Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You can throw all of your logic and solutions and benefits of legalization at regular Americans, but you're going to have a hard time getting people to follow you.

There may be some face value benefits of legalization, but there's a major sticking point to many, myself included. Legalization of drugs, to us, amounts to us ratifying their usage. Now, I am very much in support of live an let live, but drugs harm the users, their contacts, and society as a whole. I just cannot support anything that ratifies such a harmful practice.

It's a tough pill to swallow, and no amount of logical solutions will solve this moral dillema.

Keep alcohol legalized, but continue to say fuck weed.

Camaro's logic. AMIRITE?

At 10/10/11 09:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It's a tough pill to swallow, and no amount of logical solutions will solve this moral dillema.

i can't say it won't have that effect, but behaviours and activities don't necessarily become acceptable simply because they have been legalized, i.e., suicide is legal but this hasn't had much bearing on our attitudes towards it (certainly its a little extreme, but as we are discussing subjects of self-harm i do think it has some relevance). hopefully a knowledge of potential effects will allow for sound judgements as opposed to equating legality with a recommendation of use.

unfortunately mankind is a little inconsistent when it comes to making good decisions
...mass drug orgies aren't particularly appealing to me either :s

At 10/10/11 10:31 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: Keep alcohol legalized, but continue to say fuck weed.
Camaro's logic. AMIRITE?

Please quote where I said that. Go ahead. Otherwise, I say keep your 'scathing' wit to yourself. If you want to actually engage in a conversation regarding marijuana specifically, please grow up ,and come back civilly and I will be glad to engage.

At 10/10/11 10:36 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i can't say it won't have that effect, but behaviours and activities don't necessarily become acceptable simply because they have been legalized

I don't agree with this. We as a society still strongly believe drug use is wrong. Drug use is harmful, and not just to the person that uses it. If we were to abandon criminal penalties for usage of drugs, we essentially are abandoning the only part of our legal system that represents this concern and societal dislike of drugs, and our wish to be rid of them.

hopefully a knowledge of potential effects will allow for sound judgements as opposed to equating legality with a recommendation of use.

We already have an extreme wealth of knowledge about the harmful effects of drugs, AND the added deterrent of criminal liability, but people still use drugs. If these together aren't enough to stop these people, I seriously doubt education alone will be.

At 10/10/11 10:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't agree with this. We as a society still strongly believe drug use is wrong. Drug use is harmful, and not just to the person that uses it. If we were to abandon criminal penalties for usage of drugs, we essentially are abandoning the only part of our legal system that represents this concern and societal dislike of drugs, and our wish to be rid of them.

i disagree, it seems to me society has a number of different attitudes towards drugs (both the mind-altering and the medicinal [sometimes both are the same]), though i wouldn't disagree that a more universal feeling held by society is that excessive drug use is wrong. our laws already condone, or are moot with regards to, the use of a number of drugs for recreational purposes. the question isn't whether legislation should seek to end all drug use, full stop, but how best to deal with their use with the least effect on society. thus far it would appear that criminalization has had a number of negative effects, effects that outweigh the benefits of such an approach, which is why many fail to see why we should continue with such a policy.
i obviously can't say that everything is going to turn out rosy if we decriminalize drugs (or a few of them), but fearing that everyone is going to go get high and do nothing else seems a little fantastical.

At 10/10/11 10:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
I don't agree with this. We as a society still strongly believe drug use is wrong. Drug use is harmful, and not just to the person that uses it. If we were to abandon criminal penalties for usage of drugs, we essentially are abandoning the only part of our legal system that represents this concern and societal dislike of drugs, and our wish to be rid of them.

Aspirin, Tylenol, Caffeine, cough syrup, etc. etc. etc.

No. The only thing present is hypocrisy regarding drugs. And your statement itself is plain ignorant. Let's just go ahead and legislate against everything that is considered a drug according to what you and what you think society says is harmful.

Who's up for conscious open heart surgery!

At 10/10/11 11:54 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: No. The only thing present is hypocrisy regarding drugs.

Explain. If you can.

At 10/11/11 12:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/10/11 11:54 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: No. The only thing present is hypocrisy regarding drugs.

Explain. If you can.

I have the energy to explain this one more time, before we go around the merry go round of logic again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9rzJXMGQ tY

allowing some drugs while banning others is not necessarily hypocrisy.

At 10/10/11 09:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Now, I am very much in support of live an let live, but drugs harm the users, their contacts, and society as a whole. I just cannot support anything that ratifies such a harmful practice.

I could make roughly the same argument about the war on drugs.

There are plenty of things that are legal without that being considered tacit support. The drug problem is pretty serious and it's clear that the current policy of prohibition hasn't been working. Continuing a non-functioning policy just because you're worried about the message it might send if you got rid of it is a pretty weak argument.

At 10/11/11 12:44 PM, SolInvictus wrote: allowing some drugs while banning others is not necessarily hypocrisy.

When the reason for banning them is "they are dangerous", but yet keeping even deadlier drugs legal, then yes. It is hypocrisy.

At 10/11/11 03:38 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 10/11/11 12:44 PM, SolInvictus wrote: allowing some drugs while banning others is not necessarily hypocrisy.

When the reason for banning them is "they are dangerous", but yet keeping even deadlier drugs legal, then yes. It is hypocrisy.

A very expensive hypocrisy, might I add.

At 10/11/11 03:38 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: When the reason for banning them is "they are dangerous", but yet keeping even deadlier drugs legal, then yes. It is hypocrisy.

but this isn't a full representation of Camarohusky's position, as he has stated his disdain for drugs and their harmful effects in general, or the use of damaging substances for the sole purpose of personal pleasure. the current legislation does to a degree reflect social attitudes in that we differentiate drugs by purpose, effects and harms. like it or not alcohol, tobacco and coffee are intensely socially ingrained, and serve cultural purposes (this is supposedly a positive) whereas most others don't leaving us only with considerations of effect and harm on which to base a decision. it would be like saying the Rastafari are hypocrites for smoking pot but abhorring other drugs; social understandings of drugs and their dangers are not based solely on notions of self-harm.
this of course says nothing about Cam's position as he may very well be that more should be done/regulated, but as he has been making thought out posts and has been elaborating on his position, i would like to continue hearing from his as opposed to arguing about hypocrisy.

consistency is fun and all but cause and effect are likely more fruitful topics.

At 10/11/11 12:47 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: I have the energy to explain this one more time, before we go around the merry go round of logic again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9rzJXMGQ tY

Post to the actual study. I want to see their numbers and math. This study reeks of "well alcohol causes less damage per unit, but because of more units we're going to fuzz the logic and make a newsy claim!"

People claiming that marijuana is not very physically harmful have an argument when comparing to alcohol, but comparing heroin to alcohol? Yeah, I'm going to have to call BS on that. I have seen the negative effects of alcohol, and the negative effects of heroin, and guess what, rock bottom alcoholism is about equivalent to a medium addiction to heroin.

At 10/11/11 02:35 PM, Elfer wrote: I could make roughly the same argument about the war on drugs.

Go ahead and make the cost excuse. Or even the wasted effort excuse, but I will not buy the argument that the war on drugs causes more physical and social harms than drugs themselves do. I find it extremely hard to believe that people are less likely to be harmed when we put absolutely zero legal consequences on doing drugs, when we have severe consequences now.

There are plenty of things that are legal without that being considered tacit support. The drug problem is pretty serious and it's clear that the current policy of prohibition hasn't been working. Continuing a non-functioning policy just because you're worried about the message it might send if you got rid of it is a pretty weak argument.

Not really. We as a society do not value the effects of these drugs. We abhor the harm they cause to the users, their friends and families, as well as the social harms it creates. Our government is charged with protecting us, from inner and outer forces. The harmful effects drugs have clearly fall within this perogative.

At 10/11/11 03:40 PM, Cootie wrote: A very expensive hypocrisy, might I add.

While the expense argument seems logical, it also seems shallow. I mean, when it's too expensive to do the right thing, we should just stop doing it, right? Should we nto help others because it takes too much time? Should we not donate because it takes too much money? Should we not fund the polcie because it costs too much money? Should we let uninsured die because it costs too much money?

I have some draconian views, but taking the easy road because the right road is too expensive just ain't one of them.

At 10/11/11 09:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Go ahead and make the cost excuse. Or even the wasted effort excuse, but I will not buy the argument that the war on drugs causes more physical and social harms than drugs themselves do. I find it extremely hard to believe that people are less likely to be harmed when we put absolutely zero legal consequences on doing drugs, when we have severe consequences now.

