Should Marijuana be legalized?

This should not even be a discussion. Anyone who seriously still thinks Marijuana should be illegal needs to learn to research. I apologize for being condescending, but virtually all effects are only short term, and it is actually useful for treating some health issues. Furthermore, a slew of government studies have all proven marijuana to be effective in preventing cancer. But with all of these benefits and little to no harms, why is it still illegal? Immortal Technique theorizes it will never become legal in America because it's impossible to monopolize.

All four of these points are unfounded.

First, if it was legalized then it would be regulated. This is one of the main points that groups like NORML and SSDP have been saying for years. Regulations that normal agricultural items go through is administered by the FDA, but the FDA doesn't regulate something unless it is legal and there is strong economic interest. But most importantly, I really am curious as to what benefit this regulation would do. The FDA has never really had a reputation (at the least, in my eyes and the eyes of those around me) for being a consumer-oriented organization. Yes, they attempt to make changes that will help consumers be protected from potential problems (read: media scares) but in reality has just been a publicity stunt to make large agro businesses look like they are participating in public policy. For instance, just recently cloned meat was given the go-ahead by the FDA and they don't even have to label what meat is cloned (a far cry from the EU's positions on agro/meat industries that is made obvious by their complete lack of interest in genetic modification).

Your second and third point illustrate a similar manner and will be addressed accordingly. First order of business is to say that you have a completely bogus idea of drug economics. Yes, there are people who have 'laced' drugs...but not marijuana. Cocaine is probably one of the most common drugs to lace. Why is this? For one reason because it looks like powdered sugar! There are a lot of things that look like powdered sugar, so why not pull a profit :P .

Another reason is that it is quite expensive and quite difficult to be involved in an effective cocaine economy. Thus, dealers extend their product to ensure the stability of their endeavor. (The funny thing is that I am extrapolating these points from purely imaginative capitalism! This is common knowledge! From Business 101!)

Marijuana is not a drug that is effectively laced. I don't doubt that is has been done. But most people actually are "used to" what it is like and thus would probably be immediatly turned off and would never by from the bad-dealer again! So I don't buy any argument that these dealers are sinister chaps that seem to be luciferian shamans to popular media.

Another very strong problem with your 'lacing' argument is that marijuana is not addictive! It is in the family of non-addictive psychoactive drugs known commonly as psychedelics. I invite you to research psychedelic drugs and realize that drugs like psylocybin(sp?) mushrooms, LSD (really?! yep!), peyote, and others are non-addictive (I don't doubt that there problably hasn't been enough study on some of these--NOT including LSD, of which there has been countless studies--but the ones that tend to be media-driven are either terrible and unfounded or they actually come out inconclusive).

I am not even going to comment on the "so that it becomes a more effective drug," because I am not even sure what that means and I think that it is an attempt at rhetoric, though empty it may be.

The growing conditions point is also seemingly slander. Tobacco companies (as well as the ENTIRE AGRO INDUSTRY!!!!!!!) uses a fertilizer that is extremely cheap. When I say cheap, I mean EXTREMELY FREAKIN CHEAP!...I needed to get that off my chest. It is called--though there are many forms and adaptations--phosphate. Phosphate fertilizers are actually radioactive! That seems strange doesn't it? Why would our food providers be OK with using radioactive fertilizers? Well, despite the fact that most industries seemingly avoid external issues such as HEALTH and the ENVIRONMENT, there are more subtle reasons as to why they use it: IT IS REALLY FREAKIN CHEAP. Seriously. Though a lot of the plants that the fertilizer is used on do not have carry more than a few micrograms of it into the grocery store (which adds up people! but that is another quib :P ), some have microfibers that can pick up larger quantities and carry them to the store shelves. One of these plants is known as tobacco. The funny part of this gigantic point that I am making is that no one seems to realize this! Not even the surgeon general can get this point across (I think it was 1994 that the at-the-time surgeon general declared that 90% of cancer caused by smoking was a phosphate problem, though I am not going to discuss conclusiveness of these arguments, I think the point still stands: no one wants it to be known). So, to wrap up, we have an industry that doesn't care about radioactive foods/products (in other news: does lead toys ring a bell?), and you want to tell me that the growing conditions of a dealer who is probably an avid smoker him/herself and thinks that a pot plant is like incan gold, is not going to take great care of his plants? I strongly doubt it and I think that, as usual, your position is really just fear that has been placed in your mind by terrible journalism.

