Do you think marijuana should be legalised?

Post Reply New Topic

Cannabis usage didn't skyrocket in the Netherlands. On the contrary. Holland has a far smaller percentage of cannabis users than the USA, the UK, or Germany. Why? Because cannabis is decriminalized and properly regulated, which means that teenagers can be more effectively prevented from using drugs. Prohibition doesn't achieve anything, it only enables organized crime members that sell drugs to 12-year-olds in the school yard.

From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 201007.htm - "United States Has Highest Level Of Illegal Cocaine And Cannabis Use":



As for the potential side effects of cannabis, a causal relationship between marijuana and schizophrenia type disorders has never been conclusively proven. People under stress are more likely to self-medicate with drugs, and stress is also the environmental trigger for schizoprenia in genetically predisposed people. It is impossible to tell if marijuana use or stress was the major contributing factor. The same goes for depression. Depression also prompts self-medication, which turns the correlation of depression and drug use into a chicken-or-egg question.

But I won't deny that cannabis (over)use can have side effects. Every drug and every food item has potential side effects, even one that is as harmless as cannabis (harmless in comparison to alcohol, tobacco, fast food, psychoactive pharmaceuticals, and other legal drugs anyway). But does that mean we should outlaw everything that can be potentially harmful?

Consider how many people are killed by fast food abuse each year. Unlike the shaky evidence for the schizophrenia-contributing properties of cannabis, the link between fast "food" and diseases like diabetes, heart disease, morbid obesity and autimmune disorders are well established. An unhealthy diet also greatly contributes to mental disorders, and so do many pharmaceuticals. Pick any random pharmaceutical drug; chances are that the package insert mentions psychosis and/or hallucinations among the side effects.

We can't force people to live and eat healthy, and it's madness to prohibit drugs and herbs with important medical properties because a small percentage of people suffer from side effects. This would apply even if it was possible to effectively prohibit drugs, which is not the case. International panels have come to the conclusion that the war on drugs is a complete and utter failure (link). The Dutch model has shown that the only sensible thing to do is to decriminalize drugs and regulate the production and sale.

Actually, the largest study ever done on the subject involved 46,000 subjects, controlled for pre-existing mental illness, and found using marijuana 1-10 times put users in a group 1.5 times more likely to be diagnoses with schizophrenia later in life, and using more than that resulted in odds 2.3 times greater. This was a longitudinal study, following participants for 15 years.
Schiophrenia in users and non-users
Other studies even accounted for other types of substance abuse, and confirmed the original findings.
Use as a Risk Factor

Other studies show a link between transient psychotic symptoms in healthy individuals and potent cannabis use.
Psychosis in Healthy People

The evidence that memory and intelligence are negatively affected in heavy users is rock-solid, but we'll assume "heavy" by definition represents a non-majority number of users.

Until people plan on getting tested for the genetic markers for schizophrenia prior to usage of cannabis (which, by the way, I believe are still only estimated to be responsible for 50% of all cases), whether the drug causes it or acts in conjunction with genes is pretty moot.

See CrazyCatLords post.

Ha. If I had to pick, I'd want cannabis legalized before fast food- preaching to the choir on that one.

Of course you can! But everyone's in bed with everyone else.

I think the neat trick would be making it feasible for fast food chains to offer 400 to 500 calorie lunches as value meals and invest on how to get the most flavor and food for the least kilojoules. People generally seem to buy into what works if the cost and inconvenience aren't too high.

I think the healthcare costs, which, considering it is cannabis we're talking about, would likely be minimal; would quite easily be offset by the billions not being spent incarcerating nonviolent offenders and enforcing marijuana prohibition laws that are proven not to work

http://www.leap.cc/

Ending prohibition would also take the money out of the hands of cartels, petty criminals and importantly, international terrorists / narcostates

I'm going to speak from a couple of perspectives.

First, as a doctor. I see significantly more harm to individuals from tobacco, alchohol and food additives like HFCS than I do from marijuana. While I certainly believe that government has a legitimate role to play in regulating the marketplace, I do not see a medical justification for a marijuana ban.

However, neither do I see significant medical benefit from marijuana. Certainly there are medically indicated uses--but for almost every one of these uses there are more effective medical strategies available than ongoing use of marijuana. There are patients who report superior results with marijuana, but most of these are anecdotal, and there is little--if any--peer reviewed, clinical literature to demonstrate the efficacy of marijuana as a medical therapy.

Second, as a bureaucrat. Many people talk about the trifecta: legalize, regulate and tax. All well and good. But just how do you propose to go about this? A vast amount of marijuana currently produced is grown in farming enterprises operated by organized crime groups. Are these organizations likely to vacate the market quietly? This is not like the repeal of alcohol prohibition where there was an extant industry ready to resume production--this is a case where we are purporting to legitimate an industry that likely has no intention of being legitimated.

Third, as a lawyer. While government clearly has the jurisdiction to prohibit drugs, for whatever reasons Parliament decides, there is a public policy question around the degree to which government can legitimately restrain the liberty of the citizen. The greater the public policy interest to be protected, the greater the degree to which an infringement will be understood to be legitimate. Increasingly, we seem to be approaching a point of view that suggests that there are only mild public policy interests to be protected through the banning of marijuana.

Fourth, as an individual. I don't use marijuana, personally, but I have many friends who do, and who do so responsibly. I see no harm in their activity--and even if I did, I would see no greater harm than I would through the abuse of alcohol. I do not see a valid policy objective targeted at the user, and I do not see prohibition as a viable tool to use to target the black market producer.

I live in an area (Humboldt County, California) where pot is a huge part of the economy but is almost entirely underground. On the one hand, legalizing pot would decrease the price and negatively impact the economy; on the other hand, taking the illegal aspect out would decrease violent crime and the growers attracted to the area would be more stable people. Also, we could tax the hell out of it, maybe get it out of the National and State Parks and onto farms.

I'd like to see pot decriminalized but heavily regulated and kept away from children and teens, along the lines of how we currently treat cigarettes and alcohol. There should be legal blood limits over which one cannot drive, etc.

I think my biggest concern is it would blow up as a fad for a second - like Starbucks or whatever else, though my best guess is since it doesn't take a lot to grow it we'd be in a situation where technically it wouldn't cost much at all at the coffee shops - prices per eighth ounce would probably cut in quarter if not deeper. At the same time I still think coffee shops would do well simply because they'd specialize in professional grade and exotic strains and, just like walking into a Starbucks or Panera, one could let their mouths water at what's under the glass (that and added - its a social venue a bit like a bar but with other social lubricant).

The only other challenge I've heard that seemed to pose something of momentary issue was one that a friend, paramedic, mentioned - that you can test someone on the spot for blood alcohol content but you can't test their level of impairment in any practical manner for marijuana since it stays in their system. I'd be curious to know now though what the police do to clearly stoned and irresponsible drivers.


They're actually a pretty good sized chunk of the opposition to legalization of marijuana. If it became legalized they have their profits gashed deep enough that they'd have a couple choices:

1) be an on-the-map above table grow op
2) go back to school or start some other kind of enterprise because 'mersh won't rack in thousands for them anymore.

A lot of non-criminal growers would immediately step up. I have spoken to quite a few people (non-criminals) who intend to grow marijuana once it is legal, even buying (legal) equipment necessary for this to happen already. There are also many individuals involved in it illegally who have big plans should it be legalized. I think there will be some bumps on the road to begin with, but within a few years it will settle down to a status comparable to alcohol

Yes. It's not the government's job to determine what you do with your body, only you make that decision.

The best way to regulate something is to render it obsolete. Nothing destroyed the typewriter industry quite the way word processors did. The same kind of thing is happening with our culture all the time on even more fundamental levels.

I smoked pot with my therapist once but it triggered a flashback memory of Peyote.

Cool therapist I guess I've never heard of pot triggering flashbacks... I was not aware peyote flashbacks even existed :/