I didn't say "absolutely zero consequences," this topic was about decriminalization, which is not the same thing as moving drugs to the same legal status as baby food.

Furthermore, and I'd like to restate this because it's a very important point in the issue: This is not a choice between prohibition and drugs. I have never seen any hard evidence, anywhere, EVER to suggest that taking a hard criminal stance against drugs has reduced drug use. In fact, in every country that has relaxed restrictions on drugs, you see the opposite: Either no increase in drug use, or a drop in drug use with an increase in enrolment for treatment programs.

Again, I think that drug use is one of the biggest problems faced by economically developed countries. I just don't think there's any indication that prohibition is the solution to this problem. I think that education, treatment and support for those affected is the solution.

The route that I personally support is more along the lines of moving currently illegal drugs to roughly the same legal status as prescription drugs. I'd like to see a system where people wouldn't face criminal charges for drug use, but more importantly, a system in which the production and distribution of drugs is legitimized.

One of the major terrible side effects of prohibition is organized crime. Yes, there are a few other rackets run by gangs today, but the bread and butter of their operation is the distribution and sale of drugs. If that were taken away, there would be a huge loss in profit motive for violent crime.

At 10/12/11 10:35 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/11/11 09:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Go ahead and make the cost excuse. Or even the wasted effort excuse, but I will not buy the argument that the war on drugs causes more physical and social harms than drugs themselves do. I find it extremely hard to believe that people are less likely to be harmed when we put absolutely zero legal consequences on doing drugs, when we have severe consequences now.

I didn't say "absolutely zero consequences," this topic was about decriminalization, which is not the same thing as moving drugs to the same legal status as baby food.

But the topic is based on the article about Portugal decriminalizing drug use to the point that there are zero consequences. Selling drugs may have still been illegal but it also still happened and the people who bought and used those drugs didn't face any consequences.

Furthermore, and I'd like to restate this because it's a very important point in the issue: This is not a choice between prohibition and drugs. I have never seen any hard evidence, anywhere, EVER to suggest that taking a hard criminal stance against drugs has reduced drug use. In fact, in every country that has relaxed restrictions on drugs, you see the opposite: Either no increase in drug use, or a drop in drug use with an increase in enrollment for treatment programs.

What about Amsterdam? Not only has pot use among the general population increased but its coffee shops are famous enough to bring tourists to Amsterdam who go for the sole purpose of smoking pot. A hard criminal stance might not decrease drug use but neither does decriminalization or legalization. I don't even think there's been a study on whether actual drug use increases or decreases with decriminalization, because there is a difference between the number of users and the amount of drugs being used. Some users may be willing to get treatment if drugs are decriminalized but others may also increase consumption since they no longer need to worry about facing criminal charges for use.

Again, I think that drug use is one of the biggest problems faced by economically developed countries. I just don't think there's any indication that prohibition is the solution to this problem. I think that education, treatment and support for those affected is the solution.

Prohibition doesn't prevent education, treatment, and support. It's already been pointed out that addicts receive treatment in prison. As for education, people are being taught about the dangers of drugs in school and through the media. Finally, anyone can check into a rehab clinic to get support when overcoming addiction. They chose to use drugs in the first place, if having a criminal record for it is the consequences you have to face for rehabilitation then so be it but actions have consequences and in the real world people generally have to deal with those consequences.

The route that I personally support is more along the lines of moving currently illegal drugs to roughly the same legal status as prescription drugs. I'd like to see a system where people wouldn't face criminal charges for drug use, but more importantly, a system in which the production and distribution of drugs is legitimized.

People still find illegal ways to get prescription drugs and still face criminal charges for doing so. If anything your plan would simply open up new options for drug dealers to gain access to and sell drugs (assuming that with importing some of the things needed and taxing the sale of drugs doesn't just make it cheaper for dealers to continue bringing it into the country themselves.

One of the major terrible side effects of prohibition is organized crime. Yes, there are a few other rackets run by gangs today, but the bread and butter of their operation is the distribution and sale of drugs. If that were taken away, there would be a huge loss in profit motive for violent crime.

