Yes, legalizing marijuana "might/will" reduce crimes and the taxation on marijuana will be a good revenue for the government. But how will they address the costs and problems of marijuana related health issues? Government spent billions in the health care system for smoking/tabacco related health issues alone. Marijuana's impact on our health is similar to smoking, that means government will need to spend twice as much money in the health care system to cover the health problems derived from marijuana and smoking. So, how does the taxation from marijuana will increase the government revenue when they are required to inject even more money back into the health care system to provide care for patients who experienced illness from marijuana.

What the fuck? What "health" problems are derived from smoking weed? Please explain this to me. You obviously have NEVER smoked weed. I hate it when people who think they know this shit try to talk the talk but they haven't even walked the walk, fuck.

knowing bc, they'll tax the fuck outta it
i aint gonna pay 37.50 for a muthafucken 20 bag

Chill man. Yes, I have not smoked weed before and I am not planning to.

Long-term usage suffers greater lung problems than tobacco smokers such as deterioration in the linings of the trachea and bronchial tubes which means your trap unfiltered smoke inside the lungs. Also, marijuana has greater concentration of carcinogens than tobacco. What does carcinogens do? They cause cancers and what rank is cancer positioned at on Canada’s top ten causes of death? First place in the 2007 statistic for Canada top ten cause of death. A proportion of long term users will develop amotivation syndrome. Amotivation syndrome is a continuing pattern of apathy, profound self absorption, detachment from friends and family, and abandonment of career and educational goals. What does abandonment of career means? Decrease productivity and increase cost for companies to retrain and rehire new employees.

I am not trying to argue here. I am just showing another perspective to the idea. If my information is wrong, then I will gladly admit and learn.

there goes my job..... FUCK

I would propose that the key difference between marijuana usage and tobacco usage is that the vast majority of marijuana users only smoke occasionally, whereas very few tobacco users have a weekly smoke. Of course, like currently, there would be people addicted to marijuana and the possibility that number would rise exists given it's ease of access would increase. I don't personally feel the number of people with abusive dependencies would rise significantly though, because marijuana really isn't difficult to obtain at present. There's also the consideration that it's believed separating hard drugs being pushed by dealers and marijuana would decrease usage of them, lowering medical costs in another area.

If marijuana is legalized a booming new legal marijuana growing industry would develop, economic stimulus package!

I'll become a farmer.

:pokerface:

The "gateway" is the dealer since they sell all sorts of drugs. If we legalize it, it actually solves the problem of it being a gateway drug.

Your statement is going to depend on which study you are looking at. Some have said that it does, but many have said that smoking marijuana does not increase the risk of lung cancer. An example of a 2011 study printed in the globe and mail:

Smoking marijuana won't give you lung cancer - The Globe and Mail

I would imagine that sucking in hot smoke into your lungs is not necessarily good for you, but the cancer risks have yet to be proven. With it being a controlled substance with governments having an interest in keeping labeled as “dangerous” you’d have a hard time coming up with unbiased studies, one way or the other.

Regardless, legalization will would probably reduce the usage by underage people, and make it harder for them to get in the first place. Weed is easier to get for kids than beer, controlled and regulated legalization at this point looks to only have benefits.

The money BC could bring in from taxation would be enormous, and that’s not counting the revenue from tourism and the jobs it would create.

Legalization is long over due, but if we expect to reap the most benefits from it in North America, we need to do it before California beats us to the punch.

I will say I'd be more in favour of legalizing weed if it means that we can 'double down' on remaining dealers of other drugs.

I'm actually in agreement with Taylor that legalizing weed would eliminate a huge part of the 'gateway'.

Hmm, what do you know, agreeing with Taylor. Just saying it feels a little wrong. I hope he doesn't mind if I exist on his level of righteousness for a moment.

Using project fast and furious in the states as an example. The gov already gets billions from keeping drugs illegal. Difference is that if it was legalized they would have to declare it as income vs where it's illegal and they force cartels to launder it thru chosen banks and they take a hidden cut.

Look at the head of homeland security caught lying about this "drug/gun running project" as well as other things that are not for the safety of the citizens she is in charge of protecting.

Youtube napolitano lying and you will see just how crazy this is. Notice how the mainstream media wont cover this?

for that to be true the dealer would have to try to push other drugs on you.
personally when i go to buy weed they never offer me other things, but maybe thats just my experience.

That would never happen but we can only imagine :fullofwin:

My issue with legalizing marijuana, is sort of a slippery slope argument. Marijuana is classified as a soft drug, because not physically addictive, and viewed as something that is less harmful than a hard drug - but it isn't the only soft drug on the market.

Other soft drugs include Ecstasy, Mushrooms, Peyote, hashish, and even LSD (LSD is harder to classify - because it does alter brain chemistry). But of course, all these drugs are less publicly accepted but are they more harmful?

If we are going to legalize another mind-altering substance - we need more research into the adverse effects of the drug. Being an illegal substance - there isn't much unbiased research into how bad it is for you.

^ecstasy can be harmful. lots of people are sent to the hospital because of it.
the others are not really that harmful. they arent really addictive either. have you ever heard of someone addicted to mushrooms? they also dont have large enough markets in order for them to be attractive to criminals (smuggling, growing, selling, etc...)
they are pretty much all harmless.

"There's something in weed called fuck it."

So while im getting high and you guys debate, all i can really say is.....

Fuckkk it, Whether or not its legalized or not i will still smoke it :haha:

I can't imagine that the national health concerns that would be raised in objection to marijuana could be much worse than the ones posed by alcohol.

It's also very difficult (read: impossible) to overdose on THC and die from smoking weed. You'd need to smoke 40,000 times as much marijuana as you needed to get stoned before you will overdose. That’s a ratio of 1:40,000

For alcohol the ratio is between 1:4 and 1:10 - much easier to seriously hurt you and/or kill you.

ecstacy is mixed with other drugs isn't it?

ok, what about smoking it via vaporizers? And they say to long term use but they do they mention how often the user smokes it?

fail

I don't think the health concerns about marijuana is about overdosing, it's more about impairment (such as when you're driving) or long term respiratory illnesses - such as bronchitis and asthma. Apparently respiratory cancers haven't been linked to marijuana, but then again, no proper studies have ever been done.

Tobacco - as it stands - impacts our health system so much as it is - people who get diseases linked to tobacco usage can cost our health care system a lot more money than we would get from the taxes that they pay on buying the tobacco.

As well - as someone mentioned above - we would need proper roadside testing to test people on the amount of THC in their blood. How do we set a legal limit on how much thc is in your blood for you to be allowed to drive?

im not going to say that it doesnt affect your driving, but so riculously little compared to alcohol that you've probably never heard of a weed related car accident unless it involved other substances (such as alcohol).

Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know

"There are data showing that marijuana can play a role in motor vehicle crashes. Studies show that approximately 4–14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC. In many of these cases, alcohol was detected as well."

ok........?

I don't think the government or anyone else should be telling me what to do with my own body. If smoking pot should lower my life expectancy, than so be it, it's my choice. It's no different than the obese over-eaters out there, and you don't see the government cracking down on them over "increased health care costs". There's so many legal ways to fuck up your health out there that it's not a valid argument towards continued criminalization.

It's interesting that Stephen Baldwin is on the side against mj in the debate. He looks baked in that interview. Half baked: