Opinions - why legalising could be wrong

[frankz81]

hey all,
i am one for legalising certain drugs,in moderation just so u know

now one thing there could be a problem with, is with certain hard drugs or mind altering drugs, if were legal would present more problems,like..

if u took lsd/acid/ketamine and decided to drive around, you have a prang or commit some offence under the influence, if u got caught then u would have people having just that in their defence. a smart lawyer would argue that it wasnt in the nature of the person and that he was under the influence of a mind altering substance....hence leading to more crimes as the criminals already know what their defence will be, and maybe being thrown out...

so i do understand if they were legal and people took them that they are responsible for their actions, but i can see there being a rebound effect with it...
yes it will rid the streets of dealers and such, but may inturn present more problems than what its worth...

i really do wish certain drugs were legal, and do beleive it would solve alot of problems, but can any1 relate to what i said above?

[chillinwill]

Originally Posted by frankz81

hey all,
i am one for legalising certain drugs,in moderation just so u know

now one thing there could be a problem with, is with certain hard drugs or mind altering drugs, if were legal would present more problems,like..

if u took lsd/acid/ketamine and decided to drive around, you have a prang or commit some offence under the influence, if u got caught then u would have people having just that in their defence. a smart lawyer would argue that it wasnt in the nature of the person and that he was under the influence of a mind altering substance....hence leading to more crimes as the criminals already know what their defence will be, and maybe being thrown out...

so i do understand if they were legal and people took them that they are responsible for their actions, but i can see there being a rebound effect with it...
yes it will rid the streets of dealers and such, but may inturn present more problems than what its worth...

i really do wish certain drugs were legal, and do beleive it would solve alot of problems, but can any1 relate to what i said above?

well they could enforce a rule that if they can prove that your under the influence of a drug while driving, then you can be charged with a DUID(i believe lots of states already do that)....anyways how would this be any different than alcohol? alcohol is already legal to drink but illegal to drive....they could just use those same kind of rules when driving except that there is a zero tolerance policy for being under the influence of drugs while driving....for instance, you can have alcohol in your system and as long as your BAC is under 0.08 then your fine but if ANY amount of drugs are in your system then you can be charged with DUID

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good point!

[fiveleggedrat]

Legalization, or at the least, decriminalization.

Drug gangs and cartels are growing every day. They also keep becoming more cutthroat. Murder is commonly accepted in "buisness". Firsthand, speaking here. These gangs will only continue to grow as long as the potential profits from the drug market still stand.

Have any Swiy's ever been to the ghetto? The poor parts the world, the inner cities, are truly in decay. Drugs fill these areas. Swim has been robbed/jacked for just being in such areas. Violence is much more common in these areas, especially among the drug gangs. Gangs and such even dare to kill cops.

Swim is convinced that one day, the drug gangs will each number in the hundreds, if not thousands of members, and openly attack cops/government.

Swim likens the future to tribal warfare. The South US and most of the urban areas in the US will most likely be the first to become wantonly violent.

And as for more drug users, Swim has no pity for idiots who only seek to "get fucked up dude", and do not read up beforehand. You don't fucking fly a plane before you know how, so why would you do drugs before you know what they do or how much to take? Swim has zero sympathy for idiots who snort several OC80's, drink a 6pack of beer and pop some alprazolam. Drug use will only charge MARGINALLY if drugs became legal. The people who want to do drugs do not care what the law says.

Lastly, the deaths from illegal drugs compared to legal ones, such as alcohol, will never even come close. Legal drug deaths far outnumber illegal.

[porchy]

even though there would be positive effects of drugs being legalised, could you imagine, for example if more people took ecstasy when they go to raves or pubs/clubs. i would imagine there would be alot more casualties, due to dehydration/over hydration. there would probably be more fighting. im only speculating here but im sure people can see the point in trying to make. there may be flaws in my speculations but id bet money on drug-related injuries/deaths would rise

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by frankz81

hey all,
i am one for legalising certain drugs,in moderation just so u know

now one thing there could be a problem with, is with certain hard drugs or mind altering drugs, if were legal would present more problems,like..

if u took lsd/acid/ketamine and decided to drive around, you have a prang or commit some offence under the influence, if u got caught then u would have people having just that in their defence. a smart lawyer would argue that it wasnt in the nature of the person and that he was under the influence of a mind altering substance....hence leading to more crimes as the criminals already know what their defence will be, and maybe being thrown out...

