Wait, so you're now arguing regulations are ineffective at controlling marijuana use, or would be were it legal.
...how does it not follow, then, that they're ineffective at regulating marijuana use now? Outlawing something is a form of regulation, too. By making their use *less* regulated, you should have a higher chance of making what regulation you *do* keep more effective, because the scope of the regulation is more narrow.
"Why should it be legalized" is not the question to ask. The question is why *shouldn't* it. Government exists as a vehicle to serve the people, which means that it ultimately is subservient to the people. The people do not go ask government for permission to do something; government asks the people for permission to do something. That's the foundational basis of any free society. Government asks permission to regulate; people agree that some things should be regulated, and so laws are created. That's how this thing should work.
So no, I don't have to provide a reason for legalizing marijuana. It is the onus of the side seeking regulation to provide reason to regulate.
So with regard to anything from arsenic to bazookas to marijuana, the question is the same: Why should we regulate them? Personally, I think bazookas and other such weapons aren't the same as drugs. The logic from before holds, but I can't really see a good use anyone would have for buying and selling bazookas... It's almost necessarily the case that bazookas would be used to break other laws, laws against murder or vandalism or treason, so there's obviously a very good case for outlawing them. I don't see how that holds for drugs.
"Again, as you say, you miss the point.
Culture does not simply shape moral values.
Culture exists apart from moral values. Culture and morality are not inextricably linked items. Culture also works oppositely to morality.
...
Secondly, alcohol is not respected by the law because of morality. America tried to use morality to ban it in the prohibition years. Do they need teach this stuff in American schools? Why are potheads using such basic and round-in-circles arguments?"
I didn't make that argument, nor am I a pothead, but okay. The fact is that I can't give you an answer with a remote sense of depth because you're saying incredibly superficial things like "Culture shapes laws" without explaining HOW it's the case that cultural stimuli led to the banning of marijuana but the legalization of alcohol or WHY that SHOULD BE the case. I've asked for both repeatedly and gotten no concrete answers; of course I can't give you a deeper answer.
"Firstly, I would not agree with you that gun use in America is moral."
I wouldn't argue it's as a whole moral or immoral. There are stories of gang shootings and stories of women killing home invaders and preventing their being raped and murdered. The former are more prevalent; that fact, in my mind, does not justify preventing the latter.
In fact, I steadfastly refuse to judge them as moral or immoral: the individual circumstances decide that, not some sweeping statement about their use as a whole. But I believe it's the individual circumstances that mandate their legalization - as you cannot judge whether gun use in general is moral or immoral, you consequently cannot argue for either extreme. You can't argue for banning them, because they can do good:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/okla-mom-shoots-intruder-no-charges_n_1186096.html
Nor can you argue for unfettered legalization with no consequences for shooting people, because that can be bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit
Thus, you find a middle ground that allows for discrimination of cases based on specific circumstances. That's legalization of the item, with penalties for certain uses of the items which are wrong.
Public press World game still needs 2 players
.
)
)
)
)