Mary I agree, read an article on the Drudge Report that non violent people busted for pot in NY. will be freed.

I agree with the legalization. But I am sick and tired of being taxed for everything. This stuff grows wild and can grow in your garden for goodness sake.
NO MORE TAXES - They spend every penny they can get their hands on and then thats not enough!

Couldnt agree more! I dont smoke it, but that doesn't mean i don't see the benefit of legalization, regulation and taxation on it!! Regulate the same as alcohol(which is WORSE for your health) and tax it. This will happen eventually. Better sooner than later.

If grown in a purely organic form and unadulterated by adding other kinda of illegal drugs I see no harm, only benefit. Tax it and prescribe it. As a person who watch 3 family members dying of cancer in 2 years it has radically changed my views on the benefits of legalization. They didn't have access to it, but if I could have obtained it I would have to help ease the pain and lack of appetite. It is the humane thing to do for those who need it even if its just anxiety.

A "no-brainer" ...... prettyy much describes most potheads!

That was funny, Proud Conservative! :))

Prohibition is an awful flop,
We like it.
It can’t stop what it’s meant to stop,
We like it.
It’s filled our land with vice and crime,
It’s left a trail of graft and slime,
It don’t prohibit worth a dime,
Nevertheless we’re for it.

—Franklin P. Adams 1931 In reaction to recommendations of a panel of ‘experts’ concerning continued enforcement of the Volstead Act.

The United States re-legalized certain drug use in 1933. The drug was alcohol —The 21st amendment re-legalized its production, distribution and sale. Alcohol consumption and violent crime dropped immediately as a result. Very soon after, the American economy climbed out of that same prohibition engendered abyss into which it had foolishly fallen.

‎”Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.” 
—Clay Shirky.

washington and colorado have been smoking weed for years. Nothings going to change except people will stop being arrested for being so friendly. thats it.

I agree with Seamus. Although I am well aware that many if not most marijuana users do not end up using other drugs, those who do use other drugs usually start with marijuana. We have a tremendous drug and alcohol problem in this country already. While I don't recommend restoring prohibition, I don't believe we need to make another substance more readily available, legal or socially acceptable.

Well, there's nothing you can do. It's gonna be legalized. Accept it.

Prohibition does not limit usage so your concern is totally unfounded!

We can either ask the Tooth Fairy to stop people taking drugs or we can decide to regulate them properly. Prohibition is not regulation, it's a hideous nightmare for all of us.

Because Drug cartels will always have an endless supply of ready cash for wages, bribery and equipment, no amount of tax money, police powers, weaponry, wishful thinking or pseudo-science will make our streets safe again —only an end to prohibition can do that! How much longer are you willing to foolishly risk your own survival by continuing to ignore the obvious, historically confirmed solution?

Debating whether a particular drug is harmless or not is missing the whole point. Is marijuana dangerous? Is Cocaine dangerous? Is Alcohol dangerous? It simply doesn't matter if they are or not; If it's not directly hurting you and you forbid it, then you can be sure that it WILL create unforeseen circumstances, which will have an adverse affect on all our wellbeing.

Alcohol, to my knowledge has never been prescribed or suggested for medical reasons. I know for a fact that Marijuana HAS been and is used for medical reasons and very good ones at that. It should be legalized - no doubt in my mind. Wake up folks we are living in the 21st century.

Jan, go look at the ingredients on a bottle of Nyquill.

drug and alcohol use will go down, so will crime from drug and alcohol use.

Caffeine is a worse "drug" than Marijuana! This would bring down crime. Also, i've NEVER seen anyone who smoked marijuana say, "Gee, what OTHER drugs can i get into now". Its a myth. Legalization will create less crime, bring in money in a time of national debt and help millions of people using it for medicinal purposes. I do respect your opinion though! :)

jan, an exception included in the National Prohibition Act of 1919 allowed for prescriptions of drinking alcohol. That despite the fact that the AMA removed it from the American Pharmacopoeia in 1917. Drinking alcohol was widely used in what passed for the practice of medicine previous to that.
http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00492/Prescription.htm

Seamus, on what planet in which alternate universe do you live where cannabis is not already "in the mix"? Let's try to keep this discussion serious. If you're not in touch with reality you should refrain from commenting.

have many a friend in AA who have quit drinkin,an stayed sober with the help of "the evil weed" the best Steppin stone to get off perscription pain killers an such.

For the first time, I agree with Seamus..

yeah just tax it real heavy! maybe coin operated bongs?

Marijuana is so easy to get, legalizing it will not change much. Anyone who wants it can surely find someone to get it. As far as troubles go, its a type of personality that leads to trouble; not the alcohol and drugs. Like with anything else (I'm guessing you may be pro-gun...?), it is not fair or just to make laws based on the actions of a minority. As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't hurting others, you should be able to do whatever you damn well please. It's a free country! Or.... not. :) With this issue, the pros FAR outweigh the cons, of which there are few. Those against legalization need to invest more time researching the issue. Using scholarly literature mind you...

Pot is harmless??? Sounds like it's already done in your gray matter.

@Proud Conservative

Your brand of Fake-conservatism has much in common with socialism. Authoritarian-socialists and fake-conservatives appear to harbor the belief that nature does not exist and that any human can be "re-educated" into being anything society wishes. Leftists therefore tend to believe that little boys can be conditioned into preferring dolls over toy soldiers, and similarly, fake-conservatives believe that adults can be coerced into choosing alcohol over marijuana. A true conservative, just like a pragmatic libertarian, would immediately reject both ideas as nonsense.

If you support prohibition then you are NOT a conservative.
Conservative principles quite clearly are:

1) Limited, locally controlled government.
2) Individual liberty coupled with personal responsibility.
3) Free enterprise.
4) A strong national defense.
5) Fiscal responsibility.

