In smoking either a large part of the damage is from the smoke. As far as cancer goes tobacco is probably worse, nicotine is far more carcinogenic than THC (the active chemical in canabis) and some of the compounds it turns into during the preparation of tobbacco are equally nasty. On the other hand I've read that canabis burns hotter though I'm not convinced (and I don't know what, if any, effect that would have on the various unpleasant things in the smoke).

Also consider quantity, very few people smoke 10 joints a day whereas 20 cigarettes a day isn't uncommon, and tobacco smokers smoke everyday. Its also worth noting that marijuana is often not smoked like a cigarette and most of these ways (especially eating or with a vapouriser) introduce comparativly few carcinogens to the body.

I would however agree that chronic use is similarly bad due to the complete lack of drive and the mental problems it can cause.

As far as the dangers of smoking cigs versus dope:

Smoking a joint uses rolling tobacco, most people who smoke cigs use ready mades - like Camels, Marlbrough etc.

Ready mades use filters at the ends. This is where the most harmful toxins are stored - cyanide, fibreglass and a thousand other poisons. These are used to keep the cigarette burning consistently, unlike a roll up which may require frequent re-lighting. Roll ups have nowhere near the amount of poisons, but they still have one major disadvantage. The paper used to roll with is considerably thinner than normal cigs, so the nicotine enters the blood stream much faster.

Basically, both are bad for you. Dope is bad for you because it uses tobacco. Rolling baccy is bad for you because it still contains nicotine and tar. Ready mades are even worse for you - nicotine, tar, fibreglass, cyanide etc etc.

I do agree with one comment though. When I was younger I used to smoke dope, and never had more than 3-4 joints a day. I gave that up, but I still smoke cigs. I average about 20 a day. And that's not a stressful day. I'm probably doing more damage to myself with my rollups (I did quit ready mades), than if I was smoking 3-4 joints a day still. I just don't particularly want the side effects of joints anymore. For the same reason I don't drink much anymore. I work, and have to be up at 5:30 in the morning, every week day. Alcohol or drugs of any kind make that damn near impossible. So for me, it wasn't a moral decision, simply a practical one.

On the moral level, hell yeah, make it legal. As soon as it's legal, it loses the "rebel" mystique - which will reduce the amount of people using it - and they can tax it. And hopefully reduce taxes on other items in response.

I don't really care. I voted no because I think smoking dope makes intelligent and active people stupid and lazy. I smoked pot when I was younger but I stopped for no special reason and now I really have no desire to try again. Same for tobacco, though except it was way more hard to stop. Sometimes I think all people I know smoke marijuana and look me as a weirdo because I don't smoke. They try to explain to me the benefit of smoking, as if I was born yesterday.

Here, some "very smart" guys make their own alcool. I tried to tell them at least to remove the core from the fruit but "they know better". Of course, after years of drinking wood alcohol... But what is wrong is they really think their poison is better than the alcool sold in stores and they gladly offer it as a natural product to all their friends and relatives. Same apply to marijuana. Withut any control you don't really know what you smoke and you are confident in criminals to deliver a clean prooduct.
Legalization could be better for public health. And the legal money could find a better use than in the low-life or international crime organizations pocket.

I've seen a lot of good points in favour of legalization here. They would convince me to change my mind if it wasn't for the fact that I'm a dreadfully obstinate person.

I don't appreciate being patronized when providing research information.


Actually Alex is right, most studies believe quite the opposite of your statement when comparing marijuanna and tobacco, even U.S. morality statistics issued by the government disagree with you. I can't see why they would lie considering it isn't legal in the united states. Although this statistic was from 1987 it is believed to be accurate.


Related links- http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/fact...o.know.about.mj
http://www.webmd.com/news/20030918/marijua...ing-doesnt-kill

oh hell yea!

I honestly don't care about the issue all that much. I'm not against the legalization of marijuana, because it's not really all THAT harmful - after all, alcohol and tobacco are arguably more dangerous. However, I am not an advocate for it, either, because 1) I don't care, and 2) I don't use myself because I don't personally think it's a good idea to take mind-altering substances for recreational use. (At least, it isn't for me - I have a bad family history of addiction).