Not really. So long as people can't get the drugs they'll find a way which means they'll still turn to whoever has it and those same groups that deal drugs to the U.S. sell throughout the Americas so the loss of one country wouldn't be sufficient to eliminate them. Unless you completely legalize drugs the crime that exists in order to distribute those drugs will continue to exist, but if you do completely legalize those drugs that crimes that occur because people are using them or need money to buy them will also still occur and possibly increase in frequency.

They should focus moar on Mexican weapon smuggling

At 10/12/11 12:06 PM, Halberd wrote: They should focus moar on Mexican weapon smuggling

As in stopping the Mexican/Brazilian/Southern Mexican drug cartels from smuggling weapons across the U.S border and selling them in the U.S

At 10/12/11 12:06 PM, Halberd wrote: They should focus moar on Mexican weapon smuggling

You mean US weapon sales to Mexican smugglers.

At 10/12/11 11:21 AM, djack wrote: But the topic is based on the article about Portugal decriminalizing drug use to the point that there are zero consequences. Selling drugs may have still been illegal but it also still happened and the people who bought and used those drugs didn't face any consequences.

Well, they were still arrested, had the drugs confiscated and had to attend a hearing. It's not zero consequences in the "Let's do a line of coke off a cop's hat" sense.

What about Amsterdam? Not only has pot use among the general population increased but its coffee shops are famous enough to bring tourists to Amsterdam who go for the sole purpose of smoking pot.

Do you have a source for the first point? I've seen studies indicating an increase in the number of people who have ever tried it, but not an increase in people who are regular users.

I'd also be willing to bet that the vast majority of tourists are not first-time users, but people who are attracted by the novelty of smoking pot openly in a coffee shop.

A hard criminal stance might not decrease drug use but neither does decriminalization or legalization.

That's true, but I would say that a hard criminal stance has a lot of problems associated with it, such as leaving users with criminal records and occasionally prison time, incentive against openly seeking treatment, the enormous costs associated with it, etc.

Prohibition doesn't prevent education, treatment, and support.

It does, however, reduce potential funding for those programs, and there tends to be a lot of misinformation that gets floated in education campaigns. This is not stricly a result of prohibition, but the idea of "we need to keep people away from drugs at any cost" helps to let it slide. Unfortunately, having incorrect information in education campaigns undermines the credibility of the source.

They chose to use drugs in the first place, if having a criminal record for it is the consequences you have to face for rehabilitation then so be it but actions have consequences and in the real world people generally have to deal with those consequences.

But if having a criminal record is the price for rehabilitation, wouldn't that make people much less likely to choose to enter a rehab program?

People still find illegal ways to get prescription drugs and still face criminal charges for doing so.

That's why I said "roughly the same" and not "exactly the same." Drug policy doesn't work quite right on a lot of levels.

If anything your plan would simply open up new options for drug dealers to gain access to and sell drugs (assuming that with importing some of the things needed and taxing the sale of drugs doesn't just make it cheaper for dealers to continue bringing it into the country themselves.

This is true, but also kind of the point. Prescription drug resale is not big business for organized crime because the margins are relatively low. It's cheap to produce and easy to obtain, meaning that the people selling at the best price will be those with low loaded costs, i.e. a one or two man operation. When production and distribution are already legitimate and the only illicit activity occurs after distribution, the need for a criminal network evaporates.

Also, there's simply no way that a criminal network importing drugs will ever be more cost-effective than a legitimate production operating domestically (with the possible exception of cocaine, which is still cheapest to synthesize from the coca plant, due to the complex stereochemical nature of the compound).

The current system basically allows gangs to determine the purity, price and distribution of drugs. Despite the "icky" nature of having a legitimate plant dedicated to say, methamphetamine, I'd rather have that than the current system.

Not really. So long as people can't get the drugs they'll find a way which means they'll still turn to whoever has it and those same groups that deal drugs to the U.S. sell throughout the Americas so the loss of one country wouldn't be sufficient to eliminate them.

This is true, but it would eliminate the profit motive to have organized crime inside the affected country, as well as eliminating the need for the entire supply side of the operation that was required to meet the demand in that country.

Haha, "novelty" more like the ease of obtaining potent marijuana. Talking about sources but can't seem to get one for your claim "people with criminal records don't seek treatment". How about you go to a rehab and see for yourself? While ignoring the last sentence of his post. You just don't get it do you?

