You wrote:
...."Ask yourself why do you want it legalized? Isn't it just because YOU enjoy it?"
R: It's because I don't want myself and millions others like me to get arrested for doing no harm.
"To call for such a danger-zone-heading-step you should be responsible and think about the moral, social and health implications that legalization would bring about."
R: Experience in Holland has not had bad implications at all. I'll come back to this.
"Once kids experience a high then they no longer fear the previously unknown would of drug (ab)use and they would be more willing/open to experience different types of high from different substances. I put it to you that because drugs are illegal and socially disgracing at this present moment in time, their use is kept to a minimum."
R: Nonsense. Society already has legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Certainly it is not an unknown world of drug (ab)use to most people, as everyone knows alcohol can be addictive and dangerous.
"Do you want the fear kids have about drugs to vanish and for them to try different highs, where they might (and often do) come across in their trials, something that they get such a kick out (like crack cocaine) of that they want to repeat it again and again and again? i.e. addiction."
R: Again, society's experience with alcohol makes me see no reason why using one drug should cause the use of another. Legal alcohol has not caused a huge rate of use of other drugs. I'm not entirely sure what you're saying about cocaine, but by legalising cannabis, you stop people from having to go to dealers (who want to sell them other more profitable drugs).
"Has anyone done a survey of hard drug users and asked them what was their first drug experience. I would not be surprised in the least if the majority said Cannabis."
R: Then you'd be wrong. They'd say alcohol. The "gateway theory" you refer to has been disproven as far as I'm concerned. When Holland de facto legalised cannabis, hard drug use did not rise. In fact, cannabis use only continued to rise at the same rate of other countries. Cannabis use by youths in Holland is far less than that in the ultra-prohibitionist America.
"If this became legalized where would we draw the line?"
R: Legalising only cannabis will do as far as I'm concerned. I know the argument for other drugs has a point, and I personally haven't made up my mind on that, but certainly Holland has not been forced to legalise hard drugs. The "line" you refer to should be based on the harm caused by the drug, and thusly, cannabis, the "safest psychoactive drug known to exist", to paraphrase DEA Judge Young, should be on the legal side of the "line".
"This is the point. Someone taking a drug 'worse' than cannabis would only have a slim chance of prosecution."
R: Not so. People taking a drug "worse" (I would say cannabis is a lot safer) than alcohol do have a good chance of prosecution. Apply your logic to the current situation, and this would not happen.
"Why fudge the matter. Why?"
R: Why maintain arbitrary laws that say alcohol is alright and cannabis isn't? Why?
"Was the slave trade/use of slaves a rightly thing to do? No."
R: Is arresting people who cause no harm to others and almost no harm to themselves a rightly thing to do? No!
"What if in the future child sexual abuse becomes as common as having a cup of tea. Is it right to legalize that? No." "The argument that "so many people do it" doesn't hold water."
R: The crimes you've mentioned have victims. Cannabis use doesn't.
"What about the work safety aspect of drug use? It is impossible to think straight when your high on cannabis. Haven't we heard some stories about workers that have been involved in serious accidents (even those where deaths occur) involving tube and train drivers etc. who had been under the effects of cannabis?"
R: Same with alcohol, and it's legal. The law is hypocritical, and it must be changed.
"ALL drugs (inc. medicinal ones) are dangerous in the workplace. Look at Henri Paul (Princess Diana's chauffeur). Here legally sanctioned drugs played a part in a death causing accident."
R: So why don't you campaign for the criminalisation of alcohol? Perhaps because you know it's been tried in America, and didn't work. The resulting crime wave tought the world something that should have been applied to cannabis; that banning a reasonably safe drug causes more problems than the drug itself. In the end the American Government was forced to put an end to the problems caused by the black market by allowing alcohol's legal supply again.
"Shouldn't you have a sense of responsibility and sacrifice the 'little thrill' and brief chance to play the casual cool hip person for a while (pref. forever) and get a sense of responsibility for the greater good - not just for your own personal kicks."
R: As I said before, referring to Holland, after cannabis legalisation, use did not increase more than in other countries. Legalising will not bring harm to the "greater good".
"Please think about these issues. Think about it and try and draw up your your own arguments from an anti-legalization perspective for a while. I'm sure that you'll be surprised."
R: I've heard them all before. When looked at objectively, they don't hold.
"I think cannabis and ALL non-medical drugs are disgusting an every front. I cannot let you (those calling for its legalization) increase the risk of my kids being exposed to this brain rotting disease."
R: But you're happy for your kids to meet come in contact with drug dealers if they do decide to try it? You're happy for them to run the risk of a criminal record for committing a victimless crime?
As for your "brain rotting disease", I think it's a bit silly to talk about an almost totally harmless plant like this.
R: Sincerely,
R: Allan Crossman
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/a.crossman