Well, I use pot recreationally, have done for just that little bit longer than I've been our of the Borg... I suppose a case of turn on, tune in, walk away, but it actually had more to do with a dreadful marriaige and a crazy cult.
I love the way people point out that smoking is stupid. Oh no, I didn't know that! Wow! Thanks, you've opened up my eyes. Bungee jumping is stupid, gambling is stupid, George W Bush is REALLY stupid, most of our lives are pretty stupid. It being stupid has nothing to do with anything really.
Tobacco and alcohol are government sanctioned forms of stupidity (that the government makes loads of money on). Cannabis happens not to be. The reasons are historical and a little dull, although there is a quite interesting conspiracy theory regarding cannabis being criminalised (involving hemp paper vs. wood paper, share-croppers who could crop hemp vs. the big landowners who could crop trees, and simple non-polluting processing of hemp pulp vs. expensive patent controlled polluting processing of wood pulp).
Whatever; as has been pointed out, drunk people are far more of a liability to themselves and others than stoned people. Nicotine is highly addictive and is probably (based on anecdotal evidence as hard research on the carciongenic nature of cannabis is hard to find) several times more dangerous. Both tobacco and nicotine take thousands of lives each year.
Why aren't we asking whether alcohol and tobacco should be criminalised? It makes more sense than the tired old chestnut of 'should pot be legal?'.
Be that as it may, here in Holand where I now live (I'm a Brit), pot IS legal. This has lead to the breakdown of society and peoples' brains liquidising and running out of their noses. Well, I don't think I need to tell anyone that that was irony, do I...?
Pot's been 'legal' (it's possesion and use is decriminalised, it's sale through licenced outlets is approved, you can grow a square meter for personal use, but selling or growing it un-licenced will still get you busted) here for ages.
If you're over 18 you can buy it in a 'Coffee Shop'. It costs US$10 or £7 for a 1/16th oz (1.75g) of (compared to most British pot) very high grade grass. The Coffee Shops have menus. Northern Lights or Super Skunk, or perhaps some Durban Poison? Or if you like resin, well, Marroc, Nepal, Afghani, etc...
Research I did whilst at University showed that English teenagers are more likely to be regular pot smokers (35%) than Dutch teenagers (24%), although more Dutch teenagers try it (78%) than English teenagers (65%). Those are the figures from my memeory, they might be a bit off, but not much.
Pot smoking is just not big or clever to Dutch teenagers. It's something their Dad and Mum might do. Use does NOT statistically lead to hard drug use... in fact, in Holland, every year the average age of registered hard-drug users goes up, as young people don't get to mix with them and get sucked in, as they go to a coffee shop (with a rigid ban on hard drugs) if they want pot. In the USA and the UK I believe the average age of hard drug users hovers around the same level, as soft-drug users are forced to mix with suppliers who will try to sell them hard drugs with a higher profit margin.
The above figures show (and the same would be true for the 'States or the Antipodes) that criminalising drugs does NOTHING, other than make people criminals and hard drug users. It doesn't affect the rate of usage or the availability, and can in fact increase the rate of usage.
The same was found to be true when alcohol was under prohibition. I believe usage went UP in the US in the period it was under ban.
It also, as with drugs today, meant that criminals could make huge amounts of money by getting involved in the supply of illegal substances. This lead to violence between law-enforcers and the criminals, and between different gangs of criminals, and the deaths of innocent bystanders.
You might note that I have stopped typing pot and substituted drugs. I do this as others are doing quite nicely documenting what a nice useful substance cannabis (or THC) is, but I feel the question asked is part of a larger issue.
All the research I've seen shows that drug ABUSE (a different thing to drug use USE) is because of internal psychological factors. Environment matters little, as you can get drugs anywhere. If this is the case, then we are always going to have sad little junkies with us.
If that's the case, why not legalise ALL drugs, or at least have a controlled system of supply like they use for pot in Holland?
It would mean that the drugs would be cheap enough to drastically cut crime carried out to finance drug use where the drugs are illegal and therefore expensive. Commercial costs of cocaine and heroin are well below $20/g. Thus you don't have huge numbers of people in jail for using drugs or stealing to get drugs (40% of the US's prison population is in jail for non-violent drug related crime).
It would mean the drugs were clean and unadulterated, and that safe usage could be encouraged. Contrary to poular belief, Heroin doesn't kill if you have clean works and consistantly strong supplies without adulterants. Thus your junkies are happier and healthier.
Also, major drug crime disappears, as drug dealers could not undercut cheap government supplies.
This last factor is possibly the reason why, along with bug-eyed ignorance on the part of many members of the public and pointless moralising ("drugs are wrong!" yeah, whatever...), that politicians in the Western World have not just de-criminalised ALL drugs.
After the repeal of prohibition the Mafia diversified. As drug users are typically a economically disenfranchised under class, the fact that drugs being illegal damages drug users doesn't matter to the government.
They (the government) would rather have the devil they know than the devil they don't, as sure as god didn't make little green apples, if drugs were de-criminlaised, the cartels would diversify.
So instead of sorting the problem, they pour billions into a 'War On Drugs' that has meant that drugs are one of the few things to be more or less completely un-affceted by inflation over the past twenty years.
Way to go.
I point out again this is a logical suggestion to ease the 'drugs problem'.
You might feel that drugs are wrong, but that's not the point I'm making, I'm saying drugs would damage society less if they were controlled, not banned. There will always be sad little junkies, but you can fix things so they don't have to steal your video (VCR) or mug you to get their hit.
Anyone thinking that if you could get Heroin in redi-pack injectors at Superdrug "everyone would become a Heroin addict" is expressing an opinion not supported by the facts. And if it's bad to take drugs, surely it's also bad to let an unjust ineffective system criminalise people and damage society.
Rant over, it's 6pm local, I'm finishing work and going home for a coffee and a nice spliff... my parents would think this BAD, but they have a drink at 6pm!
Each to their own, judge none who do no harm.