Should marijuana be legalized in the US or worldwide?

[ManUinOz]

Marijuana is a "gateway drug". Children who smoke pot are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than non marijuana users. (Joseph A. Califano, Jr., President of The Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse)

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by nickm:
<strong>

Raoul, prove that removing prohibition on cannabis users would cause the overall tax burden to rise. Or are you just making this up?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have nothing to prove as my position is the status quo. The burden of proof is on druggies, who need to prove that cannabis is not unhealthy. If you can't prove that then the assumption that it IS INFACT unhealthy will continue to prevail (and of course everyone knows that all drugs, whether legal or otherwise, are unhealthy), and there will be medical issues that will arise. Whether Cannabis is chemically addictive is irrelevant to this debate. The fact is that people will use it alot more if it is legal, and that will result in a greater medical burden via higher insurance rates (in the US) and a greater need for revenue in countries with socialized medicine.

 

[ManUinOz]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>

The burden of proof is on druggies, who need to prove that cannabis is not unhealthy. </strong><hr></blockquote>

"Marijuana contains some of the highest cancer causing substances known. Marijuana contains carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, acetone, benzene, toluene, vinyl chloride, dimethylnitrosamine, methylethylnitrosamine, benz(a)anthracene, benz(a)pyrene, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and many more. (Huber, Gary: Pharm.Biochem.Behavior Vol.40. P.630, 1991. National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine report, Washington DC 1982, Marijuana & Health 1982)"

 

[ManUinOz]

Originally posted by Wellesley:
<strong>
...In the case of marijuana, an organic and wholely innocuous substance ...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Innocuous.


* * * A 1995 study of blood samples taken from one thousand four hundred and forty-one dead or impaired drivers across Canada found marijuana present in 38% of these samples. Based on research by of Dr. Wayne Hindmarsh, Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Manitoba and Wayne Jeffery, R.C.M.P. Police Forensic Laboratory.

* * * Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and
schizophrenia. It has been shown that marijuana users are six times more likely to develop schizophrenia than are non-users. Based on research by of Dr. S. Andreasson published in Britain's The Lancet.

* * * It's not just alcohol that caused impaired accidents. A roadside study of reckless drivers who were not impaired by
alcohol, showed that 45% of these drivers tested positive for marijuana. Based on research by of Dr. Dan Brookoff, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

* * * In males marijuana use diminishes testosterone production and lowers sperm count. In females, marijuana use disrupts
hormone cycles. Marijuana is mutagenic, fetotoxic (poisonous to the foetus) and impairs RNA and DNA synthesis. Based on research by of Dr. Mark Gold in his book Marijuana and Drs. Latour and Nahas in the Medical Journal of Australia.

* * * Saying nobody ever died from smoking marijuana is like saying nobody ever died from smoking tobacco. Marijuana contains the same cancer causing chemicals as tobacco. Marijuana contains acetone, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, carbon monoxide, benzene, benzo pyrene, nitrosamines and many other cancer causing pollutants. Based on research by of G. Huber in Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behaviour

 

[Jade]

91 and 82..those are some stale studies,20 yrs er so..im sure there are "studies" out there that contradict them as well,there always are.

eggs are bad for u one day/the next they arnt,
high protien diets suck/high protien diets are the shit.............I dont go much for studies,lifes a gamble all around.

Best u can do is be a decent person, try and enjoy the ride,keep an open mind and learn from your experience..

what isnt bad for your health anymore anyway?

 

[Wibble]

Smoking anything is going to be harmful but that isn't really the main issue because it is already being smoked a great deal.

The issue is how to best manage it's use and abuse to minimise social and monetary costs to society.

A magic wand that rid us of tobacco and all recreational drugs would be wonderful but since we live in the real world (unless it's really good stuff ) we need to manage the problem.

Prohibition has failed again and again so it obviously isn't the answer to anything unless you start introducing severe penalties such as the death penalty for use which seems a bit harsh to me.

