61 Arguments in Support of Cannabis Law Reform

[champion]

• 1 Arguments For and Against Cannabis Law Reform
• • 1.1 Arguments for
    • 1.1.1 Prohibition Doesn't Work
    • 1.1.2 The Market Needs to be Regulated
    • 1.1.3 Freedom
    • 1.1.4 God Put Cannabis Here
    • 1.1.5 Cannabis is a Religious and Spiritual Sacrament
    • 1.1.6 Cannabis is an Established Crop I
    • 1.1.7 Cannabis is an Established Crop II
    • 1.1.8 Effectiveness of the Police
    • 1.1.9 Effectiveness of the Prisons
    • 1.1.10 The Effect on Respect for the Law and for the Police
    • 1.1.11 The Punishment Does Not Fit the Crime
    • 1.1.12 The Effect of Criminal Records is Disproportionate
    • 1.1.13 It is an Alternative to Booze
    • 1.1.14 Other Legal Drugs Have an Acceptable Level of Harm Which is Higher than that of Cannabis
    • 1.1.15 An Ethnic Rights Perspective I
    • 1.1.16 An Ethnic Rights Perspective II
    • 1.1.17 Cannabis Suits Some People Better than Alcohol Does
    • 1.1.18 A Youth Perspective
    • 1.1.19 A Baby Boomer Perspective
    • 1.1.20 The Economic Future Will be Based on Innovation and Creativity
    • 1.1.21 Prohibition Helps the Gangs and Other Criminals
    • 1.1.22 Prohibition Creates and Protects Drug Cartels
    • 1.1.23 Cannabis Prohibition Allows Terrorists to Fund Themselves
    • 1.1.24 Cannabis is a Medicine
    • 1.1.25 Cannabis is a Tool for Personal Growth
    • 1.1.26 Quality Control
    • 1.1.27 It is a Colossal Waste of Money
    • 1.1.28 The Effect on Social Cohesion
    • 1.1.29 The War on Drugs is a War by Governments on Their Own People
    • 1.1.30 Cannabis Prohibition Corrupts the Youth
    • 1.1.31 Cannabis Prohibition Destroys Families
  • 1.2 Arguments against
    • 1.2.1 Prohibition is the Common Thread
    • 1.2.2 Cannabis is a Gateway Drug
    • 1.2.3 People Would Use More Cannabis if it Was Legal
    • 1.2.4 Legalisation Would Mean Young People Have Access to Cannabis
    • 1.2.5 Prohibition Keeps Prices Higher, Thus Reducing Demand for Cannabis
    • 1.2.6 Cannabis Law Reform Would Invite Criminal Gangs to Operate in this Country
    • 1.2.7 Cannabis Taxation Would Create a Huge Black Market for Cannabis
    • 1.2.8 Cannabis Use is Harmful
    • 1.2.9 A High Proportion of People With Substance Abuse Disorders Smoke Cannabis
    • 1.2.10 Cannabis Makes You Paranoid
    • 1.2.11 Cannabis is Addictive
    • 1.2.12 Cannabis is Cut With Other Drugs
    • 1.2.13 Cannabis Causes Schizophrenia
    • 1.2.14 We Don't Want to Send the Wrong Message to the Youth
    • 1.2.15 Cannabis Makes People Impotent
    • 1.2.16 Cannabis Turns People into Unemployed Losers
    • 1.2.17 Once People Get into Cannabis, They Get into Crime
    • 1.2.18 Cannabis is Much Stronger Than It Used to Be, and Therefore More Dangerous
    • 1.2.19 People Shouldn't Have to Pay for Cannabis Users' Healthcare
    • 1.2.20 Cannabis Use Must Be Discouraged for the Good of Society
    • 1.2.21 The Majority Does Not Want Cannabis Law Reform
    • 1.2.22 I Know Someone Who Smoked Cannabis and Went Crazy
    • 1.2.23 If It Ain't Broke, Why Fix It?
    • 1.2.24 The Criminal Justice System is a Path to Treatment
    • 1.2.25 Cannabis Law Reform Would Weaken Efforts to Combat Drugged Driving
    • 1.2.26 We Don't Want People Coming to Work Stoned
    • 1.2.27 Drugs Are Bad, Mmmmmkay?
    • 1.2.28 On Balance, Prohibition is Better
    • 1.2.29 The Moral Argument
    • 1.2.30 The Ultimate Counterargument
• 2 A Sensible Proposal
• 3 Other articles

Arguments For and Against Cannabis Law Reform

Arguments for

Prohibition Doesn't Work

Essentially, all arguments for cannabis law reform are a form of this argument. Even if an activist cannot conclusively demonstrate that a certain position on the legalisation spectrum is superior (and, to be fair, it is hard to use real-world examples), it can always be claimed that cannabis prohibition has failed to achieve any sensible objective.

The key tactic to use here is to examine the claims that prohibitionists make and to demolish them one after the other. Usually, a person in favour of prohibition will claim that it is intended to help one or more particular groups of people, and because of this the best counterargument is to show that it does not.

Cannabis prohibitionists make a myriad of claims as to the supposed benefits of their policy. Although this attack from a hundred directions has shown itself to be historically effective at swaying the balance of public support, it does provide the activist with considerable ammunition with which to destroy their case. It means that the activist can attack where the prohibitionists are weakest. Despite this, it is advisable for the activist to go for full spectrum dominance of the cannabis issue. The truth is that there isn't a single argument that can be made for cannabis prohibition that cannot be countered to some degree.

It is important to note here that a majority of the arguments put forward in favour of cannabis prohibition will, paradoxically, point to harms only caused by cannabis use under a system of prohibition.

The Market Needs to be Regulated

Cannabis prohibitionists spin an image of the cannabis industry being kept in check by the benevolent and omnipresent eye of law enforcement. The truth is that the cannabis industry is closer to anarchy than most other industries of its size (some arguments below will expand on this point). There is no quality control, there is no tax revenue, and there is no way of knowing what the actual effects of cannabis use are.

Once the public becomes aware of the level of chaos within the cannabis industry, few of them will disagree that the market needs to be regulated. Should a cannabis law reform activist decide that the words “legalise” or “decriminalise” carry too much stigma, they can use the word “regulate.”

People are naturally afraid of chaos and for this reason the word “regulate” will appeal strongly to them. The converse is also true. Sometimes a problem can be blamed on cannabis prohibition, but other times it is better to blame it on an “unregulated cannabis market.” Using phrases like this will also legitimise the cannabis law reform effort by framing the problem in a mainstream vocabulary. Calling for a regulated cannabis market also pre-empts one of the prohibitionists' most emotive arguments: that cannabis users are irresponsible and enacting cannabis law reform would be negligence on the part of the government. If the problem is the unregulated cannabis market, then the government has the responsibility to introduce regulation.

This point is actually so good that it can be used to recover from almost any position, and will work on almost anyone no matter how closed-minded. No matter how extreme the social effects cannabis is accused of having, a case can be made for regulation being a better approach...

* * *

Hope you find them useful.