Interesting Article

Taxing it Will Save the Economy!

This argument has always been bogus. Sure, legalizing will create jobs. It will also eliminate them. Legalizing will save us money in terms of enforcement and corrections, but it will cost money to implement a system of regulation, quality control and distribution. It will also cost us in terms of mental health and addiction treatment of people who become dependent. I'm sure we will come out better economically under full legalization, but it will hardly be a savior. It's all a big balancing act, pushing the bill from one side of the house to the other. Besides, the people who vote for prohibition are usually suffering much less than the average person is financially, statistical fact.

We Need it for Cancer Patients! And to Make Paper!

Even though they are much more expensive and do not work nearly as well, there are many synthetic alternatives to whole plant marijuana in terms of treating cancer. The argument here should be against Big Pharma and their over-priced marijuana alternatives. We should demonstrate clearly how marijuana is more affordable than Pharma alternatives. We should demonstrate where marijuana out-performs the synthetic alternatives that Pharma wants to rape our wallets over.

This argument has some definite merit, but needs to be heavily fleshed out with good information. Plenty is available.

It's Good for You!

This argument is far too debatable to leave it as an open ended justification for legalization. It has merit, conditionally, but on the whole, normal people function just fine without cannabis. What should be argued are the specific medical benefits that are derived from marijuana. What should be argued is that the punishment is currently far more dangerous to consumers than actual consumption. What should be argued are the absolute most dangerous side effects of smoking marijuana: Arrest, Incarceration and Criminal Records.

Alcohol and Tobacco are Worse, and They're Legal!

Not an argument at all, just an observation. People who have no experience with marijuana will see this as a comparison of evils and an attempt at legalizing a lesser evil. Evil is evil, and while I don't consider marijuana to be evil AT ALL, adding more problems to an existing set of problems does nothing beneficial on the whole. Not a subscriber to this line of thought, but that's honestly how most people see it: Arguing for the lesser of evils. Education is our friend here, not complaints about how prohibition of marijuana drives us to drink. I smoke because I chose to. I drink because I chose to. Just as prohibition is not the natural state of things, neither is intoxication. We do not NEED to drink, or smoke, but we should have the right to chose either as suits us.

It's not Addictive!

Bullshit. Picking your nose can be addictive. Eating twinkees can be addictive. Dependence on marijuana is a very real thing. What should be argued is treating addiction to marijuana as a mental health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. I firmly believe that addiction to marijuana, or anything for that matter, is just a symptom of a much greater, underlying mental health issue. That being said, normally healthy adults who consume in moderation are at no risk of becoming addicted. That does not mean it is not addictive. Arguing the "less addictive" angle is, once again, back to arguing about the lesser of evils.

Conclusion:

Bottom line: When arguing or advocating for ANYTHING, avoid "absolutes". There is no absolute argument for or against ANYTHING. Marijuana included. What we need to address are the moral issues, the issues of corruption and the fact that the current prohibitive climate is causing significantly more harm than good. Arguments against prohibition to disempower the black market cartels and to end the War in Mexico are good examples of effective, moral arguments.

Just my 2c.

 

Yeah man, surprisingly quite in this tread...

*tumbleweed*

...maybe TLDR? Probably. Stoners... gotta love em though.