US Gun Laws

That is really a myth. And a stereotype portrayed in movies and television. The reality is that most American marijuana users are productive member of society. Most recreational users use it in moderation much like the person who comes home from a hard day at work and has a couple of beers. Yes, there are the pothead burnouts, they do exist. But that is not the reality for most users. As for the leeching off the system... that already happens with the broken American welfare system. Until they fix it, that problem will continue to exist regardless of legalization.

The tariffs you spoke about happen with all commodities and products. Tobacco, alcohol, grain, oil, paper, cars, electronics, etc. In the case of marijuana as a legal product there would be producer nations as well as consumer nations. Just like everything else. If it is legalized in Canada and the US there will be plenty of Canadian and American companies that will make huge profits from the sale and manufacture of it. Those companies pay taxes. So to try and say that the financial benefits of legalization for those countries don't exist is incorrect. And the trade will be just as "free" as it is for all other products.

The other myth that you seem to believe is that marijuana is an addictive substance. It isn't. At least not physically. You might get a psychological addiction where you crave it (like an internet addiction) but your body does not develop a dependency upon it like with alcohol or nicotine. It's still not a good idea for kids. I agree with you there. But nobody is proposing that it be for kids. All the proposals have age restrictions built into them. Generally the same age as for alcohol.

Myths need debunking by linking reputable sources. If they cannot, well, they weren't myths to begin with.

True, but the tariffs in place are to tax for profit. The tariff that you are proposing is a tariff to protect domestic production. The difference is that the latter will far exceed the former.

Actually, it is.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/infofacts/marijuana
The info on child consumption is there too.

Temperence movements, remember?

True, working with a hangover is though, but alot of people drink and have productive lives.

I hope that you understand that it was from a statistical point of view.
From the information that I have, the addiction is not instant, but gradual, and over a long time one would become addicted.

True, but the statement is true nonetheless.

True, it is a leap.
But you bring up another point that I neglected before: use of drugs tend to affect others negatively. While unlike smoking, marijuana use may or may not cause direct harm to others [second-hand smoke and stuff like that], it can affect the social and economic obligations.

Which is more likely to reach the children first? A drug that is legal or a drug that is illegal?

Sadly, I have many associates in that state.

Other than television and movies where is your proof that the majority of marijuana users are loser burnouts? I know several users personally that have perfectly normal lives, are employed, and are just like their neighbors. With the exception of their recreational drug of choice they're no different. Every year 22 million Americans use marijuana. However, nobody I know has ever been asked so that number is potentially much higher. I've no idea where the government gets that figure to be honest. But it is the generally accepted figure so it is what it is. Ultimately I cannot debunk the myth other than through personal experience as I know of no study that proves it one way or the other.

I'm not proposing any tariff. All I said is that they exist on every product out there and that legal marijuana would be no different. Although I would concede the point that the US would try to protect domestic production with a tariff. Because that's the way it does business. When it is legalized there is bound to be a powerful lobby that will arise (probably hand-in-hand with the tobacco lobby) and since our politicians are controlled by lobbies this is a realistic expectation.

As for the addiction question. Your link talks of the addiction being psychological as I stated. The withdrawal effects they discuss stem from that psychological addiction. There is no ravaging detox like a chronic alcoholic would suffer. This article addresses the question better than I can: http://recoveryguy.hubpages.com/hub/Is-Marijuana-Addictive

Kids are going to get access to it whether it's legal or not. Since it's currently an unregulated black market product it's easier for them to get than alcohol. If it were legalized and regulated then the street dealers would no longer deal in it. Why would you risk dealing with a street dealer when you can safely purchase it from a legal source? Just as alcohol after Prohibition. The Speakeasies closed down or became legitimate businesses, bowing to legal competition. The real solution is to be honest with the kids and educate them. "Just say no" is an abject failure just like "abstinence only" sex education is a failure. It doesn't tell them WHY it's bad, it just tells them that it is bad. Give them the facts and don't try to BS them. Kids see right through that.

I can't. I can, but refuse to, sit here and sift for you through the mountains of papers published by M.D.s on the subject. However, I will point you in what I believe to be the right direction:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/infofacts/marijuana
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/long term cannabis effects.pdf
Some is proven, others are postulated, some are just common sense. Marijuana contains THC, which is addictive. Use of addictive substances can lead to addiction. Addicts tend not to lead very successful lives. While the reports appear to admit that the addiction comes more slowly than some other drugs, in my eyes, that does not make them innocent, though slightly less... evil.

Which is kind of... bad. For one thing, people are after the money to fix the economy, not 'the right of people to smoke marijuana.' People tend NOT to want their fellow citizens addicted to anything.
For another, the US does not need any more powerful lobby groups. Period.
Lastly, it is kind of hard to be part of a 'global economy' and 'global community' when you are sectioning off markets for yourself.

