How is that weird? Maybe try ban cigarette and alcohol first see if it works?
I personally don't take any substances except coffee. Really wondering all those ppl who r advocating for banning weed smoke or drink alcohol personally?
Banning alcohol didn't work.
Claiming it's okay to lose a hand because you couldn't stop from losing a leg has never been a very sound argument. There's better premises for keeping marijuana legal than pointing to alcohol.
Withdrawing from alcohol has well documented, and extremely dangerous side effects (this is why it’s done in a hospital when possible). cami is does not.
This one can be really bad, although it only lasts for about a week. Dreams so vivid it's terrifying, even when the content of the dreams seems mundane. If somebody were already marijuana as an emotional crutch, I think the bad dreams could have them running back to marijuana immediately.
And hyperhidrosis for several weeks at least.
“Very very very settled science,” what an absolute joke. No one engaged in the scientific pursuit of truth uses phrases like this.
This is the real risk with cannabis.
"Randy: Well, Stan, the truth is marijuana probably isn't gonna make you kill people, and it most likely isn't gonna fund terrorism, but… well, son, pot makes you feel fine with being bored. And it's when you're bored that you should be learning some new skill or discovering some new science or being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you aren't good at anything."
I’d note that banning alcohol has worked in societies that don’t have a deep tradition of alcohol use. While alcohol is available for non-Muslims in my home country, virtually nobody uses it outside certain westernized elites.
You are engaging in the fallacy of composition: the argument was that it does not work for marijuana. Not that it does not work for harmful products.
It is not generally valid to conclude from “X does not work for Y” and “Y is a Z” that “X does not work for any Z”.
Given the absurd disconnect between US law and anything resembling ethics, I doubt this is true. If you're on the left, you're as likely to see law enforcement as bad people, and if you're on the right, substitute guns for marijuana and you're likely to have very different views. While some people might think this way at a surface level, I suspect the number of people who base their view of morality on laws is vanishingly small compared to the number of people who base their view of laws on their morality.
> Banning something where the rest of the culture is trying to normalize it probably is futile.
Good thing there's no cultural movement to normalize the substance we're talking about.
> It's hard to ignore that marijuana seems to be much more prevalent now that it's been legalized in many places.
Hard to ignore, but easy to explain with explanations other than "it made things worse". Does it occur to you that maybe people just aren't hiding their use now that it's legal?
But we know for a fact this isn't true because there's data on it. This isn't something we need to speculate about.
This is often used by totalitarian governments. It leads to "Preference Falsification," an idea developed by Timur Kuran.
Making something illegal for social reasons also degrades each person's sense of autonomy and self-governance. It invites jurisdiction within one's private sphere by removing each person's duty of "Obedience to the Unenforceable." Below is a key description from John Fletcher Moulton's article about it and links to an excellent Econtalk podcast discussing the idea.
Preference falsification is the act of misrepresenting a preference under perceived public pressures. It involves the selection of a publicly expressed preference that differs from the underlying privately held preference (or simply, a public preference at odds with one’s private preference). People frequently convey to each other preferences that differ from what they would communicate privately under credible cover of anonymity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification
Follow me in examining the three great domains of Human Action. First comes the domain of Positive Law, where our actions are prescribed by laws binding upon us, which must be obeyed. Next comes the domain of Free Choice, which includes all those actions as to which we claim and enjoy complete freedom. But between these two there is a third large and important domain in which there rules neither Positive Law nor Absolute Freedom. In that domain there is no law which inexorably determines our course of action, and yet we feel that we are not free to choose as we would. The degree of this sense of a lack of complete freedom in this domain varies in every case. . . . it is the domain of Obedience to the Unenforceable. The obedience is the obedience of a man to that which he cannot be forced to obey. He is the enforcer of the law upon himself . . .
https://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-obedience-to-the-...
https://aleteia.org/2016/04/11/how-an-expert-in-blowing-thin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fletcher_Moulton,_Baron_M...
https://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ362/hallam/Newspap...
By your logic, it's futile to ban harmful products, which is a weird take. Making something illegal influences social norms. It signals that something is "bad" and for "bad people." Not everyone will abide by that social signal, but most people will. Banning something where the rest of the culture is trying to normalize it probably is futile. But that doesn't mean that banning things doesn't work, or that legalizing things won't make the problem worse. It's hard to ignore that marijuana seems to be much more prevalent now that it's been legalized in many places.