I live in a democratic republic. In my country, we, the people, are sovereign. What is the law of the land is dependent upon the education and intent of the people. Yes, regardless of when a law was passed outlawing marijuana, if people SUPPORT the law WITHOUT justification, they are wrong. Morally.

Not one reason for the ban has been stated in this thread. I'm not counting "I feel it is harmful to society" as a reason. If you want to dive into the origin of the ban and shed even more light into the corrupt, racist, and ignorant sources for it, we can do that.

I don't understand how people come to hold positions so firmly and be so arrogant as to speak out on their positions when they're based upon nothing but what positions they were told to hold. Everyone here has the internet. Everyone here has access to a huge mass of educational material on nearly every subject known to man.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I was going to compile a quick list of references, but this one seems decent at a glance. And it has dozens of questions on the subject answered after the initial backround. Educate yourselves:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Why is Marijuana Illegal?
http://legalizepot.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/why-is-marijuana-illegal/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I don't buy the line that addictions "infringe" on personal freedom. I wouldn't argue that any "hard" drugs should be legalized. I strongly discourage smoking tobacco and urge moderation in consumption of alcohol. The major damage that addictive drugs do to people and, by extension, society is well documented. It is known through science. But marijuana is not such a substance. Grouping it with them without so much as an explanation (and I repeatedly challenge anyone to provide one) only stresses one's ignorance on the plant. There is no more justification in banning marijuana because of psychological addiction than in banning countless other things people become psychologically addicted to. As in those cases, the problem tends to be in the mental health of the addicted person, not in the object of their addiction. Outlawing something because some unhealthy people get addicted to it doesn't help those people. In this case they do it anyway. In any case it doesn't treat their problem. In every case you're infringing upon people's REAL freedom to "protect" (and fail to do so, as described) those with mental disorders from behavior which points to their need for help.

To claim government needs to protect people from a substance that is NOT physically addictive is ridiculous. You left out the part where you explained that a government is a parent and we, the people, have the mental capacity of small children. That's what you're claiming. State it outright; don't leave it implied when your position depends upon it.

When in doubt, error on the side of personal freedom.

You have no right to interfere in the actions of men whose actions have 0 impact on you.

As it stands, more harmful substances are legal while this one is not. You cannot justify this. Everyone who tries lies in trying to do so.

I'm not encouraging the use of it, Einstein. I am, however, defending a person's right to do whatever the hell he or she wants. Cannabis grows all over the globe. Jews burned it as incense during the time of Christ.

Nobody here has justified its outlaw.

>>Alcohol and tobacco are only legal because they are so widely used so banning them would be virtually impossible.<<

Just like marijuana. ...You were trying to differenciate them?

>>The fact is if alcohol and tobacco were new onto the streets tomorrow (with their health effects known) they would almost certainly be illegal<<

HURRAY! We have prevailed against personal freedom. In this day and age we frown upon you making your own decisions which will have no impact upon me! You better live how we want you to or we'll fine you for being out of line! What a wonderful world.

>>so the argument that pot should be legal because alcohol and tobacco are isn't really valid.<<

Yes, as long as you accept, as I have, that personal freedom is the enemy, your argument isn't even valid! You agree that personal freedom is inherently bad, right??

It's obviously my problem that there are crack heads and crack whores in detroit. What a sinner I am if I take care of my family over people who will piss and shit on anything given freely to them that they cannot sell for more drugs.

>>Considering most of you agree that it is damaging in the longer term.<<

Most of who? It doesn't cause cancer like cigarettes. It doesn't cause automobile fatalities to users and random innocent people on the road like alcohol.

>>Wouldn't it make sense to make the worse substances illegal<<

Yes, presuming that personal freedom is the enemy here. I would love for you to make more decisions for me that will have absolutely no impact on your life. Wouldn't that make sense!

Dirty Iluvatar is right. The lesser races need to be controlled by dictators. I say let them.

Homosexuals have a mental disorder. Does that mean you don't think they should marry?

Not as well.

>>How can a kid with only one parent be normal?
They adapt.<<

Studies consistently show it's problematic. It happens, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not ideal. You can compare gay couples raising children to an alcoholic parent all you want, the point is men and women are different and children are best raised by one of each. We call them parents. Coincidentally one of each is required to create a child. What a coincidence. Mind blowing, I know.

>>Oh and this is veering off into homophobia instead of gay marriage.<<

It is not homophobia to discourge state sanctioned institutions encouraging mental disorders resulting from psychosis.

It is a shady situation in the US, Zarf. People do get charged because women are too drunk to consent. And they do get convicted.

She shouldn't be dumb enough to black out around strangers, and he shouldn't be dumb enough to have sex with a stranger who's that messed up. Of course, if he's wasted too, that _should_ definitely be taken into consideration. It tends not to be. Sure she can be too drunk and slutty to make a good judgement call -- but he can be too drunk to evaluate her level of intoxication when she obviously wants it!

Generally speaking, don't be a whore-monger, and you won't get charged.

It's freedom to get government encouragement for your actions? Please explain.

It's no one's business to exclude people from government encouragement of functions to which said people do not contribute? Please explain. [Has NOTIHNG to do with religion.]

Marriage is not primarily a "religious ceremony." Please try again.