In any case, I think there are far more important issues facing my country today.

I see no reason for it not to be.

People who are anti-legalisation seem to be of the mindset that it'll become rampant. That they won't be able to do anything about people driving high, coming into work baked, drug dealers will take over the streets even in the daytime...

No, it won't be like that. If it's restricted sensibly, just like any other drug; just like alcohol, (hell, you could restrict it even MORE than alcohol if you please) there shouldn't be any problems.

The various studies I've run across (not that I actively sought them out, so mebbe I'm behind the times), it is no more dangerous than cigarettes. Well sure; I've never seen a filtered joint, but you know what I mean. It's no heroin or cocaine.

Then again there are six pages of thread here, so maybe I'm in above my head... >_>

Meh, I don't care anymore.

Refraining from making some immature comment about 'smoking the budwah', I'll say that I don't think it should really be legalised. The arguments that are pro-legalisation are good, but it still is a drug. If it were to be legalised, strong restrictions would have to be enforced and with all the hubbub about alcohol and cigarettes anyway, is it really worth the government's time and money when more important matters are at hand?

How would it sound if people in LEDC's were starving to death and living in abject poverty while Britain is spending its money on deciding whether it should allow people to get high or not?

Plus legalising it takes away the thrill.

im against almost everything(cigarettes,alcohol,and drugs) but i think weed should be legalized everywere just for addicts who cant stop and medical reasons. u dont want addicts losing control and freaking out right? i hope that didnt sound like i was being rude im not trying to be

Weed addicts freaking out?

I don't think it is quite as addictive as you think...somewhere near the same category of caffiene I believe.

Near the addictiveness of Caffine? Dear lord, we're all doomed.

This is with the supposition that the rest of the world meets Tim Hortons.

You never hear of people selling their belongings to buy more coffee. Its not a dangerous addiction, and most people can miss a cup and be completely fine.

It should be legal, but only for medical purposes.

What medical purpose would marijuana have though?

It is used to help people with painful glaucoma.

It is also prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy. Help counter the pain, the stomach problems, and the loss of appetite that commonly goes with chemo.

Ah okay. I still think the most important thing here is the 'moral' issue of legalising it. We should be working out how to save the planet and its plants, not smoke them.

Well, I'm a bit of a case: I'm a serious teetotaller, meaning that I don't partake in even alcohol, let alone tobacco, and any recreational drugs. And opinion-wise, I'll admit to feeling a little giddy over any prospect of a second, better-enforced Prohibition. So in fact, I honestly don't approve of the use of marijuana for recreation. As a medicine, I can see it as potentially useful, just like how Morphine is used. However, smoking it isn't exactly the most effective means of it as a medication.

Of course, if it's "legalized," then it can be regulated and taxed... And apparently nothing dissuades a behavior quite like having to pay taxes on it... So I could favor legalization if it can be shown that it'd actually result in less use.

At any rate, figures that claim that smoking Marijuana is harmless is utter BS; regardless of the leaf, you're still burning something, (PLUS chemical-bleached paper) and inhaling the smoke. While Marijuana growers don't use the Polonium-210-laden fertilizer most tobacco farmers do, it still gets pollutants from the soil and air. And it's those pollutants that cause the lung damage in tobacco smoking, which doesn't go away just because you switched the species of plant. And as a drug, while it is less harmful than MOST others, it still harmful, with the potential to cause lasting damage; its use has been linked to increases in mental disorders, and potential lasting mental capacity reduction. And while its boosters often tout its low/lack of physical addiction, they neglect to mention that it is a rather potently addictive psychologically, beyond that of Ecstacy and LSD, and more on a par with Amphetamines and Alcohol. So sure, while it's no Heroin or Cocaine, that doesn't exactly say much.

I just don't understand how its even a legal issue. (I guess you should understand when you read this that I believe in the smallest possible government)

If I wanted to go out, grow daisies, pick them, and smoke them, nobody would care. If I did the same with marijuana, I could go to jail for god knows how long.

As far as marijuana being harmful: of course, you're inhaling smoke so there's lung damage there. But daisy smoke would hurt my lungs too: should the government ban daisies for the sake of the daisy-smoker's lung? Absolutely not. That kind of thing shouldn't be included in the powers of government.

