Considering the historically abject failure of so many efforts to control intoxicating substances (or any other kind for that matter) not only to even "stem the tide" but in fact failure so complete that it actually fuels it's increase, I think we can wrap up the legal issue with a challenge. I absolutely defy anyone to come up with a single example of long term successful control of contraband drugs, medicinals, herbs, you "choose yer poison". It won't matter. So before we even begin to argue whether any government has justification for banning, indirectly or otherwise, the possession of anything that *if* used wrongly might possibly harm one's neighbor, we need to recognize the extreme side effects that come with the territory, like secret police. Preemptive laws against crimes that have yet to happen should only exist in sci-fi.
Since it is even harder to control-regulate fasting, chanting, working to exhaustion, rotting or contaminated food, spinning around in circles, etc it is fairly safe to say that by far most, if not all, societies ever in history have allowed some manner of intoxication, and I'm not even here bothering with relatively light affairs as simple as coffee, tea, or chocolate, or other admittedly deadly devices such as cars, guns, knives, and over-the-counter acetaminophen.
By creating criminals of people who chose an unpopular means, and it was usually a perceived race or social class that was the original raison d'etre for regulatory banning in the first place, very quickly those ostracized are pressured into dealing with criminals who are criminals for other and much worse reasons, the situation becomes polarized and meaningful dialogue all but ceases. The mystery and "glamour factor" goes up along with the price and profit margin and we have a self-defeating process of law by virtue of supply and demand and more. The huge profits corrupt individual citizens, police forces, entire national governments, creates far-reaching powerful gangs, fuels wars and on and on. This is the nature of "bootleg", of "contraband". So it behooves us, even if we agree with the fundamental right to regulate some possessions, and I don't, to at the very least pick and choose *very* carefully. It is also important to remember that it is far more difficult in most cases to remove an old law than to pass a new one.
When discussing wild-growing weeds such as marijuana the laws regulating/banning them, already time-travel preemptive, rely on a further absurd connection to rationalize a justification, that of the so-called "gateway" phenomena. There exists not one shred of scientific evidence, even after millions were spent in the US alone under the Nixon administration to name just one, to "discover" some horrible side-effect or proof of the gateway fairy tale. The attitude of so-called conservatives who only pay lip-service to small government and individual rights, is summed up nicely by Tricky Dick's raging response to the laboratory scientists who could find no links whatsoever for marijuana, "Go back and find me something to support my Scheduling Bill if you have to make it up." (paraphrased, but essentially accurate)
Nixon, Marijuana, and the Shafer Commission
Not only has there been no successful link establishing the correctness of the "gateway syndrome" there likely can never be one since from whichever perspective one attacks the problem it falls apart as it must. The percentage of those who have tried illegal drugs, even if we don't include the massive set of prescription drug abusers, legal or otherwise, or even just limit the statistics to marijuana alone, to those who have ended up on harder drugs is ridiculously small and that must include the added effect of being thrust into a criminal environment where harder drugs may be more common, and into an ostracized lifestyle that may marginalize employment ie drug testing fueled dismissal. So while there are reportedly some 100 million plus people in the US who have tried marijuana, there are not 100 million crackheads or smack addicts. It is understandably difficult to gather statistics on how many people are addicted to hard drugs but even the highest figures are commonly in single digit percentages relative to the number who try marijuana, 10% is the highest number I have ever seen. That isn't even remotely enough to establish a causal connection since even 50% would not be conclusive.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/PDF/DARHW/053-080_Kandall2.pdf
http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/...lculable05.pdf
BTW please note that I did not choose to use those in favor of decriminalization for my sources but rather the opposite, worst case scenarios of those that favor regulation.
So I will extend the challenge and defy anyone to show any credible evidence that the "gateway syndrome" even exists as a function of the substance while ignoring that it is far more likely that the criminalization itself is a more efficient device to behave as a gateway effect. The cure is worse than the disease by orders of magnitude especially when incarceration s thrown into the mix.
The greatest weapons against bad behaviours including drug addiction is love, accurate, agenda-free information and life opportunity in a vertical society.
Re: Why is Marijuana Illegal?
