unedited 4 arguments i presented before, rederoin, would you like a shot, anarchy still cant get past point 1.
I'll try


1. the drug is the most likely to cause psychosis out of the relatively "soft" drugs (moreso then LSD). in other words, im establishing it has a negative side effect, that occurs faster and is more apparent then liver cancer from drinking.
That cannabis has negative side-effects is indeed true , but that shouldn't affect its "legal" status.
Somebody should have a choice of what he puts into his body. The government should not intervene(spelling?) with that(unless their under 16)
ergo, you support the legalisation of heroin? LSD? rage virus?

intervene is spelt fine, im establishing that all drugs have a negative side effect, im simply stating that when you weigh it up, emphysema (25 years faster then cigs) and psychosis isnt awesome.

2. the drug is known as a gateway drug, taking it often results in taking harder substances, this is a slippery slope, but it is well documented where people that use "hard" drugs, only did so after taking marijuana, correlation doesnt result in causation but... yeah. the numbers are there
It is known as a gate-way drug , because most people think , weed is the first drug that those "hard drug users" used , but that's not correct , the first drug most people take(besides medicine) is nicotine or alcohol , weed is is seen as cause , because its the most used illegal (soft-)drug.
i never really liked this arguement, i concede this one.

3. overall detrimental to society, also, pretty much no countries have the drug with a traditional value attached (unlike smokes and alcohol)
lets compare to say... cigarettes in australia. these things are taxxed ridiculously... (roughly $15 for 25 cigarettes) due to aggressive government campaigns against them spanning more then a decade.
15% of the cost goes to the manufacturer (suppliers)
15% goes to the retailer (people who sell the cigarettes)
70% goes to tax where i think it was 80% of that gets directly funneled into hospitals.
Could be done for weed.
wait... my point is why it cant be done for weed.

as you can see, tobacco is taxxed to the extreme.
and it pays itself off due to smokers funding hospitals directly.
this is because
1) tobacco is hard to grow efficiently illegally
2) tobacco is hard to import illegally (but some illegal stuff does get in, cant stop it all)
so there are no dealers undercutting the legal market with cheaper tobacco, hence, no competition and massive taxxed cigs help save lives in hospitals while people are free to enjoy your cancer tubes.

marijuana on the other hand is INCREDIBLY easy to grow.
$500 can set you up with a state of the art hydroponic shed, capable of efficient returns and all the directions are on the internet in legal DETAILED documents showing how to grow hydroponic... strawberries for example.
such illegality would undercut government taxxing on a drug that is obviously negative. hence, no one would buy the legal stuff. hence society suffers and hospitals would have to deal with an influx of emphysema and psychosis and a variety of other problems associated with the drug.

in short, other then the ability for a new way to kill yourself, there is no overall beneficial value to cannabis.
1) You can easily grow a few plants(which is legal here)of weed yes , but to produce huge amounts of weed , chances are , you will get noticed.(high energy usage)
2) A "joint" is as big as a cigarette. , I don't see how one of them would be harder to import than the other.
alright, so you have people getting their own weed, something that cannot be done in equal proportions as tobacco, where is the incentive to actually buy the heavily taxxed marijuana? i only addressed that tobacco is hard to grow, i didnt address that tobacco is hard to import illegally. i noted it though~~
even high energy usage is relatively hard to detect. especially with transformers or an apartment rented for the sole purpose of being a hydroponic garden. there are many ways to bypass a simple obstacle like power usage.

And if its allowed to be sold legally , at-least some money would go to the taxes , if it gets legal(and you aren't allowed to grow it in you're home).
The rate at which it is sold illegally won't change.
actually it would increase now that you cannot be charged for possession.~

even if a small amount does go to taxes, the increased usage would likely completely offset and ruin the cost:benefit ratio.

The only real thing that would change is : selling it in coffee-shops , maybe it would be sold at the grocery stores. And possession would be legal.

To make sure people don't buy it illegal , they should increase the jail time/fines on it , heavily , maybe even life-long? I'm pretty sure nobody would want to risk life-long(specificily in the U.S.A ) in prison , to get cheaper weed , and dealers would prefer to set up a legal coffee-shops.

people would complain that murder can get off in 10 years but pot dealership results in lifeterms? what ever happened to "harmless" criminals.