I don't smoke the stuff myself although I used to years ago and I would be very glad if recreational drugs in general disappeared - tell me how it is to be achieved and I'll agree with you. Not that it seems to be many peoples view here but most people's opposition to legalisation/decriminalisation is really just an expression of religious/moral indignation with no critical though applied to the problem.

 

[nickm]

Originally posted by ManUinOz:
<strong>

The use of marijuana leads to the use of other drugs. Of those who use marijuana 3 to 10 times, 20% go on to use cocaine. Of those who use marijuana one hundred or more times, 75% go on to use cocaine. Based on research by as reported in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry</strong><hr></blockquote>


So you simply ignore the evidence about tobacco being the gateway drug?

 

[nickm]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>

I have nothing to prove as my position is the status quo. The burden of proof is on druggies, who need to prove that cannabis is not unhealthy. If you can't prove that then the assumption that it IS INFACT unhealthy will continue to prevail (and of course everyone knows that all drugs, whether legal or otherwise, are unhealthy), and there will be medical issues that will arise. Whether Cannabis is chemically addictive is irrelevant to this debate. The fact is that people will use it alot more if it is legal, and that will result in a greater medical burden via higher insurance rates (in the US) and a greater need for revenue in countries with socialized medicine.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Raoul, quit quoting from ideologues handbook and start thinking.

The US will spend $20 billion on the war against drugs in 2003 alone. That's money that's being wasted now, today, this minute, not money that 'might be wasted on socialised medicine'.

If any other policy had such a lamentable track record as the war on drugs, it would have been junked years ago.

 

[Raoul]

Let's be honest about this entire debate. This isn't an issue of a few people caring about the crime that's associated with illegal drugs. Its primarily a matter of drug users wanting to be able to do drugs without the cops bothering them. Self interest. I've no problem with someone smoking weed in the privacy of their own home, but let's at least be honest and upfront about the legalization agenda. Its fueled by people who want to do drugs without any legal consequences.

 

[nickm]

Originally posted by ManUinOz:
<strong>

"Marijuana contains some of the highest cancer causing substances known. Marijuana contains carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, acetone, benzene, toluene, vinyl chloride, dimethylnitrosamine, methylethylnitrosamine, benz(a)anthracene, benz(a)pyrene, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and many more. (Huber, Gary: Pharm.Biochem.Behavior Vol.40. P.630, 1991. National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine report, Washington DC 1982, Marijuana & Health 1982)"</strong><hr></blockquote>

You have to prove that legalisation will lead to increased use, not decreased use. We know from Holland it is possible to decriminalise and reduce use.

 

[dmode]

Should marijuana be lagalised?

OF COURSE! It's legal in Switzerland anyway.

 

[ManUinOz]

Originally posted by nickm:
<strong>


So you simply ignore the evidence about tobacco being the gateway drug?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't ignore tobacco, or alcohol, as gateway drugs. There is more than one gateway IMO. This debate is about marijuana, I believe tobacco is as bad but we'll never get that made illegal. Lets not add to the problem by legalising marijuana.

 

[Jade]

I wouldnt be to sure about tobacco never being illegal....the anti smoking group are getting their way more and more,wouldnt suprise me if its illegal to do in your own home someday soon,or to have children taken away because u do so...another study/second hand smoke..which also changes from day to day.

 

[kennyj]

Tobacco may not be illegal, but laws are making it more and more difficult to smoke, at least in NY. People are not allowed to smoke in office buildings and, beginning in March, will not allowed to smoke in bars either. And a pack of smokes costs $7.50.

 

[giggzy]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>Let's be honest about this entire debate. This isn't an issue of a few people caring about the crime that's associated with illegal drugs. Its primarily a matter of drug users wanting to be able to do drugs without the cops bothering them. Self interest. I've no problem with someone smoking weed in the privacy of their own home, but let's at least be honest and upfront about the legalization agenda. Its fueled by people who want to do drugs without any legal consequences.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Cops don't bother with soft drugs like cannabis, anyway.... if they catch you in possession, they usually let you off..... so thats not the issue.