Prohibition is actually an authoritarian war on our economy and Constitution.

It's all about market and cost/benefit analysis. Whether any particular drug is good, bad, or otherwise is irrelevant. As long as there is demand for any mind altering substance there WILL be supply! The only affect prohibiting it has is to drive the price up while increasing the costs and profits - and where there is illegal profit to be made criminals and terrorists thrive.

@Proud [FAKE] Conservative.

No person of any age, in all of recorded history, has ever died from marijuana, marijuana is nontoxic. Many have died from marijuana prohibition and tens of millions have been caged or otherwise seriously harmed.

MARIJUANA CURES CANCER:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_helps_cure_cancer_says_harvard_study

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/marijuana-cures-cancer-us-government-has-known-since-1974/

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/pbs-documentary-sheds-light-on-marijuanas-cancer-killing-properties/

Marijuana promotes brain cell growth by 40% and protects it from damage: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051016083817.htm

Marijuana promotes healthy lungs: http://dailycollegian.com/2012/02/01/marijuana-health-claims-go-up-in-smoke/

Marijuana when used by HIV patients Inhibits virus replication: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120320195252.htm

MARIJUANA HALVES MORTALITY RATE IN PEOPLE WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA AND RELATED DISORDERS:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22595870

Malcolm,
You make some valid points but you can't say it's harmless.
And to suggest that "No person of any age, in all of recorded history, has ever died from marijuana, marijuana is nontoxic.", is so patently false it is laughable.
I think there are plenty of pro/con arguments but these two aren't on the list.
It should be available under a doctor's care.
If it is legalized, it should be taxed and regulated like alcohol or cigarettes; complete with strict laws against OUI, legal age for possession, warning labels, etc...
Government or private companies should be indemnified against lawsuits because we all know that at some point, all the "victims" who regularly used/abused it are going to want a payout for their _____________(fill in the blank...addiction, lung cancer or other health malady, birth defects, etc...).

Don't start jonesing, only 3 hours until 4:20...

Apljak, you wrote, "And to suggest that "No person of any age, in all of recorded history, has ever died from marijuana, marijuana is nontoxic.", is so patently false it is laughable."

Ok, then can you cite one?

I can't say that I have ever heard of someone that overdosed on marijuana and that isn't what I meant. I meant to suggest that it is a contributing factor in some deaths.
Actually, without googling for examples, etc..., I lost 2 dear friends in a car accident while in college who were so wasted and should never have been driving.
This is obviously just one of many more occurrences!

As far as toxicity, it is far less toxic than other drugs but it is still toxic. Non-toxic is hyperbole.

Coincidentally, a study from SUNY Potsdam, the same town in which I went to college and near where my friends died...
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/files/Marijuana-Use-Increases-Risk-of-Traffic-Crashes-and-Deaths.html

@Malcolm Kyle - Your comment is pure nonsense.

Apljak, neither can we say that water is harmless. This website details the dangers of the active ingredient in water, dihydrogen monoxide:
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

You're the one who's off in fantasy land when you say that cannabis has a body count. But I notice that you've included a bunch of ancillary activities in order to promote your fantasy. Didn't you overlook cops shooting people dead in your rush to blame cannabis for things which it did not cause?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Donald_P._Scott

Do you blame cannabis for the death of Jonathon Magbie? Those quadriplegics need to be taught a leson, no doubt. Let's take away their ventilators and after they suffocate, let's blame Mary J Wanna!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Magbie

When we say cannabis hasn't killed anyone we mean as a direct result of choosing to enjoy cannabis. No sunshine, merrywanna is not the culprit if a 16 ton brick of Mexican bunkweed drops on your head as you walk along the US/Mexican border. That is just not correct.

Kevin,
Not sure what all the smoke and mirrors are with the police shootings, etc...
I am merely saying that marijuana was a contributing factor in the death of my friends as they were irresponsibly operating a vehicle under the effects of a mind altering substance.
Grow up and accept that it isn't harmless, it does affect one's motor skills, and as a result, there should be regulations if it is legalized.
legalization is fine but it needs to be done responsibly and if you think otherwise you are either ignorant or to young to understand the ramifications.

If the federal government is holding back on prosecutions of bankers and lobbyists, it isn't because of lack of prison space.

Also, lobbying is not a crime. In fact, it is one of the few professions specifically protected by the US Constitution. "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (1st Amendment)

How would you like it if we started registering you and your buddies for alcohol use?

Health-related costs per user are eight times higher for those who drink alcohol when compared to those who use marijuana, and are more than 40 times higher for tobacco smokers, according to a 2009 review published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal.
It states, "In terms of [health-related] costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user."

http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/publications/cannabis/bck/7

Having three or more alcoholic drinks a day increased lung cancer risk by 30 percent.
“Heavy drinking has multiple harmful effects, including cardiovascular complications and increased risk for lung cancer,”
—lead researcher Stanton Siu, MD, of Kaiser Permanente

http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/alcohol/heavy-alcohol-consumption-linked-with-greater-lung-cancer-risk

Alcohol, when used alone, is "involved" in far more emergency department visits than every illegal drug combined. According to the Centers for Disease Control, "In the single year 2005, there were more than 1.6 million hospitalizations and more than 4 million emergency room visits for alcohol-related conditions."

yes Dennis, let's also have a license for people that eat candy, and one for cheeseburgers, and one for alcohol, and one for Cheetos, and one for people that Bungee Jump and Skydive. I'm sure you live in a bubble and you do nothing that raise my premiums for your "freedoms" So thank you for your very vanilla lifestyle.

