[DiogenesLamp]

Enforcement of laws is one thing. However, based on your activity on this thread, you seem to be addicted to a form of government that attempts to reduce an extremely generalized and highly nebulous social "risk" by criminalizing a naturally-occurring substance.

That a substance is "naturally occurring" is irrelevant to the point. There are a multitude of "naturally occurring" substances that are down right deadly, and of course we don't let just anyone play with them. Arsenic, Hemlock and Strychnine come to mind.

The Socially destructive effects of drugs are not "nebulous" there are very well documented and innumerably verified consequences to tolerance of drugs in any society or culture. The argument here is whether or not Marijuana is sufficiently dangerous as to be a threat to the existence of a society. Opium obviously is, and I would expect the evidence to reveal that meth and cocaine are as well.

This is not guess work. This is not "theory." These experiments have been run, and the consequences of tolerating highly addictive drugs have been uniformly horrifying. To my knowledge there are no good examples of a working culture which embraces highly addictive and dangerous drugs.

The question in my mind is, "Will Marijuana cause the same results, albeit slower?" I don't know. Everyone I know who smokes the stuff is a worthless bum. Maybe this doesn't happen to everyone who smokes it, but it certainly seems to happen to a lot of people who do.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

That a substance is "naturally occurring" is irrelevant to the point. There are a multitude of "naturally occurring" substances that are down right deadly, and of course we don't let just anyone play with them. Arsenic, Hemlock and Strychnine come to mind.

Consider, if you will, why "we don't let just anyone play around with" the substances you just mentioned.

The Socially destructive effects of drugs are not "nebulous" there are very well documented and innumerably verified consequences to tolerance of drugs in any society or culture. The argument here is whether or not Marijuana is sufficiently dangerous as to be a threat to the existence of a society. Opium obviously is, and I would expect the evidence to reveal that meth and cocaine are as well.

This is not guess work. This is not "theory." These experiments have been run, and the consequences of tolerating highly addictive drugs have been uniformly horrifying. To my knowledge there are no good examples of a working culture which embraces highly addictive and dangerous drugs.

Hmm. With all due respect, I think you're not applying consistent logic here with your argument. You insist on viewing marijuana through the dangerous, destructive, socially catastrophic lens that is more accurately applied to drugs like opium, heroin, meth, etc. You're leading the witness and the witness you're leading is yourself.

Marijuana is not the same as the drugs you're trying to lump it it with.

Everyone I know who smokes the stuff is a worthless bum. Maybe this doesn't happen to everyone who smokes it, but it certainly seems to happen to a lot of people who do.

Everyone I know isn't. Evidently, you should hang out with a better class of people.