Lordy, this is why I was seeing if I was going to have to argue by myself or not. Get ready for tl;dr
The first question should be- what would be the effects? Legalizing pot would create several possible benefits: decriminalizing relatively non-deviant behavior, reducing drug cartel and smuggling activity, freeing up the police and the courts, possibly creating domestic jobs and bringing in tax revenue, etc.
Disadvantages of legalization may include: increased levels of addiction and use, easier access to minors, corporate control of industry, continuation of drug crime activity, increased usage and pushing of other drugs, lowering of employment rates, lowering of academic achievement rates, etc.
Can we be sure the actual outcome will be more positive than negative?
First, I suppose I should start off by saying I don’t have strong issue against all illegal pot usage and think there are varying degrees of users. I for the most part dislike daily users and potheads, and don’t have much of a problem with occasional users. I, however, base most of my objections of legalizing it out of the fear of it creating even more abusers than there are already, not to mention the increased availability toward children. I of course don’t believe everyone who used it would become an addict, but I feel it’s at least as comparably debilitating as alcohol abuse in many instances.
Legalizing marijuana would only add another way to deteriorate America and lower the collective health and IQ of the country.
In what way, exactly?
As far as damage to the respiratory system, pot reduces lung capacity more than tobacco but isn't carcinogenic.
As far as IQ, there's no evidence that pot does any kind of cognitive damage, unless smoked during puberty. Given that nobody here is actually advocating legalizing it for the under-18 crowd, that's moot to this conversation.
I’m speaking less about cognitive damage and more about the effects while under the influence. Also, if there actually is a gateway effect and the user has used more than just pot, there is a good chance of cognitive damage from the other substances.
Marijuana is behaviorally addictive, a gateway drug, and makes many (not all) people pretty ineffective at reaching their full potential socially and academically.
Do you have any facts to back up any of those claims?
I have years of personal observation, to start with. While it may not be chemically addictive, pot users tend to develop a cycle of use that is hard to break free from. Potheads in particular seem to base their daily routine on maintaining a regular high. This is somewhat socially created, as they tend to stick together and form social circles thereby maintaining desire for participation and companionship. Legalization may impact this to a degree and reduce necessity for groups with better availability, but unlikely since people tend to enjoy vices together rather than by themselves.
As for gateway drugs, I have met very few marijuana users who haven’t been users of other substances. Most people that like to get fucked up aren’t too choosy on the means, and often experiment with pills, mushrooms, acid, etc. in pursuit of a high. Experimentation often results in at least infrequent usage of other drugs. Legalization won’t make other illegal drugs go away, and will probably make the demand greater for some with an overall increase in acceptance of psychotropic drug usage.
As for stifling ability, this really only applies to heavy users in a manner comparable to alcohol abuse. People with abusive tendencies in general aren’t focused on their overall success.
What would legalizing it do for us on a world-standing level? Many historians and political scientists already predict us losing our status in the next 20-30 years. Would marijuana slow or exacerbate this process?
This rhetorical question falls under the "how is that any different from alcohol?" header.
So does the last one, really.
I don’t argue it’s much different from alcohol, really. Just because it is similar to an already problematic substance doesn’t mean a similar one should be introduced out of fairness. Like I said, there is some argument to banning alcohol and tobacco entirely, but I just don’t see it realistically ever happening. On the other hand, legalization of marijuana is preventable, thus worth debating.
Do quality tobacco and micro brews really compete with corporate entities?
Anheuser-Busch just got bought out by a Belgian company and has since released a craft beer in an attempt to appeal to that rapidly-growing market. This is the sort of thing you find out when you use Google instead of just begging a question.
Is it a growing market? Yes. Does the vast majority of revenue from beer sales go to big business?
Yes. (Thanks, Google) My argument is that cheap, convenient, and well-marketed products trump specialty products when it comes to general use.
Plus, home-grown has no quality control. Who's to say Rufus didn't accidentally leave pesticides on his batch or throw in a bit of fake shit to pad his earnings? Sure, market forces would weed (hur hur) out bad apples, but it's the same situation we have now with good dealers and bad dealers, and pot smokers still get screwed occasionally.
So, uh, you're saying we shouldn't do it because it would have the same problem you acknowledge it already has.
I’m just not understanding how small-scale production will be truly controlled when made legal. OSHA and the FDA have enough trouble as it is policing mass manufactured products; trying to inspect home-grower operations would be a nightmare. If the restrictions were tight enough for production to be realistically oversee-able, it would probably mean Mom and Pop would have to go into business with many others to have an operation with enough manpower and capital to run a proper operation.
What about smuggled in goods from Central and South America? Would these all disappear after legalization, or increase? Did the War on Drugs create the problems with drug cartels and violence?
It certainly exacerbated them.
If the demand is still there and the goods are profitable, wouldn’t illegally smuggled goods still continue to flow? Most cartels outside the United States operate in countries where marijuana is also illegal. Just because it becomes legal here, doesn’t mean they all of a sudden start playing by the rules. Also, if it does hit their wallets by legalizing marijuana, wouldn’t cartels and gangs be more desperate and motivated to push other drugs instead to make up for their losses?