What in the world makes anyone think that the insurance companies can't take care of themselves? When my wife and I bought our life insurance in 2003 we were tested for nicotine and cocaine. It's been proven that cannabis does not cause an increased risk of death. BTW the insurance company was USAA which is very conservative in its standards, and is not run by idiots.

Just because a lot of people smoke it we should legalize it? Maybe we should legalize speeding, DWI, underage drinking, cheating on your taxes and all the other things a lot of people do. Just because a lot of people do something doesn't justify making it acceptable.

No, it should be legal since it's not harming anyone else. Speeding alone doesn't hurt anyone as long as they aren't driving recklessly then speeding isn't a problem. DWI, same thing, if not driving recklessly then it's not a problem since setting an arbitrary limit is stupid since some people react differently at different BACs. "Underage" drinking should also be legal. Only reason it's a problem now is that teenagers do it illegally and binge and get in trouble, if they didn't have to hide it then it wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem. Cheating on your taxes, eh, not helping the government steal from your isn't really cheating. If a robber pointed a gun at you and said give me all your money and you hand over your wallet with 20 bucks in it but you have 200 bucks in your pocket and don't give it to them are you really cheating the robber?

If you aren't harming anyone else or their property without permission then you should be free to do whatever you want.

@Eric I really don't think cheating on your taxes is helping your case. While I am in general agreement with what you said, It is wrong to cheat on your taxes. Saying otherwise is just like paying half price and not leaving a tip at an expensive restaurant. Just because there is a huge markup on the food doesn't mean you have the right to pay them less money and screw the servant. If we all cheated on our taxes our nation would be in bigger mess than it is today.

As far as legalization goes, we all have the internet and any adult who wishes to use ANY drug of any kind has the resources available to them to make an educated decision. Nobody is forcing your kids to smoke if it becomes legal, it just means you as a parent are responsible for educating and raising your kids properly and you as an adult are responsible for possible bad decisions. I guarantee you no person with any sense will go to the "drug store" and go buy meth or cocaine and think "yeah this is totally healthy and good for me." With proper education, people can make the right choices, I guarantee you whether legal or not, society will make use of hard drugs socially unacceptable. Just like drinking alone, during the day time or other such stigmas are heavily looked down upon even though they are legal.
Let society regulate itself, not the federal government. That is TRUE conservatism. Legalizing all drugs will decrease the use of these drugs. Freedom of choice - I believe that why they sailed to this place

Paying for a service for a price you've already agreed to is completely different than taxes which is money being stolen from you (at gun point if needed) to pay for services you didn't agree to.

Eric Freerock, well said.

So let me get this straight, it's bad because it's against the law, and it's against the law because its bad. Are there really people stupid enough to believe such nonsense?

As far as the State of New Hampshire is concerned the evasion of income tax is perfectly legal.

No, the law shouldn't be repealed because a lot of people break it. The law needs to be repealed because it's unjust on its face. There's nothing conservative whatsoever about defending an unjust law.

The argument of the doctor or mechanic getting high before they work is not a valid argument against marijuana. Just because it would be legal does not mean people would be high all the time. Alcohol is legal and people don't get drunk before work because people are responsible and if they do, in my past experience, they would get fired. It is ridiculous that it is not treated as alcohol is, when it is less destructive to body and you can't be physically addicted to it.

Regarding the argument people will just get it for free, this just seems unlikely happening as the amount of time and work it takes to cultivate marijuana is very high. It is not an easy process and people would pay top dollar for premium marijuana. Again people gain make their alcohol but they don't because of convenience. It is not an easy task to grow marijuana and requires a lot of time, space, money and practice.

It seems most people that are against this know nothing about marijuana besides what the DARE program told them as a kid.

They have to alter their minds because they're weak and can't deal with reality.

PROHIBITION IS A DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY:

"The war on drugs has also generated indirect costs that many researchers contend have undermined public safety. The federal government has prioritized spending and grants for drug task forces and widespread drug interdiction efforts that often target low-level drug dealing. These highly organized and coordinated efforts have been very labor intensive for local law enforcement agencies with some unanticipated consequences for investigation of other crimes. The focus on drugs is believed to have redirected law enforcement resources that have resulted in more drunk driving, and decreased investigation and enforcement of violent crime laws. In Illinois, a 47% increase in drug arrests corresponded with a 22% decrease in arrests for drunk driving. Florida researchers have similarly linked the focus on low level drug arrests with an increase in the serious crime index."

–Drug Policy, Criminal Justice and Mass Imprisonment, by Bryan Stevenson

http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Arquivos/Global_Com_Bryan_Stevenson.pdf

Wow! Are you out in left field or what? You must get your information from the walls in rest rooms.

Dear Proud Conservative,

This is not a "left" issue. It is a problem of the authoritarian state. Sure you have something, like your firearms, your car, your church, which you do not want the state to dictate?

Different people have different things. Either you must allow people their choices which you may not agree with, or you might as well just put on the handcuffs now. On yourself, too, since you're just as likely a target for what YOU like as anyone else.

Hey Malcolm - check the drug laws and crime rate in Singapore.

Hey PC, check the drug laws and crime rates in Holland! Check out how the youth in Holland use cannabis at rates 1/3 that of U.S. youth! Don't you care about the cheee-ee-e-ldren?

If we adopt Singapore law does that mean we get (including but not limited to) government paid universal health care, legal abortion on demand paid for by said government funded universal health care (with no parental notification), public corporal punishment that leaves scars for chewing gum, strict gun control with the death penalty for some violations, or do you get to pick and choose the laws you like? If you like Singapore so much, why not move there? Don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out.

