Why is pot illegal?

Give me one good reason.

Because Harry J. Anslinger said that Mexicans and Niggers use it and are incapable of handling their desires once they're under its effects.

I said good reason, not actual reason.

theres no good reason. the real reason its illegal is because its not a commodity the government can tax since everone can grow it easily.

You could easily grow vegetables in a garden yourself, yet that is also taxed.

If you go to the grocery store and buy vegetables, you don't pay tax.

>>3

It's possible that prolonged use causes psychosis in limited individuals (and possibly individuals which already had underlying susceptibility to psychosis).

To be frank, there aren't any good reasons. Instead, there are social conventions that people are paying homage to when they push for harder legislation against drugs and that is from America's Puritan heritage.

Just as John Harvey Kellogg popularized the circumcision to prevent masturbation, Harry J. Anslinger and the racial tensions of the early 20th Century to counteract prohibition and illicit drug use such as cocaine became a religious conviction to reject "sin and corruption."

And so, with Nancy Reagan, it is still in the 21st Century impermissible to use drugs that the society believes to be wrong.

These are not absolute truths, but instead moral and ethical truths, which is strange being that Hindus use the substance for relations to the divine.

I don't think you'll get an answer anon, but consider how public opinions are formed and understand that these convictions of the people while misplaced as they may be are what holds as social convention.

If you want to read more about the subject of America's political tradition in Puritanism, I suggest James Morone's "Hellfire Nation."

http://www.amazon.com/Hellfire-Nation-Politics-American-History/dp/0300094841

It's a lulzfest academic book on religious American politics ranging from the censoring of medical texts to the creation of the DEA.

Whether it is or not, that isn't a good reason. I know that it's completely unjust that it's illegal, just seeing if someone thinks it is.

Hellfire Nation? I'll look it up

go watch the documentary on goolge video narrated by woody harrelson.

What, Grass? I've already seen that.

I don't care why it's illegal, I just wanted to see if anyone would try to justify it's illegality. Thought it'd be interesting.

as a boy in highschool i can say that weed is used to escape the shitty life i live







it actually just makes me more depressed
that's what everyone uses it for anyways

That had nothing to do with anything.

You know that it's morally wrong because it's illegal. Since it's morally wrong, it should therefore be illegal.

So you're saying that just because something is illegal it's wrong? No matter what? I guess we should all be sheep and have no opinion that contradicts law.

>>16
You're being trolled.

Yah, I just wanted to say that.

It's a demonstration of circular logic, which anyone who isn't a complete idiot would immediately recognize. It's not a real troll.

its illegal cause you buy up all the oreos.

Because you touch yourself at night.

Too much is harmful to your health

Marijuana isn't illegal for any good reason whatsoever.  The outlawing of it started in the Hearst era and continues to this day on pure cultural inertia.

Logically nicotine should be more illegal than marijuana.

gateway drug

It's a gateway drug if you have no self control in the first place.

Marijuana is illegal now because FDR put activist left-wing judges on the Supreme Court who broadly interpreted the commerce clause, paving the way for the Feds to be able to regulate or ban marijuana even if you don't even engage in ... commerce with it.

>>26
Only because they have the incentive to enter the black market as a consumer. If marijuana were not illegal people would not go to calibre people who deal whores, ice and stolen goods.

because liberals like to smoke it, the general public won't give liberals something that liberals like because it must be bad because liberals

actually REFINED SUGAR is a gateway drug and should be banned.

ADD is indirectly caused by too much sugar consumption.

and it is not a food. sorry, only when in a real food is it food, like fruit.

>>27

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 is a decent ruling considering the times but it's only been RECENTLY used toward the end you mention.

Originally, they required a License which required presenting the marijuana to the feds to get the License which would make the illegal act legal. This was overturned in Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 and it was only until recently they used the ICC (Interstate Commerce Clause) to control drug use.

This is why the Federal Government prosecutes and goes after sellers/growers in California and states who will not prosecute (as in the case of medical marijuana).

INTERNET LAWYER --- AWAY

>>30

refined sugar is in real food, just mixed with other shit.

>>31
Ok... and that's the justification given by the courts for keeping it illegal - that broad interpretation of Federal power that was created by FDR's activist left-wing judges. 

I also think it is kindof interesting that various environmentalist groups on the left sided with the government in these cases to expand Federal power, even against marijuana patients, because they knew if the court ruled in favor of the marijuana patients, it would set a precedent that would very possibly restrain Federal power enough prevent them from shoving their environmental agenda down the throat of the American people through use of the Federal Government. 

>>33
obviously they weren't so liberal as to rule the shit legal, smart ass

>>34

They were liberal in a different way, and most of them did what FDR told them to do because they were afraid of his "Court Packing Plan" which would add a justice for each justice that exceeded the age of 64, so FDR could appoint and line the court for people who were supportive of his New Deal.

Most of the judges at the time FDR took office were extremely laissez faire and rivaled the libertarianism that you see on 4chan. They didn't have a problem with child labor or really anything, they thought businesses of the early 20th Century during the Progressive Era were GOOD and only GOOD for America. FDR disagreed with this and thought there should be some state policies which help the poor and disadvantaged workers -- lest a Communist rebellion come to the United States.

FDR defused the situation and so he worked on the legislation, the problem however was that these justices didn't want to go along with his plan and reflected the interests of business. FDR said to them -- "hey look you dumbfucks, you're old and decrepit and reflect the old elite society of ruling class and I'm gonna add a member of the court to influence the vote for each one of you shitheads that turns 65" and they got scared and left and made decisions for statist-pro worker policy.

It wasn't until Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 came along to get business pissed off at the Government. But what Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 tried to do was stabilize the economy and the prices of commodities that needed buyers, such as wheat as in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111.

Now here's where we are at in the thread... CONSERVATIVE REHNQUIST COURT used Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 in their decision of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 where they took the argument of Wickard and applied it to states that WOULD NOT PROSECUTE MARIJUANA RELATED OFFENSES. The STUPID REHNQUIST/SCALIA/THOMAS FUCKING SHITHEADS MADE THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT.

The United States Government can control and regulate from a FEDERAL LEVEL to a STATE LEVEL the growth of Marijuana because by Lopez growing Marijuana he IMPACTED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF MARIJUANA BY AFFECTING THE PRICE.

Well, any dipshit out of US Public Education would know it was illegal to grow marijuana in the first place so who the fuck cares about growing it?

CONSERVATIVE REHNQUIST COURT. THATS WHO. NOT FDR's JUDGES LIKE HUGO BLACK.

I REST MY CASE AS AN INTERNET LAWYER TRAINED IN INTERNET LAW.

>>35

correcting myself, the age was 70.

Oh no, an argument that has actual premises, and some of them may even be true! What shall anonymous and redcream do?

if you like it go home and die. it destroyed my cousin life. try it fine, but stay on it and your nothing.

how is it right to try it but not continue using it? if you shouldn't stay on it, you shouldn't try it. if it's alright once, it's alright more than once. which is it?

The base problem here is that the government thinks it can deny the people the right to grow a plant and consume it personally.  No amount of SCOTUS blather by clearly biased judges can overrule that basic fact.

At any rate, when the SCOTUS said that it's perfectly fine for a municipality to take land by eminent domain for "economic development" (i.e. take your land and give it to another person or corporation), the SCOTUS demonstrated it has no actual authority over US citizens and it should be disbanded or re-formed.