You are arguing something which was not the point of this thread, nor is it relevant to reality. Laws to ban drugs go hand in hand with the effects of prohibition, and arguing it while ignoring those effects is neither relevant nor realistic. Furthermore, "worse" is subjective. I already told you, if people didn't have weed, they'd get high on other stuff. How do you think Meth came about? Or should we also ignore that little side effect of drug prohibition?The OP asked for a "credible argument." You're arguing using ideas that are simply not possible, so your argument would be incredible.What is there to mull over when you openly ignore the inherent drawbacks associated with drug prohibition, like crime and alternative drugs?Think about what? Accepting an argument that even the maker of the argument thinks is too ridiculous to accept?A human doesn't need much more than a shack, a few rags, relatively clean water and a few pounds of food (per day) to survive. If they banned everything else, would you be here telling us how it's not a right or a need and that the laws don't make people criminals?

Drugs can be used for fun just like TVs, cable, video games, soft beds, etc...I don't care about the "nobility" of it, but there is certainly quite a bit of use to drugs.Oh, I see. The consumer is only the cause of the crime when you don't find the particular item in question to be useful to yourself. Not drug laws. But if you think that way, could you please explain to me why Prohibition came to an end? You said yourself alcohol was harmful. And yet, it's illegal, whereas weed is not?That's stupid. They already made the decision to get high. Your sentence makes no sense. They can't decide...but they just did? WTF?Based on what evidence?Oh boy! Let's just enslave everyone and have them do your bidding! Anything less would be harmful to you! Oh, so people don't have a right to get high with drugs they buy with their own money, in the privacy of their home, but you have the right (even the entitlement) to force girls you date to be "your style" and to force everyone not to live lifestyles that may even encourage theft? Why don't you just ask for a crown and get it over with.I agree. I don't want to put up with any pressure I might see on the Internet to use drugs, so I think we should ban the Internet. And since your lifestyle of posting on the Internet may one day encourage you to pressure me into doing something I don't want, I think we should just put you behind bars. Hey, it's my business, now put up a camera in your bedroom so I know what you're doing 24/7! Actually, I'd imagine that alcohol and pot have different effects on the human body.Also, some people commit murder, therefore we should ban all people. That is your reasoning, right? SOME pot users are addicts and killers, so therefore pot must be banned. Oh wait, no, your argument is that you don't consider this argument to be valid, is that it?

I just have to say that I was a mess before I found weed. Anxiety was ruining my life, I couldn't sleep, didn't have much of an appetite and was becoming increasingly frustrated with the world around me (I was about 21 years old). I went to the doctor, got prescribed drugs etc. etc. (you know the routine) and I could never find a drug the doctor prescribed that didn't give me terrible side effects (impotency, upset stomach, complete loss of appetite, etc.)

Now, don't get me wrong, I also have used weed for fun on many occasions, but that's when I take a higher dose. Normally, just a toke will help me relax and allow me to actually go to sleep at night.

I also don't want to argue for legalization because of the so-called "medicinal" benefits, they are just a bonus. Weed is definitely not worse than the crap they feed you at the doctors office, but it can also be a good time.

So, again, you can have it your own ignorant way if you want to. If you really believe there are NO good arguments against your viewpoint almost regardless of what it is than you aren't really interested in thinking about it. REalize when I say 'I' have to pay for or deal with, I am talking about all of us as a whole, not just me. In other words, those are the effects you have on people who were not free to chose. Break it down into irrelievencies and pretend that addiction isnt the leading cause of abuse and homelessness, and have anything else you want without having to think about or take responsibility for it.

The arguments are on the table if a person wants to think about it, if you dont a person can and will argue his way out of anything.

I can't think of any issue I care less about than whether or not pot is legal,yet here is where I got sucked into, and the speciious reasoning that I've seen makes me worry a little about it, but all we have from here on out is going round in circles. To anyone that really wants to think, read the posts.

If the argument is shot to shit before it leaves the ground, it's not a good argument. You said yourself you didn't find it convincing and even posted reasons why you don't accept it. How can it be a GOOD argument?Y es, I realize that. Now, please save all of us the pressure of listening to you (or the possible pressure) and cancel your ISP contract.I don't have to pretend anything until you prove it.I have thought about it. And shot it to shit. And it wasn't hard, either, because the argument was the height of stupidity.Yep, I did, and I arrived at the conclusion that your argument is stupid.

If you're going to try to present a good argument as to why pot (or alcohol or whatever) should be illegal, you CANNOT separate the harmful effects of the drugs (if any) from the harmful effects of prohibition, and consider it in isolation. You must, in order to have a valid cost-benefit analysis, analyze the costs of prohibition as well as the benefits. The benefits would arise from any reduction in drug use and consequent reduction in the direct harm caused by drugs (if any). The cost would arise from the harmful effects of prohibition itself.

If you "forget for now what the effects of prohibition are," you are considering only the benefits without considering the costs, and that is not valiid.

But I'm getting a little suspicious, frankly, because you have addressed your points only to Slon. Slon is a fairly easy target, as he openly endorses the absurd, such as claiming that society has no obligation to protect children from their own behavior. The fact that you are addressing only him, suggests to me that you are not looking to discuss the issue honestly.

Which hat did you pull this wondrous tidbit from? Complete conjecture.

So, you want to get rid of the people? As you said, they caused the problem.
I think it was and is gullible, moldable folks like you that are the problem as well as those who profit from the WOD and have done such a fine job of manipulating the mass's.


