I say why not legalise it, but I'm not a fan of it.
Most people I know drink. None of them drink to the levels where it gets in the way of work or whatnot.
Many people I know smoke. Doesn't interfere much with the day to day.
I only know a few people who smoke weed regularly. Of them, the majority can't hold down a job, couldn't stick to a university/college course etc. They just spend all day, every day, getting high.
I dare say, that is probably more a question of certain individuals who are attracted to the idea of using dope to help them be lazy. So probably not directly the drug, as they would have found something else. Just an observation tho.
A higher level of control would certainly be a good thing tho. I remember when I was back in high school, one of the dealers who sold resin was busted and found to have been lacing it with heroin. Granted, something that isn't likely to happen with green tho.
I've had multiple family members DIE from the use of alcohol and cigarettes and I personally know (or have known) doctors, police officers, artists, prominent business owners, politicians, licensed professionals, etc who smoke pot regularly. Anecdotal evidence isn't very useful in these sorts of conversations.
When I think about this issue I think of my 4th graders and many of their deadbeet parents sitting around smoking weed and getting their kids high on secondhand smoke. It just doesn't strike me as a good thing for kids and future generations. To me it seems like a narcissistic and worthless legacy to leave to our descendants.
bc
similar arguments could be made against alcohol, fast food, cigarettes, television, internet, rock n' roll, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Imported brick weed does NOT run $300/oz. That price reflects high-grade, domestic product.
true, the stuff from mexico is under $100 an ounce here, and no one I know ever buys it unless they can't get ahold of "proper" american grown products. It's sort of the pot version of a plain white pack of cigarettes that say "SMOKES" on them in block lettering.
I didn't say all behavioural effects were bad. Just as they aren't all good.
He asked why the government should care, I gave, in the most primative way, an answer.
But twist away!
Well, I think you answered with why government
claims to care, but his point is that obviously that isn't the case or else we would have prohibitions on the other drugs he mentioned as well (such as alcohol and caffeine). I don't think he was trying to twist your words so much as he was simply showing the logistical error in that particular justification. Anyhow, the reasons that you mentioned are all negative effects that come from negligent use by the person ingesting the drug, and should be punished in the same way that we currently punish those who negligently abuse other
legal drugs (such as alcohol or NyQuil).
OTOH, I do agree with you that those points you raise are very important and that those sorts of activities need to be treated in the same way that we treat them when they occur with other drug use.