I think that a juvenile resentment of authority is a big part of drug use, that and thrill-seeking by breaking the law, albeit in a way that is not really very likely to end up in court.

Willy, as far as your excitement that I actually agree with the Dutch approach to drugs, and your extrapolation that this is proof of the success of Dutch (Liberal/Socialist)politics, you are leaping to a conclusion I did not draw.

My version would be "even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes". The Dutch got lucky, and had one of their policies actually work. But it does not work because of socialism, or because of Liberalism, or because of some cockamamie loosy goosy attitude toward laws and rules and regulations.

And I have not heard anyone denigrate the Dutch as a people. Their socialist policies are open to debate and criticism, but no one has expressed any dislike for the Dutch.

You, on the other hand, as one who has worked hard to appear to be Dutch by the assumption of a Dutch-sounding name, have drawn fire---but only because you insist on presenting goofball fever swamp socialist talking points in place of reasoned political dialogue, and have aligned youself firmly in the BDS camp. You spout Airhead talking points, you argue positions that have been thoroughly disproved and debunked in juvenile rebellious defiance of fact, you come from a position of hyper-emotional irrationality which you try to present as historical and political analysis----and you are rude.

MARK!!
--Naturally I am astounded over this posting and equally astounded that some of your knucledragging Republican posters agree with you. It is one of the most sensible postings you ever made and we know those are far and few between.
--There may be hope for you yet.
--I bet you still toke up a bit. Come on, admit it. Oh, excuse me, you can't admit it, you write under your own name and a Bush Republican too boot.

Regarding Holland, when I was over there for a week in May 2004, I wanted to go into a so-called café where the evil weed was available since I had not experience weed since my college days many years ago. While strolling around Amsterdam, I chanced to choose a place that was a bar as well. I walked into a place that was welcoming, like an English pub, with comfy chairs and sofas, saw well dressed people(some seemed to dropped in after work), sipping coffee, beer, drinks and some smoking. So I saunter up to the bar and to try some weed and the very pleasant and attractive bargirl pointed me over to an adjacent bar a few feet away where the stuff was sold. I perused the fancy weed menu (wanted to steal it as a keepsake, but was watched too closely). However as I am a total dork at inhaling having some experience before gagging and choking almost to the point of barfing, I choose a brownie. It was a big mother of a brownie, bought two, and it only had a half of gram of weed in each brownie (as the small print stated). So I got a coffee and ate the brownie. I was waiting for some effect and was complaining to my fellow Canuck friend that “I could not get high”, to quote the immortal words to that song by the long ago band, the Fugs. So I was going to eat the other brownie when he suggested I save it for the hotel later since I was by now babbling like a fool and so I noticed I was.

A very pleasant time and I was impressed how civilized the place, people and experience was in that bar. And the Dutch like Canucks a lot. And, as you know, they mostly can speak English. What a wonderful country.

Canuck,

Not since 1989 - and, yes, I did inhale: deeply, or there wouldn't have been much point to it. I never did like it that much and the number of times I ever smoked marijuana is probably less than 20.

Whether or not to legalise is something which cuts right across ideological lines, though more conservatives than liberals favor continued prohibition. It is the ultimate in a prudential judgement - there is no black and white right answer as to whether or not drugs should be legal or illegal, just as there is no absolute on whether the mere consumption of drugs is inherently morally wrong.

As I said, I'm willing to give marijuana legalisation its chance - let's see if making it legal will make it less of a problem. This will take at least 5 to 10 years before we'll have sufficient data and, meanwhile, most jurisdictions will keep it illegal so we can compare and contrast. At the end of that time frame, we'll know as well as we ever can just what is the best. Personally, I think it will be a mix of prohibitions and permissions plus strong campaigns to make drug use socially unacceptable, just as public drunkeness and even public smoking is becoming socially taboo.

It hurts me to hear people talk about legalization of marijana as though it runs contrary to conservative ideals. To me, the criminalization of marijuana is a perfect example of the liberal drive to babysit America's citizens, to tell us what's best for each of us personally, and then punish us for disobeying.

It hurts me to hear people talk about legalization of marijuana as though it runs contrary to conservative ideals. To me, the criminalization of marijuana is a perfect example of the liberal drive to babysit America's citizens, to tell us what's best for each of us personally, and then punish us for disobeying.