[Cova]

I think you really need another option on that poll. I picked the first one because it's closest to the truth, but I think virtually all of the people who've clicked it (>40% of the total votes as of me writing this) would fit into the category of "Smoke it, enjoy it, not addicted to it" - as opposed to the "can't live without it" that your current option has.

It's all the little things like this, and there are many other examples littered through the rest of this thread, of the mass brainwashing that the US government has done and still continues to do on the topic of marijuana. I think from my statements so far everyone already has gotten the (true) impression that I am 100% pro-legalization. What that article is refering to is actually NOT legalization, it is decriminilization - pot will still be illigal however there will be no criminal record of minor possesion charges, just a fine.

As for all the arguements against it throughout this thread, let me try and dispell a few of them. First, let me say that I am very concerned with my own health, even though I am a pot-smoker. I have done a significant amount of research on the subject, and have read every study about pot and it's effects that I've found. Unfortunately I haven't saved them all, but I will provide links where I can to back up my facts/opinions.

First, I suggest you all read this:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/c.../summary-e.pdf
It is a summary of a report from a special committee of the Canadian senate that was tasked with researching into the subject of illegal drugs. It contains a lot of good information, and as it comes from the government I believe if anything it is biased towards being anti-drug.

1. The myth that pot is a "gateway drug".
The report linked above states that:

Theory suggesting a sequential pattern in involvement in drug use from nicotine to alcohol, to cannabis and then to “hard” drugs. In regard to cannabis, the theory rests on a statistical association between the use of hard drugs and the fact that these users have generally used cannabis as their first illicit drug. This theory has not been validated by empirical research and is considered outdated.

The quote: The question should be: "How many of those who smoke crack today started with marijuana?" Here we see that the answer is "A heck lot more than a few percent".
Is simply an example of US brainwashing at work - there is NO logic at all behind that statement. I could just as easily say that virtually all of those who smoke crack today started with alcohol, or even started with learning to talk or anything else. Both of my examples, as well as the original quote, are completely meaningless. The first question from that same post: How many of those who smoke marijuana todday will smoke crack in a year? is EXACTLY the question at hand. Obviously if pot IS a gateway to crack, then a large majority of pot users WILL smoke crack in a year, and this is simply not true.

2. (to quote airspirit): pot makes you dumb if you smoke too much of it
Again to quote from the report above:

The immediate effects of cannabis are characterized by feelings of euphoria, relaxation and sociability; they are accompanied by impairment of short-term memory, concentration and some psychomotor skills; and
Long term effects on cognitive functions have not been established in research.

Of all of the studies I have read about pot, I have yet to find ANY evidence of long-term medical problems. I will admit that not enough research has been done and that there is a possibility that some do exist, however if they were significant I am sure that we would know about them by now as a significant number of people worldwide smoke and some correlation would have been made between pot-smokers and their medical history by now. Though there likely is some small long-term effect, it does not compare with either alcohol or tobacco in the amount of damage it does to your system. If you want to claim that the US Army did a study that proves long-term medical problems, then find me a link - till then I consider it meerly a part of the US War on Drugs propaganda.
Note: I make no claim that SMOKING pot won't cause lung-cancer. Inhallation of smoke is not good for your lungs, however THC (the active ingredient in pot) is not related to this. Eating pot (mmmm...., special brownies) is another widely known way to "get high", and will not cause any problems with your lungs.

3. (to quote bb2k): Drugs will cause people to do many, many things that will affect other people
Getting good at quoteing that report...

Cannabis itself is not a cause of delinquency and crime; and
Cannabis is not a cause of violence.

If anyone has watched the Robin Williams Live on Broadway video, the way he portrays pot is pretty much perfect in regards to this. (off-topic, if you haven't seen this, go rent it. One of the funniest movies I've EVER watched - even better, watch it while high). To quote him from memory - the only way pot is going to motivate you to do anything, is if there is a giant cheeto at the end. When I smoke, I get the munchies and like to listen to techno music - that doesn't effect anyone else. I HATE driving after I've smoked, and avoid it as much as I can - it's easier to make me drive after I've been drinking than after I've been smoking, and you'll find making me drive after drinking is plenty hard enough. After I've smoked I don't even like to leave the house - just melt into the nearest chair and watch TV or listen to music for a few hours. I can't think of anything else a pot-smoker might do that would effect other people in any negative way, but if you can come up with an example, I can come up with a counter-arguement. Don't even try the various "don't want to be operated on by a doctor who's high" type things - they don't apply; just like I don't worry about my doctor being drunk even though alcohol is legal.

If you think you can come up with better arguements to prove that pot is "bad", go ahead - but do some research first and bring proof with you. Let me end with one more quote, one of my favorites from that article.

in a free and democratic society, which recognizes fundamentally but not exclusively the rule of law as the source of normative rules and in which government must promote autonomy as far as possible and therefore make only sparing use of the instruments of constraint, public policy on psychoactive substances must be structured around guiding principles respecting the life, health, security and rights and freedoms of individuals, who, naturally and legitimately, seek their own well-being and development and can recognize the presence, difference and equality of others.