Didn't we just talk about this?
I personally don't have anything against weed or people that smoke it, but some people asked for arguments against it, so here they are...
1) The biggest argument in favor of legalizing marijuana is revenue, right? Well, who's going to pay $50 an ounce from a store when it's legal (and very easy) to grow and sell yourselves? Even if you don't want to grow your own, people would start growing and selling weed to their friends to make some extra money. On top of that, I can all but guarantee you that the weed private citizens grow is going to be a heck of a lot better than the store bought stuff.
2) If you make it legal, the amount of people smoking it... and yes, including children... would skyrocket. With increased usage, adverse side effects like 2nd hand smoke exposure and people driving under the influence would also skyrocket.
There are some good arguments in favor of legalizing marijuana, but I've not heard one good argument that counters the two arguments against it that I just mentioned. If one is presented now, I'll absolutely be willing to listen and discuss it, but we've had this debate a half dozen times before and it's really just rehashing (no pun intended) the same thing over and over again.
the biggest argument in favor of legalization is that we'd start acting like a rational society and stop arresting and prosecuting people as "drug criminals" for something as harmless as personal use. the revenue generated from the legalization would be an added benefit
there are plenty of studies that suggest that, while use of marijuana would very likely increase if were to be made legal, we would also see a "substitution effect" take place - people would drink less alcohol, for instance, if pot were to be legalized. and while usage would almost certainly spike immediately after legalization, the numbers would normalize. for a "controlled" substance, pot is incredibly easy to obtain - easier than alcohol for most minors - so most people that are more than slightly interested in buying some are very likely to already have that option. the counter to the last part of 2) is that i'm arguing for legalizing responsible
use - that means that i fully support continuing to heavily prosecute those who choose to get behind the wheel under the influence of anything
as for the gateway theory, it's bunk. the major flaw in the gateway theories is that they always work backwards in a clear effort to demonize marijauna - as in, asking the meth user if their first time smoking bud came prior to their first time doing meth. since the answer is invariably yes - same with most hard drugs - it's spun to suggest that the meth use should be directly attributed to prior pot use. the fact that is purposely omitted from these "findings" is that the vast majority of pot smokers' "drug use" never goes any further than pot. the other flaw is that the theory stops at pot while going in reverse in an effort to essentially declare pot itself as the reason why people use hard drugs. the status quo = blame and fight the "war" against the drugs themselves and don't worry about trying to actually help/treat the end-user