That's the difficulty with law. In some cases, insanity defences for example, the claim can be made that the person has no foresight in regards to their actions therefore cannot be accountable for what crimes they may commit. Personally deciding to take a mind-altering substance waves this right IMO and that's how the laws should look at it. People need to be held accountable for their own actions even if these actions are a result of substance use. An insanity defence is hard to prove as it is. Good luck trying to convince a rational jury that the pot you smoked resulted in an uncontrollable urge to hack your granny into pieces.

Originally Posted by porchy

even though there would be positive effects of drugs being legalised, could you imagine, for example if more people took ecstasy when they go to raves or pubs/clubs. i would imagine there would be alot more casualties, due to dehydration/over hydration. there would probably be more fighting. im only speculating here but im sure people can see the point in trying to make. there may be flaws in my speculations but id bet money on drug-related injuries/deaths would rise

The risk of dehydration related to ecstasy use is massively over-exaggerated. With a hands-on honest approach, any risk of this would easily be counteracted by supplying the ecstasy user with a glass of water. I think your argument is laughable.

Equally laughable is the thought of ecstasy users fighting on the streets. Are you even aware of the effects of ecstasy? Compared to alcohol use, society would be a lot better off if the majority incorporated it as their recreational drug of choice.

[ShawnD]

Originally Posted by porchy

on a number of occasions i have indeed come across violent behaviour cause from ecstasy use. i have no idea why but it happens. i think it was very wrong that you gave me bad rep for that.

MDMA could be draining large amounts of vitamins, amino acids, and neurotransmitters. When the body runs out of those chemicals, a person's behavior can change very quickly.
I'm not saying this is factually true for MDMA, but it's certainly true for many other drugs.

A similar example would be alcohol. Most people like alcohol, but what isn't commonly understood is how alcohol is a very draining chemical to put in your body. Alcoholics are often dehydrated for long periods of time, alcoholics usually have a shortage of B vitamins, and I've heard that alcohol inhibits the production of new serotonin, which leads to depression and violent behavior. This is just one example of how long-term use can get in the way of normal brain activity. This is true for alcohol, it's true for cocaine, it's true for amphetamine, and maybe it's true for MDMA.

What's even more interesting is that depleted chemicals are responsible for a lot of mental disorders. A lack of B vitamins is damn near 100% guaranteed to cause depression. If you know someone who has depression, bipolar, borderline, schizophrenia, mild autism, avoidant personality, OCD, or any other mental problem, the first questions to ask are 1) are they using drugs on a regular or semi-regular basis and 2) are they eating enough protein and vegetables.

[Spare Chaynge]

The harder drugs would be legalized but more strictly controlled.. Special doctors would be set and who only prescribe these drugs heroin,morphine,mdma, lsd. they would know what drugs you were being presribed and limit somebody from getting heroin and say methamphetamine in the same month. These docotors would have to be extremely trained in addiction and drug contradictions. All these people would be in a federal data base to make sure they were no seeing more than one dr. This would only apply for schedule one substances. Schedule two the fuckers are on there own.

[FuBai]

I see no reason as to why drug use should increase if more liberal policies are applied. The Netherlands has much lower rates of drug abuse than the countries that surround her, and much lower levels than in the UK and USA, both of soft drug use and hard drug use. As has been pointed out, ecstasy has never been associated with violence, quite the opposite. The real drugs of concern when it comes to violence would be amphetamines, cocaine and alcohol.

As for dealing with harder drugs, especially heroin and methamphetamine, I do not think that the legalised sale of them in the same way we sell alcohol would be a good solution. Simple possession of heroin etc should be decriminalised and the Swiss system of dealing with addicts instituted - that being that heroin and other drugs of serious intoxication, harm and addiction should be made available to addicts at injection centres. Here the drug is injected by a medical professional and whilst dosages may be large, depending on the level of tolerance, they are only allowed to come in three times a day. In Switzerland it has reduced the number of new addicts by 84%, whilst also taking away the client base of the dealers, reducing thefts and damages caused by desperate addicts. There is only one mechanism by which the criminality and violence of the drug trade may be reduced - and that is the economic mechanism. Let me illustrate - we have been urged to drive economically and think green for years, and it has only effected a minor change on driving habits. However, now diesel is over £1.32 a litre it's become a lot rarer to see someone doing more than 70 on a dual carriageway. If you want to change habits you have to lead people by their wallets, and it is the same for criminality. You want to defeat the drug dealers pushing heroin on children as young as 12? Then you have got to make it unprofitable to do so.