And 'psychologically addictive'? That means it's addictive like video games are; you don't have a physical urge to keep on playing all night, you simply enjoy it and choose to even though you have work early in the morning. And again, the simple fact that people can be addicted to it doesn't mean that it should be made illegal.

From a purely political standpoint, its absolutely ridiculous. So what if it has harmful effects on the user? The user is most likely aware of it (as in tobacco) and wants to continue smoking. In a 'free' society, he or she should be able to. It isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) the government's job to protect us from ourselves. You mentioned prohibition: during that time alcohol consumption in the US went WAY up and created a whole new underground criminal network. Kind of had the opposite effect than what was intended.

Also, marijuana is the number 1 cash crop here in the US. Legalization for purely economic reasons would be logical.

It's quite possible that smoking daisies would, in fact, be less harmful, as their leaves and other components contain fewer various alien chemicals.


ANYTHING can be addictive or habit-forming, though some things are more addictive than others. Though the body does not develop a chemical imbalance that must be remedied by introducing the chemical in question (such as with Nicotine) the mind DOES come to EXPECT the chemical. Hence it's an addiction that is very much unlike non-chemical activities like video games; it's an actual addiction, in that a part of the body (the mind) is responding negatively to the levels of chemicals. The only difference is that physical addictions rely on the body's "base" state moving away from the "comfortable" state, mental addictions rely on the body's "comfortable" state doing the moving, rather than the other way around.


No, its job is to protect people from EACH OTHER. As much as most boosters of marijuana are loathe to admit, the stuff can, in fact, be harmful to those who aren't using it. One obvious example that pops to mind is second-hand and side-stream smoke; even for those that do things like hotbox, the smoke has to get out at SOME time. And I think you're well aware of all the press that's been given to those sort of smoke dangers from tobacco... And they apply full and well to marijuana. Similarly, regardless of the substance, if someone drives while in an altered state of mind, they're more likely to cause accidents. Logically, then, it can be considered a lie to claim that zero people have died as a result of the substance's use.


That's a BS claim, because no one's been able to get conclusive evidence one way or another; claims like that rely entirely on wild speculation that gangsters were producing fantastic amounts of alcohol. As far as the alcohol-related problems went, they actually did decrease after Prohibition was passed, but then after some time of lax enforcement, some people started to get around it. I have the impression that had it been properly enforced, it would've worked.


Even at #1, it's not that huge an industry; no single crop is terribly valuable; that "number 1" amounts to only around $35US billion, due to inflated street prices as it's all effectively smuggled. Likewise, that only counts plants; the beef industry is worth some $50US billion a year. Then once you add in pork, chicken, turkey, and all the other crops... Marijuana is practically a drop in the bucket, and even only that big because drug dealers charge what they do. Lastly, I'm not even sure if they're even going on the actual money made off of production, or are calculating the entire street value; if it's the latter, I actually would doubt that it'd be #1, once you figure in things like fast food joints for the value of stuff like wheat.

Additionally, I would think that economic size is hardly a rationale for permitting something; counterfeit goods is an industry worth hundreds of billions of US dollars, making it easily dwarf marijuana, and potentially dwarf all illicit drug trade combined. Should its potential for adding new markets mean it should be permitted? What about human trafficing, which likewise is a rapidly-growing industry estimated to be worth as much as more than $40US billion?

I can't take a definite position either way. On one hand, potentially taking the lucrative product out of the gang's hand is certainly an improvement. If a new market could provide for a lower price while still doing business, then the gangs lose their main source of income and thus their primary incentive to join.

However, I wholeheartedly support a straight-edge lifestyle. Then there's no problem to begin with. But it's unlikely that some 3 billion people in the US alone could beat the urge any easier than alcahol's prohibition. One of my childhood friends, a guy I looked up to, has dropped-out of high school, been kicked out of not only his parent's house, but his girlfriend's and others' because he's so hooked on whatever he can get his hands on (alcahol, pot, whatever). He could have gotten a baseball scholarship somewhere; he had a future. I won't accept an argument that the damage is only to the person addicted, both his parents, his little brother, their friends, and MY family know what's been done.
Making them illegal doesn't stamp them out, I understand that, but legalizing these substances and 'potentialy' eliminating the monopoly does not make up for squat. That's how I see things now.

