Isn't it about time to legalize the weed?

[Detroitdad]

I don't like marijuana. I think that it is a net negative to people and society. I do not want my kids to use it, and I wish that the friends that I have that use it would not use it anymore.

However, I think that the legalization of marijuana would be a net positive because of the corrosive effects that the prohibition of marijuana has on society. The imprisonment of people that are users of ganja costs thousands of dollars and clogs the courts and prisons. It diverts the resources of law enforcement away from areas that are more urgent. It hurts families by tearing them apart.

Many will argue that the chronic is a gateway drug. But, is it the nature of the drug that causes it to be a gateway or the nature of its political treatment that causes it to be so? I would argue that it is the treatment, not the drug that causes the detrimental effects.

I am interested to hear what ya'll think about the subject.

[Archaea]

I couldn't disagree with you more.

Marajuana isn't highly prosecuted but legalization will increase consumption. So the low costs of infrequent prosecution are worth keeping it relatively low consumption.

[non sequitur]

The criminalization of marijuana is plain silly. I remember the days when conversatives were bothered by government intrusion into our lives. If you're a large enough corporation with enough lobbyists, you're immune from government intrusion, but if you're some guy who simply wants to relax with a little doobie after work, suddenly we need the government to get involved and shut you down. Whatever happened to the idea of personal freedom?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

The criminalization of marijuana is plain silly. I remember the days when conversatives were bothered by government intrusion into our lives. If you're a large enough corporation with enough lobbyists, you're immune from government intrusion, but if you're some guy who simply wants to relax with a little doobie after work, suddenly we need the government to get involved and shut you down. Whatever happened to the idea of personal freedom?

Here's the deal that nobody is willing to recognize.

No major health or medical organization that I know of supports the indiscriminate use of marajuana as a recreational drug or really even for nausea.

If it's decriminalize, more people will use another addictive and harmful substance.

And those who advocate letting everybody just be free, are often the first to advocate "free" health care. If we want to allow people to do whatever they wish, then there should be no government assistance for bad health care choices. You shouldn't be able to be an idiot and then force your neighbor to pay for it.

No I don't advocate huge sums of money to prosecute it, but I don't see a reason to decriminalize a harmful substance.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Here's the deal that nobody is willing to recognize.

No major health or medical organization that I know of supports the indiscriminate use of marajuana as a recreational drug or really even for nausea.

If it's decriminalize, more people will use another addictive and harmful substance.

And those who advocate letting everybody just be free, are often the first to advocate "free" health care. If we want to allow people to do whatever they wish, then there should be no government assistance for bad health care choices. You shouldn't be able to be an idiot and then force your neighbor to pay for it.

No I don't advocate huge sums of money to prosecute it, but I don't see a reason to decriminalize a harmful substance.

Perhaps we should criminalize McDonalds and Burger King.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Perhaps we should criminalize McDonalds and Burger King.

This is about doing the doable. You're falling for the typical canard. "Oh, let's criminalize everything that's bad for our health."

Well, that's not my argument; it's more nuanced than that. I realize we can't invoke prohibition or eliminate junk food, but we don't have to expand the list of harmful substances, people can conveniently injest, especially with our come-one, come-all health care system.

If it were doable, which it's not, I'd be all for banning junk food, tobacco and alcohol, but I'm a realist. Expanding societally acceptable substances should not be a social policy. It makes bad public health policy and it's a bad idea.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Perhaps we should criminalize McDonalds and Burger King.

I'm all for that.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I'm all for that.

Again, if we were banning bad taste, many things would be banned. We'd be left with Brazilian barbeques, sushi bars and steakhouses.

However, when my youngest son asks to go to those, I cringe at the very thought of that coronary sludge pouring into my body.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This is about doing the doable. You're falling for the typical canard. "Oh, let's criminalize everything that's bad for our health."

Well, that's not my argument; it's more nuanced than that. I realize we can't invoke prohibition or eliminate junk food, but we don't have to expand the list of harmful substances, people can conveniently injest, especially with our come-one, come-all health care system.

If it were doable, which it's not, I'd be all for banning junk food, tobacco and alcohol, but I'm a realist. Expanding societally acceptable substances should not be a social policy. It makes bad public health policy and it's a bad idea.

Could a tax on weed not offset some of cost of the negative health effects? In effect are we already getting those supposed negative health effects, no tax into the coffers to cover those extra health related costs, the costs of enforcement, the costs of interdiction, the cost of associated crime all so that we don't expand that list for a relatively benign drug?

To me it does not make economic sense, and that is not even to consider the collateral effects and possible infringements on personal liberty.

I sincerely agree with your ideas about doing what is doable. That is why I think you give up when you're just pushing a policy based on tradition.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

Could a tax on weed not offset some of cost of the negative health effects? In effect are we already getting those supposed negative health effects, no tax into the coffers to cover those extra health related costs, the costs of enforcement, the costs of interdiction, the cost of associated crime all so that we don't expand that list for a relatively benign drug?

To me it does not make economic sense, and that is not even to consider the collateral effects and possible infringements on personal liberty.

I sincerely agree with your ideas about doing what is doable. That is why I think you give up when you're just pushing a policy based on tradition.

The taxes are NEVER high enough. These are sin taxes, and they always are lamentably too low to pay for the total costs of health damage.

Here's the analysis that most advocates skip over.

Most people are law abiding. If a substance is inconvenient by virtue of illegality, the numbers of users will be limited, if seems high. If a substance is legal and can therefore become convenient, the numbers of users will necessarily increase.

The sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol do NOT even approach a small portion of the harm they cause. To do that, you'd have to double, triple or raise them ten to fifteen times the level, or more.