Well said.

by the way, giving FACTS to someone like "Proud Conservative" is a waste of your time. He isn't interested in facts. He doesn't need marijuana because he already happily lives in his own little world. Best to just leave him there & not give him the attention that he, and most 6-year-olds, demand. It only encourages them to make more noise.

Bravo, Smitty!
What a delightfully cogent response.

well said

here here

"You would have the freedom to not drink--and you would get cheaper health insurance. Where is the problem???"

No problem at all, and it already happens with private insurance. That is why some people are uninsurable.

Or were you talking about state health care? Sorry, that is an abomination and I will not discuss it.

At the risk of driving an otherwise (somewhat) sane thread off-track, I don't think you're thinking this through Dennis.

Some folks drink too much coffee or eat too much pasta. Should we try to quantify and license those? And what about those sky-divers? Motorcycle riders? Separate health rating for them too?

Chrystine, you're completely wrong. Just because you don't know anyone is no reason to think that it doesn't happen. And if HALF of the prison population is in for marijuana, how could prison overcrowding NOT be due to that?

Is your non-use of alcohol or tobacco grounds for prohibiting them to only "small amounts for personal use"? If not, then why cannabis?

Thats why I say decriminalize it and ignore it.

Because uneducated street urchins grow up to be dregs of society. If you really cared about your net worth being penny wise/dollar foolish just isn't very smart.

Well said

Ditto!

Stephen, couldn't agree more. Have fun! Knock yourself out.

Right, and if ya kill yourself with it then thats your problem. If you steal to get it you should be sentanced severely.

Heroine comes from the poppy plant, as do all opioids. The poppy plant has to be processed and refined to get to a substance like Heroine, or Morphine or Oxycodone or the like; so ahh no they are not natural anymore than distilled alcohol is. Marijuana is a plant that is in fact natural and can be consumed the same as tobacco or lettuce.

Heroin is semi-synthetic. If you don't even have a grasp of the fundamental facts why in the world would you comment on an issue.

Are you aware that fentanyl is 80 times more potent than heroin and available by prescription in the US?

Are you aware that heroin is legal by prescription in Great Britain for children as young as age 3? Not for getting high, don't be asinine.

Are you aware that in 2008 the voters in Switzerland voted to keep heroin legal and provided to their junkies at government expense by a margin greater than 2:1?
http://worldradio.ch/wrs/news/video/switzerland-embraces-heroin-assisted-treatment.shtml?12825

Regardless, anyone who is unable to differentiate between heroin/crack/meth and cannabis is in desperate need of a check up from the neck up.

Smoking is not required to gain the benefits of cannabis, whether for medicinal need or just for enjoyment. Any potential health hazards due to smoking are not the hazards of cannabis, but of smoking.



Vaporization is proven safe,  less expensive, and preferred by patients over smoking by a margin of 7:1 in peer reviewed research published in 2007. 
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=149:vaporization-as-a-qsmokelessq-cannabis-delivery-system&catid=41:research-studies&Itemid=135


Can we agree to use facts and evidence, rather than old wive's tales and irrational fear to make public policy?

Please, why do you think having it illegal reduces driving when high?

So an Officer's judgement and observation is not enough to determine impaired driving? Hmm, you had better inform the State and local police of that as they seem to feel otherwise and routinely cite these means as arrest and search justification.

just slap one of those don't operate heavy machinery stickers on it? or make all prescriptions illegal until they come up with a quick and easy test for the police to preform for all of the medications that have that sticker .

I rather like the idea of taxing it; even though I am loathe to taxes as the government never has enough. I would think this could be a bigger revenue source than Alcohol or Gambling combined to be honest; not to mention produced locally and thus a job creator.

I am glad your not in the 8th grade anymore; does that mean that you are able to articulate why it should not be legalized or are you devoid of a foundation for your position?

I didnt realize this issue was just about you.

Really?

http://coedmagazine.com/2011/02/02/the-10-smartest-pot-smokers-on-the-planet-cool-enough-to-admit-it/

http://www.420magazine.com/forums/celebrity-tokers/87813-200-celebrities-famous-people-who-smoke-pot.html

@Proud Conservative; I am very much inline with you most of the time, but it is ignorance like yours that has cost the Republican party and more over conservatism as a belief structure to be so poorly viewed by the majority and soundly thumped at the voting booth. Please do the conservative side of the arguement a favor and at least come bearing a logical arguement instead of rhetoric.

says the guy who has yet to post any evidence for his position and who has yet to post a valid argument. I don't smoke and it should definitely be legalized. I'm also a conservative, and a dedicated Christian. I can debate you all day on this subject, and I guarantee you I would embarrass you. Unfortunately you are a person who has made up his/her mind and will not listen to evidence or logic. Proud Conservative...debate me, a TRUE Conservative.

Your attitude is more dangerous than anyone i know smoking pot! You have no valid ideas or reasons for your opinion, yet you sit in judgement of othersJ(And resort to name-calling). You bring nothing to the conversation.

mac, I guarantee you that you can't embarass a malignant narcissist. It just ain't possible.

Not closed minded - but an unwavering opinion based upon facts developed as a result of medical and scientific research. What's "closed minded" and ignorant is any opinion that states pot use has no negative affects on the user.

Mr. proud I just want to make sure we are on the same page. scientifically the flintsones could have really happened because man kept dinosaurs like pets. and evolution is a "pipe dream"

where is @Proud Conservative? He's late for our debate!

Not Abraham Lincoln. You've been scammed.
http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/LincolnQuote/lpq0001.jpg

That's why marijuana should be allowed for adults 21+ to use, regulated in that same fashion as alcohol. That way only adults are using it. Children should be children, and shouldn't have the need to use any drug recreationally. Drug dealers don't I.D your children, and any middle schooler will tell you marijuana is easier to get than alcohol. Why? Because of drug dealers. Making marijuana legal makes it so only adults can purchase it. That leaves you as a parent, the ability to to teach responsibility, educate them, and allow them to reach adulthood before they make adult decisions.

