Who here supports marijuana legalization, but doesn't want to use it?

[Nekojin]

On a side note, you just know that the first thing that will happen if it does get truly legalized is that bootleg (read: untaxed) marijuana grows and shops will proliferate even farther than they have already, along the scale of moonshine, if not more so.

While I agree with most of your points (most notably the point that Federal action is what's needed to truly legalize it), I believe that historical evidence shows that you're way off-base on this point. Moonshining was fairly common prior to the 18th Amendment, but it wasn't until it was outlawed that it really took off. Once the 21st Amendment re-legalized alcohol, moonshining died back to levels lower than the pre-A18 levels.

Will there be some people who grow their own pot? Sure. Marijuana is easy to grow and doesn't take much space or effort. But for many, buying legally trumps even that much effort - better to just walk to the store and pick up a bag and some rolling papers - or even better, some pre-rolled stuff - and get on with your day. Even low maintenance is more troublesome than no maintenance.

[Jetfire]

Don't smoke, don't drink, don't do drugs. I don't even take cold syrup. (and I'm not even American). And that all said, I say legalize it. (Hell I'd say legalize all of it, but I know society isn't quite ready to go that far yet).

While what EricKei said is true; that those state level laws are useless while the Federal level laws are in effect, by passing those state level acts, it passes along a clear message to the federal level that you're tired of those laws are there, and it's time to start taking action.

[HYHYBT]

I'm not interested in even trying it... but other more harmful things are legal, and there is no possible way the damage legal pot would do could be greater than the damage enforcement causes.

I don't go for the "tax it" line either. I mean, yes, sure, tax its sale, but there's no sound reason people shouldn't be able to grow their own if they want.

[wolfie]

Chalk me up as another non-partaking supporter. Economically, legalization would bring in tax revenue, cut enforcement costs, and get rid of a source of income for criminals. "It's a gateway drug" - with it being illegal, anyone buying it has to go to someone who (duh) sells illegal drugs, and like any other competent businessman, will try to interest the client in some of their other products. Legalized, the "minimal new infrastructure" approach would be to sell it through outlets already licensed to sell booze. Does your bartender (or liquor store clerk) try to steer you toward meth or heroin? No - but he might encourage you to buy a bottle of 16 year old single-malt Scotch.

[Kelmon]

I hardly ever drink, never smoked tobacco, tried marijuana once and didn't care for it.

I'm all for legalizing it. I think enough reasons for that have already been posted by other people here.

[Panacea]

I know the thread said people who won't use it, but I wish it was legal for this reason. I suffer from migraines and also get motion sickness. Only thing that really helps with very little side affects on me. But it varies by how its grown and the person.

There's actually a legal form of the drug called Marinol. Many doctors are reluctant to prescribe it because it is Schedule II, and it's also pricey compared to pot. It doesn't give you the buzz pot does, and avoid the risks of smoking it. It doesn't work as well as pot for everyone. It only contains THC, not the other ingredients, which is probably why.

A friend of mine takes it for fibro. She's compared it to pot and says it works as well, with less dopey effects (which she doesn't like).

The only people who benefit from marijuana being illegal are the cartels and criminals. Which is why legalizing it will be a great uphill battle. They will pump BILLIONS into fighting it, because they will loose the billions a year that the illegalization keeps in their pockets.

The cartels won't have much luck with that, anymore than the Mob did. And there will be other illegal drugs for them to push.

It will be the private prison industry folks, and the social conservatives who will fight legalization. The latter won't want to admit they were wrong about pot, and the former won't want to lose the pipeline of "customers" the criminal justice system sends their way.

The main points of these "legalization" laws getting passed are really just (a) to try and get more votes from a sympathetic voter base, and (b) to free up the local cops from doing quite so many pot busts. If the feds show up -- even in Washington -- and ask the local guys for help on a pot bust, I can pretty much guarantee that they'll get it. It's still a Scheduled substance on the Federal level, and that's where change needs to happen first, if it is to happen at all.

I don't think votes are really the issue (though of course it has to be popular with the electorate to get acted on by politicians). It does make the cop's job a little easier in that they don't have to waste time on petty possession crimes, and a little harder in that they can't use petty possession crimes to make arrests or do searches for other reasons.

Prohibition was broken when the states started repealing their state laws. The Feds had little choice but to follow a couple of years later. What I think will happen is Obama will direct the DEA to remove marijuana from the Schedule of Controlled Substances by Executive Order. It won't happen until after the fiscal cliff debacle that is coming. Give it a couple of years.

On a side note, you just know that the first thing that will happen if it does get truly legalized is that bootleg (read: untaxed) marijuana grows and shops will proliferate even farther than they have already, along the scale of moonshine, if not more so.

