I would vote "yes".

I would vote to legalize it, or at the very least decriminalize it.

Yes, I agree. Putting the same restrictions on it as are on booze I believe would be ideal. is that even possible, though, with all the home grow ops?

I wouldn't vote for anything until I saw the whole package. And there is not the slightest change would even think about it, let alone putting together a package. In fact, your chances of getting any party to stick its neck out on that one are nil.

If you want ot make a change, it would probably be easier to begin with a campaign to set up suitable treatment centres. It might well be possible to get majority support for that. Once that system is in place, it MIGHT be possible to go further though, frankly, I cannot imagine any Canadian government making the sale of marijuana legal when we have a common border with the US.  With a treatment system in place, though, you might be able to round up support for decriminalization.

I would be in soft opposition to it. I fully support recognizing that marijuana is a schedule 2 drug, NOT a schedule 1 as it's legally classified now. In other words I support medical use of marijuana. I know the "war on drugs" has been a profound failure in many ways and while I know a new approch is needed I don't think legalization is the best answer and decriminalization is far worse. Obviously there is no reason for sentences for marijuana to be nearly as heavy as those for cocaine and heroin but I'd like to retain a little something for deterence. Having said all that if I was in a state where it became legal there would be no weeping and gnashing of teeth on my part. I'd doubt the results would be good but hope for the best anyway. Part of me would like to see it happen purely as an experiment but the point is moot, it would still be against federal law and that always trumps state law.

Legalize it, regulate it and tax it. 

The only reason it isn't legal (cuz, it wasn't criminalized until the mid 1900s)is because the hemp plant had to be demonized for empire builders like DuPont(R) to make More Money.

Besides, California (and all governments, as it will soon be painfully obvious) need the tax revenue.  Taxing cigarettes isn't a growth area, but expanding this to include pot will certainly be worth the extra legislation.

If it was to be treated like booze then I woudl like to see a road side breathalyzer test developed so that all those who are stoned and driving get pulled over just like drunks

There are already tests that are used for people driving under the influence of drugs, that are based on sobriety rather than substance content in the blood. People do get pulled over and charged for being under the influence of drugs. I doubt there would be significantly more cases if pot were legalized. After all, anyone who wants pot can get it now without difficulty, and those who are irresponsible enough to drive under the influence will continue to do so until caught, regardless of the legality of the substance.

I don't think marijuana use should be a criminal act... so depending on how it's worded, I could theoretically get behind decriminalization.  But to make it freely available (with restrictions and taxes), similar to cigarettes and alcohol?  I don't think I can support that.

Marijuana is considered by many to be a harmless drug.  Yet, I know three people very close to me (though completely separate from each other), who have each either had their lives utterly destroyed or almost ended due to "harmless" marijuana.  Harder drugs were not involved in any of these situations.  It was only marijuana.  It has nearly destroyed one life, nearly ended a second life, and continues to utterly destroy the life of the third person.  If things don't change soon, marijuana will take his life.

You could say that these situations are similar to those who get hooked on alcohol, but it's not the same to me.

Edited to add:

I realise it must seem a bit paradoxical that I think use should not be considered a criminal act, yet I go onto speak of how use has destroyed three lives -- I don't think it should be criminal because (1) many users are experimental users and should not have a criminal record for being impetuous, and (2) for the users that are utterly addicted, they have an addiction and are usually unable to help themselves -- a criminal record will not help.

Edited again to add:

Marijuana for legitimate medical use is an entirely different scenario, just so I'm clear about that.

I accept that they are similar.  And I think it's obvious that my opinions are coloured by personal experience and may not be grounded in solid logic.

Yep. Then after some discussion (and laughter), we could all head on over to the Snacks and Munchies thread.

I just think it's worth noting that this is one of the most reasoned self-assessments I've seen anywhere on the cafe.

There's a missing factor in these posts.

It's true that prohibition did not stop alcohol. But -

Legalizing alcohol meant that its use soared. The same would happen with marijuana.

Decriminializing sounds useful. Legalizing sounds counter-productive.

The problems with polls in California is that they only offer two choices when there are many ways to tackle the problem. I'm not in favor of decrminalization (Legalization), but I'm also not in favor of supply-side reduction (War on Drugs). I propose the way they do it in most of Europe including the Netherlands, which is tolerance (everyone can have a certain amount for his/her own consumption) combined with demand-side reduction (drug prevention, education, rehabs). However I support medical marijuana and the medical use of drugs in general and that's what I believe. Drugs are medicine and medicine shouldn't be abused for recreational use.

