The problem with drugs like marijuana, and other illegal drugs, is that you don't know what you're getting when you buy them. There are no regulations, so if they're cut with some poison crap, and a member of your family od's or dies, who are you going to sue! The drug dealers? We also know that one marajuana cigarette has the harmful effects of a whole pack of cigarettes! If the government were to legalize marajuana, the FDA would be in big trouble trying to regulate the drug and make sure it was pure and no more harmf...

The problem with drugs like marijuana, and other illegal drugs, is that you don't know what you're getting when you buy them. There are no regulations, so if they're cut with some poison crap, and a member of your family od's or dies, who are you going to sue! The drug dealers? We also know that one marajuana cigarette has the harmful effects of a whole pack of cigarettes! If the government were to legalize marajuana, the FDA would be in big trouble trying to regulate the drug and make sure it was pure and no more harmful than cigarettes, which kill millions of people every year! Maybe it would clear the court systems, not having to prosecute people for drug possession, but to what end! There would always be abuse, like there is with alcohol, prescription drugs and cigarettes! Do we really need to legalize yet another drug that kills?

It's a very controversial subject.

I live in the UK. and here, people are forever re-considering the ratings of drugs.

I believe the main reason that drugs are illegal, is because although the drugs themselves may not harm the individual to any serious degree, there a...

It's a very controversial subject.

I live in the UK. and here, people are forever re-considering the ratings of drugs.

I believe the main reason that drugs are illegal, is because although the drugs themselves may not harm the individual to any serious degree, there are a great number of gangs, who sell drugs illegally, Who also carry guns, and knives, and the rest.
-and yes, it IS ironic that the illegal nature of drugs, is what's probably making them a danger in that respect.

Then You have the "Gateway Drug" angle, that states that people start off with soft drugs, and then gradually work their way to heroin and cocaine.
Possibly, again, because their mates turned out to look "Right." when they said that the soft drugs were harmless, and Your government is lying to You.
(Coupled with the paranoia, brought on by some soft drugs, Wouldn't You trust Your "Friend" over the "government"?).

-Another reason is because of the apparent link between drug abuse and mental illnesses.
I'm not sure which way around it works though; are people who are considered mentally unstable, more likely to use drugs to escape from it, or are the drugs actually making the recreational drug user's brain, turn to mentally unstable?

However, It is believed, that the largest reason why the illegal drugs are illegal, is purely and simply because the governments have no way to put a tax on these said substances.

So, to answer Your question, Maybe the government should just stick a tax on it, and make it widely available.

Or maybe We should just live without drugs, after all, We have Absinthe to mess up our heads, (Unless You're unfortunate enough to live in a state, such as Ohio, where for some reason it's banned.
Because, Like, all that opium, people were smoking, while they were drinking Absinthe, couldn't have possibly caused them to hallucinate,) and smoking to kill us, before We have to draw from our pentions.

So what do We need other drugs for, aside from for medicinal purposes?

In the UK 80% of seized cannabis is skunk, five years ago it was 15%. Skunk is the highly potent version and is strongly associated with onset of schizophrenia. We have also seen a 142% increase in the number of cannabis factories discovered on police raids. The British Gov't is about to upgrade it's classification from a class C drug of abuse to a class B. It doesn't appear on death certificates but neither do cigarettes (in the UK anyway) yet it has a palpable deleterious effect.
...

In the UK 80% of seized cannabis is skunk, five years ago it was 15%. Skunk is the highly potent version and is strongly associated with onset of schizophrenia. We have also seen a 142% increase in the number of cannabis factories discovered on police raids. The British Gov't is about to upgrade it's classification from a class C drug of abuse to a class B. It doesn't appear on death certificates but neither do cigarettes (in the UK anyway) yet it has a palpable deleterious effect.

To extend your argument you have provided statistics that suggest that Jim Beam and Marlboro are bigger killers than al-Qaeda! I think it is likely that Cannabis is a killer but a far more subtle one through the means of severe mental illness.

Perhaps the FBI and the CIA are targeting the greater threat to lives!

I'm not suggesting they abandon their hunt for global terrorists. But perhaps by continuing their firm line on drugs they are preventing a form of terror from within society.

I think in the UK MI5 and MI6 do have a similar role but more at the level of the suppliers, distributors and producers. They don't arrest people on the streets carrying a bit of dope. The police do that.

It seems since day one, in many countries, marijuana is seen as a bad drug. It seems to me the number of alcohol related offenses outweighs cannabis related crime.
Hemp is another valuable material that governments can profit from. Raising the question. Are big businesses not involved trying to stop the loss of value from legal materials?
A country like Amsterdam separates its drug users and sex trade from its c...

It seems since day one, in many countries, marijuana is seen as a bad drug. It seems to me the number of alcohol related offenses outweighs cannabis related crime.
Hemp is another valuable material that governments can profit from. Raising the question. Are big businesses not involved trying to stop the loss of value from legal materials?
A country like Amsterdam separates its drug users and sex trade from its criminals and concentrates on bigger crimes.
I like their thinking.

the "drugs war" has been lost. Prohibition of drugs has had the same effect in increasing crime and putting money in the pockets of organised crime as prohibition of alcohol did. So legalise it.

