Stop, Think, Legalize There are times when social networks are quite frustrating. I ran into this recently when I stumbled upon a forum on facebook discussing the legalization of marijuana. I spent about an hour reading through the entire thread and picking out the points of all opponents of legalization. Once the onerous task was complete, I formulated a response based on mostly scientific or credible sources, posted this as an invitation to intelligent debate, and waited. Predictably, no one took me up on the offer and none of the participants who previously had been so eager to argue were willing to address any of my points. I honestly was seeking a well reasoned and relatively informed debate on the topic so I thought perhaps reposting and targeting a more general audience could produce this desirable result. With that in mind, it is difficult enough to sort through the propaganda (from both sides) so if you wish to respond to this, it would be preferable if you specified a point, and provided links to scientific journal articles (ideally) 1. Prohibition of substances for personal use has always been a bad idea. Perhaps a quote might lend some historical perspective, "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded" Abraham Lincoln. The world is full of substances that are unquestionably harmful, however there are two reasons why legislative restrictions are not a suitable answer: a) the human and economic costs in terms of of crime and prisons, inner city deterioration, the spread of AIDS, and terrorism that result from the illegal status of substances outweigh what it would cost to legalize drugs (see here http://www.jstor.org/view/08953309/di980585/98p027 7q/0 and here http://economics.ca/2005/papers/0587.pdf) b) I have to agree with Mr. Lincoln and the libertarians on this point, the government has no place legislating morality to an individual user. 2. Out of the possible illegal substances, and when compared to alcohol and cigarettes, marijuana is relatively benign. If smoked with a vaporizer, tar and other emissions are reduced essentially to nothing and a smokeless delivery system is created (see here http://www.vaporizing.info/vaporizing%20docs/Canna bis%20Vaporizer%20Efficiency%20Report.pdf and here http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/f ull/6100200a.html). That doesn't even consider methods of consumption through baked goods. Marijuana, when used properly, is not carcinogenic. 3. All studies done so far involving schizophrenia and marijuana have only been cohort or correlational studies. Although someone incorrectly stated earlier that science can't show causation (it can), this requires a randomized experimental setup where participants are preassigned randomly into say smoking and non-smoking groups. This hasn't happened for ethical and legal reasons but if you can provide a link to such a study I'd be happy to examine it. Because of confounding variables, correlational studies are useful, but cannot conclusively show anything and at times turn out to conceal the true cause. For instance, if I followed a group of people in a town with a nuclear reactor, I might find a direct correlation between lack of intelligence and cancer. Is this because stupidity causes cancer? Not necessarily, the less educated and well off (not actually stupider but would score lower on IQ tests) simply ended up working at the nuclear reactor. 4. There is some evidence suggesting THC may suppress proliferation and growth of cancer cells (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/mrmc/20 05/00000005/00000010/art00006). This has been discovered by several researchers over the years but funding is quickly cut, in the first instance (1974) the Bush and Reagan administrations facilitated the destruction of all the research work involved (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2001/ 22.html). New research is being done and with a change in administrations may actually come to fruition and into the eye of the public. 5. From the brown university's health services website "It is virtually impossible to overdose from marijuana, which sets it apart from most drugs." (http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Serv ices/Health_Education/atod/marijuana.htm). If you disagree, please provide links to studies or sources showing otherwise. Conclusion -- I know open-minded debate is difficult but as a scientist in training it's what I strive for. Entering college I held the belief that those who drank and smoke were immoral people and that these acts were wrong. Although politically I'd now be accused of flip-flopping, the most admirable quality of a scientific mind is the flexibility to change your views when presented with sufficient evidence. I'm sorry if you've had any bad personal experiences with THC whether it be yourself or a friend, but the fact of the matter is many adults responsibly enjoy marijuana use in much the same way they do alcohol. It's 2007 and it's a shame we're still spoon fed essentially the same nonsense Reefer Madness showed us in 1936. My neighbors inability to smoke or drink responsibly, should have no bearing on my liberties and rights and I suggest we focus on fixing some of the many other failings of our government.