You are implying that making it legal makes our children helplessly enslaved to marijuana. You are also implying that a child's upbringing is entirely meaningless, as if it were legal, they would all use it! That's incredibily ludicrous. I'm not calling you an idiot, or do I think you are stupid, but you should understand legality does not imply consumption, it implies responsible tolerance. I respect your concerns and absolutely do not want any substance to effect our children. But that's not what would happen.

I know potheads who sit on the couch all day and do nothing. I also know potheads who get more done before lunch then most people do all day. I also know folks who dont smoke and sit on the couch all day doing nothing, just as I know folks who dont smoke and run circles around others.

"Amotivational syndrome" is another old wive's tale. If you've ever seen cannabis "rip the ambition" out of people you must have been drunk.

Sorry for some of the typos/poor grammar, I didn't read before I hit enter....But you get the point.

Just watch all your pot-smoking friends as they age. Eventually you'll get the picture.

@Proud Conservative - Yeah look at all those pot smoking hippies from the 70s...oh wait, they are all still here. Willie Nelson, still here and still sharp as a tack, Steve Jobs...well he should of laid of the all-fruit diet. Listen, when I was younger, I used to smoke pot with 60+ yr old men who were high ranking officials, they had been doing it their whole lives. They hold well-respected positions and live totally normal lives. I've seen people age who use marijuana, and heard their testimonies. I also who know/knew people who have been drinking their whole life. Most are dead and others have sever liver dysfunction or other health issues. I've always had intelligible conversations with people who are high, not "slurred speach" and crazy talk. Society will not get dumber because of legalization. And guess what? Even in your logic, If that were to happen, MORE JOBS FOR THE SOBER! Once the "dopes" see they are loosing their jobs and well-being, they will quit smoking. It's not heroin guys, anybody can quit smoking pot as long as they have a reason too. It's not cigarettes, you wont need a patch, just a little self-discipline.
Anybody caught selling legal weed to underagers ought to be treated just as those who sold alcohol to minors - thrown in jail. I don't see the difference in thinking here

Kinda like alcohol huh?

How do you justify an attempt to wipe out an entire natural growing species from the face of the earth? Tigers are dangerous, let's outlaw those and keep our jungles safe!

Please Stephen, enlighten us on your one million reasons it should be illegal. Remember you aren't arguing whether you think it's right or not to consume, you are arguing that an entire plant should not be allowed to be grown on this planet. Please, I want somebody from the opposite viewpoint to have a sensible debate with me. Not a bunch mumbo jumbo rhetoric without a single bit of research or clear, conscionable thought. I want to hear something that makes me think. I dont smoke pot, I'm clear headed and I am standing for all those who are against prohibition. If you are for prohibition please explain how it has worked, and why you are for it.

Used to be.....no time for it now and don't really know where to get it anymore......and I will bet a months salary that the government has already come up with a million ways to justify its' illegality when in reality it is proven to have less of an impact than tobacco or alcohol....the point being that at the very least focusing our law enforcement and justice system effort twords our current legal state for marijuana is unduely necessary given the limmited resources we have and the actual benefit recieved from maintaining the status quo.

I guess, using your logic, that the Government has no business banning harmful food additives, unsafe medications and similar items.

So-called consumer protection agencies give people a false sense of security, so they are less diligent in ensuring the goods and services they buy are safe. Furthermore, these agencies have a history of allowing dangerous products on the market while restricting consumers' access to safe products. This is partially explained by the phenomenon of the regulatory capture, where bureaucrats at an agency become more concerned with protecting the interest of the industry they supposedly regulate than the interest of the public they supposedly serve.
In a free society, manufacturers would be held liable for any and all damages caused by their product; this, combined with the desire to earn repeat business by maintaining a positive reputation with consumers, would provide them with an incentive to ensure their products are safe.
Congressman Ron Paul, (R-TX)

I would add that we need to remove the corporate laws that protect the personal assets of shareholders. This would add another layer of people with "skin" in the game when it comes to ensuring that their company's products are safe.

I would have thought that the absurd "food pyramid", thalidomide, high-fructose corn syrup, aspartame, and the regulatory agencies being run by agents of the very industries they're "supposed" to be regulating, would have been a CLUE that such regulations are worse than no regulation at all.

For that matter, the USDA prosecuting meat packers for testing TOO WELL, embarrassing the government's pet firms. Or rather, the firms that paid more in bribes.

Without all that, golly, what would people do? Maybe, just maybe, they would get together and found VOLUNTARY organizations for testing, like Consumer Reports and Underwriter's Labs. Then, golly, such firms would have to COMPETE based not on their political connections, but on RESULTS, depending on reputation and quality rather than on the army and police to make any money at all.

There is nothing government does, no program, no service, that is not provided better, cheaper, or both, by voluntary cooperation of interested individuals.

No, there is something government does better: Murder.

I agree, just vaporize it and you wont have any deleterious effects. I'd also love to see some actual unbiased scientific polls, and quit hearing high driving = drunk driving. You know its overhyped when an insurance company releases this:

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/04/auto_insurance_site_says_marijuana_users_are_safer.php

And they're the ones looking for a reason to raise your rates.

Arturo: Me! Me! Me! Blah, blah, blah.

Give us a call when you quit being innummerate Arty, then maybe you'll understand just how much such idiotic policies would actually cost you.

Thank you Arturo for your eloquent description of what a free America would look like. We free men who be free to invest as we please, eat as we please, take risks as we please and keep the gain and suffer the losses. Our government would be smaller and be paid to protect our rights to do the above.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for your acquaintance who brought on his own problems by breaking the law?

