You smoke marijuana because you want to enjoy the results, i.e. a high. You don't need to drink alcohol with the intention of getting drunk. You can consume alcohol without getting incapacitated at all.

Deprav argued that marijuana is not addictive, which it clearly is. Your body does not become physically dependent like it does with nicotine or hard drugs. That doesn't mean it's not addictive. Marijuana causes a direct release of dopamine in the brain, basically instant pleasure for no effort. Stating that marijuana is not addictive in the strict sense is blatant ignorance.

Toribush is trying to convince us that marijuana is the angel among drugs. It allegedly has no consequences for your body. This as opposed to Alcohol, which is the real killer.
The truth is that marijuana is no less dangerous than being drunk. The high negatively affects motoric capacities (i.e. driving). As Pig pointed out, because there are no statistics of people dying in car crashes after a weed-induced high doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's just more difficult to detect than alcohol blood level. Besides, what about the retardation in learning capabilities? Did that slip past your "Cannabis doesn't hurt"-barrier?

Right then, for all you silly people wanting to argue for your need to get high.

You're being unreasonable and base your reason on having it legalized only because you want to get high. Much alike Arglax said, you can drink while avoid being intoxicated on alcohol.

It's pretty close to impossible to not get that high you're looking for, while smoking that plant of yours.

I'm all in for having all use of marijuana illegalized, even for medical use. Once the guy is off the cure, what do you think happens? He's already addicted and needs more.

Personal stories don't really account for anything.

Originally Posted by deprav

Assumptions, there are so many sort of weed and hash, different highs, different tastes, different quality etc... just like alcohol. Even tho I like to get high sometimes, I won't smoke shitty stuff just for the sake of being high (not anymore at least, personnal choice).

Similarity to drugs already legalized are not a reason to legalize another drug. There are varying qualities of crystal meth, and we certainly shouldn't legalize that.

You make the other assumption than alcohol selling is righteous because people drink without the intenton of getting drunk but just for the sake of the taste of good alcohol. Then explain why the biggest part of alcohol sales are shitty disgusting "supermarket alcohol" and cocktails (ie. alcohol without alcohol taste most of the time).
Most people drink to get drunk, may it be slightly drunk or totally fucked up, making the assumption every alcohol consumer is a specialist is about as right as saying pot smokers don't like to get high (because yes, we do). When I want to drink something without being "incapacited" at all, I drink water or orange juice.

Yes, this is true. The majority of the alcohol industry's income comes from binge drinkers. If every person of legal age drank a beer a day and nothing more, the industry would still earn much less than it does right now. However, current retarded policy is not a justification for legalizing more drugs as somehow a solution to a failed policy


Well, when we talk about drugs we talk about physical addictions. Psychological addiction is something possible for pretty much anything, and it's not the product that is at fault but the person's life or environment.
Some people are addicted to masturbation, some are addicted to eating their nails, some are addicted to sugar, some are addicted to sport etc... That's not a reason to make running, porn and sugar illegal.
As said previously, I'm a pot smoker since about 10 years, I can stop smoking for days, weeks or months without any difficulty. If I don't have any I won't shake and cry like a bitch, it's just how it is.

And that's the reason why physical addiction drugs are restricted. Psychological addiction can affect anybody with anything, so you can't effectively restrict products because of psychological addiction. However, you can pinpoint which chemicals cause physical addiction, so you can effectively restrict drugs that cause physical dependency. So again, just because something else can be addictive doesn't necessarily mean this is a reason to suddenly legalize more addictive things.

If a drug without bad counter-part existed I think we'd all be using right now already.
He's not saying it's "the angel among drugs", he's poiting out that making it illegal based on its effect on health, compared to alcohol and cigarets statistics, is pretty fuckin hypocritical and moronic.

This is probably your best possible argument. But the question arises that, if we legalized something worse than marijuana and restrict marijuana, wouldn't it make just as much sense to then ban the drugs that are worse as well? Why is legalizing marijuana a better choice than banning alcohol and cigarettes? (p.s. I know the counter-argument to this claim, I'm just stating that it's a legitimate concern that you need to argue against if you want marijuana legalization arguments to be taken seriously).

