OK, didn't want to get involved in the debate because a lot's been said already, but I will say a few things because the level of debate has been pretty bad on both sides, and godcubed seems to be the only one on the legalization side that is making intelligent arguments.
First, I will say the burden of proof certainly lies on the side of those in favor of prohibition. This is a PLANT. It is found in NATURE, and one that humans have cultivated for thousands of years. Could you name another plant that is banned by the government (aside from mushrooms, which are legal in many places, as they should be)? We live in a liberal society (UK, European countries, US) that values the right of the individual to do what it pleases as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. So why can I not grow a plant or smoke a joint on my property? That does not involve me harming others or infringing upon their rights. So if you are in favor of prohibition, you are basically asking the government to take unprecedented measures to regulate the personal, private behaviors of its citzens...in what other instance does the government regulate an indivudal 's personal behavior that does not affect others? Only in the case of drugs. So if you are in favor of prohibition, you have to prove that the social impacts of marijuana use are only negative and that they are so grave that it is a rare case when the government must step in and regulate our behavior (such as is the case with heroin).
The reason? It depends on the country, but at least in the US, almost every single drug has been criminalized because of racial issues (they were usually brought into the country by different races)...often times it was framed in terms of stopping nefarios dark-skinned men from corrupting white women. This was the case with opium (the evil Asian men that lure these women into their opium dens), with marijuana (brought over by Mexicans), and with crack (was the drug of blacks while cocaine, which it is derived from was the drug of whites, and of course, the penalties for crack were much, much harsher than those of cocaine).
As for the health effects, much of what has been said here parrots the government/police/school propaganada. It is NOT, I repeat NOT, addictive. Psychologically, maybe (but so are a lot of things). But it's not chemically addictive like tobacco is. As for brain damage, there are NO studies that prove permanent brain damage from marijuana. I know of one study, however, that proved it prevents alzheimer's. Having said that, I do think that if you are a daily pot smoker for decades, it will mess up your memory and brain (not nearly as badly as alcohol would with that kind of use, of course). But if I want to do that, that is my right because I live in a liberal society where the government doesn't make my health decisions for me. It doesn't tell me I have to walk instead of drive, it doesn't tell me I have to exercise, and it doesn't tell me I can't order a Big Mac that will clog my arteries.
But surely the criminals won't let their business die down, I mean that'd mean they'd have to work with like, society! I just can't imagine legalising weed being a solution to less crime, just a re-distribution of where the crime is. If they make less money from weed, they may well just choose to exploit other areas of crime i.e Loan sharks, prostitution etc. If you think of a regular business, say a dairy farmer, if they have less demand for milk, will they just stand to lose their profit or re-distribute their resource to cheese? I have no statistics to back myself up on this, just makes sense in my head.
I'm also not saying I'm necessarily against legalisation, since Chaz made some sound arguments against me in the other thread so now I'm not sure, but I don't use nor plan on using it, so it has little effect anyway.
I'm sorry but this is absolutely ludicrous. The fact that you lump in weed dealers with pimps and criminals shows your problem. Society labels these people as criminals because weed is illegal and government/police/school propaganda teaches us to view these people in the same light as murderers and rapists. How many weed dealers and growers do you know? I do know quite a few. Some of them are bad people who are just trying to profit off of the black market. But most are just normal people like you and me. There's a plant that they like to smoke, so they grow it and sell it. If you like weed, it would be nice to make it your job, right? Especially if you get to work from home and choose your own hours. That's what some people do. Others I know are poorly educated and lost their jobs in the recessiona and don't have a choice: it's the only way they can make money. So yeah, you do sound a bit brainwashed when you assume that these people are evil criminals who will turn to pimping and money laundering as soon as it becomes legalized.
At some point you also made the claim that the reason alcohol and tobacco shouldn't be banned is that they are very ingrained in our society, while weed isn't, so it should be banned. This another very poor argument. Weed IS ingrained in our society. I don't know about Britain, but it is very, very common among young people in the US. There aren't many stoners, but most people have tried it (the statistic I've seen is that 40% of American high school seniors have tried weed at some point, but I think it's much higher since most people I know have tried it). Tobacco, however, is not common at all. It used to be, but the anti-smoking people have almost gotten rid of it entirely. It is very rare, and most tobacco smokers just have the occasional cigarette while drunk. But we haven't banned tobacco because we believe it is your RIGHT as an American to make such a decision, even if it is a chemically addictive substance that is terrible for your health.
Weed, on the other hand, is better for you and much more ingrained in our society. It is very common. This is why prohibition is extremely ineffective, just as it was in the 1920's in the US. If you criminalize a substance that is commonly used by a society, you are simply supporting organized crime and drawing people into that world that normally wouldn't. Someone might be a weed smoker and go to a dealer who also sells things like coke and heroin, making those things more accessible. The whole ladder argument is a pretty silly one, but criminalizing weed does make other drugs much more accessible to the population, since they have to go to the same source to get weed.
Of course another important reason prohibition is ineffective is that it doesn't work...what happens you bust the biggest weed dealer in the UK, for example? Does that stop people from smoking weed? No. Where there is supply there is demand. Somone else (or more likely, several people) will take his place. People will continue to smoke no matter what. The difference is if you criminalize it you waste a bunch of money on trying to catch criminals in these pointless weed busts that happen again and again and don't change anything...you guys are going through a fiscal crisis right now (we are too), and you seriously want to spend money on that? I think we have better uses for our taxpayer dollars, namely stopping real crime, like murder and rape. For more arguments on that subject, check out
www.leap.cc (law enforcement against prohibition). Of course a lot of police want it to stay illegal so it can justify and pay for their jobs, and many people in government have their own selfish motives for it (the War on Drugs in the US is full of hidden motives, including justifying our support for the Colombian military dictatorship over the years).
Also, your cyanide/astrophysicist analogies are horrible. I want to scream every time someone makes the analogy that you do or don't need to have experienced something to understand it (I never lived through the holocaust but that doesn't mean I can't talk about it, etc.). Everything in life is different, and the cyanide analogy, for example, is a terrible one. We know for a fact that it leads to death. There is no room for disagreement here. Weed, however, has a lot of subjective effects that are difficult to measure. It affects every person differently. Science has a hard time pinning down what the exact effects of weed are because it is a complicated substance with complicated effects that are difficult to understand. You should know this since you just made a post about the follies of science. Because weed is like this, you really can't understand the effects until you've tried them. It's the same with alcohol...you don't know what it's like to be drunk until you have experienced it.
It's also the same with any life matter that isn't so black and white (like cyanide)...do you seriously think that your opinion on marriage is as valid as a 50 year old who has been divorced twice? I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on marriage, but you're not as much of an expert on it as people who have experienced it, so we'll listen to those people first. This is why people are hesitant to listen to you talk about the effects of marijuana (not legality, effects). Especially when you do things like bring up examples of weed-smokers getting paranoid and beating their wives...I'm sure this has happened before in history, but I guarantee you spouse-abuse and violence happens more when you are sober than when you are high (of course it happens much, much more when you're drunk). It's something that you haven't tried, so a pot-smoker is going to be less likely to listen to you describe the effects of it. Since I've never learned about astophysics, I won't hold my opinion on matters of astrophysics as high as the astrophysicist's.
There's a lot more to say in response to some of the arguments here and so many more reasons prohibition of weed is a terrible idea but I really have to get going since I'm late.