4. again, a slippery slope. but legalising another drug would simply call for the legalisation of others. as a recreational drug, marijuana isnt a whole lot more safer then LSD. are you for LSD?
As far as I know (don't know that much about LSD) its far more dangerous , but that doesn't really matter now.
Getting weed legalized is easier , than getting both LSD and cannabis legalized , at the same time.
And LSD can be used as a "date-*CENSORED*"(??) , so that should stay illegal.
r@pe is censored? thats ridiculous. >.>

LSD is not a "hard drug". it is non addictive, in fact, its non addictive properties are relatively famous. like weed, it does have negative side effects like psychosis...
i would also like to point out that LSD might have been used as a date rape drug, but it is extremely rare, GHB is FAR more common and alcohol takes the win because most people drink it williningly in *CENSORED* amounts. getting one legalized and another legalized isnt too hard, why not keep going? you stated before the government shouldnt interfere, would it eventually get to the point that heroin is legalized or should people take a stand and not allow the legalization against another other prohibitied substances.

ergo, you support the legalisation of heroin? LSD? rage virus?
in a way , yes , but lets keep it to weed , I doubt any government would legalise weed and heroin at the same time.
wow, calling for the legalisation of heroin is extreme, i am keeping it to weed, but im noting that if you do want to legalize weed, it would inevitably call for the legalisation of other drugs, particularly LSD, but heroin? woooo...

holy ....

argument remains, it is on topic.

i doubt any government would legalise weed with the current trends in society.

intervene is spelt fine, im establishing that all drugs have a negative side effect, im simply stating that when you weigh it up, emphysema (25 years faster then cigs) and psychosis isnt awesome.
Which shouldn't matter if it becomes legal or not.
actually, yes it does, drugs are very dangerous substances when abused and opening the flood gates to legal abuse isnt beneficial to anyone, not even the person using it.

people would complain that murder can get off in 10 years but pot dealership results in lifeterms? what ever happened to "harmless" criminals.
I never understood why people got only 10 years for murder in the first place , another solution would be simple , A. Higher sentence for murder or B. same sentence for illegal drug use as murder.

And those "illegal" drug users are still harmless(besides drug lords) , but at the moment their harmless because the don't evade the taxes(their are none to evade) but when it becomes legal , the "illegal" drug dealers do evade the taxes , and like you said , its way easier to evade the taxes on weed , so simply increase the sentence on tax "evaders" , it migth be a bit harsh , but otherwiss , the'll just continue selling it on the streets.
And risking a life sentence is not something allot of people want to risk.

because jail is for rehabilitation. it isnt punishment if you hold them for exhoribinant amounts of time for no reason other then you dislike them, i think 1st degree murderers can apply for parole in 8 years only in australia, but they need to show that they are reformed and fit for society. but drug dealers are a grey area... if they are reformed, if they have paid for their crimes and are rehabilitated, if you keep them in for life, its sadism.

And risking a life sentence is not something allot of people want to risk.
hmmm what about assault, rape? they wont carry life sentences but "harmless" criminals do... are you calling for an overhaul of the justice system because you didnt think through that "life sentence" argument?

r@pe is censored? thats ridiculous. >.>

LSD is not a "hard drug". it is non addictive, in fact, its non addictive properties are relatively famous. like weed, it does have negative side effects like psychosis...
[color=#FFFF00]I confused it with GHD then.
just wiki LSD. note its pros and cons compared to other soft drugs. asking for the legalisation of LSD is a perfectly legitimate counter argument to the legalisation of weed, ill let you reconsider your words on heroin~~

This about weed , not Heroin , so *CENSORED* does it matter , whether I know anything about heroin or not?
And if it doesn't affect society in a worse way than weed., it shouldn't really matter ye(If it does , then it should matter).
If those people are stupid enough to risk their lives sticking dirty needles in themselves , then why bother saving them? their stupidity will lead them to their dead in any other way , its called "natural selection".

Not that this has anything to with legalizing weed or something.