If its legalised, i'd like drugs to be used behind closed doors... i think thats a good compromise.

and about the crime and drugs issue... just check out the inner cities.... most crime, is drugs related....(and its spread out to the suburbs... burglary and other such crime has increased) iam all for the cities being safer to live in.... i think everyone's for that.

 

[Dans]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>Let's be honest about this entire debate. This isn't an issue of a few people caring about the crime that's associated with illegal drugs. Its primarily a matter of drug users wanting to be able to do drugs without the cops bothering them. Self interest. I've no problem with someone smoking weed in the privacy of their own home, but let's at least be honest and upfront about the legalization agenda. Its fueled by people who want to do drugs without any legal consequences.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually I thought Wellesley's point about the new revenue stream from taxation was quite a good one and albeit one put forward by those who wish to do drugs because it's the reason that probably sits best with non drug users, it's actually quite a good one isn't it? No need to reduce the price from 100 to 10 as Wellesley suggests, why not 100 to 40 and have another 30 in tax on top? This argument for legalisatiion shouldn't be entirely ignored.

 

[PSV Rulezzz]

Originally posted by Wellesley:
<strong>I understand that the Dutch de-criminalization of marijuana has worked quite well. The overall use of mj has actually decreased and there has been no noticable increase in the use of heroin, crack or amphetamines as a result. Do we have Dutch here? Perhaps someone could let me know if what I have heard is really true?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm a Dutchie
It's true the new policy about drugs helped quite well. But now we get all those foreigners who come here...

 

[Jade]

so what your saying is tourism went up? sounds like a win/win to me

 

[PSV Rulezzz]

Originally posted by Jade:
<strong>so what your saying is tourism went up? sounds like a win/win to me </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I don't know if you would like those tourists in your village...

 

[nickm]

Originally posted by ManUinOz:
<strong>
Lets not add to the problem by legalising marijuana.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What do you think the 'problem' is? Having a few hippies smoke a bit of relatively harmless weed? Or handing the control of billions of dollars of revenue to criminals, psychopaths and murderers?

 

[Jade]

right on, nickm

 

[kimdeal]

Originally posted by ManUinOz:
<strong>
In my home state of S. Australia marijuana has been largely decriminalised and is readily available yet still accounts for a large proportion of other crimes from aggravated burglary, motoring offences, street violence etc.
It should not be legalised IMO.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Street violence?Street violence?FFS that is probably the most ridiculous thing i've ever read.

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

Originally posted by kimdeal:
<strong>

Street violence? Street violence? FFS that is probably the most ridiculous thing i've ever read.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

Honest.

It said in the report.

 

[Wibble]

Originally posted by kimdeal:
<strong>

Street violence?Street violence?FFS that is probably the most ridiculous thing i've ever read.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Recreational drugs I would think rather than 1 in particular.

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by nickm:
<strong>

What do you think the 'problem' is? Having a few hippies smoke a bit of relatively harmless weed? Or handing the control of billions of dollars of revenue to criminals, psychopaths and murderers?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The crime issue associated with illegal weed sales is really insignificant when compared to the cocaine and heroin trades. The issue is whether society should endorse the legal use of something that has absolutely no benefit and would unequivocally result in greater health care and insurance costs to the rest of society.

 

[ManUinOz]

Originally posted by kimdeal:
<strong>

Street violence?Street violence?FFS that is probably the most ridiculous thing i've ever read.</strong><hr></blockquote>

My best mate works in the Adelaide police station doing a project on drugs and crime, he's an ex-cop from Manchester and a very reliable source.
Dope is very readily available in Adelaide,it is legal to grow it and possess it for "personal use". Much street violence occurs from between gangs wanting to sell their dope, not Amphetamines or heroin but marijauna. Because so many people grow it, there are house break ins every second day from people looking to steal hydroponically grown dope, those who do grow it obviously resist, hence more violence. The main players in the marijuana trade and owners of Adelaide's many, more than Melbourne and Sydney combined, hydro shops are bikie gangs, mainly the Hells Angels, and violence is rife.