Can you not see that it is impossible to have the World and not have alcohol....or Cannabis....or guns...
It is impossible....because not only would you have to rid the planet (the entire planet) of all alcohol and all cannabis and all guns, but you would also have to remove all raw materials for their manufacture (sugar, steel, seeds) and you would also have to remove all knowledge of their manufacture, distilling and growing...That will not happen until man is no more.
What that leaves us with is another War with no end, no victory. A never ending War waged on everyone, that we will never win. How many more prisons will it take? How many more laws? How many more police?.....It will never be enough...it CAN never be enough for a war that will NEVER END.

You cannot ever change society with the barrel of a gun or with imprisonment. Yet, when you support drug prohibition, that is what you are attempting to do. It does not work.

It's absurd not to protect people from themselves?

Sorry if I missed you, either I didn’t see you, or I thought I was lumping my responses to you in with all the rest.

The reason you not only can separate the two, but HAVE to is that you have to realize what it is you are talking about. You can’t ignore the effects of a choice you make just because the alternative is worse. The point is that this isn’t a ‘progressive’ decision, rather you have to realize that we are picking one evil over the other. The time may come one day when you can effectively prohibit the use of marijuana due to technology or something we haven’t thought of yet. But right now we realize that pot is bad for society period. We are simply accepting that the effects of banning it are worse at this time.


At that point, it just becomes a debate about which is worse, weed, or the prohibition, but they both have consequences. To say “We can’t control it, so there’s no other side to the debate” is about as closed minded as it gets. I just happen to believe the costs of prohibition outweigh the benefits, that doesn’t mean I don’t see that there as another side to the argument or that I won’t think about it. If there wasn’t another side, it wouldn’t be an issue.
And then the discussion has to occur where you have to decide what the effects of that decision are on other people as well. Is this really something that only affects the users? I argued that it wasn’t for many reasons. And the fact that the consequences of heroin and other drugs are absolutely not restricted to the user means that we are now just arguing over where the line is.

As for SLON I suppose everyone has some ideas that would be seen as fairly extreme, and he honestly probably isn’t too much more closed minded than the majority here, but he has an idea in his head set in stone, and anything that wavers from that black and white picture is seen as inadmissible to consideration… probably most people aren’t too much different.

Thats just from experiance with people, and talking to addiction specialists. I'm sure there's information online about this if you really care.


Again black and white thinking here. The line has to be drawn somewhere, theres no debate about that, its just an argument at this point over where. If its at weed and automatic weapons, or if its at heroin and heavy explosives. You have to start control somewhere.

No, we're not. There's nothing "evil" about getting a little high on weed. And if it were evil, then the law is a non-solution since it hasn't stopped jack shit. All it does is waste money put people in prison. Yeah, you succeeded in getting a handful of people from having a little fun with weed...and threw them in prison for it. No, nothing "evil" about that huh? No, we don't. YOU have accepted that due to what probably amounts to WOD commercials and other bullshit about weed that you saw on TV.Huh? It's closed-minded to avoid debating impossible scenarios? If we can't control weed, WTF is the point of discussing how great it would be (and it really wouldn't be that great) if we got rid of it?I think you're assuming that prohibition actually does much good to begin with. Even if you got rid of all of the weed, assuming 100% prohibition effectiveness, guess what? People would get high on other stuff, like rubber and cement and whatnot. All you have done is wasted a lot of money, royally raped personal liberty, and got people to turn to meth and more harmful substances.Hmmm...liberty, safe drugs, monetary conservation...or oppression, overdoses and the deepest hole of debt ever dug. What to pick, what to pick...Everything in our universe has some effect on something else. If I say something mean to someone, I will hurt their feelings and then their kids will be neglected or whatever. You can draw out these possibilities until you're blue in the face. However, it's really pointless, since making drugs illegal just ensures that addicts go from functioning addicts to murderers and thiefs.Like I said, your idea has been considered, and it is total bullshit that completely ignores reality and is based on conjecture and baseless generalization.

Okay. Legalize all drugs. Draw the line there for starters. It's none of your business if I stay at home all day long because I'm high on weed or because I'm a lazy fuck. No, we are not your slaves and we do not live and work according to your idea of a model citizen so that you can feel good about your little world.

You must let go of this illusion of control you have. How do you think alcohol prohibition ended? We are at a very similar crossroad now. Alcohol prohibition ended 4 years into the great depression. It simply was uncontrollable. Gangsters and the black markets they ran were profiting greatly, while it was a money pit for the gov. With the dollar close to extinction, we could very well see a major shift in policy brought on by necessity. And if that happens I'm afraid your programming will be obsolete.

We should end the Drug War; it is "not worth a continental".

There is not one addiction specialist that would make the absurd appraisal that the affects (physical, emotional, social) of pot as opposed to alcohol are remotely similar except that both addicts crave their drug of choice. Comparing pot to alcohol is like comparing the moon to earth. There's plenty of info concerning this on the web if you care to be factual in your posts.

You are a complete and utter hypocrite. What are you so afraid of? A common weed? A flower? a mixture of charcoal, sulfur and saltpeter? a gun that shoots more then one bullet per trigger manipulation? In a free, prosperous, society regulations against such things are not needed nor legal. You have fallen victim to the fabrication that abuse of these things are the problem. Allow me to inform you that they are nothing but a symptom of the much greater, all encompassing problem of corruption. Corruption brought on by greed and perpetrated on society by people who see you and I as mere objects, or better yet, subjects. You agree with them because you have been conditioned to agree with them. But their illusion of control is no more valid then yours. My quest for freedom is just as valid to me as your illusion of control is to you. The difference is that I dream of freedom, and you want control.

Drugs are an escape. The more the economy deteriorates, the more drug use climbs. You want to curb drug use? Fix the economy. Your attempts to train intelligent wild animals (humans) has been, is, and will always be a lesson in futility.

Hypocrite....period.