Here in Australia there is a little country "village" called Nimbin...where Marijuana use is fairly "tolerated"...it seems to work well...the police tend to turn a blind eye...when you first get out of your car and walk along the main street, every second person asks if you're looking to buy...honestly, if Marijuana was the "worst" social problem, we'd be in a really good place.

Marijuana has been found to affect the brains proper functioning as well as proper mental development of the user. Most notably marijuana affects the motivations of the user by chemically unbalancing the natural functions of the brain.

Researchers have found that THC changes the way in which sensory information gets into and is acted on by the hippocampus. This is a component of the...

Marijuana has been found to affect the brains proper functioning as well as proper mental development of the user. Most notably marijuana affects the motivations of the user by chemically unbalancing the natural functions of the brain.

Researchers have found that THC changes the way in which sensory information gets into and is acted on by the hippocampus. This is a component of the brain's limbic system that is crucial for learning, memory, and the integration of sensory experiences with emotions and motivations. Investigations have shown that neurons in the information processing system of the hippocampus and the activity of the nerve fibers are suppressed by THC. In addition, researchers have discovered that learned behaviors, which depend on the hippocampus, also deteriorate.

Marijuana toxins affect the brain. Memory loss, the shakes and deterioration has been associated to longer term marijuana users. Significant mental problems are associated more frequently with people you smoke marijuana.

here is some problems of Marijuana. So its not only about death. Its about creating problems for Living Souls. Whoever is addicted with Marijuana will have at least some of this problems. It will stop his/her growth, mental strenght, Social Bond, Good Career everything. It will just ruin his/her Life. Thats why FBI and CIA has devoted so much against Drugs i.e. Marijuana.

And Another problem is, whenever an addict has short of money, s/he probably will jump into crimes to manage some money to buy of Marijuana. Thats how a Simple Ordinary guy goes into the wild dark territory of Crimes.
I believe for both of this problems, Government should be as much strict as possible against Marijuana and all the other drugs.

In the words of the immortal Peter Tosh: LEGALISE IT, AND I WILL ADVERTISE IT! ;)

i personally feel that the goverment is doing enough, these problem lies with us as individuals. we have to take responsibilities for our actions and not blame everything on the government. people knows the pros and cons of using marijuana but they still continue.

I THINK THAT THE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO THE FOLLOWING ABOUT MARIJUANA CASE.
Roughly one-in-four of people in Britain think there should be no penalty attached to cannabis possession for personal use, according to a poll by Ipsos-MORI. 27 per cent of respondents share this opinion, while 41 per cent believe the action should carry a penalty of up to two years in prison or an unlimited fine, or both.
...

I THINK THAT THE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO THE FOLLOWING ABOUT MARIJUANA CASE.
Roughly one-in-four of people in Britain think there should be no penalty attached to cannabis possession for personal use, according to a poll by Ipsos-MORI. 27 per cent of respondents share this opinion, while 41 per cent believe the action should carry a penalty of up to two years in prison or an unlimited fine, or both.

An additional 13 per cent of respondents think possessing marijuana for personal use should be punished with up to five years in prison, while 11 per cent believe a seven-year sentence is in order.

In Britain, drugs are placed into alphabetical categories, in accordance with the level of penalties that can be administered for possession and dealing. Heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and magic mushrooms are included in Class A, speed and barbiturates are part of Class B, and marijuana and some tranquilizers are featured in Class C.

In July 2007, British prime minister and Labour party leader Gordon Brown said he was considering a revision on the classification of cannabis as a soft drug. Changing the status of cannabis to a Class B drug would result in increased penalties for possession, supply and use of the drug. Marijuana had been classified as Class C three years ago, during the government of Tony Blair.

On Feb. 5, a group of chief police officers urged the government to increase penalties for the possession of cannabis, arguing that more people are cultivating the product in their homes. Simon Byrne, assistant chief constable of the Merseyside Police, declared: "We are worried about the rise in the number of cannabis farms we’re discovering, which is fuelling a home-grown market in the more potent strains of cannabis. There’s confusion on the streets about whether this drug is legal."

Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis sided with such calls, saying, "The government should stop dithering and take immediate action to reclassify cannabis as a Class B drug."When It's Pot Versus Pet, There's A Bad Trip In Store
In Northern California, man's two best friends make a poor mix when canine companions gobble their owners' marijuana stashes.
Andrew Strickler | LA Times | 07/06/2005

When Tank, a 3-year-old male pit bull mix, arrived with his owner at a veterinary office in Humboldt County, his jaws packed with white powder, it was clear that something was seriously wrong.

Earlier, Tank had mysteriously consumed an entire box of baking soda — odd behavior, even for an animal with famously indiscriminate eating habits.