 

[nickm]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>
The issue is whether society should endorse the legal use of something that has absolutely no benefit and would unequivocally result in greater health care and insurance costs to the rest of society.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You are right, let's ban guns, they have no benefit. Let's ban sweets, coca cola, plastic wrapping too, fast food, they have no benefit and add to health costs.

Assuming full legalisation, legitimate private enterprise will cut costs and make the whole process valuable, rather than costly as it is at the moment. (I am surprised a man of your politics doesn't see this immediately.)

Taxation - billions of extra revenue.
Cut crime - lower policing costs, lower prison costs.
Army - lower military costs of supporting places like Columbia.
Medical costs - little change (1) because most of the worst affected are too poor to have insurance and legalisation won't change that (2) any health effects are there whether the drug is illegal or legal, as someone pointed out (and you failed to respond to).

The war on drugs is a costly failure. That is a fact.

I would like to see you defend its never-ending waste of lives and resources, and not the straw man of what might happen to medical insurance upon legalisation.

 

[nickm]

Originally posted by ManUinOz:
<strong>

My best mate works in the Adelaide police station doing a project on drugs and crime, he's an ex-cop from Manchester and a very reliable source.
Dope is very readily available in Adelaide,it is legal to grow it and possess it for "personal use". Much street violence occurs from between gangs wanting to sell their dope, not Amphetamines or heroin but marijauna. Because so many people grow it, there are house break ins every second day from people looking to steal hydroponically grown dope, those who do grow it obviously resist, hence more violence. The main players in the marijuana trade and owners of Adelaide's many, more than Melbourne and Sydney combined, hydro shops are bikie gangs, mainly the Hells Angels, and violence is rife.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am not surprised by that at all. It's not enough to decriminalise its use, you have to legalise its supply so legitimate business can run the supply, rather than, as you say, crooks, gangsters and gangs. Decriminalisation for personal use doesn't by itself create a regulated market.

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by nickm:
<strong>

You are right, let's ban guns, they have no benefit. Let's ban sweets, coca cola, plastic wrapping too, fast food, they have no benefit and add to health costs.

Assuming full legalisation, legitimate private enterprise will cut costs and make the whole process valuable, rather than costly as it is at the moment. (I am surprised a man of your politics doesn't see this immediately.)

Taxation - billions of extra revenue.
Cut crime - lower policing costs, lower prison costs.
Army - lower military costs of supporting places like Columbia.
Medical costs - little change (1) because most of the worst affected are too poor to have insurance and legalisation won't change that (2) any health effects are there whether the drug is illegal or legal, as someone pointed out (and you failed to respond to).

The war on drugs is a costly failure. That is a fact.

I would like to see you defend its never-ending waste of lives and resources, and not the straw man of what might happen to medical insurance upon legalisation.</strong><hr></blockquote>


This debate has nothing to do with guns or sweets. We're talking about Cannabis. I'm not for the war on drugs, but at the same time I'm also not for sedating a good portion of society with something that only produces negative long term effects.

As for:

Taxation - billions of extra revenue.
Cut crime - lower policing costs, lower prison costs.
Army - lower military costs of supporting places like Columbia.
Medical costs - little change (1) because most of the worst affected are too poor to have insurance and legalisation won't change that (2) any health effects are there whether the drug is illegal or legal, as someone pointed out (and you failed to respond to).


Cut Crime - Crime will still take place whether Cannabis is legal or not. To think that the crime rate will somehow drop because it is legal is naive. There will still be illicit underground trafficking of cheaper/more potent weed than what the government allows. There will also be variants of weed mixed with other drugs. Its just human nature for criminals to attempt to profit from it.

Taxation - Billions in extra revenue ??? I can think of other ways to generate revenue than by allowing druggies to slowly rot their brains.

Army - Lower costs of military supporting places like Columbia - WEED ! Not Coke. Are you for legalizing Crack and Heroin as well ? If not, then the lower military angle is not for you.

