DEBATEitOUT.comHave Your Voice Heard, 24/7.

Well, although science doesn't prove it and it's not officially called a "gateway drug", we know the effects that it has on some people and can lead to further drug problems, so it's not a good idea altogether.

Strictly from an economic view, people have some sort of science to show that it would do good things for us, pretty pathetic if you ask me.

If anyone knows what I am referring to, please explain it.

Even though every study for the last 20-30 years says I am completely wrong and this is not true at all, shouldn't we really believe it anyway?

This is a great attitude. It's what gave us the fiscal stimulus too.

1) Cost of enforcement for interdiction policies is well over 30 billion. Not including military policies in Afghanistan, foreign aid to Mexico and Colombia, or the cost of imprisonment for people arrested for non-violent drug offenses. With very little impact on the cost and availability of marijuana in particular (about half is domestically produced), and a marginal impact on cocaine or heroin (largely in terms of their purity for end sales). And significant negative costs in terms of the relative stability of producer nations. Consider the amount of murders in Mexico and that most of that is over marijuana.
2) Amount of tax revenues may be around that, depending on the level of taxation, licensing fees for distribution, and its cost of enforcement.

That by itself is a complete reverse of the cost curve. Now they'd have additional savings for releasing some prison inmates, a net reduction in violent crime and the associated police activity, stopping the opium wars and foreign aid for anti-narcotics operations, but they'd also have to throw more money into harm reduction policies like drug prevention programs or addiction treatment centers. Mostly as a sop to people who think using drugs is uncalled for or to parents who seem concerned their children are a toke away from a heroin addiction. These however have the benefit of being more effective at reducing drug consumption and the use of a legal excise tax could have the ability of being modified (within reasonable limits) when necessary to fund additional community services.

Legalizing marijuana would naturally allow funneling of profits from criminals that don't mind breaking the law anyway to law-abiding entrepreneurs. This would bankrupt the monstrous illicit trafficking military "gangs" that harm so many. Of course, we will never completely get rid of this type of blight but surely we can have so much better than what exists today.

Yea, because although we would be legalizing weed and since some may choose to go on to more powerful drugs, we would just be fueling the sale of cocaine, crack, etc.

I agree. The obvious logical conclusion is to legalize all drugs. We could then actually start working on the real problems like addiction and crimes that cause real harms.

I suppose you would agree to prohibit by law the use of coffee, sugar, cigarettes, alcohol, and other gateway substances since use of these substances has been shown to lead to more powerful "stuff". More to your point, legalizing a "gateway" substance should actually lower the urge to move on to a stronger substance that would be illegal since one would no longer have to deal with the criminal element to acquire the "gateway" substance.

If you break the link between purchases of marijuana, legally, and the harder stuff which would presumably remain illegal or at least controlled, those use rates remain low. They are not "fueled" by access to weed.

The use rates of cocaine or heroin are pretty much uncorrelated with marijuana use anyway even with it being criminalized.

Make marijuana legal and have marlboro mass produce it. The recession would be over within two weeks. Alcohol and cigarettes kill people. Marijuana has never killed anyone.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Very creative though.

I agree on the recession part.

But otherwise, what's the big deal?

The recession would not be over with marijuana being legalized. That makes no sense at all. Most people wouldn't even smoke marijuana even if it were legalized because it is an unofficial "gateway drug" and will just lead to bad drug habits.

It is not a gateway drug and won't lead to "bad" drug habits. You have been misinformed.

The economics of it are such that no, it wouldn't end a recession on its own, but yes it would also save billions of dollars of government spending on enforcement and interdiction strategies that do not work to reduce the drug consumption problem, such as it is. That's worth something even if it's clearly an exaggeration to present this as a salve for our general economic woes.

Yea. There's no way you can use science to prove this theory because no one is going to admit that they have been doing drugs. In my previous experience, and I'm positive in my friends' experience, we've seen people who start off consuming marijuana, there is a more than 50% chance that they start experimenting with other drugs. There is no way you are going to be able to conduct an experiment on that.

Most law enforcement agencies, which I'm sure papadawg would agree on, go after the big drugs, like cocaine and crack. Even if marijuana were to be legalized, it would benefit these criminal organizations who are selling these more powerful drugs. The biggest drug-trafficking organizations mostly import drugs like cocaine, because it's higher up the ladder.

Actually there are experiments on that. All you have to do is look at the global data for experimental and regular drug use relative to the rates of use for marijuana. They are absurdly low, even with your anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

Most law enforcement agencies go after any illegal drug. What they will do is lax on enforcement of drug possession but not drug distribution. With many jurisdictions, they aren't even allowed to arrest over possession below personal quantities anyway, the fine is barely worth the paperwork. And the biggest drug trafficking operations in the country are actually for marijuana (it's roughly 50% of the entire Mexican drug cartel's income, much less its volume). The primary reason that they will target heroin or cocaine networks instead is that they will tend to be more open and violent marketplaces than the marijuana distribution systems, and hence easier to target. It's really hard to catch someone selling marijuana. It's not that hard to catch someone standing in an abandoned tenement building or on a street corner slinging dope.

Look up the common liability model. There's a number of statistical studies on the use of cocaine for example that thoroughly debunk the "gateway" hypothesis for marijuana, things like most heavy users of cocaine STARTED with cocaine. Or that a large percentage of initial marijuana use happened AFTER heavier drugs. The "gateway" hypothesis more or less describes a common pattern, but it doesn't demonstrate a causality chain or provide some empirical model for explaining the access and choices of illicit drug consumers. So it's pretty much useless to cite as a defence against legal or decriminalized marijuana because there isn't any evidence to demonstrate that many or indeed most people who are exposed to it would "move on down the line" as it were. Most don't. In fact there's lots of contrary evidence that breaking the environmental links between access to marijuana and access to heroin or cocaine by providing legal market access to marijuana reduce the relative use of cocaine or heroin.

These are scientific and economic studies. They're not "impossible".

There's a funny bit by Dennis Leary which is strangely true. The old ad campaigns say marijuana leads to other drugs…. marijuana leads to carpentry… the only thing that it forces you to do is find inventive ways to smoke it!

But on a serious side. I do agree that the money spent on cracking down on pot 30billion plus a year you say? Thats alot of saved money. and if it is legalized then (yup Tiberivs is gonna say it again) it's taxable!!!! yay more tax money collected to ease the burden on everyone!

I say go for it! I don't smoke marijuana but if it were legalized, I would try it now and then. Like all things moderation will not lead to addiction. And I'd pay my taxes on it too!!!!!

Personally I believe that if they are going to be giving out medical marijuana to people who "need" it then they might as well just give it to people that don't particuarlly need it. If it's legal for some then just make it legal for all. And with it being legalized there would be less people in jail for being arrested because of marijuana and there would be more room in the jails for killers. I think that arresting people for marijuana use is just a waste of jail space. I really hope that our government realizes that we would all be better off if they legalize marijuana for more room in jails. Yes I have been arrested for marijuana but that doesn't change my mind about anything or make my decision go either way. Then again yes my opinion is bias.

That is a stupid argument. It's like saying if its legal to euthanize terminal coma patients it should be legal to murder a healthy person. Its one thing to take marijuana to treat a disease and another to use it in excess amounts for pleasure. The room in jail argument is also ridiculous. No country has a problem with too little room in jail. There are hundreds of empty prisions in the US and renting a new one costs like $400 a month. Arresting fewer drug addicts isn't going to increase the number of killers arrested. The police is equally incompetent one way or another. Maybe if you smoked less weed you's think more clearly.

thank you Sun Tzu. you have actually had the best answer that i have seen out of all the sites i have been through today. thank you for taking this seriously and actually giving a educational answer to those that want to know more about what will happen to there economy if marijuana legalization goes threw and actually gets legalized.
thanks for the help. I.O.U (: