hmm...
Considering all the things I read here, I would deduce that the pro-legalisation people want it legalised because of it being apparently less potent than many other drugs, among them the legally-traded alcohol and tobacco products, as well as a "freedom of choice" understanding, that they should be allowed to take what they want as long as they don't cause negative effects within society, and also the idea that legalising one drug would negate the need of criminal organizations to profit from it.

The con-legalisation on the other hand, want it to stay illegal because of its potential to wreak havoc within the legal, healthcare and educational systems, as well as a clear disgust for the drug and its effects, and also because of the idea that if one is legalised, a person would inadverently advocate the legalisation of another, more potent drug, and that's not good.
It would not "wreck" havoc". My own country has legalized it , and less people use drugs , than the amount of people using drugs in the U.S.A/U.K(in %) .

This paragraph was simply wrote up to summarize the factors that both sides are using to argue with, to get a grip on the debate. No need to argue here, but of course I can argue that statistics aren't consistent, meaning that what works in your country has a small chance of working within others due to a wide range of circumstances (i.e. population size, government factors, etc.). Plus I mentioned "the potential..." meaning that it can or it can't, depending on the circumstances.

My opinion would be no, it shouldn't be legalised, for a few reasons (based on what has been said):

1) It would cause havoc within the healthcare system, for many people would be hospitalized for the indirect effects of the drug (i.e accidents or the use of more potent drugs)
"accidents" ? as in driving? which would be illegal under influence(just like alcohol) this should not be a reason to keep it illegal in the U.K/U.S.A

And yet people drive under the influence. I support criminalization in this area to make it harder for users to find the drug and do activities that would be dangerous in their state of mind, thereby decreasing the risk of accidents happening. (same applies with alcohol and tobacco in the off-chance they might be called into question)
[color=#FFFF00]All legislation does is make it cheaper , while earning the government some money , those who want it , already know how to get it anyway. weed is very easy to grow.
[/color]

, causing heavy strain on the system, which means more money out of the common taxpayer's pocket.
But the war on drugs does the exact same thing(also costs more).
Again , not a reason to keep it illegal

And with the legalization, we now have two things to worry about, the side-effects of the legalization and the war on drugs who still pursue it. Why not eliminate one cost (economical, effort-wise and time-wise) and focus on the other?
What side-effects? their are barely any.
The government should only tax it , nothing else. (and just fine those driving under influence)

In this regard, the users are indeed harming others because of their choice, for if they ever should get hospitalized, they cause unecessary strain on the system,
ading valuable funding away from more important medical situations like cancer research.
And although you can circumvent some of the side-effects (i.e just eating a "brownie" instead of smoking it to prevent any lung diseases), the fact reamains that there are some unpreventable side-effects of the drug, bodily and all, that would inevitably cause strain and leave other people who need medical aid out to dry. And unlike alcohol or tobacco, the weed industry is relatively small, and will not start to efficiently contribute to society until it grows, and the time needed would not be worth it,
as more people consuming the drug would pile up costs, and when the industry finally reaches productive size, it will be too late to counter what it took.The amount of users will barely go up(maybe with like 1%) so it will not cause any more "strain" then it already does.
And just becease it small , doesen't make it worse , small = less users = lower costs(in case of the weed) big = more user = more costs (alcohol)

Again, the statistics would vary, but I concede to your logic; but I still believe the system would suffer some degree of strain, and that affects those who need it the most. And also the inherent health risks still exist, no matter how gradual or small their effects are.
It would not , hell in Portugal the usage of weed went down!
From a economical standpoint : weed should be legalized.
The U.S government is in a huge debt atm , but becease the like to 'control' stuff. It'll never become legal.


2) Legalizing the drug would require an overhaul of the section of the legal system that enforces this matter.
It only requires some law changes , no "overhaul"

"Overhaul" was a wrong word to describe it. What I was implying that this takes away valuable time and effort.
Which would lead to a economic boost.
And by that logic , the government should never change any law.



It would call for an unnecessary poll,
unnecessary? We live in a democracy ffs.
No poll is unnecessary.

What I meant by that is a costly poll that could have been prevented, freeing up more money, time and effort for other means.
They still live in a democracy , then again , America is far from being one of the best democracy's in the world.
The government should just remove all the anti-drug propaganda , and tell the truth abouth the dangers of weed(and other drugs).
Then create a poll.
Meh , I expect to much from the U.S , like them having a decent democracy , but clearly they don't.



a commission be built
for what?

A regulations commission for the legal flow of weed.

That's not needed , legal weed is cheaper than dealer bought weed.

, or lead politicans away from more important matters
lead them away from fighting weed?. yes that makes perfect sense -.-,

No, from the legal process of changing the laws, politicians are then focusing on that than more pressing matters like economic troubles.
Which the would still be doing , some of them foccus way to much on the 'war on drugs'.


all of which society would endure the consequences and extra taxes to pay for all of it. And if this is legalized, it would go along the ranks of the tobacco and alcohol industry, and the three together would cause more damage than ever on society,
Like I said in my previous points : "it would not"

A small increase could go a long way.
not really , most likely it won't increase at all.

and the politicians, seeing the effects, would criminalize it once more, it being the youngest and smallest (and as such the least profitable).
nop , It doesen't happen in most country's where the government made it legal.

Again, circumstances vary; the majority does not always reflect the whole.
Ow sorry , I forgot , the U.S has (Want to be allies? Sometimes I like to pretend I am a princess riding a pony..) politics who actealy spend time on the 'war on drugs'.

3) Criminal organizations would indeed lose profits from illegal activites associated with it, but they could simply move onto another trade, or ply their trade legally, either way, it negates the losses and keeps the money flowing. And some say that the police would be somewhat at ease when this is legalised, but this is not the case. They would have the same amount of things to do, if not more. For one, regulation of the legal production and trade of the drug is now in their agenda, as well as the current issue of targeting illegal producers and traders, ones who think they cannot produce enough profit through legal means.
Their already doing those things you listed(police).

No, I'm pretty sure they don't regulate legal weed flow in countries that haven't legalized it. Why add another potentially costly task that can be avoided?
Becease they don't have to?
It would only lower the costs .
The 'war on drugs' isn't free.

4) Legalisation of this drug would trigger an inevitable chain reaction; people left and right would advocate their own drug of choice, emphasizing their "benefits" while supressing the thoughts of their negative impact. This leads to them being legalised as well, and this leads me back to argument No.1.
and? the have the right to , it a democracy.
Its a invalid argument. unless where talking about a dictatorship/monarchy.

I'm not saying they don't have the right to do it, I'm saying that the effects would be disastrous if most (if not all) were heeded because the authorities caved in.
Still doesn't change anything.
I still consider it invalid.


I support the "freedom-of-choice" idea, but this issue just transcends it in terms of negative effects and would not be worth legalising. Sorry.
It would , legal weed actually boosted my country's economy.

Well, like I said, circumstances vary and the majority does not always reflect the whole.
The economy tends to work the same in most country's.
(western) so no , the would not vary.




I would however, support legalization on other constructive uses for the plant, such as paper, rope or medicine (probably).