Why is marijuana illegal?

[alik44]

its illegal yet cigarettes and alcohol kill alot more than marijuana does.

 

[StrixMaxima]

I am pretty sure there is a point somewhere around here, but I fail to see it.

 

[viranimus]

Because it was a knee jerk reaction in the US during the prohibition of alcohol era. It was made illegal around the same time. However it was much less popular than alcohol so it was never relegalized.

Since then its been perpetuated as an illegal substance for many reasons. Competing corporate interests, and devaluing a lucrative commodity in its illegal form being the leading two reasons.


Outside of the US.. I have no clue.

Now is there a good reason for it to be illegal? Nope.

 

[nklshaz]

The fact that it directly kills brain cells is the main reason. And legalizing it would increase the risk of people driving while hallucinating. While the effects may not be perceived as being "as bad" as cigarettes or alcohol, it still is bad for you, and we're probably better off without it.

EDIT: Before you reply to me or quote me, please read my other posts on this thread. Thank you

EDIT: Yes, I realize that I am comparatively uneducated about marijuana. I was never really invested in the subject, which is why I never did my research. It was late at night and I was bored, (All the other threads were rather same-ish.) so I just decided to post. I didn't know my post would appear on such an early page in the thread, and I figured that it would just get lost in the sea of other people's responses. So please, accept my ignorance on the subject for what it is, and just know that I really don't care if marijuana is legalized or not. Good luck with your cause and have a nice day

 

[Princess Rose]

its illegal yet cigarettes and alcohol kill alot more than marijuana does.

Marijuana is illegal because cotton manufactures back in the 1800s (or was it early 1900s?) wanted to get rid of the hemp industry so they'd have a monopoly on rope.

Seriously, that is the reason why Marijuana was made illegal. It had nothing to do with it being a drug - it had everything to do with hemp vs cotton.

Because it was a knee jerk reaction in the US during the prohibition of alcohol era. It was made illegal around the same time. However it was much less popular than alcohol so it was never relegalized.

Yes, I think you're right - early 1900s. But it ALSO had a lot to do with the cotton industry.

 

[nklshaz]

One more thing I forgot to mention: I'm sure we'd ban cigarettes and alcohol if we could afford to, but by the time we figured out how bad they could be, they had become an integral part of our economy, and we literally couldn't financially afford to ban them. Keeping marijuana illegal isn't so much about fairness, it's more like keeping more things like cigarettes and alcohol (i.e. harmful but necessary) from making their way into standard economy and practice. I'm personally in favor of keeping it illegal. I just don't see why people want it so bad.

 

[Gennadios]

Back in the early 1900's, William Randolph Hearst, a newspaper giant at the time, also owned lots and lots of lumber mills. Around that time a process was invented to turn hemp into a cheap substitute for newspaper pulp, which put a dent in his lumber business.

He had his many newspapers write several articles linking cannabis with violent crime (yeah, right) and around 1937 it's growth was banned.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

its illegal yet cigarettes and alcohol kill alot more than marijuana does.

First of all, "alot" is not a word.

Secondly, I'm all pro-legalization. But I'm going to side with Cracked on this one.

*Ahem*

Yep, booze and cigarettes are pretty fucking bad for you. Deadly, even, if they're abused. Hell, I had a doctor tell me straight up that if I didn't quit drinking entirely, I'd be dead within the next five years. I've never heard a doctor tell someone that about their weed smoking. Drunk driving and smoking-related lung cancer have literally killed millions.

In fact, here's a not-at-all-retarded rebuttal from a legalization advocate in response to a "Foundation for a Drug-Free World" pamphlet that claims pot is more dangerous than alcohol. In case you didn't read that, it's exactly what you'd expect from a site that runs its articles over a background of marijuana leaf gifs, versus a highly generalized and exaggerated claim from an organization that is obviously anti-pot. The argument being, "Pot is worse than booze!" "Nuh-uh, alcohol is worse!"

But here's the thing about that entire debate: It doesn't fucking matter.

Throwing out death tolls from tobacco smoke, drunk driving and liver disease makes perfect sense as an argument for making those things illegal. It makes zero sense when trying to convince somebody to make pot legal. Don't you understand that "It will kill fewer people than cigarettes!" could apply to fucking anything? You could pass a law that lets 12 year olds carry concealed guns to school and it'd kill fewer people than drunk driving.

If the argument is that pot is the safer choice, then by that rationale, it's also safer than deep-throating a cactus or mouth-fucking a rattlesnake. Is someone obligating you to choose between the two? There's not a third option of just not doing either of them? That has baffled me for years, and I still don't understand it. But I've heard it. A lot. As if the legalization of one unhealthy activity obligates us to legalize every single thing that's less lethal than that.

You have to remember that the people who have the power to change these laws are old, rich, stuffy white guys who for the most part don't smoke weed. When they hear rebuttals like this, they're picturing a six year old kid stomping his foot and screaming at his mother, "Why can't I play that game? Jimmy's mom lets him play GTA, and that's way worse!" The end result is still that you're arguing for the right to make things worse than they were before.