Journalism is doing this to us? Who would cause such terrible indocrination? Well none other than the FOUNDING FATHER OF SENSATIONAL JOURNALISM....drum roll please!....

William Randolph Hearst!

What? Hearst did this?

Yes he did. Here is a a blurb that I quickly googled:

"Harry Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn't want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich."

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

"Hearst also sympathized with Harry J. Anslinger in his war against marijuana. In the early 1930's, Hearst's paper empire (he owned hundreds of acres of timber forests) was threatened by hemp, which could be regrown yearly, and associated marijuana with hemp"

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

That is just a taste of it. So, I hope you will think twice before posting such bogus thoughts, especially without any justification for them, and in a simple list form nonetheless! :P

It's my firm belief that marijuana only has more toxicants because;
1. It's not regulated in any way.
2. The dealers will lace it, so that it becomes more addictive.
3. The dealers will lace it, so that it becomes a more effective drug.
4. The growing conditions are not proper in any manner.

First off its crazy to think that any action can effect yourself and only youself, in so far that humans naturally interact with others everything you do will have some effect on other people. I think its safe to say that marijuna will have some effect on you that would be catorgerized has a negative one, which I feel is enough to question if it should be legalized and therefore we should keep it illegal until a positive outweighing effect is shown that would warrent the change.
Also to all of those people that says its safer then smoking and alchoal, I would first question this in general, from what I've seen it seems to indicate that marijuna has more toxicens and such then ciggerates. However if this is true I would still use this more to say that the two things should in fact be illegal, rather then the other way around.

I dont know why people cant do with their lives as they please. while marijuana OBV isnt everyone's choice, it may be a preferred activity for some, and as it is a drug that is (relatively) non-destructive its usage should be left in the hands of those that do it

there are some drugs that CLEARLY are destructive to both the user and the users environment, pot is not one of these.

while i usually cringe at relativity when it comes to rules like these, if i had it my way, every activity that only affects yourself and only yourself would be left up to you

Of course, abusing Marijuana is bad for you. But then again, too much consumption of anything can be detrimental to the body. Even too much vitamin intake has adverse effects.

While I believe Marijuana should be legalized, we should still stand against the recreational use and abuse of Marijuana, just as we do with alcohol and smoking (Of course, with age restrictions, DUI's, etc). Aside from social taboos, I don't see what's so different about Marijuana-use in comparison to smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. So why ban Marijuana when other, more "socially accepted" drugs are not prohibited?

Also, I personally don't see the "sketchiness" of Marijuana-use in medicine, and I am all for it.

First I would like to point out something that pisses me off, it's not the tobacco in cigarettes thats really bad for you, it's all the shit that they put with it.

The only reason that there is proof that marijuana is bad for you, is because it's illegal in the first place. If marijuana was legal (like in the netherlands) then there would be regulations that would control the purity of the mixture. Not only would this mean that marijuana would be safer than it is now, it would also help to stop quite a few people from smoking cigarettes.

If you were to outlaw marijuana, why not alcohol and cigarettes as well? They're much worse for you than marijuana is/would be (unless they screw it up like cigarettes).

Note: I do not use any of the above mentioned substances.

If medical benefits this drug are proved better than other available medical treatment then yes. But substance abuse should not be legal.

Evidence in the debate on the legalization of marijuana is heavily in favor of legalization. And, there are economic, political, and perhaps even moral dealings in this debate. However, my expertise lies in the horticultural, chemical, and medical aspects of marijuana and medical usage is perhaps the most compelling argument for legalization and therefore will be my focus.