Driving under any drugs/meds is retarded, may it be legal medicines or illegal drugs, it's not about the substance itself but the general tendancy of people being iresponsible fucks. And it's not more difficult to detect marijuana, it's just exactly the same. Here in France, the police have little tests for cannabis, it's just a little stick they rub in your cheek (just like DNA tests), and if it takes x color, your positive to cannabis (or other narcotics) and immediatly sent to hospital for blood sample.

And if people are retarded, why would suddenly legalizing more drugs be a good idea? You're poking holes in your own argument if you're saying people are retarded with currently available drugs, so let's legalize more of them.

________

Vodka

We don't need to get high, we like to get high. Just like you like to taste your different kind of whisky.

I'm being reasonable and base my reason on having it legalized because of the large amount of people who like to use it, and as democratic countries, if a large part of the population wants to get high with something that is just as dangerous for their health (not less, not more) than tobacco and alcohol, they should be able to do so without fearing legal issues and mindless justice.

For the "drinking without being drunk" part, just look above.

The majority of people in a democratic country I know of wanted to keep people segregated by color. Does that make it right? Majority opinion does not instantly make an opinion the right choice. You're using the democracy fallacy. Because what you're describing isn't democracy, but majoritarianism, which is entirely different political system.

Untrue, as already said there are A LOT of kind & forms of marijuana, some are more or less powerful, and people's body get used to it, just like alcohol . Someone who never smoke might get high with 2 or 3 puffs, while an inveterate smoker might feel the effect after 1 or 2 joints of the same stuff. Hell I've seen people smoking joints like cigarets without looking even slightly stoned.
I'm not saying it's right, that's pretty fucking bad. But you base all your arguments on assumptions and clichщs.

It's funny because you just made an assumption that all of Vodka's arguments are based on assumptions. But anyways, it's the fact that eventually you don't get the same feeling from marijuana as you do from when you first smoke it. That feeling can cause people to experiment with harder drugs to reach the same high that they first experienced. It's a legitimate concern.

What about morphin and opiates then ? should it be illegal for medical use as well ?
You're talking from your own little subjective knowledge of the matter, but go tell this to people with sclerosis with a straight face.
And as said already, Marijuana itself is not an addictive substance, people getting really addicted probably have other problems to solve with their life. And might I remind you most "heavy meds" and meds for psychological disorders are probably more addictive and dangerous than pot.

Medical uses are totally appropriate uses for certain drugs. But it's also the question of whether there are no better alternatives. Morphine is used as a painkiller because it's a highly effective one, but doctors manage it heavily because a slight overdose can kill a patient, and prolonged use can develop dependence. If they have an alternative that's just as effective and safer, they use it. Morphine is a painkiller of last resort.
________________

Lel, ye sure experience doesn't matter. Only google matters.

Case studies do not prove causality, correlation, or anything of importance for a logical debate. All a case study shows is that something is possible. There are several people who smoke and drink their entire life and live to 100, while people who eat healthy, exercise, and live happy lives die at 30 from a heart attack. If you assumed that smoking and drinking were good for you because of these case studies, you would be laughed at and ridiculed, and rightfully so.






ALL DRUGS ARE BAD, but people will always use them. Forbidding a drug of which side effects are proven just as bad as alcohol and tobacco (legal drugs) for the sake of health issues is hypocritical and unfair to the millions of soft consumers that risk life changing juridical issues for bullshit reasons.

You just generalized heavily with that statement. Objects are not inherently bad or good, but usage will change it's value. Again, your strongest argument is that we have stronger drugs legalized, but you need to protect this claim from supporting the opposite of your intended argument.

Most of your arguments are based on old conservative clichщs stained with false religious principles, it disgusts me. You're either lying to yourself about most people's intention concerning legal drugs or have no clue about how shitty societies push people to try to escape by any mean they have left.

Fallacious argument, you're either lying or you're an idiot. Don't attack the person making the argument, and instead attack the argument. You look like less of a prick, and you convince more people to your side.

