2007-12-13 08:27:32 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
OK....since everyone else is pro marijuana...I'll explain what I know and this does NOT mean you have to give a thumbs down but just the governments prospective!
In the early 1970's the United States along with other countries included with the World Health Organization developed international treaties agreeing that there was no medical purpose for marijuana at that time. Since that time there are synthetic products on the market with THC therefore the government still advocated the laws as they stand now.
In addition the Controlled Substances Act enacted placed marijuana in Schedule I relating three criteria;
1) No medical use
2) High potential for abuse
3) Medically defined addiction potential
Because of the criteria above...marijuana continues to be illegal.
Some states have "decriminalized" marijuana use/possession in some instances but it does not mean it's legal...but just a violation and not a misdemeanor or felony offense.
The arguments about it being no different than alcohol or cigarettes is also medically arguable. Without going into great depth here...I'd suggest you research the internet and find some of the materials discussing the problems with cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana.
Those who say there are no fatalities as a result of marijuana use are wrong. There is documented medical proof of that as well.
There are certainly more dangerous drugs on the streets than marijuana. But, the environment that's prevalent where drug deals transpire is just as dangerous as some of the drugs. There are countless instances of those attacked, assaulted, and even killed during drug deals just for a few measley dollars in a drug users wallet.
Having worked in drug enforcement for over 25 years I've seen peoples lives, families, and communities suffer because of an individuals drug addiction. Does it start from marijuana....maybe and maybe not....but I defer my opinions to those of the professional medical field and not a layperson who's smoked and been lucky enough to not suffer severe ramifications.
Just a note....I've respected everyones opinion here and have NOT voted on any other persons comments!
Just my humble opinion!
2007-12-13 08:50:32 · answer #1 · answered by KC V ™ 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I say yes. Why I say this?
1, I suffer from depression. Years ago, when I used this (and ONLY this mind you, I never have been tempted to go deeper) it really truly helped.
2. It occurs naturally, and causes no more damage than your average cigarette. It is used less frequently as well.
3. If it is legalized, it will fall under the vice tax. Thus, the goverment makes a LOT of money, for people like me that have no green thumb.
4. No more wasted money on paltry crimes like possession! Why should someone go to jail for it?
5. If it is legalized, it will be overseen by the FDA. No risk of something being added in, and they could make sure that people got the healthiest versions.
6. It is proven to help with so many ailments, it's not even funny.
7. If it is legalized, people no longer have to go to drug dealers to support it. People in foreign countries would no longer have to grow it, and we would cut out the criminal evil people in Columbia.
8. People would be more willing to seek help for their "addiction". Who wants to seek help that will land you in jail?
9. WEED IS NOT ADDICTIVE! The only people that get addicted to weed are addicted on a psychological level, and that is their own fault.
10. It is a person's right to do with their body what they will, so long as they are not hurting someone else. What right does the government have to say otherwise?
I hope this helps! Thank you!
2007-12-14 23:07:40 · answer #2 · answered by greengirlmissy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The prohibition question is a difficult one, just the marijuana question is really two questions:
1. medial use?
2. recreational use?
One thing that I can definitively say is that the questions surrounding the drug war and ALL drugs should be part of the national debate and ABSOLUTELY deserves more primacy than the private tragedy of the photogenic white woman of the week (PTPW-WOW).
Thousands of people are dying in Colombia and increasingly Peru and Bolivia due to terrorism funded by interdiction efforts under the ARI and Plan Colombia as well as drug users.
If it were happening here there would be hell to pay... look at 9/11 3000 deaths, in Colombia they have had over 3000 deaths due to terrorist acts for decades, a 9/11 every year.
Response to KCV:
Marijuana is a schedule 1 narcotic, with higher restrictions than opiates. There have been other studies that have called for further study of the efficacy of medical marijuana, including the IOM (1996?) study on medical marijuana that advocated short-term use of smokable marijuana for catastrophic diseases like AIDS wasting and cancer as the cannabinoids in marijuana when delivered through an inhaled method would stay down and combat the nausea associated with those diseases/ their treatment.
This is not a closed question and from a policy perspective the argument for Schedule 1 marijuana seems to be akin to Rice's stated rationale for a prohibition for American travel to Cuba and not North Korea.... that people might actually go to Cuba.
2007-12-13 16:41:38 · answer #3 · answered by Mark P 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Pro;
if it is legal, it is taxable and can be regulated. It would relieve a huge burden on our overcrouded prison system ( a large number of people are in prison for posession and the state prison system in california is at near double capacity).
I have never seen an angry pothead, but have dealt with a large number of angry drunks.
Con;
It would detract from the the multibillion dollar tobacco and alcohol industries in this nation.
neutral;
people are going to use it anyway,...may as well legalize it, regulate and tax the living crap out of it like you do with tobacco and booze.
that being said, i would not smoke it even if it was legal (i already had my fair share in the 70's) and i personally believe it to be a gateway drug. Perhaps if it was legal, that could alter its status as a gateway drug????
2007-12-13 17:34:09 · answer #4 · answered by parkermbg 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes. If Alcohol is legal and you can die from drinking a single bottle of it there's no way marijuana should be illegal. Not to mention it has medical benefits.
Anyone who disagrees is mentally deficient.
2007-12-13 16:31:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
yes.
the governments biggest problem is money leaving the united states. we spend millions a year buying marijuana from mexico and canada and we never see that money again. if weed was legal, we'd create thousands of jobs, keep weed dealers out of jail and prison, and stop outsourcing our money.... not to mention save the money we spend on drug prevention such as border patrol and law enforcement.
2007-12-13 16:36:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
At a minimum it should be legal for medicianl purposes.
2007-12-14 16:33:15 · answer #7 · answered by wmicah33 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The government war on this substance and those who use it is rediculous, especially in the case of medical MJ...
2007-12-13 16:32:23 · answer #8 · answered by sheik_sebir 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
no, marijuana is dangerous and it will probablly never be legal
2007-12-13 17:03:38 · answer #9 · answered by brian_hubbard8 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
alcohol is far worse than mary jane and it is legal
i say yes
2007-12-13 16:32:41 · answer #10 · answered by lavendarruby 1 · 4⤊ 2⤋