I also want to point out that legalization will obviously favor pharma and tobacco companies. They will definitely try to find a way to produce it synthetically or reduce the quality and add other substances so that you don't notice it. Not to mention that they will add substances that would increase/cause addiction. If you think they will legalize it so that you can grow it in your backyard, you are on the wrong track.

People in opposition to prohibition like to show alcohol as an example. But I really think that alcohol is by far the worst example that you can use. More people died of alcohol-induced causes than from all other illicit drugs combined.

I never claimed it was.  My main argument in these threads is against the hypocrisy of our laws about, and attitudes toward, drugs.

Re: alcohol, in a sense we already do have decriminalization without legalization.  Alcohol is not a fully legal substance - it has laws restricting its production, possession, sale and consumption.

Seems to me that there are circumstances other than marijuana use at work in this case. Is there a history of social dislocation or mental illness, for example.

Forty years ago government was speaking to youth about illicit drugs. Students in puberty were warned about the wasting consequences of drug use. Some of us discovered that they were telling only part of the story. Did you, who shared this experience with some of us fifty/sixty somethings, hear about the use of psycho-active substances among indigenous peoples at the four corners of the great circle?

What would follow where a person of creative spirit took up a guitar and practiced the improvement of basic skills? We may ask of the creative spirit who practices with palette or pen to represent emerging points of view. Practice, the old adage has it, makes perfect.

What will we make then of the tens of thousands among us who are well practiced in the gifts of the pipe? Will we welcome them as bringers of good medicine?

Remember.... In the late sixties some of us were reading Carlos Castaneda, we were eating psychoactive plants and we listened to rock and roll. We now, each and all, make present a creative influence; a maturing alternate consciousness. We are doctors, educators, scientists, judges; persons at all stages of awareness and achievement. We have common the ultimate refusal of coercion; refusing the justifications of those who profit much by resort to the strategies of war. Our preference has been for quiet obscurity. 

Another conversation in this place addresses the meaning and implication of words. Are they not seeds sown? Some falling in this kind of ground, and some in that?

I am happily married twenty-five years. I maintain a mortgage. I drive a car. I operate a gas furnace in my home. I manage a bank account. I am a parent with two grown children. I am a welcome guest in the homes of seniors in all parts of the country. I serve as a valued partner in numerous community and social associations and organizations. I include white sugar in my diet. I smoke a home grown herb in a small African pipe. Each of these relationships with the world around me is governed by the character formed in me by the experience and education of my living in these times and this place.

No law stands superior to the divine favour given in tokens and gifts to those venturing beyond the pale to walk along the opening way. The pipe is included with the book and all other tokens of divinity given in the stories of encountered peoples of all places and times.

How does that make decriminalization the best option. That's just throwing your hands up and walking away, hoping for the best. With legalization there is at least an attempt at reasonable control. With alcohol that means, among other things, that you're sure it's a certain quantity and quality of alcohol as opposed to rot-gut, moonshine, or absinth. It means it's not contaminated or anything like that and there is at least an attempt to enforce age limits. Legalization is not perfect but honestly decriminalization is worst case scenario.

I am curious. Are you equating fascism with anarchism? If yes, how do you make the connection.

Yes. Legalize it, control it, and put millions of criminals out of work.

We expect schools to accomplish far too much. They have been teaching the dangers of drinking for several generations, but with each generation still drinking more than the one before it. The school system has had many responsibilities shoved on to it, so many that it has difficulty doing its basic work. In any case, children spend more time learning in their homes and neighbourhoods, and then workplaces. Few of those are likely to do much of a job of educating about drug use.

Well it would go from rivaling gangs to rivaling businesses.

No worse than mcdonalds.

lets not forget that chronic users are chronic users.  they'll find a way no matter what laws youve got to prevent it.

And criminals will find a way to make money illegally, and commonly with violence. Montreal was ridden with mob violence when I was a kid. I was friends with some of their kids. And that was when nobody had ever heard of marijuana.

Somebody wanted mobsters associated with alcohol? Well, Sam Bronfman and Joe Kennedy spring to mind.  Sam built Canadian distilleries out of making bootleg liquor in the 20s, then went legit with Canadian distilleries, and ran it over the border to people like Joe Kennedy - until the US ended prohibition.   In the eighties, some mobster acquaintances of mine got caught running a large, commercial winery with grapes that, for some reason, were illegal.

Forget the idea that legalizing anything will put gangsters out of business. The beginning of crime is people who are criminals. It does not begin with any product.  Can we even guess how big the protection racket is? The international prostitution business?  The demand for drugs we cannot possibly legalize - like cocaine?

The beginning is also because of people who will pay for what they want. Just because they want it. And they'll cover their role by inventing a philosophy of rights and freedom.