What makes me laugh tho, is that probably half (if not more) of the artists/writters/philosophers/thinkers you cherish, from your all pure and clear educated minds, were most of the time stoned, fucked up with absynthe or opiates, or desperate drunks.

"Famous people did it" is not a reason to support it. Benjamin Franklin endangered his own children for his own ends, Thomas Edison electrocuted animals and organized the first electrocution of a human to slander his rivals. Should we then say child abuse and exploitation and violence are good practices to promote among society because people who were famous or changed history did it?

Plus I don't see what you could possibly have to say about people's freedom to choose how they want to fuck their health up. If your concerns are about righteous tax paying people and health care, I suggest you save your strenght for weaponry and politic crooks.

Red herring argument. They have every right to be concerned about somebody else's decisions harming their own well-being. So don't avoid the argument and try to supplant a greater fear of violence and corrupt government. Explain why a person's right to smoke what they want overrides another person's right to protect themselves from the economic burdens of state dependency.

Similarity to drugs already legalized are not a reason to legalize another drug. There are varying qualities of crystal meth, and we certainly shouldn't legalize that.

However, you can pinpoint which chemicals cause physical addiction, so you can effectively restrict drugs that cause physical dependency. So again, just because something else can be addictive doesn't necessarily mean this is a reason to suddenly legalize more addictive things.

This is probably your best possible argument. But the question arises that, if we legalized something worse than marijuana and restrict marijuana, wouldn't it make just as much sense to then ban the drugs that are worse as well? Why is legalizing marijuana a better choice than banning alcohol and cigarettes? (p.s. I know the counter-argument to this claim, I'm just stating that it's a legitimate concern that you need to argue against if you want marijuana legalization arguments to be taken seriously).

And if people are retarded, why would suddenly legalizing more drugs be a good idea? You're poking holes in your own argument if you're saying people are retarded with currently available drugs, so let's legalize more of them.

The majority of people in a democratic country I know of wanted to keep people segregated by color. Does that make it right? Majority opinion does not instantly make an opinion the right choice. You're using the democracy fallacy. Because what you're describing isn't democracy, but majoritarianism, which is entirely different political system.

It's funny because you just made an assumption that all of Vodka's arguments are based on assumptions. But anyways, it's the fact that eventually you don't get the same feeling from marijuana as you do from when you first smoke it. That feeling can cause people to experiment with harder drugs to reach the same high that they first experienced. It's a legitimate concern.

Medical uses are totally appropriate uses for certain drugs. But it's also the question of whether there are no better alternatives. Morphine is used as a painkiller because it's a highly effective one, but doctors manage it heavily because a slight overdose can kill a patient, and prolonged use can develop dependence. If they have an alternative that's just as effective and safer, they use it. Morphine is a painkiller of last resort.

Case studies do not prove causality, correlation, or anything of importance for a logical debate. All a case study shows is that something is possible

You just generalized heavily with that statement. Objects are not inherently bad or good, but usage will change it's value. Again, your strongest argument is that we have stronger drugs legalized, but you need to protect this claim from supporting the opposite of your intended argument.

Fallacious argument, you're either lying or you're an idiot. Don't attack the person making the argument, and instead attack the argument. You look like less of a prick, and you convince more people to your side.

"Famous people did it" is not a reason to support it.

Red herring argument. They have every right to be concerned about somebody else's decisions harming their own well-being. So don't avoid the argument and try to supplant a greater fear of violence and corrupt government.

Explain why a person's right to smoke what they want overrides another person's right to protect themselves from the economic burdens of state dependency.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

deprav: I once heard of a guy that was shot in the head with 7.62 and survived without any adverse effects. Clearly guns should be legalized, actually I hear of people getting shot all the time and surviving. Obviously gun deaths are all propaganda.

I've been shooting for about 10 years now, not excessively. I've never died.

.

Show

---

Just showing how retarded it is to think your anecdotal evidence somehow overrules scientific studies. You also seem to not understand what long term effects are...