Doubtful. That isn't what happened after Prohibition. Odds are the ATF will add stamping that out to their mission (they're the ones who clamp down on bootleg tobacco sellers and alcohol sellers). People can grow it on their own easily, and may well do so, but it will take some skill to grow specific types to achieve different levels of potency, and most users just won't bother when they can buy it legally.

But I also agree with this. I would say that it's marginally "harmless" in the sense that it's less lethal than the "hard" drugs, but I would put it on the same level as strong tobacco or booze.

Any time you put a substance into your body you take this risk: be it pot, alcohol, vitamins, prescription medication. No one should do so without understanding the risk vs benefits, and most people deliberately choose not to do exactly that.

[Mr. Anubite]

I slung enough pizzas in my day to know very well what the stuff smells like ...I would describe it as "nasty, dirty sweat socks".

Exactly! I support the legalization of it, and I've never used it personally, but it's a favorite pastime in my college town, and OH MY GOD THAT HORRID STENCH

[AccountingDrone]

Does your bartender (or liquor store clerk) try to steer you toward meth or heroin? No - but he might encourage you to buy a bottle of 16 year old single-malt Scotch.

Not single malt, but a bartender of my acquaintance got me to try vintage port ... sweet jesus, there is nothing like a tiny glass of port late in the evening when winding down and getting ready for bed.

[EricKei]

On the moonshiner thing -- I was just using it as a for instance. A better way to put it would have been to include something like "if the taxed version ends up costing consumers noticeably more than the 'independently grown' one, then this could happen". I still think that they could proliferate, and at no time did I mean to suggest that Moonshine production was pandemic.

[HYHYBT]

Since the smell was mentioned.... probably best if it's not done in public. Not even congregating around doorways the way tobacco smokers do.

[crashhelmet]

I used to smoke it. I used to smoke quite a bit of it. I can tell you from personal experience that it can be less harmful than alcohol or much worse. Much like different alcohols have different levels of content by volume, or "proof," so do different strains of marijuana. You can have your garden variety skunk weed or your "one-hit" strains like "Alaskan Thunderfuck."

Like alcohol, it can also effect different people different ways. Some people smoke and pass out. Some people smoke and get stupid. Some people smoke and get angry. It, like many other drugs, affects your reflexes and your reaction time. Someone that smokes and drives is just as much a risk as someone that drinks and drives.

Would I smoke again if it was legal? No. I don't smoke anything anymore. I need my lungs and it's bad enough I have to inhale second hand cigarette smoke if I decide to go out.

Which brings me to another issue. I can sit next to someone at a bar and drink nothing but water and not have to worry about getting drunk from what they're drinking. Their lifestyle choice has very little effect on me. Sitting next to a pot smoker does affect me. I run the risk of getting high by inhaling their second hand smoke.

My personal belief is that the only reason it's not legal is that they can't regulate it the same way they can alcohol. If they could, they would. They'd tax the hell out of it if they could. But the truth of the matter is that it's a hell of a lot easier to grow weed, especially different strains, than it is to make your own alcohol.

Sure, you might have your own little home brewery kit. How much does that make? What's the cost-to-product ratio? Compare that with how easy it is to turn your garage or home, like my HS Baseball coach, into a hydroponic facility? What about the harder alcohols? You don't hear much about people busted for moonshine or hooch anymore because it's almost impossible to do without killing yourself. But growing a stronger strain of weed is no different than growing a weaker one.

[EricKei]

. Not even congregating around doorways the way tobacco smokers do.

...Which is illegal in many places, but I have never actually seen it enforced anywhere except the occasional hospital.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Meh, I might be a bit curious to try it, but any time I was offered I never felt like it. (Though every time I was offered I had to drive immediately after so perhaps I just didn't want to be impaired while driving a huge ass mini van.)

I totally for legalizing it and taxing it like we do tobacco. Make money from taxes, save money in terms of law enforcement, allow people who need it medicinally to get it without fear, etc. and so forth.

The only thing that might annoy people now is instead of having "Don't drink and drive!" It would have to change to "Don't Drink/smoke pot and drive!" which ruins the alliteration

[Panacea]

...Which is illegal in many places, but I have never actually seen it enforced anywhere except the occasional hospital.

My community college enforces it fairly rigorously. You can't smoke anywhere on state property, indoors or out.

The smokers on campus go to the boundary of campus to smoke. Some of them congregate at a kind of brick pavilion, and campus police seems to have given up on chasing them out of there.

The irony, is that structure is the last remnant of what used to be on the property before it was turned into a community college.

A tuberculosis sanitarium

[Mikkel]

Like crashhelmet I have smoked a lot. I stopped in the middle eighties and can't say I miss it, but it's a safer alternative to alcohol and tobacco. I support legalisation.