Yes.

And the worse our economy gets, the sooner we will see it happen.

I'll be glad to see when it happens. People should refrain from using it (or use it moderately) for health reasons (which have been effective in decreasing cigarette usage) as opposed to making it illegal (remember Prohibition? It didn't work!)

Alcohol is definitely more harmful than marijuana. But to be fair, the argument against weed is that it is a "feeder drug," meaning it will be a gateway to worse drugs such as cocaine or heroine. Something like heroine is a lot worse than alcohol. How much marijuana feeds into these hard drugs, however, still remains to be seen.
Permalink | Report

1. Could be but personally not sure.

2. The only way marijuana will be legalized is if and when the government figures out how to get their cut, taxes etc.

3. This would be a toss of a coin, I've seen people that had to have a drink first thing when they get up I've also seen people that had to smoke pot first thing when they get up just to make it through the day.
Permalink | Report

1. I think our nation is largely desensitized to...well... everything, and a debate about marijuana legalization is as commonplace as a conversation about the weather.

2. I think MJ should be legalized and taxed to death the same way cigarettes are. However, the additional stipulation is that employers should be allowed do discriminate for it. Meaning: Employers may require urine tests, and fire for its use. MJ is not the demon drug it was made out to be, but it does have a more potent, longer lasting mind-altering effect than cigarettes, and might not be suitable for certain industries. Taxing it means more money for the gov't. You know, so they can bail out companies, spread democracy, etc.

3. The fact that we need mind-altering substances at all is a sad thing. However, I think Alcohol is definitely more dangerous. However, MJ use isn't widespread enough, or have a long enough history, to really gauge what kind of effect massive use would have on the roads, families, bar scenes, the ability to get laid, etc. the way alcohol does.
Permalink | Report

1. People are discussing Marijuana legalization as a tactic to help the "rescue the economy". I don't know if we want to call this the "tipping point" to a new more well thought out policy on marijuana. It is more likely to be the dumb reason why the equally dumb restrictions were lifted.

2. Legalized? Yes. Taxed? No.

3. Alcohol is more harmful to the individual. Both are negligibly harmful to society.
Permalink | Report

I think we are at a tipping point. More people are ready to engage in fact-based conversations that sound like the framing of policy instead of repetition of bumper stickers. With more than 500 economists endorsing marijuana legalization, the discussion has become a more of a fiscal issue than one of personal freedom.
I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana use for both personal freedom and fiscal responsibility reasons. Marijuana has legitimate uses apart from recreation. Prosecution costs state and local governments an estimated $7.7 billion which can be better used elsewhere. Taxation has proven to be a more effective - and revenue producing - form of controlling use.
At this time, I think alcohol is far more problematic than marijuana, if only because people can get alcohol poisoning from chugging a perfectly legal fifth of gin. I've never heard of anyone getting "marijuana poisoning" from over indulging. Mostly, the repercussions of overindulgence in either substance has mostly the same consequences - the potential for stupid behavior, possible obsessive ingestion, and the inability to competently operate machinery.
Britain has been fighting an uphill battle with binge drinking, especially on the part of young people. Discussing the problem with them and witnessing the what is considered ordinary drinking there leads me to believe that alcohol is the more dangerous of the two substances. One estimate is that it costs Britain 20 billion pounds in alcohol-related illnesses. More than a third of the population drinks more than the safe daily amount, per the Guardian.
There's room for error in my belief, because one substance is legal and one is not, enforcing different use parameters. Either can be an "entry" drug. But we've seen the costs of prohibition and this useless, unwinnable "War" on drugs. It's time to try another tactic.
Source(s):
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3121440.stm
http://www.nursingtimes.net/news/behindtheheadlines/2009/01/binge_drinking_...

Permalink | Report

What's amusing to me is that so few people understand that you can use marijuana for more than just a smoke.

"The major biologically active chemical compound in cannabis is Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), commonly referred to as THC" - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug))

The above mentioned is what gets you "high" when you smoke marijuana, or consume it in some other way. For this purpose, you could institute growing it for medicinal use, or if it were completely legalized, for personal consumption with similar limitations to alcohol as it currently stands - after so much is consumed, no driving; no smoking of it in public places except during sporting events, etc.

However, hemp(a derivative of cannibis that is used for non-drug use) has major uses besides being smoked - "paper, textiles, biodegradable plastics, health food, and fuel"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp). I don't understand why marijuana has to be legalized in order to gain more important benefits than a painkiller that doesn't outstrip dopamine or a recreational drug. "Strains of Cannabis approved for industrial hemp production produce only minute amounts of this psychoactive drug, not enough for any physical or psychological effects. Typically, Hemp contains below 0.3% THC, while Cannabis grown for marijuana can contain anywhere from 6 or 7 % to 20% or even more"(see previous citation).

Why not simply legalize the strains that produce 0.3% THC or lower, and use them for their industrial purposes? I'm sure it's taxable - at least as taxable as fossil fuels. I'm pretty sure that with the genetic mutations scientists have created to make a tomato plant grow 60 lbs. of tomatoes every month, they could formulate a strain of cannibis that produced no THC, thereby eliminating the ingredient that blacklisted marijuana.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

Permalink | Report