This is not a neutral article. Also hemp
? and marijuana are scientifically the same plant. Marijuana has simply been selectively breed to increase the THC content while hemp is bred for its fiber content. --Rmhermen
I don't question that what you wrote is accurate, but that doesn't mean it's neutral. If nothing else, it's strange to say that something is controversial and then only state one side of the argument. Perhaps what is needed is a little history -- how and why marijuana was made illegal in the U.S. (I'd do this, but it's not something I know off the top of my head.) -- Janet Davis
I agree with Janet Davis, but I'm not sure where one might obtain dissenting opinions. Is there a source online that concisely summarized the case for prohibition of marijuana? (I tend to think that there isn't really a case for prohibition so much as there is inertia in the laws. There are certainly people opposed to legalization or decriminalization, but they aren't writing editorials or giving arguments and facts. But... am I wrong?)
--Jimbo Wales
Personally I would suggest that this article be limited strictly to what cannabis is (a plant) and something about its medical effects (you get stoned). I would put stuff about its political implications in a different articles. Apart from being slightly non neutral this current article is very US centric, so perhaps the article should be called "The legal implications of Cannabis in the US" or something...
Phil Lord
I also agree with Phil Lord. We should have one article that's strictly non-political, and one article that deals with the legal status of marijuana around the world. --Jimbo Wales
OK, I'll make some changes that I think are necessary, though I can't guarantee that the result will be
brilliant prose. --
LMS
In the process of editing this, I've simply cut and pasted the political material here:
- advocates argue that marijuana has medicinal benefits, including the ability to calm the stomachs of people suffering nauseau from chemotherapy and advanced AIDS, and indeed pharmaceutical companies in the United States sell THC extracts. Advocates for legalization also argue that marijuana has fewer dangerous side effects than alcohol (another mind-altering substance in wide acceptance and which is known to cause aggression). Advocates also argue that the vast amounts of money spent in the United States on the [war on drugs]? has shown little effect on the availability of drugs, while at the same time restricting civil rights at an alarming rate and increasing the prison population to over 2 million--most of them there for nonviolent drug offenses, and a disproportionate number of them minorities.
- Most legalization advocates, including Ralph Nader, argue at least for the legalization of hemp?, which is similar to marijuana in appearance but contains only trace amounts of THC. Since hemp is indeed a weed, it does not require fertilizers or pesticides, and grows to full maturity in three months; the plant can be used to manufacture clothing, fuel, food, and paper; advocates argue that allowing its use in greater quantities would have widespread agricultural and environmental benefits.
I think it's very obvious that (1) anti-marijuana and anti-drug advocates, as well as the framers of current anti-marijuana laws, do have arguments, and (2) those arguments need to be presented. --LMS
O.k., well, my point is that I don't know where to find them.
I can make some up, but I didn't hear them from any advocates. It's hard to _find_ people who advocate keeping marijuana illegal, probably because it already has been illegal for so long. Mostly, it is simply assumed.
Most sites that support prohibition of marijuana specifically, don't make arguments about why legalization is a bad idea. This is different from the situation with respect to, say, gun prohibition -- there are arguments good and bad on all sides.
But I doubt that I've looked hard enough for marijuana prohibition arguments. --Jimbo Wales
Absolutely! If for no other reason than presenting their arguments makes it obvious how weak they are :-) --
LDC
There are zillions of websites devoted to combatting drugs. I haven't seen a single one of them ;-), but I know there are. They are probably full of essays, chock-full of bad arguments, and summaries of important books about the drug war and anti-drug rhetoric, and histories of drug bans and legalization. So...sure, the arguments might be bad, but golly, they must exist. --
LMS
Yez guys...sheesh, I found [this] on my first try on Google. See also: [1]; [2] (!!!); and in general, [3] and related searches. --LMS
The arguments against legalisation are fairly well known, and some of them recurrent. Aside from the emotional ones (drugs are BAD), the gateway argument is probably the most common. Smoke a joint you'll be on crack in a week. Other arguments are that it causes violence, that people driving on MJ would be bad, that it relates to crime, that we already have two social problems (drink and tobacco) why make a third and so on. There is even Edgar Hoovers classic argument that it might predispose decent white woman to copulate with blacks or hispanics or jazz musicians so MJ is bad for racial purity. There are plenty of arguments out there. PL
The gateway argument is also an emotional argument, and not dissimilar to the slippery slope fallacy
[4]. Drug dealing relates to crime in the same way that anything illegal that people want and can get relates to crime; something about that firmly-entrenched idea of supply and demand somehow eludes most of the United States' lawmakers and public. Personally I find the arguments against drugs to be weak, paranoid, and patently vapid; and mostly based on hypothesis without supporting evidence from, e.g. Denmark, probably because there isn't any. I don't imagine anyone would take the time to write up and attempt to defend the opposing viewpoint on slavery in an article on slavery; in fact most people would find it extraordinarily peculiar and offensive. If the comparison seems a little radical to you, then go ahead and write up the anti-drug arguments yourself. Perhaps that's the better approach since (I'm guessing) you are more familiar with them. --KQ
An pretty well-researched article on the history of "marijuana" prohibition (the term "marijuana" was coined, I think, by Harry Anslinger to emphasize the connection of the terrible new drug to "crazy" Mexican immigrants) can be found at
[smokedot.org]. It contains actual quotes from the congress debate (lasting one minute thirty-two seconds) which passed the Marijuana Tax Act into law. --Per
And the film
Reefer Madness--notoriously terrible propaganda film, for those who don't know. Watch it with someone you love. :-) --KQ
Here's a book (The Emperor Wears No Clothes) about the history of marajuana, The full text is online
[5]
--
For another look at the history of prohibition of cannabis here's a very throrough article published at the Schaffer Drug Library.
[6]
Ok. Appologies to all, I was bold and re-organised a lot of the article and gave it headings and such. One thing that has lead to confusion its criminilisation which seems to be due to different reasons depending on what side of the pond your from. I didn't want to go into any detail on American law for which I am completly ignorant of. I hope I've kept the article NPOV but go ahead and edit if you don't agree.
Wikipedians/Alex
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)