Source [http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping_p2/]

 

[crom jr]

its the hemp vs cotton statement which is the reason, its the killing brain cells which keeps in banned

its a substance that kills brain cells... is it worse then alcohol or cigarettes? no, not even close...

but that argument is no different then saying if guns are legal then swords should be too...

 

[Harrowdown]

In part for health risks, mostly for arbitrary social paranoia.

 

[Phlakes]

le snip

That's exactly my stance. Whenever I tell someone that marijuana is still harmful, even if it's less harmful than tobacco or alcohol, they always go into the "well junk food is more harmful than marijuana too". Yeah, but I think you're missing the "food" part.

Anyway, 'pot vs. alcohol/tobacco' is like 'slitting your wrists vs. shooting yourself in the crotch'. Actually, that's quite an appropriate analogy. A lot of people feel good when they slit their wrists. And I'm sure some people get off on bullet holes through their member.

EDIT: And going a little bit more in depth, the way I see it, all of them should be illegal. But we tried that with prohibition, and we all know how that turned out. For the people who say that the government shouldn't regulate what people do with their bodies, that's bullshit. The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. What you all suggest is basically a small foundation for anarchy.

EDIT2: Holy fuck, that article [http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/] has provided me many lulz.

 

[WolffgangVW]

If it's bad for me, shouldn't it simply be my choice not to take it? For me, that's where the argument of its health risks end; it's my body, it should be my choice.

 

[Webb5432]

Sorry, but I have to sound like a hipster for a sec.

It's because powerful investors in America years ago put money into tobacco crops and alcohol brweries. Marijuana was a competitor, and so they made it illegal. Pretty basic. Rich people protecting their status. It happens.

As for why it's till illegal? Same reason. Especially now that it is proven that weed kills less people. A less dangerous drug like weed would sell much, much more than tobacco and alcohol would.

 

[prolefeedprocessor]

The fact that it directly kills brain cells is the main reason. And legalizing it would increase the risk of people driving while hallucinating.

The first thing you cite is a falsehood based on a fatally flawed study in which primates were starved of oxygen and allowed ONLY to breathe marijuana, thus killing their brain cells. Smoking marijuana does not kill your brain cells. Nor does it cause you to hallucinate. Although I do agree that one should not drive while high.

 

[MordinSolus]

Side effects. So many side effects.

 

[WolffgangVW]

Drug arguments are so depressing...

Pro-drug will submit a frustrated question, wondering why they're being discriminated against.

Anti-drug will attack with generalisations, cliches, and outright lies.

Pro-drug will retaliate with scientific studies, and a well though-out moderate stance.

*Anti-drug wins!*

*Pro-drug scratches head*

 

[evilartist]

The fact that it directly kills brain cells is the main reason. And legalizing it would increase the risk of people driving while hallucinating. While the effects may not be perceived as being "as bad" as cigarettes or alcohol, it still is bad for you, and we're probably better off without it.

Then why not ban alcohol and cigarettes, too? They're far more dangerous to the people that live around the smoker/drinker (i.e. drunk driving, physical abuse, secondhand smoke, etc.); the worse marijuana ever does to adults is make them lazy and unmotivated. The worst it could do to a child (secondhand) is perhaps impede brain development...but then I would question that parent's abilities to even be responsible for another human life. Marijuana is a drug that really only affects the consumer; laws against habits that don't hurt anyone outside of the "habit-doer" are stupid and unnecessary.

And then there's the lobbyists who keep spreading the bad rep about weed; I can't stand corporate lobbyism in general. I think it undermines a politician's integrity and common sense; it forces them down roads of moral extremism. This practice is easy to abuse by the greedy, and I feel it's poisoning Humanity's advancement in numerous scientific fields. Lobbyism should be banned, and any violators should be charged with treason (it isn't that extreme a punishment, when you consider the ethics).

Politicians should be forced to stick to a tight campaign budget, and not waste it on stupid-ass smear campaigns and propaganda on what should be moot topics.

 

[evilartist]

If it's bad for me, shouldn't it simply be my choice not to take it? For me, that's where the argument of its health risks end; it's my body, it should be my choice.

This is what I like about the Escapist's community; most of them (including you, Wolf) are smart enough to know how to use their common sense and objectivity.

 

[Instinct Blues]

its illegal yet cigarettes and alcohol kill alot more than marijuana does.

Yeah but marijuana is still dangerous. It damages your lungs more than cigarettes because you have to hold in the smoke longer than with cigarettes. As well as it stops your brain from making connections when its still developing, so it causes you're neurons to miss each other. It still has many damaging effects many of which don't outright kill you, but they can still cause some pretty good damage.

EDIT: And if anything that argument goes more for making alcohol and cigarettes illegal than it does for making weed legal.

 

[AdeptaSororitas]

The fact that it directly kills brain cells is the main reason. And legalizing it would increase the risk of people driving while hallucinating. While the effects may not be perceived as being "as bad" as cigarettes or alcohol, it still is bad for you, and we're probably better off without it.

Then why not ban alcohol and cigarettes, too?

We tried that. The prohibition led to massively increased crime rates, where as legalizing Mary Jane would lead to, in theory mind you, an increased influx of Mexican crime violence, which is a primary source of marijuana.