PS: I'm not debating this, just stating my testimony.

My point with the daisy wasn't to say that marijuana is harmless; it isn't. I was more questioning the idea of making a plant illegal...

Anyway, I didn't mean to give the impression that marijuana has no effect on the mind and body (because it certainly does) and should be completely unregulated, simply that the government shouldn't have the power to make the possession of a plant illegal. I think that since marijuana intoxication while driving is covered in a DUI and secondhand smoke is already being dealt with just fine with no-smoking zones. The aspect of protecting us from each other is covered already, I think.

We should trust the politicians who tell us that Marijuana is bad for us. After all they are the same guys who made America the only developed nation in the world to not have Universal Health Care, advertise [insertprescriptionnamehere] directly to the consumer: (Do you wake up in the morning? Do you have trouble concentrating when something bores you? Talk to your doctor about Plomoxtriphidan. Side effects can include mild nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, blindness, and in some rare cases, an excruciatingly slow and painful death.)

These are the same guys who ban public smoking for 'fresh air' and peoples health, but cut back on public transportation and stall on clean air initiatives for the gas companies.

Lets try a little experiment: We take two rooms of equal size, seal them both air-tight. I'll smoke one ciggarette in one and stay ten minutes in there. Now we'll set up a politician in the other room with a running car, and he has to stay there for ten minutes.

According to his logic, he'll be the one walking away alive.

THINK, PEOPLE!!!!

Some nice points here have been raised.

Most countries don't, for example, classify alcohol as illegal - we tax it, we sell it, but it is still illegal for minors and it is illegal for drivers. In the same way anyone normal, sane and responsible wouldn't gulp down a bottle of hard liquor or 100mg of diazepam and then go for a drive, no one sane and responsible should smoke pot and then drive. It is common sense and there is no philosophy about it.

On the other hand, if used responsible, marijuana should be available to adults if they wish to smoke it. Let us not be hypocrites, there are 8, 10, 12-year olds here and there who smoke tobacco and I presume there are also 8-year olds who drink, 10-year olds who smoke pot, 12-year olds who practice unprotected sex and so on. So maybe some things aren't right in my mind or someone else's, but that is where we stop to use common sense. If my lungs and brain cells are the only thing that may be harmed in the process, it should be my right and freedom to smoke pot - because it should be my right to live my life as I see fit as long as I am not harming anyone with my actions. My family probably doesn't think that way, but then again I don't like 12-year olds who get more nookie than I do.

Most state DUI laws, as I recall, only cover alcohol; it technically isn't illegal to drive while under the influence of illegal drugs; the illegal part is simply having them. They would need to be broadly expanded. And most no-smoking zones are woefuly inadequeate. (as someone whose lungs react very violently to such smoke, I can attest to this)


You're mixing things up. I'd point out that Marijuana is illegal in NUMEROUS countries that have universal health care. In fact, every single industrialized country that has universal health care, happens to be a country where marijuana is illegal. It's just that in some, like Canada and the ever-cited Netherlands, the laws aren't fully enforced. Basically, it's about the same as US Prohibition; the drugs aren't legal, it's just the law regime is incredibly poor at stopping them.

Also, politicians don't advertise medicines. And said advertisements occur outside of the USA. Again, actually look at what other countries are like before you go with the "bash America" angle.


Many states dictate pretty stringent requirements for clean gasoline, such as demanding special "summer blends" that will reduce the ability for smog to form, so as to keep the air cleaner. I'd also note that a lot of pollution initiates, particularly the ones that are slow to pass, center around CO² emissions, which have NOTHING to do with the breathability of air, but instead Global Warming, which is another issue ENTIRELY.

Ah, so Marijuana is not legal in India? Who has universal health care? Spain? Where it is only illegal to sell it. And lets see, yep, they have UHC in Spain.

So you are wrong on that one, besides totally missing my point. The point was stating that the same people who tell you that weed is 'bad' for you are the same people who screw you over on a daily basis.



