Pro-Legalization arguments Edit
Summary of points Edit
- Legislation was originally passed for political, not rational, reasons:
- Marijuana's risks and consequences are mild compared to those of two legal (but regulated) drugs, tobacco and alcohol. There is no known overdose quantity of marijuana, and it is not physically addictive. It is less habit-forming (psychologically addictive) than tobacco.
- Illegalization of marijuana, much like the short-lived illegalization of alcohol, has spawned a massive black market; it has surpassed corn in many states as the largest cash crop. Farmers can make $70,000 for a bushel of marijuana (versus a couple of dollars per bushel of corn), although this would certainly drop if it were legalized.
- Drug busts often trap young people in a flawed system that turns them into lifelong criminals.
- The anti-marijuana laws are clearly ineffective, as marijuana use has increased since it was first illegalized
- Limiting the use of a substance with no known harmful effects to others (e.g. violence) is a violation of personal freedom.
- Like sex, alcohol, or cigarettes, marijuana is one of life's little pleasures for some people.
- There are medical benefits such as pain relief for cancer patients.
- Street crime related to drug disputes would be reduced.
- Marijuana's quality and safety could be regulated, increasing safety for users
- Federal Marijuana regulation is a perfect example of big government attempting to control what is obviously an issue for individual States to decide.
- Marijuana is legal in The Netherlands:
- Research on the population of Amsterdam has demonstrated that the stepping stone argument is a myth. 
- Marijuana use rates in the Netherlands are 5.2% of the public, while they are 12.3% in the United States. [Government Reports US Department of State. European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Abuse]
Why it should be legal. Edit
This section is a combination of two existing sections; some smoothing and rewriting would probably be good.
Many doctors and nurses have found that marijuana is a helpful drug in several treatments. Marijuana is not a cure, but it can help ease the pain of cancer patients. A lot of cancer patients have severe reactions, not only to the disease, but chemotherapy as well – such as severe nausea and vomiting. One in three patients discontinues treatment despite a 50% chance of improvement. If anti-nausea drugs fail, marijuana can ease the patient's nausea and allows for the continuation of treatment.
University doctors and researchers have found that marijuana is also effective in: lowering internal eye pressure associated with glaucoma, slowing the onset of blindness; reducing the pain of AIDS patients, and stimulating the appetites of those suffering malnutrition because of AIDS 'wasting syndrome'; and alleviating muscle spasticity and chronic pain due to multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and spinal cord injuries.
However, many other doctors and researchers, including the American Medical Association, note that they do not ever recommend smoking any drug to deliver dosage to patients, and that the medical evidence is not conclusive.
When one in five Americans will have cancer, and 20 million may develop glaucoma, shouldn't our government let physicians prescribe any medicine capable of relieving suffering?
The federal government stopped supplying marijuana to patients in 1991. Now it tells patients to take Marinol, a synthetic substitute for marijuana that can cost $30,000 a year and is often less reliable and less effective.
Marijuana is not magic. But often it is the only way to get relief. A Harvard University survey found that almost one-half of cancer doctors surveyed would prescribe marijuana to some of their patients if it were legal.
Today, physicians are allowed to prescribe powerful drugs like morphine and codeine. There isn't a coherent reason why Marijuana should be treated any differently than these other pain-killers. All arguments stem from a vast amount of misinformation and stigmatization. It's counter-intuitive to maintain this villainization of Marijuana.
Abusive involvement of the State in private issues Edit
Many people believe that State should not interfere in private choices. Even if marijuana usage is harmful it is not the State's choice whether people can or cannot use it, people should have the right to harm themselves if they choose so. They should not, however, have the right to harm others. In the United States, this stance is the one taken by the Libertarian Party.
De-Criminalizazationpenis (Is this true?) Edit
Cancer Cure Edit
Marijuana prevents, and slows the growth of, certain types of malignant tumors.
12 Year Study Debunks "Gateway Drug" Myth Edit
A 12-year University of Pittsburgh study found that Marijuana is not a "gateway drug."
Other Links Edit
- 11 Common Misconceptions About Marijuana - http://inserttitleblog.com/?p=82