MARIJUANA

[Latch33570]

Many states in the US have passed medical use and the restrictions are pretty lax.  California has been doing it since 1996 and low and behold it hasn't fallen apart yet. 2 of our states have passed recreational use. I bet they won't fall apart either. I wonder how much money and lives it will save.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

alcohol is physically addictive as well as psychologically addictive

Only in rare cases, and as a result of seriously extreme overuse.

and there is no limit to your capacity to be intoxicated. That's why you can get alcohol poisoning and that's why alcohol consumption can kill you.

Yes, but cannabis, unlike alcohol, can damage the brain in the longer term.

both cannabis and cigarettes have the issue of second hand smoke and the harm that causes the people around them.

Both of which can be mitigated by being smoked outside. Cannabis damage to the brain however is a long term threat to people.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

but alcohol does damage the brain.

But the link is not to psychosis, and also, it is not to the same degree of Cannabis.

and cigarettes are loaded with all kinds of chemicals and toxins that harm the body.

But they do not harm others potentially. Psycosis has that capacity.The only other harm is 2nd hand smoke, which can be eliminated by stopping smoking indoors in public places.

[Rem]

It's not like I disagree with it potentially being harmful to adults (It's got quite a lot of chemicals in it, and while not all users experience observable, permanent differences, some people will, like with any drug), but does that make the consumption of it a crime? It isn't that physically addictive, it has minimal withdrawal aftereffects, and it's generally beneficial on a psychological level. Certainly, we're better off not using it, but you can't criminalize every self-harming activity. Laws mostly concern hurting others, and short of ending our lives and thus hurting our loved ones, self harm isn't technically illegal.

More importantly, there are numerous issues associated with criminalizing the drug. Gangs, jail overcrowding, money. What with hemp-paper and taxes, the US at the very least could easily turn a profit by legalizing the drug, with decreased gang influence as a bonus. Pragmatically, from this point of view it's the lesser of two evils.

Not that it wouldn't cause it's own share of problems, of course. Underage use increasing (I'm not too sure about this, since Marijuana is apparently more abused by the underage than alcoholic products, but hey), for one thing. Furthermore, it's really bloody difficult for a police officer to tell whether or not an intoxicated driver is high, apparently--different tests than alcohol, it seems. And while we've noticed fewer health (Mental or physical) complaints as a result of Cannabis abuse than Alcohol, we still don't understand it.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Certainly, we're better off not using it, but you can't criminalize every self-harming activity. Laws mostly concern hurting others, and short of ending our lives and thus hurting our loved ones, self harm isn't technically illegal.

No, its not. But the psycosis it causes has the potential to damage other people, and ultimately that's an important concerns. Also, the brain damage it causes is severe enough to warrent it not being avaiable to be sold in a comercial manner (just the same way that there are plenty of radioactive elements that might not make a bomb, but we don't sell them over the counter). 

More importantly, there are numerous issues associated with criminalizing the drug. Gangs, jail overcrowding, money. What with hemp-paper and taxes, the US at the very least could easily turn a profit by legalizing the drug, with decreased gang influence as a bonus. Pragmatically, from this point of view it's the lesser of two evils.

Except there is the wide scale associated problems with health etc. Call me crazy, but I don't want a population growing up with a lower IQ because of the usage of this stuff. Even if it is true, to one extent or another, that the damage caused by cannabis is less pronounced with older age, the problem is that any legalisation will result in an increased usage amoung people who are suceptable to damage by it. How exactly are you going to make the message clear to people that "its okay, but it's not" at the same time? Legalising it and then trying to control it by telling people that its bad for them is a mixed message.

However, you are right in that there is a case for a wide scale reform of the drug laws. Ownership shouldn't be the kind of offence that results in prison. Just fines. Dealing, yes perhaps, but not ownership.

