hedwards: … the basis for legalization is based upon the social implications of people refusing to obey the law. That was the basis for legalization here in WA.
Or, perhaps the legal authorities paid attention to California, where it was determined to be safe and efficacious twenty years ago?
Review Justice Young,
NORML versus DoJ-DEA (1988). Also google LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which includes legal professionals as well as police, etc.)
hedwards: It's also worth noting, that there haven't been any longitudinal studies conducted that are relevant to the question. This is in large part due to changes in the weed being smoked along with the difficulties in performing the research.
There haven't been any studies in the USA for a century because it was classified as a Schedule 1 substance,
i.e., that it had no redeeming value whatsoever, on par with sniffing petrol.
(There has been a wealth of study in The Netherlands.)
scientiae: … Perhaps you might like to investigate the science before casting sweeping sententious judgments and parroting ignorant hearsay.
hedwards: It's not hearsay, we know reliably that there is stronger weed available now than it was in the past. I was fine smoking the cheap stuff, it's when we switched to the stronger stuff that I had issues. Had we continued to smoke the stuff that we had in the '60s or even '70s, I wouldn't have had any problems, it was switching to the stronger stuff that caused the problem.
The available cannabis is stronger, since it has been selectively bred for the purpose. So what?
Scientific American wrote about this.
Do you have any idea how many people have died from cannabis? (I'll give you a hint: It's less than one.)
Findings of Fact
1. Richard J. Gralla, M.D., an oncologist and Professor of Medicine who was an Agency witness, accepts that in treating cancer patients oncologists can use the cannabinoids with safety despite their side effects.
2. Andrew T. Weil, M.D., who now practices medicine in Tucson, Arizona and is on the faculty of the College of Medicine, University of Arizona, was a member of the first team of researchers to perform a Federal Government authorized study into the effects of marijuana on human subjects. This team made its study in 1968. These researchers determined that marijuana could be safely used under medical supervision. In the 20 years since then Dr. Weil has seen no information that would cause him to reconsider that conclusion. There is no question in his mind but that marijuana is safe for use under appropriate medical supervision.
3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death?
4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.
5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.
6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.
7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.
8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.
9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.
10. Another common medical way to determine drug safety is called the therapeutic ratio. This ratio defines the difference between a therapeutically effective dose and a dose which is capable of inducing adverse effects.
11. A commonly used over-the-counter product like aspirin has a therapeutic ratio of around 1:20. Two aspirins are the recommended dose for adult patients. Twenty times this dose, forty aspirins, may cause a lethal reaction in some patients, and will almost certainly cause gross injury to the digestive system, including extensive internal bleeding.
…
14. By contrast, marijuana's therapeutic ratio, like its LD-50, is impossible to quantify because it is so high.
15. In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating ten raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death.
16. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care.
Administrative LAW JUDGE FRANCIS L. YOUNG, SEP 6, 1988.
[Docket No. 86-22: MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION]
VIII: SAFETY FOR USE UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION, lines 1548–1626, pp. 56
ff. hedwards: Also, you might want to read up on the research that's been done, pot is definitely not harmless, the harm isn't well understood due in large part to the difficulty engaging in research, but it isn't harmless.
Humans have
endocannabinoidal receptors in the body. One is in the immune system, and one in the brain. Which means that humans have evolved to use cannabis over thousands of years.
hedwards: The relevant question is what the correct policy should be.
I'm not really surprised by the responses, there's a bunch of people out there that don't know anything and would prefer to repeat falsities than deal with the fact that the evidence is relatively limited compared with things like alcohol and tobacco.
I don't need to do any research. You might like to read some, though.
The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDED DECISION, Francis L. Young, Administrative Law Judge, Sep 6 1988. [lines1882–7, page 69]
The only reason this recommendation was ignored was because Justice Young was a state jurist, and the federal government could — again — ignore the facts for whatever reason/s, just as it had already done over the preceding court order (1977) against the BNDD (which became the DEA).
hedwards: Why on Earth would this be a legal term? It's a political term for something that's relevant to a political debate. Legal terms are for things that are relevant for the practice of law. From a legal standpoint, they would look the action up in their database of laws and try to match it against something on the books. Whether it was previously legal or not prior to the action being prosecuted is largely irrelevant if it wasn't illegal at the time the action was alleged to have taken place. 
richlind33: "Legalization" is *a* term in use, not *the* term in use, and is very poorly chosen for the reasons I've stated, which I stand by. But I should also point out that the people I support on this subject do *not* advocate for "legalization", because there are some very good reasons for maintaining and/or modifying some of the regulations in effect. what happened to that cute kittey in a hat ? :O 