Just showing how retarded it is to think your anecdotal evidence somehow overrules scientific studies. You also seem to not understand what long term effects are...

"cigarettes and alcohol are worse and should be de-legalised" some people argue that anything they think is not as bad, should be legal!

Originally Posted by deprav

The topic is about marijuana so I won't expend too much, but there are some valid points about legalizing every drugs. Would reduce the issues related to traffic, would control the quality of the products and avoid drugs being "cut" with even more nastier products, would help keeping track of addicted people and helping them getting of the product, medical care etc...

Legalizing something doesn't mean it's good and alright to use it as much as you want, it means it doesn't give the users juridical problems if they're caught using.
The war on drugs is a failure anyway, that's not big news.

Why legalize the drug then? You can put drug users into rehabilitation when you catch them instead of locking them up. The criminalization of usage is, of course, a pretty stupid concept but it's not a reason to legalize a drug. You can reform the system to remove criminalization, and instead promote rehabilitation. You have to argue why legalizing is the BEST option, not why it is AN option.

But marijuana doesn't create physical addiction, I think you misread something. Or I don't see what point you're trying to arise.

Except it does. Do a little research and you will see that overwhelming, the myth is not that marijuana isn't addictive, but that it is addictive just like every other perception altering drug. Daily users have a 25-50% chance of becoming dependent to the drug, people who start young have around a 17% chance to get dependent, and the average person has about a 9% chance to get dependent with repeated use.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publication...acts/marijuana

It indeed would make as much sense to forbid everything else. They already tried to forbid the consumption of alcohol in some states during the early 1900's, and that failed on epic proportions, more traffic, more issues, and not less consumers (or minimal drop). Once again, people wants to get fucked up, you can't take that away from them by force.

To be ironic, I could go with the whole buzzer shit as well. But I'll refrain from dropping so low. The reason alcohol prohibition failed was, not because people wanted to "get fucked up", but because alcohol is a part of the culture of several countries. Alcohol was once one of the only consistent ways to have a drink without risking contamination from unclean drinking water. Fermentation would kill a lot of bacteria in the water used for making alcohol, making alcohol a much safer alternative to water. Because of this, people of all ages would routinely drink alcohol, or risk getting diseased from a bad water source. This is the same reason why tea and coffee were popular alternatives to water. Because of this, alcohol developed into an integral part of several cultures. Naturally, forcefully removing it from culture was a pretty stupid idea, as people would revolt against it. So arguing that prohibition failed, therefore legalizing drugs is good, is not a very strong argument because the reasons for prohibition failing are not the same reasons why you're arguing legalizing drugs is good.

I didn't say "people are retarded with available drugs", I said people are retarded in general. Legalizing more drugs wouldn't make it worst, that would only relieves some juridical work and unload some overcrowded prisons and halls of justice. That's the good idea, repression is obviously not leading anywhere.

Again, why not rehabilitate the users and punish the providers. And if people are retarded in general, why should I trust them with more drugs to begin with. Legalization improves availability, so why should I give them improved availability if they're already retarded and acting even more retarded when they're high out of their mind?

Tuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, Wrong. That would almost deserve a godwin point (there should be one for comparing stuff with racism). Using marijuana doesn't negatively affect a group of people that didn't ask for anything because of their ethnical origins, it's not an infringement to human's right, it only concerns the users themselves. Plus the number of marijuana users is wayyyy under 50%, we're far from being a majority.
The point of the "democratic point" is to adapt the laws of a country to the evolving customs of its citizens, not overloading the prisons because a hundred year old law (based on lies and propaganda) says it's wrong to smoke this or that plant.

I'm not comparing it to racism, I'm showing your argument of "the majority wants it, therefore it's good" is a batshit retarded argument. Majority opinion does not make an opinion right, or good, or the best option. Majority opinion just means the majority supports it. Even a large group supporting it doesn't make it right. Hmong culture is not against "marriage by rape" and there's a large population of Hmong people. Does that make marriage by rape right?