[Taylor Friese]

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376

This study here tells me that decriminalization of marijuana doesn't necessarily lead to an increase in its use. 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376

And this one tells me that the states that haven't decriminalized marijuana have higher numbers of people using more dangerous drugs.

you said "How exactly are you going to make the message clear to people that 'it's okay, but it's not' at the same time?".  I think we have done this with cigarettes and alcohol successfully.  Telling the people that they are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions about these things is treating the general population like they are idiots and incapable of learning something that is not specifically said to them, and I think people are smarter than that.  More people die or cause other people to die under the influence of alcohol than marijuana, and I think this is really important to keep in mind.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

This study here tells me that decriminalization of marijuana doesn't necessarily lead to an increase in its use.

That study focuses on people using it legally. The problem I raised is that decriminalising it will be saying to younger people "it's actually okay" when it isn't.

And this one tells me that the states that haven't decriminalized marijuana have higher numbers of people using more dangerous drugs.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

 

you said "How exactly are you going to make the message clear to people that 'it's okay, but it's not' at the same time?".  I think we have done this with cigarettes and alcohol successfully.

Except we haven't. There are still loads of young people using far too much of both. If we decriminalise it, we'll be saying to them "actually, it's not as bad as all that" and giving them more grounds to try it.

Telling the people that they are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions about these things is treating the general population like they are idiots and incapable of learning something that is not specifically said to them, and I think people are smarter than that.

The evidence doesn't support your conclusion. There are still too many people  drinking to much and smoking too much. Decriminalising cannabis will make people think that it's more okay than it is.

More people die or cause other people to die under the influence of alcohol than marijuana, and I think this is really important to keep in mind.

 

Myth. The truth of the matter is that there are plenty of people who die under the influence of cannabis, but they are not recorded as such, because their deaths have other intimidate links. People who commit suicide because of the damage done to their brains, people who have fatal car accidents after recovering etc. While the drugs are found in their system, the actual cause is not attributed to them because people think of cannabis too much like alcohol IE thinking you have to be under its direct influence to be killed by it, when that isn't true.

[Rem]

"No, it's not...over the counter)."

Well, honestly, our knowledge of what it does is rather limited. There have been some indications by recent studies indicating a link between Marijuana and permanent psychosis, but research is still being done. I personally believe that there's a link, but for all we know it's like alcohol--too much of it can kill you, but limited amounts are safe.

"Except...mixed message."

Yeah, that's a problem. It's probably easier to prevent kids from getting pot than stopping adults from smoking in public, but the lesser of two evils is still evil, and ultimately, the existence of Marijuana is more negative than positive. I don't know the answer to this one, frankly--is it possible to prevent this country or that country from getting Cannabis, and to completely stop it's growth internally? Or is that just a pipe dream, and do we need to cut our losses? I'm a young idealist, so I'd like to think that a country could peacefully remove the problem and we'd all live happy, drug free lives, but the cynical side of me thinks that it's futile.

 

"However...ownership."

This is actually my sole concern with Marijuana criminalization, actually, so we at least share the same philosophy and desired outcome, if not the means. (Again, I'm a bit too inexperienced to actually come to a conclusion on issues like this, so I'm less opposed to you in this case and more conflicted on what the right thing to do is.) I can't speak for every country or culture, but while Marijuana is currently illegal in the US, a lot of people don't really think of it that way. It's easy to condemn arson or theft or whatever, but as a culture we're more inclined to be forgiving of Cannabis use.

One could say that many of us view it as a harmless activity which without question should be legal, especially in comparison to nicotine or alcohol misuse. Since so many of us view it as harmless, I'm opposed to giving them permanent criminal records as opposed to, as you suggested, fines. I suppose it's wrong to think of the legal system as a moral convention (While judges are allotted a bit of leniency when dealing with people who truly regret their actions, good intentions alone aren't enough to be pardoned for a crime, and cruel decisions are made for the sake of order), but I'm bothered by the idea of people getting criminal records simply because the government decided to protect their physical well beings. Criminal records are hell.

(And just to clarify, while I really hate alcohol and nicotine abuse, I don't think we should outlaw the drugs. We've had them for so long that any attempt to get rid of them would be futile--the Prohibition and whatnot. You'd have an easier time fighting the tide by drinking all of it. Marijuana seems rare enough that, while some people will use it anyways, most people won't.)