[frankz81]

also wouldnt u think there would be more od's from all drugs as they become more readily available and cheap enough that people will use more than what they would normally in order to preserve?

obviously if sum1 is going to use a shit load and od , they will od wether legal or not...

but imagine how many more casualties there will be from heroin od's , people tripping out and committing suicide on speed/coc....list goes on and on...
obviously theres alot of ifs and butts in either for or against them,
but surely every1 can see counteractions with legalisation

what about when one who cant normally find anything,gets a hold of something mind altering, and goes on a shooting spree...imagine if it was from a legalised drug that he purchased at a licenced store and see what would happen then, the rules would just as quickly be reversed

[PingoTango]

Originally Posted by frankz81

also wouldnt u think there would be more od's from all drugs as they become more readily available and cheap enough that people will use more than what they would normally in order to preserve?

obviously if sum1 is going to use a shit load and od , they will od wether legal or not...

but imagine how many more casualties there will be from heroin od's , people tripping out and committing suicide on speed/coc....list goes on and on...
obviously theres alot of ifs and butts in either for or against them,
but surely every1 can see counteractions with legalisation

what about when one who cant normally find anything,gets a hold of something mind altering, and goes on a shooting spree...imagine if it was from a legalised drug that he purchased at a licenced store and see what would happen then, the rules would just as quickly be reversed

I think it's a big assumption to make, saying that if drugs were legal they'd be cheaper than they are on the black market. If anything, I reckon they'd be more expensive than they currently are, and just as cut/impure, only with more safe/inert substances. They'd be made and sold by corporations, not drug dealers.

Would a black market for drugs still exist, even if they could be bought legally? Probably. Think of the taxes you'd have to pay on them.

[stoneinfocus]

The instinct to survive is the strongest in all mammals, so it's the case in us.

A scenario of od-ing in newcomers can be avoided by several approaches; i.e. Supervisions of first-time use, by an experienced user, or by someone who is an expert with the drug given.

A first time user could be given formulations which are not that dangeroues and he could be advised by an professional in an extra-room at a pharmacy or druggist and the drug handed-out only, if he's able to repeat the necessesary precautions applicable to the drug given, or if he demonstrated enough knowledge to use the prospective drug(works already with dangerous chemicals, which are sold on the very same basis).

Paperwork can be handed out, in which the drug-use is documentated and counter-signed, by the drug-vendors; this can be on facultative grounds, as such, it would even work out best, as it's only an advantage for the drug-user and the desired quantity of the desired drug will then be handed out more easily as opposed to not at all, if the prospective buyer didn't demonstrate knowledge and documentated drug-experience.

The latter advises and formalities should only be apllied, when there's an estimated serious risk of unattentional harm for the user, but it shouldn't get to the degree of an prohibitive state, as one couldn't decide or hold back a serious suicide attempt and the system of a free society, ground on a stable human culture and respect was endangered again.

[stoneinfocus]

.. so the state should make laws, and set the prices and standards of the drugs, to avoid black markets, for the safety of the people. Good luck, in a capitalistic enviromet, but I'm somehow sure, it would work out, even without laws concerning the drug-companies selling pharmaceutical drugs. Th eblack market would have then a strong counterplayer and the risk-factor still implied.

[Nature Boy]

The question is:

Do you change to a free-market, barely regulated, entirely liberated drug law or do you legalise drugs but have to go through extremely stringent procedures, depending on the danger of the drug, to ensure absolute security of use?

In a rational society, the second option would work well. In a gutsy, cold-blooded society (in a sense, what we have now with wars, cholesterol, racism, greed etc.), wild legalisation would make a nice tax lump sum. Make a lottery of it. WOO!