You're fixating on attacking the person rather than the argument, then rehashing your same argument as though only an idiot wouldn't agree with it. Your argument is persuasive only to those who already support drugs. Preaching to the choir, if you will. You should try to argue your point a little less confrontationally. You would come off as more agreeable.

Tuuuuuuuuuuuuut, wrong (I should upload a buzz sound).
I've a friend around 30, he's smoking an impressive amount of joints everyday because he doesn't "get the same effects" as he did when he began etc... but he hates other drugs, it wouldn't even cross his mind to try.
On the other hand, me, now reasonnable pot smoker who have cut down a lot, have tried many other stuffs without feeling any addiction to them (there are limits to experimentation tho, no crack, no heroin, no meth). I still happen to use some "harder" stuffs 2 or 3 times in a year if the occasion presents itself and IF I feel like it.
Plus, you'd never "reach the same high"... as already said, each drug has its own effect, trying to "reach the same high" than pot with ketamin, mushrooms or cocain is obviously not gonna work. The fact that some people could try "harder drugs" isn't directly related to the use of marijuana, but to the environment it puts them in, parties, friends knowing people that can haz x or y drug etc...

Again, case studies prove nothing in this argument, just that something happens.

And, to paraphrase your last statement, you just said that people don't try harder drugs because of marijuana usage, but because marijuana usage puts them in situations where they are more likely to use a harder drug. That's still putting the blame on marijuana usage causing harder drug use, the only difference is the path it takes. You're only strengthening my argument by saying that.

You see all those assumptions you're making, you make them because you don't have a clue about drugs, their effects and what leads people to get addicted, which would be avoidable if people were educated about it, if they were legalized instead of being an unsaid issue you just hear briefly about in school, something along the lines of "Drugs are bad m'kay, if you smoke pot you'll end up taking heroin and sell your butthole to pay your dose mkayy" poorly articulated by some probably alcoholic fat cop trying to scare young people. (clichщs, 2 ez to use)

I've reached my opinion without school telling me what to think. You're the one making assumptions now about everyone. I personally believe all recreational drugs, legal or illegal, should be banned, not because somebody told me to, or that it was the right thing, but because I bothered to look at the data behind it all and realize that you lose so much more from society because of their usage than their implementation.

But that's not the topic we should be discussing, is it? No, what we should be talking about is why legalizing marijuana is a good or bad idea. So you're not only attacking the person rather than the argument, but you're bringing in another red herring argument. The issue is not whether people are taught to believe certain things about drugs, but whether a certain drug should be legalized or not. Please keep your argument on topic and refrain from insulting the person. And refrain from talking about hypocrisy if you're going to exemplify it.

Yes, and there's no better alternative than marijuana for a lot of diseases, it's a natural light pain killer and a lot of people are thanksful to have it as meds, and it causes no physical addiction, and you can't OD. Plus addiction issue "after the disease" is out of question considering most people using for medical use and pain relief uses because of a life-time condition, they'd probably never stop using anyway, because they won't stop being sick.

Yes, it is a good painkiller. But if a better one comes around, would you then argue for it to be banned again? Something tells me you wouldn't, but I'll refrain from assuming that until you verify it.

Again, it can cause physical addiction. You can OD on it, just like how you can OD on water. Too much of anything can kill you, and inhaling enough smoke laced with THC is no different. And it's prescribed as a painkiller after some minor surgeries. You won't be hurting for life after a minor surgery. Is it really the best choice then?

Yep, it doesn't. But it does prove some common preconceptions wrong. I'm not unique.

No it doesn't. It just proves that their are exceptions, not that the entire assumption is necessarily wrong. I can still assume that smoking pot is harmful to the majority of users and I'd still be right, even with case studies showing that some pot smokers live to their hundreds and never get physical dependency. Because it still can cause lung cancer, lung diseases, inhibited judgement and reaction time (you're two times more likely to get into a car accident under the influence of pot than you are sober) and physical dependency in some of it's users. It doesn't even need to effect the majority of users, just a large enough of them to justify restrictions.

??

"All drugs are bad" is a very strong generalization. I'm just pointing out that you can't scream "over-generalization" and then go on to over-generalize.