Through limiting of information, tight control of precursors, eradication of the plants. etc. It will be like these drugs never existed because people wouldn't know, much like in North Korea. This can happen, all the while reading posts of yours about absurd ambitions like mining for resources in outer space.

At 10/12/11 12:33 PM, Elfer wrote: Well, they were still arrested, had the drugs confiscated and had to attend a hearing. It's not zero consequences in the "Let's do a line of coke off a cop's hat" sense.

But even at the hearing they could still refuse treatment and go back to doing drugs without any consequences other than having to buy more drugs.

Do you have a source for the first point? I've seen studies indicating an increase in the number of people who have ever tried it, but not an increase in people who are regular users.

According to this article the use of pot fluctuated somewhat but overall increased after it became legal. While the majority might not be regular users, when you have a sharp increase in the number of users you still get an increase in the number of regular users. 100% of 6 is 6, 15% of 100 is 15, and 15>6 (not perfect but it still demonstrates the point).

I'd also be willing to bet that the vast majority of tourists are not first-time users, but people who are attracted by the novelty of smoking pot openly in a coffee shop.

Probably but it does still bring more people into Amsterdam who are smoking pot and there are going to be some first time users who are there for other reasons but only try pot because it's legal.

But if having a criminal record is the price for rehabilitation, wouldn't that make people much less likely to choose to enter a rehab program?

Some would be less likely to enter rehab but those are also the people who likely don't see rehab as a necessity and probably wouldn't go to rehab unless they were forced to. From the study of Portugal, how many people who entered rehab only did so because they got caught and how many actually stepped up and requested it?

Oh and those methods I decribed will be better refined once we don't need the drug money for funding our black projec.. err Once the technology gets better.

At 10/11/11 09:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/11/11 12:47 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: I have the energy to explain this one more time, before we go around the merry go round of logic again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9rzJXMGQ tY

Post to the actual study. I want to see their numbers and math. This study reeks of "well alcohol causes less damage per unit, but because of more units we're going to fuzz the logic and make a newsy claim!"

here ya go
oh wait that's the study that only took your personal health into account, and not harm to others

heres the news story in words
still no chart though, i wonder where that might be?

aha!
now theres a source! not only does it contain corroborating information from the last link, it also has a fancy chart with it too! pieced together by qualified personnel of course.

oh but I'm afraid that's only 2 sources they can't possibly mean anything on their own wait more?

heres another one for good luck

At 10/12/11 10:20 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: here ya go

Not the actual study.

heres the news story in words

Not the actual study.

aha!

Not the actual study.

oh but I'm afraid that's only 2 sources they can't possibly mean anything on their own wait more?

Not the actual study.

heres another one for good luck

Not the actual study.

I asked for the actual study. I didn't ask for more trite descriptions of the study. Cite to the exact study. Primary source.

At 10/12/11 10:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I asked for the actual study. I didn't ask for more trite descriptions of the study. Cite to the exact study. Primary source.

oh you want the very original work of the fine gents involved in this? well that just not possible! I would never in all my life of searching be able to find such an obscure document.....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime /2011/10/13/2011-10-13_excop_we_fabricat ed_drug_raps_for_quotas.html

At 10/12/11 11:05 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: oh you want the very original work of the fine gents involved in this? well that just not possible! I would never in all my life of searching be able to find such an obscure document.....

If you look at the biggest harms of alcohol on the list you find a few issues with the study. Some involved with the study (8 pages to describe your study? really?) others with the pure nature of studying the drugs when they have very different social and legal statuses.

The biggest harms they say alcohol causes are: economic cost, injury, family adversities, and crime. The study also has alcohol having the biggest relative harm to the community.

All of these definitions and their criteria are extremely vague. Are they counting uncomfortable Thanksgiving dinners as family adversity caused by alchol, and weighting it the same as a CPS intervetion due to heroin? Are they counting public drunkenness as the same weight as a Crack deal gone wrong turned assault? Are they counting a hangover as the same as the same as the physical effects methamphetamine? Their 8 page report fails to answer any of this. It speaks of weighting, but without the full report (not the cliff notes version) we will never know whether this report is legit, or junk science meant to make nothing other than a point.