I think that you misread my link. Please re-read it.
Though it wouldn't matter either way. Psychological addiction can be just as bad as physical.
I am sorry, but honestly, looking at the link, well...
1. Its a .com, so I don't know how reliable it is.
2. Its name is... it concerns me.
Please find another.

Um... you seem to be confusing yourself.
The black market is always unregulated. That is its very nature.
The black market would remain, as it would still find a market in selling to kids, since they could not buy it legally. And as long as the children cannot buy it legally, the drug dealers can charge whatever they want. That, and they can lead the kids onto the harder drugs.
The argument that 'they will get it anyways, so why not make it easier' doesn't fly. With anybody.

Hmm... come to think about it... Having visited a high school H&C class in the US for half a school year [watching the teacher preform], I don't remember the teacher ever saying 'Just say no' once... Not that you don't have a point, just that I find it odd. Though if you saw the graphic [very] images that he showed his class... I don't think that you would say that they are not telling them why.

NIDA is a very biased source. As you are hesitant to accept a .com link, I am equally hesitant to accept a .gov link. They both have "horses in the race" as it were. I will not claim that marijuana doesn't have negative properties. It does. But when compared to currently legal drugs (alcohol, nicotine, prescription) it is much more benign. And in the interest of fairness if those are legal it should be also. Everything has risks and costs associated with it. Eat too much sugar you risk diabetes, eat too much fast food you risk obesity, smoke too much marijuana you risk addiction. The real solution is education. If you know the risks involved you can make an informed decision whether to use or not.

The economics of it are sad. But it is the reality. It would help the economy but that is not why I support legalization. Truthfully I think that trying to sell it on that point is rather dishonest. It would help, but not as much as the people who argue for it that way tend to portray. I'm for legalization because if someone wants to smoke a joint to relax after work I think it is their right to do so. If someone wants to do it they will anyhow. But we don't need to be filling our prisons with non-violent drug users. Save the effort for the real crimes.

If it were legal, most drug dealers would stop carrying it. Yes, they get some sales from underage kids but most users (customers) are adults. If it is no longer profitable for them they'll move on. Ultimately it's supply and demand. I don't think it will make it easier for the kids, I think it will get more difficult. And with good education the demand will go down in HS aged kids. The "Just say no" effort was during my generation. No real information, just intolerance and scare tactics which we all thought was an absolute joke. It probably has changed some since then. I certainly hope so. I've not seen the inside of a HS classroom in quite some time.

As it is, the American people are becoming more and more comfortable with prospect of legalization. Medical marijuana has really gotten the foot in the door for acceptance. I just hope that the money formerly spent on the enforcement of the prohibition of marijuana gets redirected to education. But that is probably a pipe dream...

If you go to any certified librarian, and ask which is a more reliable source: a .com or a .gov, [in general] 10/10 they will say a .gov. The fact of the matter is that saying that a .gov is bias without any proof [indeed, if you DID have proof, as an advocate of accurate, free information, you would have an obligation to report it] is not an acceptable claim. In my personal opinion, I do not believe that the government has enough invested in the outcome of the marijuana debate to change information with the intent of misleading people on purpose. If it was another matter, like say, China or Russia or Iran or N. Korea, yea, depending on the information that was being looked for, I would expect to find a much higher chance of purposely misleading information.
Also, did you check our the .org I provided? The NIDA compileation was based on several reports provided by M.D.s. Unless you can debunk them all, I believe that the information is reletively reliable.
Fairness is not a factor.
Again, the 'these poisenous substances are legal, therefore, we should legalize all poisenous substances!' argument holds no water.
Everything has riskes involved, yes, but some more than others. True, marijuana has lesser risks than some, but it does not preform any action that another cannot or an action greater than others. Some provide more benefit than others.
The sugar reference isn't as solid as it looks. Sugar may cause obesity, but sugar is also necessary to LIVE. The body needs a certain level of suger in it to function. The fat made is energy stored for the body to use. Therefore, outlawing sugar would not only be absurd, but also mortally dangerous for the human population. And any living population for that matter.
Fast food [I cannot believe that I am actually able to argue that fast food is in any way better than something else] is a matter of convienience and backwards social trends. The obesity that is the result can easily be countered by not eating as much and getting some exercise. The food provides energy for the body to function. Unfortunately, in the American society, they tend not to burn as much as they consume. Therefore, there is an entirely man-made crisis.
Marijuana, on the other hand, preforms NO necessary function for the body.
While personal decisions are an important part of many societies, it is inevitable that one must realize where the line is drawn. The use of drugs can impair a person's ability to preform vital parts of a working society. Social connections are an example of this. A high father isn't as likely to engage in meaningful discussions with his children as one who is sober. The result is neglect. Even if he doesn't lose the children, he inevitably sets up the society to have to deal with the after-affects of a neglected child when that child grows up. More disturbingly, the society may even have to deal with the child before they reach adulthood. This is just one of the reasons why people are wary of legalizing marijuana.