Durr, Vodka is a friend of mine I'm not attacking him personnaly (and I don't know Arglax), nowhere I insulted him or whatever, you somehow feel offended in his name for no reason.
I'm poiting out where the "pot prohibition" movement comes from, because it does come from early 1900's conservative and religious state of mind, that's when it's been rendered illegal. And I don't care about looking like a prick, if readers get pissed off maybe they'll think harder on the matter.

"Most of your arguments are based on old conservative clichщs stained with false religious principles, it disgusts me. You're either lying to yourself about most people's intention concerning legal drugs or have no clue about how shitty societies push people to try to escape by any mean they have left." - you

I'll underline every point you either indirectly insult somebody for their beliefs, or outright call them out as either a liar or an idiot. And it doesn't matter if you addressed it to Vodka, you're addressing it about his beliefs, some of which might be shared by others. By insulting his beliefs, you insult other people's beliefs. By insulting the person holding the beliefs, you insult other people holding those beliefs.

And thinking harder doesn't mean they will necessarily come to your side. Nor does opposition to your side mean that they're rooted in religious beliefs. I routinely call out people on their religious beliefs, and I don't believe in a Judeo-Christian god. Yet I'm still firmly against marijuana legalization.

And marijuana criminalization came about because of lobbying from lumber and paper industries just as much as a religious fervor against the "corruption of youth". Hemp is a useful material, and I see no reason why it has to be illegal alongside marijuana. But it was grouped in with the banning of marijuana because paper and lumber industries didn't want to compete with hemp in the market, yet they wanted it to be veiled under a moral crusade to protect their image.

It's not about "famous people did it", I'm not talking about hype people and hollywood actors to prove something right.
I'm talking about the roots of some people's thoughts, the origins of some universal creations and pieces of art and philosophy.
Drugs are inherent to the human condition, trying to keep everyone from harming themselves with drugs by prohibition is pointless.

People are capable of thinking abstractly without drugs. And drugs are, by definition, foreign chemicals that alter the human body in abnormal ways, so they are not "inherent to the human condition".

What argument am I avoiding ? I raised the point alone to point out what inexistant impact it would have on their lives if people were allowed to smoke whatever the fuck they want.

Why should I be forced to pay for the care and maintenance of a bunch of pot smokers habits? Why should I be forced to put up with the risk of driving on the same road of a pot smoker? Why should I be forced to put up with the THC-laced smoke that will be in the air? Why is it my rights to safety and prosperity are trumped by somebody else's rights to get high? Explain that argument, or concede that you have no counter-argument. After all: "If your concerns are about righteous tax paying people and health care, I suggest you save your strenght for weaponry and politic crooks." is not an argument for why I shouldn't worry about my own rights, it's the transplanting of my fears on an outside topic. That's a red herring.

no, I won't explain. Or we gonna end up in boring technical suppositions. You can't calculate the impact it could have on taxes, it would probably have none. Or it might as well have a positive impact, considering it's less expensive to produce marijuana than some chemical meds, and health issues given to pot smoking are the same than tobacco, most pot users being cigaret users we couldn't even differenciate. Plus pot can be used in many ways, not only smoking (brewing, eating etc...), no smoke, no cancer.

This is as much a technical argument as it is a philosophical argument, if not more so. Public policy should be shaped by logic and reason, not the whims of a population that you yourself call retarded. So technical arguments should be the focus of this debate. Why would marijuana legalization be beneficial for me, as a non-pot smoker? What would the impacts of legalization be on society and the economy? These are valid questions that demand an answer for any sort of public policy change. So don't skirt the question because "it's boring". Debates can be boring, get over it.

Originally Posted by deprav

2.And the "scientific proofs", in the absolute, have nothing to do with something being legal or not. Might I remind you guns are legal in some countries - and many substances "scientifically" proven bad for us. (pesticides, car gaz, industrial gaz, plastic, all petrochimic industry, junk food, alcohol, cigarets, sugar, salt, fat blablablabla).

