there are none.
it’s destructive.
Welcome to FreeRepublic. You joined to talk about pot? Mmmmmmmkay!
me_a_republican
Since Jul 29, 2008
...Sigh...
Because it would be too difficult to tax if it was legal to grow your own.
Because it is fun to smoke.
Zero.
So many violations of our constitutionally protected rights (the major one being the 4th amendment) are conducted under the guise of this inane War on Some Drugs...
Welcome to FR. Please play nice with the kitties.
Um, do a google search on the negative effects of marijuana. Why should anyone here do your work for you?
There are no reasons. Wasting police resources on catching people for possession of a plant is an abomination.
Cough, cough, uh, dude, uh,uh, I really don’t remember. What did you ask?
It would have way too easy access to minors, who do not have the maturity to make that type of choice. That is why we have age of consent laws. With other age appropriate things and activity, we have ways to monitor and restrict age limits.
Take it from a guy that was arrested with 6 grams of pot. It cost me 6,000 dollars and my 2nd and 4th amendment rights for a year. Pot prohibition is like welfare for the state. How many lawyers, coucilors, judges and police would be out of work? Under probation, I smoked no pot, nearly drank myself to death, but that is taxed and legal so it is OK.
Like, uh, wow, man. It’s like, ya know, cool and stuff. I helps to um, make me think better and stuff, ya know?
Best reason to make it legal is to piss off all the people against it.
me_a_republican
Since Jul 29, 2008
Get a life troll!
Go back to DU and smoke up a storm.
Personally, I’ve just always felt that it needs to be put in the proper perspective. Congress and the states regularly adopt laws that they believe promote the general welfare of the American people. From gun laws to gambling to prostitution and more – we allow sensible regulation if it is deemed to promote a healthy society. Drugs are no different. The problem seems to be in how to distinguish the seemingly harmless marijuana, from the more potent and clearly deleterious drugs like cocaine, and also from potentially equally harmful ones like alcohol. There is debate about marijuana’s effect on the brain, and hormonal changes that occur in the body, but generally it can be agreed upon as a matter of common sense that a drugged-out society is not a productive one. Moreover, it is widely conceded that marijuana is a gateway drug; that it leads to other drug use, so we have adopted a bright line rule regarding drug use that begins at marijuana. The theory is that if you can prevent people from using marijuana, you can prevent further, more harmful drug use. Undoubtedly were it to be legal, it would be more readily available, and more people would try it as a matter of course. That in turn could lead to potentially skyrocketing rates of heavy drug use. I submit that like with many other laws, we have simply adopted a bright line rule that is necessarily arbitrary, but not illogical. Most laws are arbitrary when it comes down to the finest application. It is no less arbitrary, in theory, than a person being a “minor” when they are 17 years, 364 days old, and an “adult” the following day. What difference does a day make? It is no less arbitrary than receiving a speeding ticket for traveling 61, when 60 would have been lawful. The one mile per hour is insignificant. However, society has to draw the line somewhere and apply the law rigidly, or all law becomes a meaningless relativistic exercise. Thus, we have decided that we will draw the line at marijuana. Perhaps alcohol is equally dangerous, but it is a historic part of society in ways that marijuana has never been, so it remains legal. Like adulthood, or speed laws, or a million other examples, marijuana is and probably ought to remain in my opinion the bright line on drug use.
