Should marijuana be legalized?

Are we really saying "We should legalise marijuana because alcohol is worse" because that would seem to be an argument for criminalising alcohol, not for legalising marijuana.

Textbook wrote: JLocke: There's no such thing as freedom, but again that's a whole other topic. Civilised life is and always will be controlled.

Well, I would say that it depends on what you define freedom to be. Obviously, total freedom without consequence or regulation would lead to potential chaos simply because a few lunatics would ultimately spoil the fun for everybody else were there no laws. But we aren't talking about traffic control, prisons, or the like. All I'm discussing are civil liberties. The right to be free on your own time as dictated by the founding documents behind our nation. Yes, I know: ''We have freedom because our constitution imposes it on us.'' It's an ironic statement, but at least I am aware of the irony. It still doesn't make it incorrect or not worth standing up for. The freedom we do have within the larger bounds of society's laws are what I'm out to protect. To twist the argument into something vague and philosophical merely to make a shadow of a point doesn't impress me. 

When I speak of 'freedom', I don't speak of lawless anarchy. Just like when I speak of 'science' in the religious debates, I'm not talking about it as if science itself is some kind of infallible dogma. I only speak of the provable, replicable side of science; the specific theories that have have been supported and displayed in peer-approved, transparent scenarios. ''Freedom'' in the loosest sense of the word is not the same as ''liberty''. Not to me. The control that is put into place within civilized life should never move to the point of dictatorship. That's the difference. If you don't know that, you don't know anything. 

Anyway, could you respond to the psychological aspect- why does a fully functioning, rational person need a chemical adjustment to be happy?

There are a couple of answers to that. Once again, you are oversimplifying a much more layered issue. If you look at it on its face, it seems quite cut and dry, I realize. But once you through the specific factors and scenarios into the situation, it bifurcates into a couple of key distinctions. First, and most importantly, the obvious answer is that not everybody is fully-functioning or rational. But it isn't even that; many completely sane people have chemical imbalances and emotional disorders that require slight alteration to their brain functionality. So the chemical adjustment you speak of, when it is indeed needed as you wrote, is completely understandable when you take into account all of the underlying conditions a person could potentially have. 

The second point. You most likely are referring to the situation when drugs of any sort aren't recommended medically, and instead are simply used by someone electively for their own personal enjoyment. In that situation, the answer is clear: they don't need a chemical adjustment to be happy. They simply want a chemical adjustment, and it makes them a bit jollier. And what is so immoral or dangerous about that? Do you like chocolate? Well, why would a fully-functioning person like yourself want something sugary and unhealthy to have fun? Simply because you do. No other explanation is required. You are superimposing your own prejudices overtop of the pot issue and making it into something much more severe than it needs to be. If you looked at it from a totally objective point of view, I doubt you yourself would require any explanation at all. Why do people want to smoke pot? Because they like it. Why do people need to smoke pot? Often times, they don't. And? 

Your argument seems rather capricious to me. You're jumping from issue to issue, trying out all the different angles you could potentially come at it from. You seem to be more concerned with winning the argument than really getting to the bottom of the situation. As far as I am aware, I have answered all of your inquiries as honestly and directly as I am able. If you still don't understand why I take the stand that I do, you have the right to reject the notion. Just don't tell me that I don't have the right to do whatever I wish in the privacy of my home simply because you think it's immoral or dangerous for some reason. Until I cause harm to someone else, you and the government should butt out. That's my point. 

Edited by JLocke - November 04 2010 at 19:21