But more disturbing was Tank's demeanor. He sat trembling, his front legs stuck out at an awkward angle, his dilated eyes fixed on a distant point. A check of the heart revealed a coma-like 32 beats per minute, far below normal.

Joseph Humble, the attending veterinarian, suspected poisoning. But from what? The dog's owner pleaded ignorance. Tank, distracted, wasn't saying.

(BuzzNote: Could it be baking soda? It would certainly mess up your pH.)

A few minutes later, the mystery was solved. "The guy called me right back and said, 'Doc, I know what happened,' " Humble recalls. " 'The dog ate some pot — kind of a lot of pot.' "

Marijuana's action on humans is well understood: Once its psychoactive agent, Tetrahydrocannabinol, better known as THC, is carried from the lungs or stomach by blood to the brain, it binds to nerve cells and activates the brain's pleasure centers. Effects include sensory sensitivity, motor impairment and an increased desire for Doritos.

The plant's effect on canines is considerably less benign. Even a few grams can cause staggering, vomiting, urinary incontinence and, in severe cases, seizures and coma. "Some people may enjoy pot, but I assure you dogs do not," Humble says.

Although no statistics are kept on marijuana poisonings, the nation's canine-to-pot ratio reveals potential for a problem.

The fact that multi-billion dollar industries have the benefit of practically unlimited funding from taxes, asset forfeitures and artificially high profits may keep me from ever presenting my arguments in court

I said in front of a neutral judge..........but I guess it's simpler to hide behind a big conspiracy.

and I've gotten lots of eye rolling on this from both sides of the law.

Could it be because your legal theory has no merit?

No, the implication is that it's a WAR, and that those lost loved ones are collateral damage in that war against Americans, which is unlawful per Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.

Article 3 does not apply here. Show me one credible source that says it does.

The Clayton and Sherman Antitrust Acts clearly prohibit restraints of interstate trade, foreign commerce, and the creation of monopolies, which is exactly what prohibitions against legal access to raw, generic cannabis, coca and poppies accomplish.

Are you intentionally ignoring the obvious, or simply don't understand that CRIMES ARE NOT PROTECTED by the acts? They don't apply until you change the underlying law.

Show me a legal decision that states otherwise.

Further, you are shooting yourself in the foot. The Sherman Act applies to INTERSTATE trade. If it is interstate trade, then it becomes INTERSTATE COMMERCE, which the federal government has the right to regulate (or prohibit).

The Sherman Act was to prevent a person/business from gaining a monopoly. The government doesn't want a monopoly on illicit drugs. They don't want people to have them.

Perhaps this plain English explaination from the Federal Trade Commission will help:

Section 1 of the Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination . . . , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade," but long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act prohibits only those contracts or agreements that restrain trade unreasonably. What kinds of agreements are unreasonable is up to the courts.

Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce. As that law has been interpreted, it is not necessarily illegal for a company to have a monopoly or to try to achieve a monopoly position. The law is violated only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly position through unreasonable methods. For the courts, a key factor in determining what is unreasonable is whether the practice has a legitimate business justification.


Next, look up the case Sea-Land Service Inc v Alaska Railroad 659 F.2d 243,246 (S.C. Cir. 198). In this decision the court said: It would defy common sense to allow a plaintiff to make an end run around the doctrine of official immunity by the simple expedient of waiting until a government official resigns from office, then suing him in his capacity as an individual. Accordingly, the Sherman Act cannot be applied against an individual for actions taken in an official capacity.

Is THAT plain enough? IT DOESN'T APPLY!

Also, look up Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

I THINK YOU SHOULD VISIT WWW.MARIJUANA.COM FOR MORE ANSWER DETAILS.

I would wish that everybody on both sides be as accurate as possible in order to arrive at the best solution.
Some suicides have been attributed to Marijuana addiction. Since that is official, It is not quite accurate to say no one has died because of it. Just a minor point.
Last month I visited the drug area of Amsterdam to see for myself what it was like. The policemen in the area were very nice and it is orderly. (Yes,...

I would wish that everybody on both sides be as accurate as possible in order to arrive at the best solution.
Some suicides have been attributed to Marijuana addiction. Since that is official, It is not quite accurate to say no one has died because of it. Just a minor point.
Last month I visited the drug area of Amsterdam to see for myself what it was like. The policemen in the area were very nice and it is orderly. (Yes, I visited the red light district and the Van Gogh museum. Anything for education.)
The gateway argument is a fallacy and even some of my favorite politicians use it. I wish they wouldn't.
I watched on c-span the congressional hearings and was appalled by the physicians testimony. Not accurate at all. A rigged event.
There is no question that medical uses should be legal. This would be a valuable drug with fewer side effects than those available with prescriptions. And leaving people in pain is heartless.
You are certainly right about the waste of resources. Not to mention the involvement of the agencies with the drug.
As a lover of freedom, I resent the loss of it for political purposes. I am not going to use it, It is the principle that is important.
It should be legal, not available for children and taxed reasonably.