Cannabis sativa has several subspecies and variants: sativa var. sativa ('sativa'), sativa var. spontanea (sometimes called 'ruderalis'), indica var. indica ('indica'), indica var. kafiristanica (sometimes called 'afghanica'). Each has a different chemical profiles with varying levels of chemicals called cannabinoids. The cannabinoids of interest include tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD), and cannabinol (CBN). These chemicals work in most animals by binding to cannabinoid receptors, of which there are two types (CB1 and CB2).

CB1 receptors are mostly found in the brain and the reproductive systems. Note that CB1 receptors are generally absent from the part of the brain responsible for respiratory and cardiovascular functions, which is a risk associated with many drugs. CB2 receptors are almost exclusively found in the immune system and are concentrated in the spleen. The various cannabinoids (THC, CBD, CBN) have specific affinities for the two different cannabinoid receptors. These affinities in conjunction with the array of chemical profiles in the subspecies of cannabis are responsible for wide range of effects that marijuana has for people.

THC is the chemical responsible for the psychoactive effects of C. sativa, and has been shown to ease moderate pain and prevent degeneration of neurons in the brain (at extremely high concentrations, THC inhibits the formation of plaque, the cause of Alzheimer's disease). CBD, which is known to moderate the psychoactive effects of THC, does not bind to either CB1 or CB2 receptors directly, but it does block the effects of cannabinoid agonists through unknown mechanisms. CBD helps to relieve convlusion, inflammation, anxiety, nausea, improve alertness, and recently was found to help control the spread of metastatic breast cancer. CBN is an oxidation product of THC and is the chemical associated with the sedative or stupefying effects of some marijuana.

The medical uses of THC are documented, in fact, there's already a pharmaceutical on market called Marinol which contains dronabinol (aka, THC). Marinol is FDA approved and prescribed as an appetite stimulant, anti-nauseant. However, Marinol is described as being acutely psychedlic and is also known to trigger psychosis in at risk individuals, confirming a study published in 2007 by The Lancet, a British medical journal, that indicated marijuana users had a greater risk of developing psychosis, although the risk was most pronounced in individuals already considered to be at risk of developing psychosis.

While Marinol is an effective appetite stimulant and anti-nauseant for AIDS and cancer patients, the risk of concentrated THC triggering psychosis in at risk individuals renders it unusable. A two-year study in which rodents were given THC showed reduction of body mass, enhanced survival rates, decreased tumor incidents in hormonally-controlled organs. It also caused testiculor atrophy, uterine and ovarian hypoplasia, hyperactivity, and convulsions immediately after administration.

The combination of cannabinoids offered in C. sativa plants elicits safer and more balanced results than it's pharma-cousin, Marinol. In the specific case of individuals identified as at risk for developing psychosis, indica-ruderalis cross breeds can be used to affect appetite stimulation and nausea reduction without the risk of triggering psychosis. C. sativa offers a safe and holistic way to achieve many positive medical results.

The method of consumption of C. sativa also has come under medical scrutiny, specifically the act of smoking is known to be particularly irritating and harmful to the lungs. However, a wide variety of alternatives to smoking exist which are not suspect to health concerns.

Medical marijuana has been used to treat many things successfully including: anxiety, depression, nausea, glaucoma, reduced appetite, ADHD, pain, cancerous cell growth, and more. What's more, is that this only deals with the medical aspects of marijuana. Let us not forget that there are economic and social arguments for legalization as well.

We live in a backwards world, the question shouldn't be "should marijuana be legalized?" If anything, the question should be whether or not it should be illegal, but the drug czars, tobacco companies, and propagandizing politicians embarked on an epic mud slinging campaign early in the last century.

This week the news came out that a Dutch firm will release a marijuana pill for medical use. They think they can achieve this within 5 years, due to all the legal issues.... Anyway its a good question why Marijuana should be legal, i live in the netherlands, were it is legal and it works very good. And no, not the whole population is stoned the whole day and due to the fact that it is legal and accepted the use is very low.

michael