Health Care - If you think that health care costs will go down if drugs are legal then you're mistaken. I don't know how it is in countries with socialized medicine, but in the US...insurance rates would skyrocket for clinics and hospitals that deal with legal drug addicts. The fact that most users are poor is an excellent reason why we shouldn't encourage them to further slip into the depravity of drug use. They would not recieve any extra attention in the US just because they are poor.

Ultimately, the legalization arguement is fraught with inconsistencies and that's why I don't agree with it. If it made sense then I would be more open to some of the ideas, but so far they seem remarkably shortsighted and selfish. Its all about drug users wanting to do drugs without being bothered by the law. Any way you slice it (ie the war on drugs is a failure etc), it still comes down to the fact that this arguement is being fanned on by drug users who want to do drugs without any regard for the consequences of their actions.

 

[mr. destro]

seems easy: ban smoking fags and legalize the grain, everyone's a winner!

 

[FresnoBob]

I don't smoke anything--so legalization wouldn't affect me. New taxes (on the weed) might be nice, especially in a bankrupt state like California. However, in my job, I see very few straight marijuana users--most seem to use the stuff as a means of injesting the harder drugs like meth, crack, and PCP. Absolute legalization around here would make it more difficult to control usage of the more dangerous chemicals.

Although current California law purports to place some constraints and rules on the usage of marijuana solely for "medical" use, I'm not overly impressed with the law, the reasoning, or the practice of "medical marijuana." It's more of a front for well-placed folks to have a psychiatrist friend write a "prescription" rather than for any congnizable, scientifically validated application.

 

[Raoul]

Now that this thread seems to have stalled...just wanted to say that I'm actually in favour of legalization. I was trying to come up with the strongest devil's advocate arguement that I could - hoping that someone would be able to change my mind with a common sense approach. It seems that my points were sparsely valid, but at the end of the day you can't stop people from doing something that feels good (health issues be damned).

 

[mr. destro]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>Now that this thread seems to have stalled...just wanted to say that I'm actually in favour of legalization. I was trying to come up with the strongest devil's advocate arguement that I could - hoping that someone would be able to change my mind with a common sense approach. It seems that my points were sparsely valid, but at the end of the day you can't stop people from doing something that feels good (health issues be damned). </strong><hr></blockquote>

good on ya, now don't do that again!

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by nickm:
<strong>

You have to love rightwing types like Raoul who like to have their personal freedom cake and eat it.

Freedom is OK when it comes to financial liberty - Government 'interference' is wrong and should be discouraged.

Freedom is OK when it comes to the right to own guns, despite the proven burden on public health services of 50,000 deaths a year and countless more injuries.

Freedom however is bad when it comes to recreational liberty - Government interference is right and should not only be encouraged, but enforced by the ruthless and highly discrimatory practise of jailing millions of drug users.

I am in favour of the legalisation and regulation of all narcotics, because I believe the damage prohibition is doing to society - in terms of crime, in terms of health, in terms of uncontrolled addiction - exists, is proven, is getting ever worse and will not go away until we rethink the policy from the ground up.

Prohibition has been one of the most socially disastrous policies ever foisted on the population and those who support it are defending a bankrupt, broken and morally indefensible policy.

Legalisation, in some form, conversely offers a way out of the blind alley types like Raoul continue to want the rest of us to drive down.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> Hook Line n Sinker.

 

[nickm]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> Hook Line n Sinker.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You *say* you were playing devil's advocate but I like to think it was my devastating ripostes which changed your mind

 

[FresnoBob]

Originally posted by nickm:
<strong>

You *say* you were playing devil's advocate but I like to think it was my devastating ripostes which changed your mind </strong><hr></blockquote>

It was probably some quality Acapulco Gold and a large pizza that changed his mind.

 

[Raoul]

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

A few bong hits and several large plates of pasta before bedtime later....

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

US - Bill passed in House. But looks like won't make it past Senate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/us/politics/house-marijuana.html

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Think you could've made a new thread instead of a 17 year old bump, to be fair.

 

[OleBoiii]

Woah, I love time machines like these! It's interesting to read old posts and see how times have chanced.