Finally, this study is inherhently skewed, as one of your previous articles admits. There are two problems here. First, the amount of usage of these drugs could seriously effect how much harms a study would count, (this study, is too short to really tell us whether they took this into account) and the societal and legal views of the different drugs effect how people use drugs on an individual level. Alcohol is used much more freely and often than things like cocaine and meth. It is therefore much more likely that the effetcs of alcohol would be much mroe rpesent, and skew any results.

alow me to zoom in on the part where it showed weighting:

"The question posed to the group in comparing the swing in harm from 0 to 100 with the swing from 0 to 100 on another scale was: how big is the difference in harm and how much do you care about that difference?"

participants answered that question and they based their weighting on that. so an "uncomfortable thanks giving" would have been up to reasonable scale in comparison to getting run over by a drunk driver.

and allow me to point out that your biggest beef with drugs is the crime associated with it: there is A LOT of crime caused by alcohol, and if it were illegal, there would be even more crime as its value would go up.

also note "drug specific mortality" on that scale. more people die of alcohol poisoning and alcohol related illnesses than they do from crack, methamphetamine, cocaine, and most importantly cannabis.

Now yes, you mention that its more likely that you can use alcohol casually, but look at that community as a whole, Alcohol does more harm to people around the user than any of the other drugs on that list. I don't know about you, but I would much rather get rid of the drug that harms other people than the drug that only harms the user.

Personally, I believe cannabis should be legalised in the United Kingdom. I say this place specifically because this is where I live, so I can see the bad effects the war on drugs has. I only mention cannabis because, frankly, it's the only drug I have experienced in depth. The benefits gained from legalising cannabis clearly outweigh the cons of it.

The bad parts of the war on drugs are pretty much the most obvious ones, arguably the main one being cost. I have read that the current cost of the war on drugs is £98.73 per person every year. Now that's a whole lot of taxes which could go towards much better things, such as education, or the NHS. Taxpayers currently pay £1.5bn per year on attempts to tackle the UK drugs 'problem.' This doesn't include the cost of people in prison due to drug crime, etc. The other main negative is it's apparent failure. Personally, I haven't noticed a decrease in the sale, or use of drugs in the past few years. If anything, it's increased. It's estimated that only 10% of drugs smuggled into the UK are actually detected, and street prices of drugs are falling. The approach is very much counter-productive.

On the other hand, there are the things which could be gained through legalisation. Society would benefit in many different ways. If the market was controlled by the government, it would mean less money going into the hands of drug dealers and gangs, and generally less power to them. The UK spends 1.5bn on cannabis every year, if that was spent in government controlled institutes, it could be used on many different things which help the public. I'm sure some would find it strange to be benefiting from drug money, but it's a huge market, and not an opportunity we can afford to miss in this current climate. Along with this revenue, tens of thousands of jobs would also be created through coffee shops and cannabis selling facilities. Another benefit is that if the government controlled the supply of it, they could also control the quality of it, and ensure that nothing more harmful than usual would get through. If they did that, smokers would buy from them instead of from the underground, as they're drawn to quality!

The Josepth Rowntree Foundation reported that "reclassifying cannabis as a Class C drug would save police at least £38 million a year and allow 500 police officers to concentrate on more serious crimes." So imagine how much they would save if it was legalised altogether. Legalisation would not only give the police much less to worry about, it would also give them more time to work on serious cases, like murder. Not to mention the bridges which would be built between them and the marijuana smoking public. You have no idea how many stoners I know who hate the police simply because they "stop us from getting high." So the public are happy, and the police are happy.

My final argument towards it is the medical side of things. There isn't too much in cannabis which can harm you, although the government does seem to want people to believe otherwise. It's doesn't have the same effects as a drug like alcohol, it wouldn't make you violent, rarely makes you ill, and people can still have a clear mind while smoking. If anything, it makes people more thoughtful and complacent. It's a lot less harmful than tobacco or alcohol, maybe even less than caffeine, and so it shouldn't be criminalised based on those grounds.

In summary, the legalisation of marijuana would have many benefits for the community, government and police, with relatively few bad things coming from it. I haven't said anything about other drugs because I'm not sure if they should remain criminalised or not, as some do incredible amounts of harm to people, and government profit isn't enough to justify selling someone something like heroin.

Well fuck, that's got to be the most I've ever typed on NG.