Why illegal if you never heard about it in the news

Are you high now?

 

Tobacco industry doesn't want competition.
Also after decades of propaganda by the govt. (War Against Drugs crap and even further before) people are naturally inclined to think mar1juana is some sort of evil, deadly, toxic, corruptible thing. Whereas in reality its way less harmful than tobacco, relatively. Still unhealthy in the absolute sense.

 

I find that so odd too. You'd think the tobacco companies would prepare themselves for weed cigs as soon as it's legal (what do you guys think, 15-20 years?) Come on, Camel Greens would be super marketable.

 

I am sure weed = kill in probably less amount than ciggs. Weed= many other things that ciggs is not =. Sugar = kill too, but in lots lots lots of excessive amount. I hope this helps you think through you little delimma.

 

as long as you don't smoke alot at once

 

research Hemp's history and you'll know why it's illegal

lobbying efforts many many years ago by really rich people who got even more wealthy with it being made illegal

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Dv4x2pRMamE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I dont understand what you mean by all the ='s

But if your saying weed can kill you, you are totally false. Smoking anything is bad for you but smoking mar1juana has never been directly related to ANY deaths other than maybe developing lung cancer which can happen from smoking anything.

Back in the day scientists did research on this and tested monkeys and found that smoking 900 joints per minute (something ridiculous like that) will kill you... no duh b/c your being suffocated and not getting any oxygen into your body.

 

You didn't read op's post.

Yes, anything in excessive amount may be harmful and even cause death. That's the point. The comparison to Cigarette is a strawman. Weed is harmful in other ways that Cigaretteis not, e.g. impairs someone's judgement. That comparison is funny, IMO, to argue for Weed to be legalized.

 

whether it's harmful or not is a determination people should be allowed to make for themselves

 

That position is too much and is never the case under the law. There is no such a human right. Adopting that position will be saying all narcotics should be legal. I think the law of land right now even forbids one from killing him or herself.

 

all narcotics should be legal

 

The needless result would be more dead people. Unfettered access to opiates such as Vicodin without being monitored by a doctor would result in tragedy.

 

Hmm, but narcotics also have devastating effects to people related to the users of narcotics and the society in general.

Will you leagalize assisted killing to end another's pain? Just curious.

 

And I'm sure Commodore believes this for food, right? Raw milk ftw.

 

While opium is different from weed, here is a snippet about China's downfall relating to opium.

Although opium was used in China for centuries, it was not until the opening of the tea trade to Dutch and British merchants that China was able to import large quantities of the drug. By the early nineteenth century opium was the principal product that the English East India Company traded in China and opium addiction was becoming a widespread social problem

 

Because people would know better than scientists. Good call.

 

You are like John Stossel on crack.

 

yes, although the intent would need to be explicit and unambiguous (DNR, etc.)