@Proud Conservative...you ever heard of a pharisee? Yes you should feel at least remorse or share frustration with the fact that the man was trying to do anything he could to relieve the pain and suffering that comes with Chemo, and the fact that the law is so harsh to not only make it illegal but the possibility of a prison sentence on top of that for something that was only affecting himself. In that logic, shouldn't suicide survivors also be imprisoned? You are a narcissistic, self-righteous lunatic. I guess we also shouldn't feel bad when a mack truck swerves into your car when you are driving 5mph over the speed limit, you speeder!

Class C misdemeanor and $400

....or join or not join a union...or choose one's own school...or own our personal problems.. or possess a firearm.etc. The motto is not as meaningful to some if they can't constrain it to satisfy their own political restrictions. Selective freedom.

Arturo - your comparisons are not...

Personal decision that do not affect anyone else are choices and we should be free to make them as adults.

Taking apart public education by defunding it or telling employers how to contract with their employees is not a freedom of choice - it is a freedom to freeload.

"Personal decision that do not affect anyone else are choices and we should be free to make them as adults."

Like owning a gun....

a person who cannot be accountable for the responsibility because of their violent behavior or inability to use the weapon safely DOES affect society...

Or have you forgotten Newtown already?
1901 deaths from shootings... go look at the links - if you have an ounce of humanity left... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

Like the 4 year old who was "playing" with a gun
http://www.wfxg.com/story/21112300/police-4-year-old-killed-playing-with-gun
or this 9 year old who was shot by a guy just having a laugh
http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/75278/

I'm not sure where people get these false equivalencies, but they demean you and all those who suffer by minimizing the problem.

pot is not equivalent to RTW or guns or abortion - unless you're an idiot

pot is equivalent to alcohol - a personal-use self-ingested drug that isn't dangerous to make or to use correctly. Sell it in liquor stores and tax it, using the income for addiction programs and prevention.

Jan Schmidt, "pot is not equivalent to RTW or guns or abortion - unless you're an idiot"

No one is saying that a plant is the equivalent to anything that is not another plant.

Prohibition, however, is exactly the same. The difference is that you want x and y to be illegal, but not z, while someone else wants y and z to be illegal by not x.

Unless you and others stop promoting government force to make things illegal for other people just because you don't like them, we WILL end up where everything that is not mandatory is illegal, and then it will be far too late for you to change your mind.

"Both parties are control freaks"

As if there is more than one party, the part of State Power, amongst which there are several factions which, when they cooperate, end up controlling everything.

Just look at how hard it is to get any of them to release their control over ANYTHING once they have it.

@wm as it is.
How about this? http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/04/auto_insurance_site_says_marijuana_users_are_safer.php

According to this insurance company and USAA marijuana users tend to be safer drivers than not only those using alcohol, but also NON-SMOKERS!
Read the article, seriously. Also, marijuana is the cartel's biggest money maker, how can you say that it can't compete with the cartels? Nobody wants to smoke Mexican "schwag". It's terrible quality. If it were legal, you would get the best of both worlds, competitive prices and great quality. Pot also offers thousands or even millions of users an alternative to addictive, harmful and expensive drugs that doctors currently subscribe. If for no other reason, that should be good enough logic to legalize it.

@wm: that is an inaccurate study because the study takes in account that marijuana was in the blood. I do AGREE with you on the subject of mixing alcohol with marijuana, it's not a good idea and I can see where that can be a problem with enforcing either alcohol or marijuana DUI. However, it's a rule of thumb not to smoke and drink. It does happen, but on a very small scale.
Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating stoned driving, just merely stating is a much safer activity than drinking and driving (even in small amounts of alcohol). Whether on pain meds or marijuana, nobody should drive impaired. But that being said, a bunch of people who have smoked and decide to drive does not equal a bunch of drunks on the road. I'm sure road rage is a much more dangerous habit than somebody who smoked a hit or two and gets behind the wheel. Insurance companies are definitely aware of that study you addressed, but obviously they see some flaw in the study. Just because someone has marijuana in their system does not mean it caused the crash. By the way marijuana stays in the blood stream up to 100x longer than alcohol, so you can see where misleading data can come from. Colorado and Washington are already using a similar test for cannabis impaired drivers just like alcohol's .08 system. Using that system, Colorado has not seen a spike in "high-driving." Showing it's relative safety, and also arguing against the claim that legalization causes more dangerous road systems.

@Susanthe

Is this not a good enough reason to make it legally available? People. Critics. Is this not enough evidence, is this testimony not enough proof to see that this plant is not a schedule III (no medical benefit/use) drug. There are real people with real stories, people with loved ones who have seen their significant others take a RISK to try anything ease the suffering and improve the quality of life. Yet people like @"Proud Conservative" would feel no sympathy for someone like this if they got caught using this "dangerous substance". He would just put his nose in the air and say this is what you get for breaking the law. What if the law is wrong @Proud Conservative, what if people are tired of old archaic laws that have no scientific or even logical bearing? It seems almost 80% of the poll agree. And you can keep your pride, I believe the Bible mentions something about pride.

Whereas chronic alcoholics are sharp as a tack.

I'm fascinated to see a Proud Conservative Nanny Stater.

Coffee, alcohol, OTC drugs and prescription meds have nothing to do with the legalization of pot. You can't justify the legalization of one substance based upon the effects of another substance. To do so is foolishness. But then again, you're a user so that explains your position.

Ah, Dan, cannabis legalization is a Democrat issue.

Ah, Susanthe. So you said nothing when Dan was objecting to it being a Republican issue, but you must jump in to correct me when I say it's a Democrat issue, even though you do so by saying it's both.

