yes because you can practically take any pills now and turn them into drugs so why not allow marijuana to become legal too?

no because i dont think anyone should be under the influence of drugs.

for medical purposes only because theyre may be something about it that could help cure something, who knows?

How many others have noticed the change in the beer ads on the radio & on TV?

They used to say, "Have a designated driver."

Now they say merely, "Don't drive drunk."

Are the ads giving drivers "permission" to drink before doing so?

Do the beer companies, such as the one from which Cindy McCain drew her vast fortune, plan on installing Breathalyzers in taverns?

I voted no. But not for the reasons usually given: gateway drug, makes people do bad things, etc. etc. I voted no because society doesn't need anymore drains on the system. I can only speak for Alaska but I imagine it holds true in most places, pot smokers are a drain on those who don't smoke pot. They can't get a decent job, in Alaska even McDonalds does drug screening, so most end up collecting wellfare or worse to support themselves. There are people out there that don't use pot simply because its illegal, I don't want to add them to the people that I have to carry through my taxes. I can also tell you that if pot was legalized none of the companies I know of would remove it from the list of disqualifying drugs they test for.

Happy Halloween,
Lurch

ETA: I don't buy the medical use argument either. What few medical uses it has are far outweighed by its hazards and we have too many alternatives to make it worth it.

I used to think drugs were the evil of the world, but the reality is making it "look" bad is what makes people want to do drugs. For example, when alcohol was illegal many places opened up around the country selling the stuff and as a result gangs got filthy rich, there was massive corruption and crime went up, but when it was legalized again, it went down and also down went the "major" popularity it had. Also, I have searched and searched but there is only 1 case that I know of that in which a person has had an overdose of MJ and died, while there are tons of known incidents involving alcohol. IMO, legalizing MJ would probably benefit society more than it being illegal, simply because you'd get rid of the crime related with it, you'd be able to regulate it and you'd have less people, especially youngsters from wanting to "try it out."

As to whether "we" should legalize marijuana or any other drug:

Ok, define "we." The federal government can only exercise those powers delegated to it via the Constitution, with the rest remained to the states and their people RESPECTIVELY; and I don't see anything in the Constitution about drugs. In fact if you recall, they needed an Amendment to ban BOOZE, so there's no reason that they should be able to ban any other similar category of substance with a mere statute; rather, such power is entirely reserved under the 10th Amendment, to the governments and people of the individual STATES.

Therefore the federal government simply usurped the power to regulate drugs-- and the Supreme Court concurred, trumping up some absurd perversion vis-a-vis the so-called "necessary and proper commerce clause" etc; it doesn't matter HOW they did it, since their word is FINAL, their authority absolute as long as the government will enforce it (and they never turn down power).

It's no secret that an unchecked power is a slippery slope of endless attrition, expanding its powers and encroaching on freedoms-- until the end of freedom comes not with a shout but a whisper; and this is what the federal government is doing, seeping like a rising tide of water through every crevice in the bulwark of checks against it, until freedom drowns entirely.

Anyone who thinks the Constitution foolproof, is proof of a fool; Madison stated explicitly in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions, that "If the deliberate exercise of dangerous powers, palpably withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself, as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it, there would be an end to all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognized under all the state constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared.... However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."

So in conclusion, the question is one of regulatory power; I would rather legalize marijuana, than outlaw freedom.
If it's going to be outlawed, it must be by STATE statute-- NOT federal; the ONLY way the federal government can outlaw it, is by AMENDMENT-- and that worked SO well with Prohibition.

__________________
" A wise man’s heart is at his right hand, But a fool’s heart at his left." King Solomon, Ecclesiates: 10:2

Constitutionally, it's up to the states... but then, so is abortion, so it's tit for tat.