[drug-bot]

first off heroin od's would most likely be alot lower since people would know the amount of purity in the product instead of guessing which accounts for alot of deaths resulting from heroin. also alot of 'heroin' od's arent the direct result of the drug but the cut, specifacally quinine, if it where legal there'd be know more quinine in heroin. drug related crime to support a habit would also be lower because heroin would no longer be a victim of its inflated street value and it would be easily affordable just like alcohol (except its alot safer on your organs than alcohol), so one could easily afford to hold down a job and support ones habit. also violent street crime would be alot lower if heroin and all drugs where legal, drug prohibition created a violent black market (just like alcohol prohibition created al capone and help with the mafias rise in america).

[PingoTango]

Look at how the government currently monitors sales of products like Pseudoephedrine - You think that, if drugs were decriminalized, it'll be as easy going into a shop and buying enough heroin to kill an elephant? Surely they would employ a similar monitoring system.

You'd hit your allowed monthly quota, hit the WDs, and go and buy street gear for a while to get the heat off you.

Do we really want governments and corporations getting involved with drug culture anyway? Cause once they got in, they'd stay in.

[Lobsang]

I believe that regardless to the consequenses to society all mind altering drugs should be legal. I believe that in a free society the casualties that result from freedom are small in comparison to the higher principal of freedom. No one has the right to tell anyone what not to do with their own body.

[Songcycle67]

Bottom line: more people OD unknowingly than knowingly and those who do so knowingly are none of anyone else's concern. Those who die due to an unknown purity/strength of a drug are the people we should worry about and the only remedy is legalization or de-criminalization. The biggest problem would be with psychedelics. Since it's highly unlikely that anyone will ever determine and regulate who gets these drugs and where they should be taken they would pretty much have to allow for a free-for-all which obviously would have its casualties.

This was the problem with legalizing recreational use of marijuana in the seventies and the reason that marijuana is legal in some states as a medicine. The lobbyists had to change their agenda so as to make it sound less harmful. Anyone who has a license to take marijuana, however, will tell you how easy it is to acquire. That's because the laws were written with recreational users in mind. These laws, imposed upon a plant, are being attacked by federal agencies such as the DEA in America precisely for this reason and because marijuana can lead to psychosis in rare individuals (very rare).

How then, in such a climate, could LSD or Psilocybin become legalized through such a system? The sad fact is that there is a good amount of people in the world who would be permanently damaged by their first LSD experience and few of them can be identified beforehand.

So while hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine hold practical uses and could be prescribed with minimal damage risk, the same cannot really ever be said for LSD until we find and are able to test for genes that pre-dispose someone to having a bad reaction. Even then there would be years of debate over where they can be used, how they can be used, how often they can be used, etc.

Even more unfortunate is the fact that de-criminalization would do nothing for psychedelic drug users because their primary concern is rarely police. Go look at the LSD or RC forums and see how many people are trying to identify what they found from some guy somewhere. That's the problem.

I don't foresee the legalization of psychedelics, but I hope for it.

[allyourbase]

Originally Posted by frankz81

now one thing there could be a problem with, is with certain hard drugs or mind altering drugs, if were legal would present more problems,like..

if u took lsd/acid/ketamine and decided to drive around, you have a prang or commit some offence under the influence, if u got caught then u would have people having just that in their defence. a smart lawyer would argue that it wasnt in the nature of the person and that he was under the influence of a mind altering substance....hence leading to more crimes as the criminals already know what their defence will be, and maybe being thrown out...?

every major court case has thrown out the "drug made me do it" excuse in favor of personal responsibility. intoxicated driving under substances "harder" or more "extreme" dwarf in number those driving intoxicated under the influence of legal alchohol. also, intoxicated driving is the crime, while we have set limits for alcohol, the influence of, or assumption of influence of another substance in a DUI is also illegal, and in no way more "legal" whether the "perpetrator" has a syringe in his arm or a budlight in his lap.

Originally Posted by frankz81

so i do understand if they were legal and people took them that they are responsible for their actions, but i can see there being a rebound effect with it...
yes it will rid the streets of dealers and such, but may inturn present more problems than what its worth...

could you please, for me, explain these rebound effects. what exactly would be the downside of only law abiding adults using these substances, bought safely from a known source, a source who is not just feduciarily bound, but legislatively bound not to sell to minors?

Originally Posted by frankz81

i really do wish certain drugs were legal, and do beleive it would solve alot of problems, but can any1 relate to what i said above?