Why didn't you jump in and correct Dan to say it was both, hm?

susan, while there are bipartisan sponsors, the majority of supporters across this nation are democrat. I'm conservative-leaning, I have no bias but I have done the research. It is the majority of republican politicians that seem to think marijuana should not only be illegal, but medical marijuana should be prohibited and the punishment for its use is fair. I hope this changes, and there has been much change in recent years. By the way Dan, marijuana is an economy issue, and I can tell you are the 3% of the nation that still believes cannabis is a gateway drug. I dare you to ask somebody who only smokes cannabis to try cocaine, then ask someone who is drunk to try cocaine. See who budges first.
Marijuana is only a "gateway" in the sense that prohibition creates a market for drug dealers, who obviously are in the interest of making money by introducing users to more expensive, more addicting drugs

Are you sure your #s on Portugal are correct? As far as weed being a gateway drug , one could say the same for booze or cigs. Some persoalities will experiment , some will not. Being legal has very little to do with that. You cannot control human behavior thru legislation. You may be able to pursuade it a small amount , but control it , never. If that was not the case we would not need prisons, only laws.

Susanthe, always projecting what you think into others, and then responding to your own projections. So sad.

Fair lady, I realize that spending your day responding to online postings may very well be your job, but it is not mine. And psychology may very well be it, have you considered that?

I wonder, why do you get so angry and hateful whenever someone posts something you disagree with, to the point of demanding that the disagreer leave so that you can write in an echo chamber where you see only those points of view you already agree with?

Would it not be easier to simply ignore someone who annoys you with their very existence?

Fair Lady, your insults and emotional instability are for all to see, I need do no projecting.

Yes, I saw the testimony by the firearms dealer that said much the same thing as you are doing here.

This raises a series of questions.

First, the "not a user of illegal drugs" question can be answered as "No", because it's not illegal. The form would have to be changed to specify "Federally illegal".

Second, what are people doing now? If the number of people who presently use cannabis is so high (ahem), are those who also own firearms being prosecuted for false-form-filling-out now?

Third, if the answer to #2 is negligible, what makes you think that legality will make a profound difference in the demographic of those who use cannabis?

It is my experience that those who use cannabis now are the ones who wish to do so. Legality doesn't change who does or does not, save for the "bad boy" mystique which legality would do nothing but reduce, not increase.

Therefore, based upon these elements, I consider the doom-and-gloom argument about the Federal Firearms Forms to be no actual issue at all. The Feds don't need any excuses for back-door confiscation, such things are coming right through the front door already.

Susanthe, your reaction to my being polite is also very interesting.

Ending the war has been shown to be a waste of time at the Federal level, so the state level is all that is left, until, as you say, the issue becomes big enough to the masses.

What will it take to wake people up? I don't know. Respecting the right of others to choose how they live their own lives is a very difficult effort. So many people pick and choose, and make their own preferences the law for others.

There are people who are offended when govt gets into their bedrooms, but want regulation of business. Another swath want regulation of bedrooms, but not business.

Still others want regulation of firearms, but not drugs, while others want regulation of drugs but not guns.

For believing that this division between people is deliberate, I get dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. And my efforts to deregulate both the bedroom and boardroom, both drugs and guns, alienates everyone. Susanthe is an excellent example of someone with whom I have no argument at all on subjects where she wishes deregulation, but she is incapable of getting past the fact that there are things she wants govt to regulate which I do not.

If enough people continue to be incapable of allowing others their Liberty, then this is all a lost cause. So we might as well fight the good fight and not go quietly into the darkness of dictatorship to which it seems America is inevitably descending.

partly because people get their "political ideals" from left-wing and right-wing media and television. If it's a big story, it becomes a big issue, not the other way around (hence, why we rarely see marijuana as a subject on TV). It is the agenda by the media to create controversy and create enemies out of the opposite political party. We are all American citizens, we shouldn't hate "the other side", especially since most people choose a party based on social issues, not economics or political ideals. We need to quite acting like ALL Democrats are "like this" and ALL Republicans are "like that", just because that's what the media portrays. I lean Conservative and I share only 50% of the values that Fox news says are my beliefs. I know Democrats who are conservative in their economics but liberal in their social ideas. When will we all learn that no 2 parties can carry the plethora of ideas of this great diverse nation. You know why republicans and democrats hate a moderate? Because they can't be trusted to vote strictly republican or democrat on bills or issues, in other words, they are too "free thinking". Far left liberals absolutely scare me on their economics, and far right conservatives are frustratingly against any change or progressivism.

I dont understand your comment at all. The state will also take on much greater profit which help keep your athletics, art and music programs in your schools, as well as take on any potential increased "accountability". You can do a lot with 50 Billion Dollars.

most state's can't make a profit from a toll booth, this will cost a fortune to implement and regulate why don't you see how the state is handling other taxes before you assume this will turn into net revenue.

The CNN video isn't working, but this is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzKjFiGFrcU

Great Video people should really watch it. It's definitely not a scientific study, it should definitely bring up a good conversation point

While we can agree on its legalization, please do not believe marijuana is "just as dangerous" as alcohol. Not only is it scientifically proven that alcohol is more dangerous to the body and the brain, alcohol is responsible for 80% of all murders. Marijuana used while operating heavy machinery is certainly not a good idea, I'm assuming those are the events you "witnessed". But how can you say a drunk is more useful than a pot head? Is the complete loss of inhibition, and extreme rise in aggressive, irrational behavior more useful than something that makes users more cautious? Go look at the leading causes of all deaths, you'll find tobacco, then alcohol near the top. I won't be the one saying being intoxicated on marijuana is completely harmless, it quite close to it. There are certainly situations where it is absolutely stupid to use, nobody should use any substance while working, especially dangerous work like being in a shipyard. But a word to the people: ALCOHOL is 100% certain to be more dangerous than marijuana. Cigarettes trump both combined. Legalizing pot will decrease the use of alcohol and cigarettes combined, now that is a safer world.

