Legality of Cannabis: Exploring the Debate

[turbo]

We could do the same with other drugs such as cocaine.

I highly disagree with making this stuff legal to save a nickle and dime.

How about to stifle profits enjoyed by the Mexican drug cartels and greatly reduce violence on our border?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It will be interesting to see which choice society makes here - personal choice vs control. For example, there is definitely movement towards full legalization of pot. At the same time, trans fats have been banned in some cities. And arguments are already being made that sugar should be regulated like a drug. In this and other ways I see opposing idealogies building momentum. And ultimately I think this will all boil down to the cost of health care.

Based on what I see, I think there is a fundamental choice that we will be making on various fronts over time: Does society have a right to demand that we live a so-called healthy lifestyle - due to the cost of health care and the burden it places on society - or do we have the right to make our own choices, be they good or bad ones?

I've seen this coming for a very long time and firmly believe that legalization of all drugs, with heavy taxation according to the real financial cost to society for poor lifestyle choices, is the only acceptable solution that preserves liberty fundamentally. The taxes should apply to all "unhealthy" lifestyle choices where possible; for example, for the purchase of alcohol and other drugs, sugary products and other unhealthy foods, equipment for dangerous activies, and even dangerous choices of transportation, like motorcycles. Otherwise, I think we will find ourselves being told how to live right down to our choice of foods for dinner; all based on the "cost to society". I'll even predict that your smart toilet will one day be reporting to your employer and insurance company, and they in turn will effectively dictate how you live, if we choose control over personal choice.

It doesn't really matter to me. By the time this all plays out I'll probably be dead. But I suspect that many of our younger members will find that our choices here will have a huge impact on their lives.

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937

Interesting history!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Legalize and regulate pot to save billions of dollars a year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...rijuana-could-save-137-billion_n_1441194.html

From your link:

WASHINGTON -- The federal government could save as much $13.7 billion annually if it were to legalize marijuana, according to a paper by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron.

More than half of the savings, $7.7 billion, would come from not having to enforce the current prohibitions against the drug, while an additional $6 billion per year would come from taxing marijuana at rates similar to tobacco and alcohol. Since the paper was first published in 2005, more than 300 economists, including three Nobel laureates, have signed a petition to call attention to the work and initiate a debate among people on both sides of the issue.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It will be interesting to see which choice society makes here - personal choice vs control. For example, there is definitely movement towards full legalization of pot. At the same time, trans fats have been banned in some cities. And arguments are already being made that sugar should be regulated like a drug. In this and other ways I see opposing idealogies building momentum. And ultimately I think this will all boil down to the cost of health care.

Based on what I see, I think there is a fundamental choice that we will be making on various fronts over time: Does society have a right to demand that we live a so-called healthy lifestyle - due to the cost of health care and the burden it places on society - or do we have the right to make our own choices, be they good or bad ones?

I've seen this coming for a very long time and firmly believe that legalization of all drugs, with heavy taxation according to the real financial cost to society for poor lifestyle choices, is the only acceptable solution that preserves liberty fundamentally. The taxes should apply to all "unhealthy" lifestyle choices where possible; for example, for the purchase of alcohol and other drugs, sugary products and other unhealthy foods, equipment for dangerous activies, and even dangerous choices of transportation, like motorcycles. Otherwise, I think we will find ourselves being told how to live right down to our choice of foods for dinner; all based on the "cost to society". I'll even predict that your smart toilet will one day be reporting to your employer and insurance company, and they in turn will effectively dictate how you live, if we choose control over personal choice.

It doesn't really matter to me. By the time this all plays out I'll probably be dead. But I suspect that many of our younger members will find that our choices here will have a huge impact on their lives.

I'm skeptical that healthy lifestyles end up costing society less. My grandmother (mother's side) didn't smoke or drink or do anything more risky than driving. She lived to be 103. The last ten years of her life, though, she required constant care. She broke both hips in her early 90's and the hip replacements and therapy, and her in home caregivers, were all paid for by Medicare, etc. At the same time, she was receiving Social Security for being retired.

Everyone wears out in the end and the healthier their lifestyle the longer they last and the longer social programs must take care of them after they retire. Being generally healthier they are more likely to survive things that would kill others, but, having survived, require a lot of care. No matter how long you live in good health your death will be preceded by a long period of decline during which you need more and more care.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm skeptical that healthy lifestyles end up costing society less.

Typically, lost productivity, fewer productive years, and greater health care costs at a younger age, are the issues cited.

I think it depends on the specific sin in question. For example, if you choose to ride motorcycles and end up a paraplegic as a result, you are definitely a burden on society.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Like cover it in explosives and blow themselves up in a public area? Your initial reaction will be to argue that they're doing harm to others person/property so it's an exception. To which I will retort, the effects of drug use transcend your body. Usage is coupled to the black market and interpersonal relationships and second hand health issues.

The black market isn't an intrinsic problem with marijuana. The black market is only a problem because of the illegality of marijuana. That's a problem caused by the illegality of marijuana, not solved by it.