Ive put forth at least one contention for every one of yours, and I hope I didnt do so in a negative way, these sorts of discussions are constructive.(in short, no I really dont relate politically)

[ShawnD]

Originally Posted by frankz81

if u took lsd/acid/ketamine and decided to drive around, you have a prang or commit some offence under the influence, if u got caught then u would have people having just that in their defence.

People already try this, and no it doesn't work.
"It's not my fault I crashed my car into a group of school children; I was drunk!" Tough shit. Psychotropic substances do not excuse social irresponsibility. I absolutely agree with the laws in that regard.

Hell, I would legalize drugs just to put dirtbags out of business. Why are drug dealing assholes with a grade 4 education making more money than doctors and lawyers? Pardon my French, but that's bullshit. If even one of those jerks starved or froze to death in Canada's harsh winter, it would all be worth it.

also wouldnt u think there would be more od's from all drugs as they become more readily available and cheap enough that people will use more than what they would normally in order to preserve?

Why should I care that people are dying as a result of their own actions?

Reputation Comments on this post:

seems not only to have animosity to the scene, but some (?) vendor in general, which should be kept out of private posts

[vinylmesh]

Why does everyone always assume that if drugs get legalised suddenly everyones gonna start doing loads of them?

The vast majority of people can get drugs right now if they wanted to.
People say no to drugs all the time.
Look at all the serious coke-heads who'd never touch heroin, if they won't do it what the fuck makes you think the average responsible citizen is going to.

At the moment there's a serious lack of education regarding drugs.
If drugs were legal we could eduacte people properly, also we could develop safer drugs.

Yes more people will be doing "drugs", but they'll be doing them in a far safer way. All we need to do is to explain to people that taking drugs orally is a lot less addictive than snorting/inhaling/ingecting.Remember that from a medical point of view the drugs will be pretty much safe.

With a greater selection of safer drugs and a well run campaign sponsored by the government i really think we can get the majority of drug users to take their drugs orally.

Also that "more people will dehydrate thing" is bullshit.There'll be extra pressure on clubs to keep cool and to provide free water.Also people will be far better educated about the risk of dehydration/heat exhaustion ect.

[Richi]

Originally Posted by PingoTango

I think it's a big assumption to make, saying that if drugs were legal they'd be cheaper than they are on the black market. If anything, I reckon they'd be more expensive than they currently are, and just as cut/impure, only with more safe/inert substances. They'd be made and sold by corporations, not drug dealers.

It's not an assumption at all, it's simple economics.

A product is sold at a price relative to the production cost. Raw materials must be processed into the product, which is then delivered to the consumers. When it comes to drugs, the production costs are much cheaper that the sale cost. The markup is because of the risk of transportation and delivery, along with a high demand and low supply.

If drugs were legal, and available for purchase like other products, their price would drop dramatically. There would no longer be a risk in the transportation or delivery, and there would be a much greater supply because more people would be willing to procure them.

Would a black market for drugs still exist, even if they could be bought legally? Probably. Think of the taxes you'd have to pay on them.

Is there a black market for anything that can be bought at the supermarket? Hardly.

I wouldn't mind paying taxes on a pack of marijuana joints similar to the taxes I pay on a pack of cigarettes.

[PingoTango]

Originally Posted by Richi

It's not an assumption at all, it's simple economics.

A product is sold at a price relative to the production cost. Raw materials must be processed into the product, which is then delivered to the consumers. When it comes to drugs, the production costs are much cheaper that the sale cost. The markup is because of the risk of transportation and delivery, along with a high demand and low supply.

I don't think it'll ever be that simple - If drugs are ever going to be legalized, then it will not be without government control/taxation - when you buy a packet of smokes, are you only paying for the manufacturing/transportation costs? No, you pay through the nose both to the taxman, and also directly to the tobacco company themselves. They can afford to charge pretty much what they like, because you're addicted, and most smokers have a favorite brand which they are willing to pay for.

It'd be the same with drugs. As soon as big business gets on board (And they will. Falling global tobacco sales? Legalised cannabis would be a nice little safety net for Phillip Morris), then all ethics will go out the window and be replaced by profiteering.

Is there a black market for anything that can be bought at the supermarket? Hardly.

There is a thriving black market for cigarettes, alcohol, clothes, even cheaply made counterfit perfumes and make-ups - if people can get something on the black market for cheaper than they can legally, then a lot of the time they will. Human nature.

The difference being, is that it's a lot easier to make a batch of meth or grow a crop of mushrooms than it is to manufacture a line of fake shirts.

