What's a good argument against legalizing marijuana apart from the gateway theory?
I have never heard a "good", non-hypocritical argument for continued prohibition. That is because the arguments for legalization ALL STEM from the consequences of prohibition. 1. Hundreds of Millions of $$$ incarcerating non-violent offenders is a waste. 2. Marijuana has NEVER in history been the primary cause of death of a person (not saying nobody has never wrecked a car and died...... just never died from smoking). 3. Laws should be evenhanded and fair. Allowing legal use of alcohol and tobacco products (which HAVE directly caused deaths and continue to cause deaths.... BOTH DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY) and criminalizing marijuana is both hypocritical and amounts to "selective enforcement" of the law (or at least the policy underlying the law). 4. The origins of the prohibition of marijuana have their roots in the early 20th century.... and those roots were placed to CREATE a way to selectively enforce the law against people of Mexican background (migrant workers who used marijuana were mostly Mexican) and Black musicians (think Jazz musicians) at a time when very few white folks used marijuana..... it's an embarrassing black eye in America and should be remedied. 5. The gateway theory is GARBAGE. Show me someone that claims to have used marijuana WITHOUT first smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol.... and I will show you a LIAR. If there ARE any gateway drugs in the U.S. both of them are ALREADY legal.
Why do potheads think demonizing alcohol is a good argument for legalizing marijuana?
I've never seen alcohol 'demonized' by marijuana advocates. I drink moderately and would smoke moderately if my car, job, and house wouldn't be in jeopardy. It is a valid comparison, if alcohol, which is more dangerous than marijuana*, is legal and not causing societal destruction, why not marijuana? Your bias shines brightly, btw, " other than the obvious reason that stoners can't think rationally" Does that make all drinkers raging alcoholics? In moderation with responsibility, either is not harmful and should be legal.
Would legalizing marijuana benefit the economy?
Obama answered this question with a no.That's it,he just said no.Any person who is in the least bit aware of whats going on cannot possible get off with a "no".Marijuana is the largest cash crop in California.The cost of enforcements,courts,incarceration,loss of productivity that goes along with that.Not to mention how he inhaled,it's medical purposes and recreational value.Even if you are against legalizing you can not possible believe this would not benefit the economy.Taxed or not the government would get money off sales and the consumer could grow or buy it for much less than it is valued at now,and use the savings to save or buy other commodities.Marijuana is so over priced,any where from 150 to 1000 dollars an oz.,isn't the price of gold the same? Come on Obama at least FDR ended prohibition on alcohol to numb the pain of his policies,I thought maybe you would do the same for pot to distract us from what is really going on.
Are pot belly pigs good pets?
They are pretty challenging pets and not for everyone. They don't get along well with dogs, so if you own a dog, it can be a problem. While they can be housetrained, they need outdoor space because they must definitely have to wallow and root. If they can't do it outside, they will do it inside with bad outcomes as the result. They are big chewers. They do weigh about 150 lbs - they don't stay smaller - micro pigs or mini pigs that are supposed to be smaller and are really starved babies by scam breeders who will lie to you and they suffer shortened lifespans. Few vets treat them. Some can have nice personalities but many are not gentle and sweet, and while very intelligent, training is not always easy. A lot of people get into it and don't know what to expect. I have a friend in pig rescue who ends up with a lot of adult pigs and few ever get adopted because people expect that they they will stay cute little babies. They don't and what happens to them is tragic.
Reducing meat/beef consumption?
First, it should be pointed out that the argument that there are fewer cows today than large ruminants 200 years ago is silly. It is estimated there were at most 60 million bison in N. America during their heyday (no pun intended) in the 1700's. It is reasonable there were a similar number of wildebeests and buffaloes in SE Asia. So put the number of pre-industrial ruminants at something like 200 million. In contrast it is estimated there are 1.3 billion cows alive today, most of these eating a grain-based diet during some portion of their lives. To suggest that the greenhouse gas emissions from 1/6 the total number of free-range animals was greater than today is at best silly. Wait, I said that already. Anyway, the most realistic plan for reducing CO2 emissions I have read was the one in Scientific American in Sept. 2006 by Socolow and Pacala, "A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check." Reducing beef consumption didn't factor into their plan, although ceasing deforestation was a component. I would provide a link to the article but it is available online by subscription only. However, a link is provided below to the core proposals of their plan. My hunch is that any realistic mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas output is going to be so painful for a lot of people in the industrial world (e.g., air condition less in the summer, heat less in the winter, drive less (and in smaller cars!)) that they are going to have to have some luxuries to make it bearable. A hamburger seems like a small price to pay.