Eh, when did I say that the Politicians did? I said they made it legal. Most other countries, France for example, it is not legal to advertise prescription medicine Direct to Consumer. I stated that with a fore-knowledge and comparing our laws to other countries. Nor do they occur in NUMEROUS countries, they occur in America and very few others.

Also, I live in America, have my entire life.

Please, fact check before attempting to debate.



Right, and those measures are ineffective. Give me a couple of days, and I'll show a picture of me holding a recent newspaper, and the grey dome of that healthy, regulated, smog over my city. And in comparison shots from twenty years ago, you'll see that little has changed.

CO2 emissions may be another seperate issue, but they still stem from a common source: Corrupt Politicians, propoganda, and the sheeple who eat anything that is fed to them.

Nice try, but you are Not the King of Debate. I on the other hand, am quite the master debater, and a cunning linguist. I could just lie around master debating all day.

If they legalise it then drug dealers are gonna lose business

Life is tough, recession & all. Oh, well.

Thats a bad thing? I might be liberal in my views, but drug dealers and cartels are still some of the most ruthless evil people on the planet, the only true way to kill a drug dealer is to cut off his money supply.

That's a very stupid thing to say, (assuming you are serious). Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, even aspirin and laxatives are drugs.

If you are trying to argue that something should be illegal based on the fact that it is a "drug" or contains one then you've a very weak argument.

If all "drugs" were made illegal, our hospitals and pharmacies would have a tough time treating patients, all they'd have left would be knives and leeches.

Oh aye my friend, you certainly are! ( Sorry could't resist.)


Drugs are bad for you...legalized or not...

True, however when given the choice between legalizing it and thus being able to control it, and keeping it illegal (like in a country such as America) I'd go for the first choice every time.

You don't know him very well, do you?
There we go, some level-headed thinking.

Honestly, there are probably only three real reasons people would be against legalisation of marijuana.

1. They are ignorant. Ignorance and stupidity are different, these people aren't dumb, just uninformed. They don't know about marijuana, just that its illegal and that all illegal things have to be bad for a reason.

2. They were raised in a place where it is illegal. People who were raised being told that marijuana is a drug and that drugs are completely unacceptable within society are usually fanatically against legalisation of it. Whereas people from countries that regulate its sales know that its no more dangerous than alcohol, in fact some might argue that alcohol is much more dangerous.

3. They are scared. They think that legalising marijuana would cause gangs to grow or everyone to become a junkie. They don't really understand that marijuana is one of the least dangerous intoxicants on the planet and that it isn't nearly as habit forming as any of the other illegal drugs. They worry that it will become rampant, causing accidents and other serious problems.

I believe that if it were legalised and regulated by the government, it would be no more a cause of problems than alcohol. It would not cause more gang related sales because if people can get it from a legal source they'll no longer have to rely on these gang members. All I'm trying to get across is that its not as big a deal as people think and if you were born in a place that allows people to use it, you wouldn't think it should be illegal.

Really, it doesn't change much if it's legal or not. If the government can't regulate underground trafficking when it's illegal, how are they supposed to regulate it when it is? While making it legal might curb the lucrative nature of the trade, whether the parties involved with the illegal trade fall out of profit or not depends completely on whether the legitamate market can outcompete them.

Whether it's illegal or not doesn't affect the "bad" of it. Making recreational drugs legal won't heal the damage done to my friend and his family. It really doesn't matter, people will still abuse it and whatever good promised to come of it is not at all absolute.
The stance I have is you can't paint a smilie face all over legalizing it, no more than alcohol and tobacco.

I'm gonna go ahead and call you out on this one by saying that I seriously doubt that marijuana was solely to blame for causing problems in your friend's family. I know tons of people who smoke it that lead perfectly normal lives, didn't drop out of school, and are currently employed. Any problems he had were his own fault and blaming drugs/drinking is a cop out. Hardcore drugs are the exception IMO...and marijuana is not a harcore drug.

I feel like its alot like alcohol, its up to the person to use responsibly but it shouldn't be illegal just because there are alcoholics.

No, I definitely do not. I have done research on the effects of smoking marijuana, and the effects it has on the brain are horrendus.