I've been smoking pot for about 10 years now, not excessively. I've never been "unable to control my body" or my mind. It sure gives you a different perception of things, but it doesn't causes a "loss of control" like alcohol does.

Originally Posted by deprav

On the other hand, making it legal would prevent issues related to illegal traffic, and might help the prevention.

Originally Posted by deprav

You just don't seem to understand that it's not about "some stuff are bad so we can legalize another bad stuff", it's about people being already aware that it's bad but not giving a fuck, illegal or not we use anyway. It's about accepting that some people will always use, and giving them fines and jail time won't change it. It just fuck their life up more than they do with drugs.

Originally Posted by deprav

Regarding the "long term effects", you pretty much have none if you stop using. As opposed to alcohol which is neurodestructive, THC doesn't deteriorate neurones and synapses, it just "stays" on them for a long time but eventually disappears.

Originally Posted by deprav

Plus, I prefer to be a slowpoke who have seen life under a different perspective, instead of a sober I-know-it-all having no clue about how absurd our lives can be.

Originally Posted by deprav

Yep it's been discussed already. Alcohol prohibition in the early 1900's was a huge failure. People will never accept being sober during their entire lifetime.

Originally Posted by deprav

War against drug is a huge failure, it just ostracizes users, create traffic, and never stopped people from using

Originally Posted by deprav

And people will always abuse stuffs, legal or not. It's about the product itself, it's a matter of education, prevention, or personnal experience.

Originally Posted by deprav

Drugs legislation is more of a philosophical debat than a scientifical debat. Drugs are bad, that's a fact ; people will always be using, that's another fact.

Except it does. Do a little research and you will see that overwhelming, the myth is not that marijuana isn't addictive, but that it is addictive just like every other perception altering drug. Daily users have a 25-50% chance of becoming dependent to the drug, people who start young have around a 17% chance to get dependent, and the average person has about a 9% chance to get dependent with repeated use.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publication...acts/marijuana

Alcohol blabla

Again, why not rehabilitate the users and punish the providers etc...

I'm not comparing it to racism, I'm showing your argument of "the majority wants it, therefore it's good" is a batshit retarded argument. Majority opinion does not make an opinion right, or good, or the best option. Majority opinion just means the majority supports it. Even a large group supporting it doesn't make it right. Hmong culture is not against "marriage by rape" and there's a large population of Hmong people. Does that make marriage by rape right?

And, to paraphrase your last statement, you just said that people don't try harder drugs because of marijuana usage, but because marijuana usage puts them in situations where they are more likely to use a harder drug.

I personally believe all recreational drugs, legal or illegal, should be banned

You can OD on it

And marijuana criminalization came about because of lobbying from lumber and paper industries just as much as a religious fervor etc...

People are capable of thinking abstractly without drugs. And drugs are, by definition, foreign chemicals that alter the human body in abnormal ways, so they are not "inherent to the human condition".

Why should I be forced to put up with the risk of driving on the same road of a pot smoker? Why should I be forced to put up with the THC-laced smoke that will be in the air? Why is it my rights to safety and prosperity are trumped by somebody else's rights to get high?

However if it was legal how would that help with prevention? Someone could just get it illegally... Don't tell me you don't think people can illegally acquire pot?!

Unfortunately these inconsiderate people are drains on society, and are wasting tax dollars and resources.

Refer to my previous reply to you, since you seem to have simplified pot to just THC.

This is not a valid argument.

Citation showing war on drugs creates traffic and doesn't stop people using please.

Ostracizing drug users is probably a good thing. If you don't want to participate in society, then why should you be encouraged to?

Let's just make everything legal and educate people!

"There will always be people dumb enough to use abuse drugs"
I don't think this is a valid argument for legalisation.

Murder is more of a philosophical debat than a scientifical debat. Murder is bad, that's a fact ; people will always be murdering, that's another fact.

Just wanted to point out that using the legality of Alcohol as an arguement for legalizing Marijuana doesn't make much sense. If Alcohol was a new substance, it would stand no chance of being legalized. The only reason why Alcohol is legal nowadays is the long history of it and the thereby associated social acceptance. And not because of harmless health risk.