Is this the one kasz? link 

If it is, what you said above in point 2 is a little misleading. This study only indicates that very heavy (53-84 joints/week) have "persistent decision-making deficits and alterations in brain activity". They note in the abstract that brain activity and task performance between moderate users (8-35 joints/week) and the control group were "similar". 

They also point out that it is unclear if these decision-making problems shown in the heavy users continue after Marijuana use has stopped or if they might get worse with continued use.

Another study I found seems to indicate that while tasks performed on Marijuana take longer, decision-making accuracy is not impaired.

Of course, I don't have access to either study in full.

Pot is already illegal, but anyone that wants it can easily get it. What's the point of enforcing a law that doesn't work?

I see no reason for the government to control people's bodies or what they put into them. To me making a certain drug illegal is like making a certain diet illegal.

There are several legal drugs that are far deadlier than marijuana, and several illegal drugs that are far healthier than alcohol. None of the drug laws make any sense.

I used this chart as one of my main arguements of why marijuana should be legalized a couple years ago in a public speaking class in which I debated on why marijuana should be legalized.

Dependence: is defined here as how difficult it is for the user to quit, how often     they relapse, the percentage of people who become dependent, and the degree to which people will use in the face of evidence of it’s negative effects.

Withdrawl: is the presence and severity of withdrawal symptoms.

Tolerance: Is how much of a substance a body continually needs to achieve the same effect that was originally produced.

Reinforcement: Pertains mostly to the likelihood that the user will use the drug     again especially in preference to other substances.

Intoxication: in this context intoxication is associated with the social and     personal damages the substance causes.

I am having trouble finding my original source for this graph, but it originally came from a group called safer sensible Colorado who put a bill up to legalize marijuana in the state in 2006. This reaserch was government funded of course.

im all for it being legalised, i've never done it but i don't have a problem with folk who do. and i'd rather it wasn't some shady underground op.

in this country though, the government decided last year i think, to not prosecute people who have it for personal use, meaning they would only prosecute suppliers.

:)

If only New Jersey would do that, I hear in Mass they just fine people for possession.

There are other factors that you're not considering like how long a drug says in the blood system, whether there are cumulative effects of regular use, and so on; which are factors that have been suggested to be significant problems with Marijuana. On top of this, I would question the methodology being that it seems like the scoring seems somewhat arbitrary; and it seems like the worst case was assumed for most of the criteria for most drugs (potentially, except for Cannabis). What I mean by this is you have to be a significant alcoholic to have serious withdrawal symptoms, you have to drink pretty heavily to have significant intoxication, physical dependence takes a very long time to develop and most alcoholics spend years with emotional dependence prior to developing a physical dependence (and this can be true of all intoxicating substances), and so on. Basically, if you're charting the 1% most serious of alcoholics against a typical/light Cannabis user it is not a fair comparison.

I'm not disagreeing with the concept of your argument, just saying that it is not comprehensive enough and it depends heavily on an unknown methodology (which could be seriously flawed).

I am all for legalizing drugs, but that chart is bullshit. There is no way you can tell me the "addiction potential", or the Withdrawal of Alcohol is the same or more then Cocaine and Nicotine.

I drink a lot (3-4 times a week), but there will be time I might not drink for a month. I am never compelled to take a drink, or feel any withdrawal for nothing doing it.

I know many people like that, in fact, I know of none who are not like that. I have never heard of 1 person who quit smoking, or doing cocaine and said it was as simple as just not doing it.

Actually, alcohol is far far more dangerous to come off of when used at the same intervals as any hard drug. I do not believe cocaine withdrawals can kill. I know crack can't. Heroin and other opiates require a massive dose right before quitting to pose any risk to the life at all, and even then it is relatively minor. Someone who has been drinking everyday for a significant period of time will die without treatment though. It is incredibly dangerous, and normally requires constant medical attention. Addiction potential seems to be entirely made up though, so I can't really speak to that. Nicotine is by far the most addictive substance on that list, but has a middle of the road addiction potential? Seems weird to me.

You are very very wrong. Alcohol is one of the few substances that people develop a physical addiction to if they abuse it. Nicotine, Heroin & Benzos are the other main ones. Most substances people just get a psychological addiction to the high they get from it, but some, after abusing them, their body develops a dependence on it.

It's all about abuse and addiction. Most users of cocaine will just have a few lines on a weekend, or on special occasions. It pretty rare for people to snort their car away as its only an addiction to the high not a physical dependence. Nicotine is very hard to quit, the fact people get nausea and the shakes when quitting cold turkey is part of the physical dependency on the substance. An alcoholic withdrawing from using is not pretty.

Your reason for doubting it is ridiculous.