Because entities in the government make more money importing it while it's illegal. I'm honestly starting to believe that operation fast and furious, wasn't a mistake but a way for entities in the government to sell guns illegally to drug cartels.
Yea, they make more money having it illegal.
Operation "Fast and Furious" was started (under a different name) during the Bush administration. Investigation has shown that the allegations regarding the government selling guns to drug dealers are false. Because of current gun laws in the US, even though the government had very strong suspicions regarding the guns being transferred to drug dealers, no arrests could be made. Why not? Because in Arizona, someone can legally buy multiple guns, pay cash, and 10 minutes later turn around and sell them privately to another person and there are no records, tracking, etc. of that second party. You can thank the NRA for that little policy.
It is less harmful because fewer people smoke it. I have no problem legalizing it. Tax it like alcohol. Just don't smoke it around me. That sh!t stinks.
I agree my nephew uses it and sometimes he smells like he hasn't taken a bath for a month or two. Now that I think about it if he was high on marijuana he may not have.
1. How could state governments make money if people can easily grow it themselves? (After all, it IS a "weed.") Tobacco is too, but it takes much more work and a more conducive climate.<br />
2. There is no inexpensive/adequate way (that I know of) to test for marijuana intoxication (as opposed to use). For example, someone might have "traces" of it in the bloodstream/fatty cells, but that is not intoxication. What would be the field sobriety test? Holding out a bag of White Castle burgers and seeing if the person's pupils dilate? Hiding something while they're watching, waiting 10 minutes, and then seeing if they can remember where it was hidden?<br />
3. When people are stoned, they generally don't feel like doing a lot of hard/intellectual labor. They generally are more likely to want to listen to music, eat, hang out, etc. Corporations do not like that. Corporations want people who work, people who are "more productive." Whether or not they are happy is beside the point. It should be noted here that the "coffee break" was first introduced (and marketed) in companies because it made people "more productive"--legal "speed." <br />
4. It takes only a 20-second attack ad against a candidate to say, "(S)he's caving in to the drug cartels!" That is much cheaper than the 2-minute ad that explains why legalization is a cheaper/wiser long-term policy.<br />
5. Drug policy people made (and continue to make) HUGE mistakes by basing penalties solely on weight of the substance (such as pot). If someone has to pay the same penalty for selling/possessing an ounce of rope-grade hemp as for selling/possessing "Snoop Dogg's Killa Blend," how will the market trend? Exactly the way it has: toward stronger and stronger drugs (per gram/ounce). Same penalty for SDKB as for the rope hemp, but HUGE profit differentials. It's amazing that the very same people who deify the "invisible hand of the market," somehow ignore it when it comes to this issue.<br />
6. The question regarding being able to tell if someone has been using marijuana (ba<x>sed on external things, such as the smell or bloodshot eyes) is a red herring. People can (and do) consume marijuana in other ways. Various products are on the market to clear up bloodshot eyes.<br />
7. Do we REALLY want amateurs using marijuana? Leave it to the professionals....
It's a perception altering substance I don't care to have to drive on the highway with people high on marijuana, who cant properly judge time and distance, and I don't want to have to work around heavy equipment operators in the same condition. that we have to put up with drunks is bad enough,<br />
Easy to tell who the pot heads are on here.
No such thing. I've never smoked...but clean without the additives, I think it would be okay,
I know from personal experience that it alters your perception of time and distance. Not a good thing when your driving.
And because you, TheWolfsMuse, are a responsible user means that everyone is?
Its simple $$$. Unlike every other substance, you can grow it yourself. Alcohol and liquor sales would be affected and rich people would lose $$$ and the government would lose tax dollars. Fewer police, states attorney, criminal lawyers, jails, clerks and etc. It might happen in ten years when the generation before baby boomers die off.
An old question that boils down to not being able to patent the active ingredient molecule by big pharmaceutical companies, timber industries would be threatened, and lots of government cops would lose their jobs and pensions along with prison guards. Maybe even state and city cops could face layoffs too.
First, the notion that alcohol is harmful is nonsense. Moderate wine drinking will extend the average person's lifespan by about 25%. Even heavy drinkers outlived non-drinkers in a recently published large scale study by University of Texas and Stanford University. Alcohol consumption is beneficial to humans.<br />
Meanwhile, regular marijuana smoking has many of the same health problems that are associated with inhaling any other smoke. Its dirty, filthy, smelly, and pollutes your lungs. With that said, its none of the government's business if you want to destroy your life.<br />
The reason marijuana is illegal happened because the FBI and many local "law enforcement" pig farms were out of work when alcohol prohibition ended. So they lobbied Congress to outlaw drugs. Marijuana was added on the theory that it caused southern black men to rape white women. That stupid racist reason is the actual reason why marijuana is illegal. The rest is history and stupidity. The pig farm makes $$ billions creating "crime" to keep their jobs.
Laws against marijuana can be traced back to William Randolph Hearst (Patty's granddaddy). He campaigned against it in his newspapers because he wanted to get Mexicans (prime users at the time) locked up/deported. Harry Anslinger, Attorney General, saw fighting it as a way to build his career. In both cases, there were strong elements of anti-minority bias (jazz musicians, who tended to be African-American at the time also began to use it); because jazz music was seen as satanic, by some, and as a way for minority males to get access to white females (at clubs), and then use "reefer" to seduce them, the "reefer madness" line was pretty easy to peddle (just adding to DozerDan's points).
Regarding the smoking issue, increasing numbers of users are "eaters," not smokers. People on chemotherapy, however, tend to throw up if they eat it, so they may have to smoke it (lesser of two evils).
Leave it like it is,most states have decriminalized it. If it was legalized,it would most likely,for non-prescrtiption use,be restricted to ineffective swag,and taxed so much it would become just another luxury for the rich.
If it is legalised everyone grows it in their back yards and there is no way some corporation can brand it and sell it, and govts are run by corporations from behind the curtains
legalizing it would take all the fun out of it and no one would use it any more.down in vivian louisiana they have their annual red bud festival.what a gas.
Keeping it illegal is brought to you by the same "logic" that alcohol should be illegal. It's as if when they made alcohol legal again, they said: only alcohol....nothing else!