Alright, lemme write a well-educated reply on this one:

Let's get one thing straight, Marihuana is a drug and is addictive in a way (more mental than physical).
HOWEVER; alcohol is far more dangerous and should be considered a hard-drug where cannabis is far more innocent (soft-drug). There has been a precedent with soccer in Belgium (think it was the European championships) where they let the UK supporters smoke some grass. Effect: No riots or at least a dramatic cut of violent encounters involving drunken UK soccer supporters. Pour alcohol in them and fights start breaking out. True story. Imo Cafeine is a hard-drug as well.

Marihuana should be enjoyed a you would a beer and not something "to get your kick from". That's stupid anyway because Cannabis is a downer pur-sang. It relaxes and puts you in a buzz, similar to drinking 10-12 beers but will dissipate far quicker than alcohol and also won't make you feel as miserable afterwards and I have never ever met someone who got agressive because of smoking a cannabis joint. Can you honestly say that about alcohol as well?
We have a saying here. It won't have the same impact because it's translated from Dutch but I am sure you will get the meaning.
We say: "A satisfied smoker (as in someone smoking pot) doesn't cause trouble."

We also have a joke about drugs, since it's rather relevant to the point I am making, I'll put it here as well

3 convicts were contemplating escape.
One said:"Ha, I'll just sniff some speed and go so fast I can run right through the wall." As said is done, convict escapes.
Second convict says:"Pff, I'll just smoke some coke and I'll be so high, I can fly over the wall. So the second convict flies over the wall."
3rd Convict takes a hit from his joint and says:" Ah hamster it, I'll escape tomorrow"

Okay, now for my opinion: I support the legalisation.
Why?
No matter if it's legal or illegal, people will use it yes? Okay, I can hear you say:"same goes for Coke, crack etc." True. I still must emphasize, cannabis is to hard-drugs what lemonade is to a 40% spirit. You can smoke a joint without craving the next one immediately. Like I said earlier, cannabis is not addictive physical. Argue if you will but it's the truth.

Consider the illegality. It will truly be a black-market good (I am talking about NL here of course because it's illegal anywhere else anyway), meaning there is no control on it whatsoever. No control on quality or even on added "spice" (I remember a time, marihuana was spiked by coke to increase potency. Yes, really!!) Minors will also be able to get it from what we call "housedealers". Since it will become difficult to obtain, it will become far more expensive, meaning it will encourage crime. Sad but true.
There is a bit of a contradiction in what I am about say but think about it and you'll see what I mean.

If it's illegal, it's easier for minors to get it but does the exact opposite for adults!
Let me try to explain:
As you may know we adults can buy cannabis in a shop. The true sense of the word shop. Minors can't.
Now, think away the shop. We have established cannabis will be harder to obtain if it's illegal.
So for adults we have gone from easy (coffeeshops) to hard (housedealers)
But for minors we've gone too nearly impossible (coffeeshops) to hard (housedealers)

What do you consider the best option from these two?

Now, where I live, we have a coffeeshop that's checked severely. You can only buy cannabis if youy have a valid pass, a pass you can only get if you can prove you are over 18, if there is any doubt, you will not get to buy any. On this pass is scanned how much you bought (you can have up to 5 gram) per day.

Besides, if they'd make it legal, the gouvernment can raise tax on it.

Basically, what I am saying is it's not as bad as a lot of people who know jackshit about it think it is. It's being judged to harshly.

I am all for legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. My state already made that legal in fact. Making it legal for everyone I am ambivalent about. I am not one of those "Reefer Madness" people who think smoking pot is the most horrendous thing ever. As drugs go, it is a lightweight, to say the least. I do agree with Remko that having pot be illegal but alcohol (and for that matter cigarette smoking) legal seems like quite the double standard.

I tried pot myself when I was a teen. It was incredibly easy to get. In school, everyone knew someone who had some. It never did anything for me except make my legs feel heavy (no giggles, no munchies, or any of the other usual symptoms), so I did not really bother with it.

And as Remko also said, if it were legal than it could be taxed by the government, creating a new revenue stream. It would also make sales of Cheetos skyrocket, so I would buy stock immediately.

Not a pothead, couldn't say how it feels, Subrosa.

I support legalizing it, sure. But mainly because I live in a town full of potheads.