[Richi]

Originally Posted by PingoTango

I don't think it'll ever be that simple - If drugs are ever going to be legalized, then it will not be without government control/taxation - when you buy a packet of smokes, are you only paying for the manufacturing/transportation costs? No, you pay through the nose both to the taxman, and also directly to the tobacco company themselves. They can afford to charge pretty much what they like, because you're addicted, and most smokers have a favorite brand which they are willing to pay for.

Of course there are many more factors in play, but I still believe this is an accurate summary. Even so, paying the taxes an any hypothetical legal and available drug will still be much cheaper than paying what we do now for current illegal drugs.

It'd be the same with drugs. As soon as big business gets on board (And they will. Falling global tobacco sales? Legalised cannabis would be a nice little safety net for Phillip Morris), then all ethics will go out the window and be replaced by profiteering.

If it were to come to the point where purchasing cannabis from a company is not worth paying the high price you suggest due to profiteering, people will do the economical thing and grow their own. As a result, market prices would adjust.

There is a thriving black market for cigarettes, alcohol, clothes, even cheaply made counterfit perfumes and make-ups - if people can get something on the black market for cheaper than they can legally, then a lot of the time they will. Human nature.

Really? I can't remember the last time I bought alcohol from a street dealer. Let alone perfume. Even if black markets for products were to exist, they would not compare to the legal markets.

The difference being, is that it's a lot easier to make a batch of meth or grow a crop of mushrooms than it is to manufacture a line of fake shirts.

This supports point, that if drugs were to be legalized they would drop in price.

[FuBai]

He's already mentioned the tax costs. What he is saying, and quite rightly in my opinion, is that the "risk compensation" cost is huge, supply chains are often much longer, with each member of the chain levying their own tariff on it etc. Look at commercial cultivation of things such as vegetables, or even tobacco - it can be done cheaply and efficiently, especially when you are talking about a plant that you can harvest about twice a year, unlike the 1 year cycle most crops have. All this lowers that cost massively, to the point where, even if taxation was levied at 75p in every £1, an exorbitant rate of taxation, the end goods would still be cheaper than the black market prices at the moment.

Would a black market still exist? Of course - black markets exist for cigarettes, alcohol, fuel; in fact all those things in which taxation is levied at such a rate that makes it profitable enough to smuggle. The size of these markets is, however, on a miniscule scale when compared to the size of the illegal drug market, which now accounts for over 6% of world trade and is valued at anywhere between $100 billion and $500 billion. The reason is that there is no legal alternative - people cannot get drugs legally, so they have no choice but to get them illegally. The black market for cigarettes is one of the bigger of the black markets that rely on trans-national taxation and cost variations to make profits, and yet it is still relatively uncommon to see illegal cigarettes - when given the option of paying more or risking punishment most people will choose to pay more. What's more it is not only the threat of punishment that would motivate people to buy legally - legal drugs would also be subject to quality to control, inspection and the provision of safety information at point of sale. Vendors may be held accountable if their product is not what they say it is. Furthermore you would reduce the number of people who will have the need to stay connected to the black market as the need to maintain links with possibly dangerous criminals evaporates in the face of legal supply.

What’s more this argument over costs is based on the assumption that the government would over-tax the market, based on current over-taxation in other markets, but the chance of current government in the UK or USA actually legalising drugs is very slim, and so it is likely that were drugs to be legalised they would be legalised under a government with different ideas on how to run things. Such people may well decide to kill the black market with the only effective method available – the economic mechanism.

P.S. It is important to note that black markets in designer goods etc, or other counterfeiting markets cannot be considered to be comparable to the drugs market in this manner as counterfeiters are often looking to profit from the disparity between the cost of production of designer goods and the retail price they are sold at due to the price companies set. They are creating a good which looks like the designer good, but is not, but with drugs they are simply selling the same good but at a lower price.

[Lobsang]

They're called boot leggers and still exist, more prevalent in places were alcohol is banned. In the U.S. in a Dry county a boot legger would drive to a wet county and transport alcohol for sale in the dry county at an increased rate.

Well like in certain towns in remote Alaska alcohol is totally illegal. You may not even possess it in your home. The police will actually break down your door with a warrant for a case of liquor. Yet pot is legal to have in your house. Now is that not funny?