Dishonest? Maybe. But realize that 'its their choice' hasn't really got the marijuana community very far. More often than not, people who support do so for the money involved. They don't give two ****s about the marijuana community. If the economy gets better, legalizing the drug will probably go back to being a pipe dream.
True, there is a problem with that police tend to have to deal with marijuana users/distributers and with the larger organizations that get their profit from selling it. But part of the complainers only speak up because police stations are shrinking due to the economic hardships and when people get robbed, assaulted, raped, etc. they see it as a lesser crime to be possessing some drugs in the face of such greater crimes. If the times were better, and the police were more plentiful, this argument would not have so much backing.

As you probably saw on the link that I put up, the age groups are steadily getting younger and younger. Coupled with the enhanced chance of addiction at a young age, and you can see why people believe it a problem.
As much as I disagreed with the teacher whos class I sat in on, I have to admit that he does exactly what you want... show the truth. Though, yes, some of his information is outdated [he still said that marijuana causes brain damage, which he revised when I told him the info from the link I put up] he showed the affects of the drugs [mostly the others, like tabacco and such]. They can lie and say that it is bad. But the evidence doesn't lie. As cliched as that is.
*The stupid state's textbook that he was forced to teach out of was the source of some of the outdated material.
Though it is still to be seen whether better education will have any affect. The High School that I visited [again, with that H&C teacher] had an excellent Health and Careers establishment, but the dropout rate was still slightly under half and the teenage pregnency rate was still about 1 in 10.

The prospect of profit, not necessarily having high neighbors.
Umm... no. The medical marijuana is not as accepted as it seems. Its more like the President announced that he would no longer be sending out the FBI to seize marijuana for budget reasons and the people started breaking that particular law. It was the equiliant of the police going away and anarchy breaking out. The medical marijuana stations are not as regulated as they should be and the cards are absurdly accessible. From my associates in the state of California, I know that marijuana is little, if at all, more accepted then it used to be.
Yes. It is. One thing that I know about the educations systems of the US is that it seems that the cuts go to schools first and the money arrives at the schools last.

I did read the .org link. And I'm not trying to say that they're wrong. They're, as far as I know, dead right. Any of the examples I gave (sugar, fast food, alcohol, marijuana) are okay in moderation. Doing too much is the problem. That's where the education part really comes in. You have to know the risks to make informed decisions.

And NIDA's bias is really unimportant. They do have a lot at stake, the "War on Drugs" is big, big money. And there are powerful lobbies that don't want to see legalization. But finding completely unbiased sources concerning this topic is rare. It's expected that there will be a bias one way or the other. It's just the way it is.

Regardless of all we've discussed I see it as my personal right to be able to put whatever I want into my own body. The government should have no say in that whatsoever. And I think society can handle legal marijuana. It's only been illegal for slightly less than a century. Society moved along quite well beforehand. Several of the founding fathers of this country grew non-fibrous hemp (which is only good for one thing, and that is smoking).

George Washington was an advocate: "Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!" -George Washington, The Writings of George Washington Volume 33, page 270 (Library of Congress), 1794 Indian hemp is an example of a non-fibrous variety. You can't make rope out of it.

As was Thomas Jefferson: "An acre of the best ground for hemp, is to be selected and sewn in hemp and be kept for a permanent hemp patch." - Thomas Jefferson's Garden book 1849 While not specific as to the type of hemp a lone acre wouldn't be enough to make much rope. I couldn't find the source but TJ did (supposedly in one of his gardening books) go into great detail on raising female plants. Female plants provide the best marijuana for consumption.

And, truly, this Gallup poll from last October shows that acceptance in America is at an all-time high: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

So it's really just a matter of time. My hope is that it is handled appropriately. To just come out and say "Hey, it's legal now!" isn't the right way to go about it. But it isn't evil, it isn't a pox on society, it's just an alternative. And one that has a long history in America.

You contradicted yourself in the span of two sentences.

So it may be, so it may be. But it is not your right to possibly endanger others or put people at risk for injury, mental, physical, or emotional.

You may think so, but the voters have shown time and time again that the majority concensus is that it is not.

While the people of the US tend to accept the Founding Fathers' wisdom on many things, this is clearly not one of them. Hemp has been outlawed, in case you didn't notice. Along with an number of other drugs and practices that were acceptable in the Founding Fathers' time.

This raises a question: Will the poll match at the voting booths?

Also, I have concern about this from the poll page:

As I lack a clear explaination of what they mean by 'weighted' and how much margin of error that would cause.