Marijuana, unlike alcohol, can be easily grown by an individual. The state won’t be able to tax and regulate it like alcohol because people will just grow their own or buy under the table from friends. There is already an extensive marijuana network of growers - they’re not going to stop just because the government gets involved. I’m conflicted on this - it is a waste of scarce resources to go after the casual pot smoker, but it is a gateway drug to harder drugs and it can result in long-term brain damage, especially in adolescents. As with abortion, once the government okays it, then it becomes more and more socially acceptable.

This is one of my really big pet peeves with my fellow countrymen.  We spend waaay too much time obsessing about what others are doing and not enough about what we are doing.  Americans need to learn to mind their own damn business.

“I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men’s rights.” – Abraham Lincoln

Let me get this straight.  We spend billions to stop people from smoking tobacco, but it’s O.K. to smoke pot, when we know that people inhale it more deeply and hold the smoke longer in their lungs, which all contributes to greater health problems, and this isn’t even considering the addiction, “pot head” issues?

Re #3
Daniel,
There is a major difference you are overlooking.  Tobacco is legal.  It is sold legally in most convenience stores.  It is regulated and taxed.  Pot is illegal but probably easier to get for most people (as the article noted).  Most studies have shown that the health risks associated with Tobacco are significantly greater than marijuana.

The main difference is that Tobacco has a huge lobby in Washington.  As for the billions you cite to get people to stop smoking (or not start); we also spend billions subsidizing the Tobacco industry.  Go figure.

You can buy kits to brew your own beer.  You can make your own wine and hard cider as well.

I do not advocate drug usage, but since we can’t keep drugs out of maximum security prisons after a 30 long “war on drugs”, what makes anyone think that we can keep drugs off the street?

I think the route to go with pot is to decriminalize it, allow its sale, regulated it, and tax it.  Sell it with filters and a Surgeon General’s warning.  Keep the laws about driving under the influence on the books.  Random test for it at work sites where its use would be a hazard or a liability.  Then, back off and let the market work.

The liability issues alone will have companies testing their employees themselves. 

The point is, doing what I said should dry up the illicit trade and regulate the legal trade so that in the end, the problem is more manageable.

Spoo…“after a 30 year long…”

Re # 5
S&T,
Ditto what you wrote.

I’m ambivalent, but one of my heroes, the late William F. Buckley, was an advocate of decriminalizing marijuana.

This is a no-brainer unless you seek to be oblivious by chemical or by choice.  Here goes:
Would you pick a baby sitter or home health aid who “smokes recreationally” to care for your loved one? To be your employee on high roofs? To run equipment making your car?  To repair your car?
If you allow pot recreationally and in “limited” amounts you cannot discriminate or drug test and then you are at the mercy of a stoned society who has permission to be idiotic and casual about how you are treated.

” Galatians 5:19-21 says, “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
In this passage, the word sorcery implies “the use or administering of drugs,” from the original translated Greek word pharmakeia, according to Strong’s Concordance. “
I am shocked, gentlemen.  The faith once given, and all that.  Next we’ll have a bishop that is an admitted pot smoker.  Or even a President.  .... oh, yeah, forgot about that.  Never mind.

#11
I’ve got news for you, there are plenty of folks performing all of those functions right now stoned out of their minds and intoxicated.

Re # 9
Choir Stall
Decriminalizing an act in no way interferes with private employers from proscribing said conduct.  Many employers are already refusing to hire smokers (and not without some good reasons). Alcohol is legal and yet most employers don’t allow you to show up drunk for work.

Re #10
DeaconMark,
That’s a good quote if one is basing our government on religious law.  But we don’t do that here.  The United States is not a theocracy.

Evan & Ad Orientem:
You’re stating the obvious, but not the barrier. The subject is Pot and its chemistry and effects. To allow it by decriminalization is to permit it and then you DO remove the last barrier to discrimination against it and enforcement to lessen its impact. Pot generally stays in the system for days afterwards, unlike alcohol. I’m sorry, but the line should be clear: nobody gets hold of my 2 year old kid unless I can be assured that I can question and then legally discriminate by retaining the right to test and to observe suspicious behavior.
Pot is much more stealthy than booze. I know, since I have to screen people all the time as employees. You begin to suspect impairment but can’t prove it until the test. Meanwhile look at what has been at the hands of the pot smoker: people, machinery, etc. You can argue the merits/demerits of other substances later. For now, the subject is pot and there is nothing to commend its use, permission, or privatization.

As people will smoke it regardless then keep it illegal. At least that way a clear warning and message is sent. Modern weed is much stronger than 60’s pot and a real threat of psychosis is packed with each ounce….

There is nothing to commend it’s criminalization either.  I just 15 minutes ago (I’m not making this up) had a client leave who was telling me about buying pot from a co-worker who get’s it from his brother who is a state trooper.  The point is ciminalization does not stem it’s use and waists resourses.

“wastes”

Have you been to the gardening section of Barnes and Noble lately? I was getting a book on something else, but was amazed to see the 10+ books about how to grow pot. They practically had their own shelf. Go figure. However, I think I’d rather have it legal and regulated than illegal and even more easily available - particularly for people (and there are a lot of them) who are using it for medicinal purposes, whether or not they have a prescription.

#15, I think the modern weed smoker simply takes fewer “tokes”.

Our war on drugs has enriched some very violent people here and abroad, and over-filled our prisons.  Prohibition didn’t work in the Roaring 20’s (even my saintly grandfather the MSLC confirmation teacher visited a speakeasy or two in his day); why would it work now?

I’m with 14.  I see the issue almost entirely in the family context. Will decriminalization of pot make it more likely that my grandchildren will be threatened by its use and addiction?  I would think the answer is ‘yes.’

Re # 14
On the basis of that argument we should outlaw smoking and recriminalize alcohol, both of which kill vastly more people annually and both of which can be far more addictive.

21, that’s a non-sequiter.  There is no need to compound their harm by legalizing marijuana.  On the other hand why aren’t you arguing to legalize ALL drug use to include: crack, cocaine and heroin?

If you are willing to over look the harm drugs do there is no reason why the government should not only legalize them, but produce and sell them from government drug houses in order to take the money away from the criminals.  If necessary give them away to take away all illegal drug profit.  You would see the drug industry collapse overnight.  On the other hand you would have to be willing to write off the lives of drug addicts as the cost of doing business, but as long as they are not harming anyone else they can do what they want, right?

To add to 22’s response to 21:  “outlawing smoking and recriminalizing alcohol” are fine ideas, but they are simply not in the cards.  Is this not one of the cases where we must accept the things we cannot change?  Decriminalization of pot, on the other hand, is an open issue and can (and should) be readily opposed.

Wow, where do I begin.  Firstly, prohibition is a well documented FAILURE, period.  This has mainly been about antiquation in our rules, which is also found in many polls where 30-35 and younger favor legalization (thank God they’ll live longer) vs. the elder (60-65+) group.  Why, well it’s fairly simple and basic.  Just as we are bombarded w/ our cultured media(communications), the same existed since the mid 1930s (a bit less then of course).  But they were taught (mind-washed) during the height of the ‘Reefer Madness’ scandal.  Legalization WILL occur… It will just take some time.

100 sec. video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkYAbGEqCgc