Legalization

There's a system in your body that's named after cannabis compounds. See endocannabinoid system. Also, plenty of evidence to support the medicinal effects of Cannabis.

As for recreational use, it's absurd to make it illegal. Humans have always used herbs and compounds from nature for various reasons. It's in our nature. Which is why the absurd 'war on drugs' is a complete failure. Despite the law, despite the propaganda, millions of people go ahead and consume cannabis. You cannot overcome this natural force. Prohibition just amplifies any dangers associated with it.

Cannabis strains come in different strengths and effects. In a culturally mature and sensible society you should be able to go into an outlet and choose mild stuff to consume in the same way that you might go into an alcohol shop and choose mild beer instead of vodka.

When it's prohibited, users generally don't have that sane choice. They're at the mercy of the black market.

All that money gets spent in the black market, sometimes fueling organised crime (though with the rise of the 'home grower' this negative impact has been somewhat mitigated). Surely it would make sense to make it a lawful part of the economy? In one swoop you turn dark money into light, and you take the power away from criminal gangs. It also means less work for the police and judiciary services which are already over-burdened with more severe societal problems.

The dangers of inhaling smoke can be circumvented by alternative consumption methods. As a natural foodstuff ,with very low toxicity levels, cannabis can be eaten. The active compounds also have quite a low evaporating temperature, which means they can be released as a vapour without burning the veg matter i.e. you can vaporize the compounds without creating a toxic smoke.

All-in-all, prohibition of cannabis is a ridiculous policy and society stands to gain a lot of benefits from the eventual global legalization of a relatively harmless plant.

Honestly the only reasons to legalize it would be:
A: The tax on it would bring in revenue.
B: Less people locked up in prison for smoking
wacky baccy.

Other than that, IDK why it should be legal.

As for your other comment, there are plenty of connoisseur cannabis users in the world. It's a plant that as a wide spectrum of aromatic compounds etc. Also, it's a weak statement to make. Just because some alcohol users are connoisseurs, it doesn't mean that all alcohol users are like that.

In the same way, you can have cannabis users that are just as sophisticated, or some that aren't.

I assume you're ignorant about such matters? Or being deliberately prejudiced?

I'm actually surprised, Iain. You come across as such an egalitarian and balanced person. Yet you put forth this narrow, bigoted view of cannabis users?

Here's a reason, Cave Troll: Freedom of choice. You may think it's ridiculous, but others gain benefit from it, and it's not your right to restrict people from having that freedom of choice.

@Solar yes, but where do you draw the line?
So if marijuana was legal, does that mean all
drugs (natural and synthetic that are illegal)
should be legalized as well?

That would fall under freedom of choice, if
all drugs were legalized for recreational use
just like marijuana.

I don't think you can compare cannabis with heroin or cocaine. It would be unscientific to. Science clearly shows that cannabis is very mild and does not pose the same dangers as those other drugs. So take it case-by-case instead of using a generalized logic that doesn't really mean anything in the real world.

Also, if you care about societal damage, why don't you include sucrose? Addiction to highly-refined sugar is a major problem in the world. Or are we selective about the things we care about?

Just merely making an observation, freedom of choice shouldn't be limited to
simply a singular choice, unless you are defining it purely on your own personal
beliefs.
Not saying that harder drugs should be included in the legalization process, just
that for the sake of being open about it, by technicality they should under a fair
interpretation of what freedom of choice really means.

Well, the point I was making was that when you weigh up the pros and cons, some drugs are clearly very damaging to society. Opioids are powerful and extremely dangerous (both legal and illegal forms). So for that reason, I personally wouldn't be in favour of legalizing them.

Whereas cannabis is much safer, offers plenty of benefits and will generally make a positive or benign contribution to society when approached with sensible policy-making.

This is why I say take it on a case-by-case basis. So the idea of 'freedom of choice' does come with some caveats i.e. we don't allow people to go around burning, raping, looting shooting (unless you're a global super power of course lol).

I think from a philosophical standpoint, the state should do whatever it can to maximize the freedom of its citizens. This doesn't mean I'm in favour of small government, low taxes, axing social programs - I think living in poverty or illness or whatever is a hell of a limit on a person's freedom. But it does mean I think the state should not criminalize something without a good reason, and I don't think that good reason exists in the case of cannabis.

I don't think it exists in the case of harder drugs, either. Not because I think the drugs are harmless, but because it doesn't make sense to throw someone in jail for being self-destructive. 'You're ruining your life, so we're going to ruin your life,' doesn't really make sense to me.

Crimes for selling drugs, producing drugs, etc.? Sure. But just possessing and using them? Nah.

And as someone living in a country that recently went through legalization for recreational marijuana, I can definitely say I've seen... no difference whatsoever. The same people who used to smoke up are still smoking up. The people who didn't smoke up still aren't smoking up. I'm interested to see actual studies on that when they come out, but that's my anecdotal observation so far.