Yeah, right. That's like eliminating speed limits and asking drivers to drive responsibly. Pot damages your brain and produces many long term negative effects. It's currently an illegal substance and should remain so.

Yeah, the people are speaking.....the potheads with altered minds.

Just because you can tax something and bring in revenue doesn't make it good or beneficial.

Can't win a drug war, eh?

As per Section 17 of the Act, you are automatically presumed to be trafficking in drugs if you are caught with the following amounts:

Heroin - 2 grams or more
Cocaine - 3 grams or more
Morphine - 3 grams ore more
MDMA (ecstasy) - 10 grams or more
Hashish - 10 grams or more
Cannabis - 15 grams or more
Opium - 100 grams or more
Methamphetamine - 25 grams or more

As per Schedule 2 of the Act, a mandatory death penalty is prescribed if you are convicted of possessing any of the following:

Heroin - 15 grams or more
Cocaine - 30 grams or more
Morphine - 30 grams or more
Hashish - 200 grams or more
Methamphetamine - 250 grams or more
Cannabis - 500 grams or more
Opium - 1,200 grams or more

In Singapore the pot users are .005% of the population. That's a win!

So, "Proud Conservative", you proclaim it a "win" that people you don't like are persecuted right out of Singapore. You demonstrate that you are uninterested in the Liberty of people you don't like. Fair enough.

You call yourself a "proud conservative", and it's generally assumed such people are Christian, own a gun or are sympathetic to it, etc.

So, are you going to just roll over and have Christianity abolished by law? With strong enforcement, Christians could be made only .005% of the population, and you would consider that a win!

Are you just going to turn in your firearms, so that, with strong enforcement only .005% of the population would still have guns. You call that a win!

Of course the pot war or the war on any other drug is winnable. All we need are much tougher penalties. I don't think anyone on here would waltz into Singapore with a bag of pot nor do i think anyone here would sit down on a park bench in Singapore and light up.

Sorry old chap - the real losers are the potheads. The inability to face and deal with reality without using a mind altering substance is pretty pathetic. In the end, marijuana users are the real losers - big time.

Very Well Put!!

Hypocracy is the bigger issue.

The truth is that the reason people use pot is that they are weak minded - too weak to face reality without using a mind altering drug. They are mentally fragile to the point where everyday life is problem for them unless they use drugs. Mentally stable people with sound minds do not need pot or any other substance to deal with life.

You're about as bright as a burned out light bulb. It's a shame they closed all the institutions and defectives like you are out walking the streets.

Marty Hardy, is that you?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/new-hampshire-republican-wont-apologize-for-saying-defective-people-should-die-in-siberia.php

"a heavy equipment operator with a lengthy rap sheet was high on marijuana when the building collapsed"

And if he'd been drunk, shall we prohibit alcohol?

If you support the prohibition on cannabis, then you must support the prohibition of all mind altering substances. Alcohol, caffeine, sugar.

This morning it was reported that the inspector that okayed the work on the building committed suicide with a gun. Could it be the workers were not high, but the inspector was another conservative worshipping the almighty dollar and overlooked things for a big fat tip and got caught? Hmmm what was he under the influence of?

"Hmmm what was he under the influence of?"

The one drug that I would prohibit: Power.

Pot isn't harmless when used behind the wheel. Just as prescription drugs , booze and cells phones are not harmless when used behind the wheel. No one is advocating for stoned driving. Supporters are saying that how one chooses to intoxicate themselves in the privacy of their own homes is their business. Will some abuse it? Of course they , just as some do with guns. Making something legal or illegal does not change that.

If someone hurts someone when using heavy machinery when drunk, are you going to prohibit alcohol?
If someone hurts someone when using heavy machinery when on a prescription, are you going to prohibit that prescription?
If someone hurts someone when using heavy machinery when distracted by having to use the toilet, are you going to ban bladders? Colons? Toilets?

"If that was the way logic worked, we could justify just about anything."

Finally, the light begins to shine. Prohibition doesn't work. STOP PROHIBITING. Prosecute people for their ACTIONS.

um WHY NOT?!? you're embarrassing yourself by showing your complete inability to back up your argument with solid supporting evidence! its hilarious, really. keep it up, you make the other side look brilliant.

@AliRung - Seriously?? You don't understand why the fact that one substance is legal does not justify another substance being legalized? All I can say is Wow!

Once again........ just because Obama smoked weed isn't a justification for anyone else to do so. You can't pick you crime and simply say so and so did it so it's OK to do.

"Proud Conservative",

"You can't pick you crime and simply say so and so did it so it's OK to do"

When that person is a govt agent, yes, you can. He is a HYPOCRITE for prosecuting the prohibition of marijuana when he himself imbibed.

You wouldn't want a HYPOCRITE in a position of power, would you?

This is not just Obama. The last 3 Presidents (20 years+) have all been admitted marijuana smokers.

Studies have concluded that starting a statement with "research clearly demonstrates" is more than enough to prove your point. No need to provide backing evidence, citations, or even logic.

So, PC, don't smoke it. Don't let your children smoke it. Then you'll have a competitive advantage over everyone who does.

How can you pass up such an excellent opportunity to put everyone else down and boost your own marginal utility?

Compare these to list the side effects of alcohol or cigarettes, drugs that are currently legal. Where is your crusade to prohibit those drugs?

Here ya go:

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana