In joining the debate on legalization of marijuana, I'd like to respond
to some of the arguements, while offering some of my own.
 
I certainly agree with Dave's initial point that laws should not be
altered simply because they are frequently broken; common sense tells us
that this defies the very purpose of established law.
 
However, after that, Dave loses me. Unfortunately it took him until the
very end of his second message to reveal the true "reason" behind his
argument, in saying that "it is the morality of the goal that is
important." I will agree with him that "expediency" should not be the
highest determiner in lawmaking. What I cannot agree with is the
illogical moralistic drivel that is paraded as reason in such statements
as "if we let our kids use it, we will produce a bunch of morons," and "if
we couldn't care less about our children and social decency, let's
legalize."
 
The jump from pot smoking to idiocy and moral decay is a huge one. Dave
also assumes that, unlike alcohol and tobacco, marijuana will be available
to anyone of any age. It could be regulated, with surgeon general's
warnings and all, by the FDA and whatever other government agencies are
normally employed.
 
Dave seems to fear the legalization of marijuana based on the
confusion that, he speculates, will result in the transition period.
Certainly, the years immediately following such a move would see a
dramatic increase in the number of users; however, as with other legalized
drugs, individuals would soon be reconciled to its legality, and then
determine for themselves the extent to which (if at all) they want to use
it. The message of legalization might be perceived as "pro-active" at
first, but just like with alcohol and tobacco, the government would
refrain from officially endorsing its usage.
 
In addition, the comparisons between alcohol and marijuana are indeed
valid, and essential to putting the latter into perspective. Dave portrays
pot smoking as a social drug, done primarily at parties, in a collective
effort to "get stoned." This imagery could be equally applied to alcohol
consumption, substituting "drunk" for "stoned."
 
Like the person who drinks one or two beers to relax, many people, from
all levels of society (not just those long-haired dope smoking freaks we
like to imagine) smoke pot, "just to relax." As with alcohol, it is
possible to moderate the intake of marijuana into the body. Different
grades (analogous to alcohol "proof") of marijuana are available, and one
can choose to smoke as much or as little as one likes.
 
Marijuana, like alcohol, does impair motor skills and thought patterns;
for this reason it one should not use it before driving a car, while at
work, etc. Yet unlike alcohol, the "amotivational syndrome" that Dave is
quick to denounce does not lead to the violence that is often attributed
to alcohol (over 80% of domestic violence cases involve drinking).
 
In drawing these comparisons I don't mean to imply that Dave is content
with the legality and consumption of alcohol; I am not sure of his
opinion. I am simply saying that the analogies can and should be made,
as it is easy to disregard something if we do not understand it and cannot
place it in the context of the familiar.
 
Yes, marijuana can (again, like other drugs) be psychologically addictive.
It is possible for a person to retreat from his or her life through
continual use. And I assert that marijuana, like alcohol, is not for
everyone. A person who uses it must not fool themselves into thinking that
it is good for them. Like cigarettes, pot is bad for the lungs; like
alcohol, pot kills lots of brain cells. If this is what Dave implicates as
moronism, so be it.
 
Yet in America the right to be a moron is guaranteed, so long as your
own brand moronism (often seen in: the freedom of speech and choice of
religion; the freedom to over-indulge in food and liquor; the
freedom to live in/associate with Texas) does not infringe on the rights
of others.
 
If this debate is to be one of good vs. evil and arbitrary morality, let
it be that. But in debate, morality without reason falls flat, as does
Dave's argument.
 
Kyle