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Well, honestly, our knowledge of what it does is rather limited. There have been some indications by recent studies indicating a link between Marijuana and permanent psychosis, but research is still being done. I personally believe that there's a link, but for all we know it's like alcohol--too much of it can kill you, but limited amounts are safe.

 

The most recent studies show the link as stronger and stronger, as we research with more and more people. It really isn't something that can be dismissed. This seems too much like when the right say about global warming "well, we don't know yet..." etc.

I can't speak for every country or culture, but while Marijuana is currently illegal in the US, a lot of people don't really think of it that way. It's easy to condemn arson or theft or whatever, but as a culture we're more inclined to be forgiving of Cannabis use.

 

It's similar, although not to the same extent, in the UK. Generally, the wider attitude is that we should treat people with problems, and punish people who are dealing, while those who are just transporting things can just be fined.

One could say that many of us view it as a harmless activity which without question should be legal, especially in comparison to nicotine or alcohol misuse. Since so many of us view it as harmless, I'm opposed to giving them permanent criminal records as opposed to, as you suggested, fines.

The question really is though, should it be viewed as harmless. I'm not convinced of that. But equally, I agree that treating it as the same as a more serious felony isn't working.

[Latch33570]

Vertigo you always ignore this. The term psychosis is too general. I saw a documentary where these two british yunguns ate some pot brownies  and walking through the woods. They were pointing out the differences in their perception. For one instance they were jumping over a ditch and the boys while high thought it was wider and larger than it was. The narrator kept going about how it was causing them to loose their sense of reality and that kind of psychosis was bad. The term is just to general. Those kids weren't hurting anyone. They were just having a good time. So what if it makes you a little paranoid. It is your body your choice. Quality of life and personal freedom is to important the govt needs to get out of our life. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You're talking about an individual incident with the drug. This is what you don't get. The individual incidents don't always have the capacity to induce psycosis incidents, but they do have the capacity to build them up over time. There's also plenty of evidence to suggest cannabis shrinks the brain, damages white matter, and all kinds of other things that ultimately are the kinds of things the state should protect their citizens from.

So what if it makes you a little paranoid. It is your body your choice. Quality of life and personal freedom is to important the govt needs to get out of our life.

 

But what if it puts others at danger. That's what is at issue here.

[Latch33570]

The pot issue is VERY important to me. It isn't about getting high. I have never even tried it. It is about personal freedom and states rights.

[ego Ipse]

Hey, I am not speaking from the us, and here the laws on this topic are quite lax, and here is my take: Just let people choose what they want to do with their bodies. Many people i know smoke pot (Though I personally don't) and they are neither zombies nor drug addicts . 

Unacceptable. The body's harm is long term and gives the possibility of harming other people as a result of psychological damage. Psychosis is unpredictable by nature

Vertigo, sorry if it is not what you are trying to do, but you often sound to me as much too much of a moralist. I am sure you are aware that psychosis is UNPREDICTABLE by nature. You cannot expect to bubblewrap the universe. 

It is true that some behaviours shouldn't be done by people under age, but that is no cause to just outright ban it. By that account, driving should be forbidden to everyone, since a kid driving a car "gives the possibility of harming other people as a result of psychological damage"...or a physical one by the way.

 Also, you are terribly biased when discussing it in terms of other psychoactive substances, since you reject their effects as an afterthought (Despite alcohol or cigarettes alone killing millions a year), whilst clinging to every possible consequence of pot. I may remind you that not only do the former substances have worse and more certain after effects, as many of the consequences of marijuana are still debated, but you will find a longer list of possible maladies resulting from ordinary medicine or substances you ingest on a daily basis. Remember, results may vary.

As a person I think that you are free to take whatever options you want with your OWN body as long as you have the mind in a state you can do so. And like with everything in the universe, there is always a chance others will be affected by it. You just need to think it through and stop assuming everyone else has no capability to see through the consequences.

You need to let others be awesome on their own.