-Liam

Yes, but just because I think it would do more good than harm; I don't smoke it myself.

I believe that Marijuana should be legalized with very high restrictions. But let's get to a really fun fact about Marijuana. IT IS LESS ADDICTIVE THAN CIGARETTES OR CIGARS!!!

Yep! So obviously, the addiction side of things have been resolved. How about health? Well Marijuana is not exactly good for your health but here are a couple things. It's been ranked the least harmful drug. The substance is non addictive so long term use will not be an issue to most folks. What's even better is that it yields significant medical benefits. It's used for pain treatment and a very good substance for people who are suffering from muscle cramps and heart problems. It relaxes muscles and increases heart rate.

So what about moral problems? Well I don't believe in any morals other than whats blatantly obvious such as not murdering and such. So anything that won't wind me up in court, I'm fine doing. So if marijuana is legalized, I'm fine with it. Personally I will never smoke anything and the worst thing I'm doing is drinking wine so it won't affect me. But it sure will affect my friends.

In any case, how about the downsides? Well other than problems associated with smoking, there's no real long term affect. How about moral downsides? Well if you abuse the substance, you'll get your family bankrupt so there's a moral downside for ya!

Restrictions? Well but of course! Here's my ideas for restrictions

1. You MUST be 18-21(take your pick)to buy the substance. You also have to show ID such as a drivers license. Also, they must show that they have no major criminal record if they plan to buy the stuff in bulk.

2. The marijuana must only be sold in stores that the government approves. Such as smoke shops or small adult places where children will never be near. So no big stores unless it's adult only.

3. Everybody under 18-21(see regulation one)must leave the area if somebody plans on smoking marijuana. Such as if you're in a car, all under-aged people must leave the car. So pretty much one room.

4. No smoking in public places unless it's a designated smoking area. So no lighting a pouch in a restaurant. But of course, the owner of the building could designate smoke zones that are either outside or a very well ventilated area away from the main area.

5. None of these rules(except the no smoking in public area and don't smoke near minors)apply if administered by a doctor for medical purposes(just to make it fair).

6. All companies planning to sell marijuana has to be completely legit and have no criminal affiliations.

This seems fair. I guess I'm glad that they're not doing speed or anything. Not that weed's good, but, as you said, it's the least toxic. Or whatever.

The problem is, once those rules have been estableshed (lets say the rules DarkZerker made were voted on and won) people won't really enforce it. It happens every time.

I'm on the rare fringe of folks who believes all drugs should be legalized with almost zero restrictions put in place. I don't partake in these substances either, but far be it from the government to tell someone not to kill themselves.

If they want to kill themselves, can't they just slit their throats or something? Whatever. I've vowed never to touch drugs, weed, cigarettes, or get drunk, so I suppose it doesn't really matter to me all that much.

Now there's a recipe for disaster

Interesting concept, it would be very hard to proove if someone was high (for driving say). Alcohol is easy but THC couldn't be detected on the breath so urine would be nessesary (though I've no idea how quantitive that test is) and it certinaly can't be done by the roadside (well... some people might object).

I've always held the opinion that regulation is better than prohibition in almost everything.

It was made illegal because they couldn't tax it, and because it was giving American dollars to other countries we were possibly in the middle of issues with. Between 1937 and 1956 it was just taxed if you were caught with it. In 1956 it became a crime to have it in your possession. From there they continued increasing the mandatory time of incarceration till it moved simple possession from the jails to the state pen - in with hardened criminals.

This is where I have issues with the law, even though I don't touch the stuff - that our taxpayer dollars are being used to feed and house those in jail for possession, and that (people doing time for possession) are being incarcerated with hardened criminals, rapists and murderers.

There is the argument that our country faired very well prior to the law changes, and that since then the jails are overcrowded and the legal system dragged down to a crawl because of the sheer number of cases being shoved through are strangling the court systems.

I am not for smoking pot or against it (Although I won't allow it in my home, and for my children's sake don't encourage a close friendship with anyone who smokes it) - but I am against peaceful citizens being housed with murderers, and I am against MY taxpayer dollars being used to pay for their incarceration when there are murderers and rapists roaming the streets.