Interpersonal relationships could be affected by marijuana use, but in what way? The same way cigarette use affects interpersonal relationships? Or is this another problem caused by the illegality of marijuana?

Second hand health issues are only a problem if you smoke it around other people. Just like swinging my arms out to the side is only a second hand health issue if I do it near other people. Neither of those activities are necessarily done in the presence of other people.

While marijauna is one of those with less impact, it still has some impact and there are users who don't care about those impacts. For instance, marijuana can have negative effects on developing brains, but some users will smoke around their children anyway (the same people who would smoke cigarettes around their children... and are still allowed to under current laws!)

And playing Wii Bowling near children can be harmful too, but that's no reason to say Wii Bowling infringes on other people's rights.

So I am with the majority voters here: marijuana should be legal, but it should be controlled because every person isn't responsible enough to manage safe use themselves.

I agree, but just like alcohol, we just have to trust people won't do it around children. People are allowed to drink in their homes and we trust that they won't let their children drink it. So with marijuana, we just have to trust that they won't smoke it around their children.
So regulated in that you should probably be a certain age to buy it, and you shouldn't be allowed to smoke it while operating machinery, but other than that, it should be treated like alcohol.

I kind of agree with Hobin here, even though I appreciate Evo's point that this is an American forum with predominantly American users sometimes (especially when you are directly responding to someone) it would at least be polite to acknowledge the country specificity of your comment.

I don't think it's necessary. Realistically, most will know which country I'm talking about, but even if they don't, it's an irrelevant fact to the point that I'm making. A country is putting "in god we trust" on currency. I just used it as an analogy, so whichever country is doing it is irrelevant to the point.

In the UK and the US suicide is no longer a crime (historically it was in the UK because it was seen as a crime against god). Regardless we seem to be talking cross purposes here, I'm not being absolutist and saying that all laws against what people do with their own lives are good and I'm not interested in getting into a discussion of what laws are, what aren't and what now-legal acts need laws. My point is that it is not good to allow total personal freedom in private.

Why is your opinion that we shouldn't allow total personal freedom in private?

Do they also have the right to infringe on my rights?

No. People have a right to do as they please as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights, within reason.

 

[D H]

I think it depends on the specific sin in question. For example, if you choose to ride motorcycles and end up a paraplegic as a result, you are definitely a burden on society.

It depends on how one rides a motorcycle. A person who rides responsibly by wearing a helmet is quite likely to end up a paraplegic as a result of an accident. Those who love that feel of the wind flowing past their unhelmeted head are more likely to die from an accident than they are to survive. Cost to society: Lots of money for a helmeted rider, one casket for an unhelmeted rider. (There is a slight risk to society that an unhelmeted rider will survive and cost a bundle, but this is more than compensated by the drastically increased likelihood of immediate death.) Helmets save lives, but they don't save money. Contrast that to seatbelts. Seatbelts save lives and save money. The insurance industry hasn't been nearly as aggressive with regard to pursuing helmet laws compared to seatbelt laws.

 

[Alfi]

Yes, the two on the same day seems fitting from a culture perspective

just joking, all environmentalists aren't hippies, but all hippies are environmentalists.

Earth Day ? Wrong date. afaik.

April 22 2012


Happy Earth day. :)

 

[Evo]

Earth Day ? Wrong date. afaik.

April 22 2012


Happy Earth day. :)

That was my error, he was responding to me.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Why is your opinion that we shouldn't allow total personal freedom in private?

I thought I'd already explained this: just because something happens in private doesn't mean it stays "in private." I've given examples above regarding drug use, I'm not sure what you aren't understanding.

 

[Pythagorean]

The black market isn't an intrinsic problem with marijuana. The black market is only a problem because of the illegality of marijuana. That's a problem caused by the illegality of marijuana, not solved by it.

The point was that there are irresponsible users so it should be regulated. Some users don't care where their money is going. Some people, in general, aren't aware of the far-reaching consequence of their own actions. And then there's also those that just don't care. These are the two reasons for criminal law.

Interpersonal relationships could be affected by marijuana use, but in what way? The same way cigarette use affects interpersonal relationships? Or is this another problem caused by the illegality of marijuana?

Yes; for instance, illegal activities puts family in danger and takes time away from them. That people are willing to take this risk is another indicator that people are irresponsible.

Second hand health issues are only a problem if you smoke it around other people. Just like swinging my arms out to the side is only a second hand health issue if I do it near other people. Neither of those activities are necessarily done in the presence of other people.

Smoke is more elusive than rigid bodies. When you smoke a lot in the same place, ash and residue builds up. In the case of cigarettes, for instance, even if you don't smoke in your house, your children could have up to about 4x the nicotine levels in their blood as children of non-smoking households.

Whether such low nicotine levels (or alleged thc levels) cause significant effects is still an open question. Either way, it's definitely a respiratory hazard. Part of the regulation would be making people aware of this.

And playing Wii Bowling near children can be harmful too, but that's no reason to say Wii Bowling infringes on other people's rights.

that's your second non-sequitor...

I agree, but just like alcohol, we just have to trust people won't do it around children.

With alcohol, we have laws that strictly forbid watching your children drunk or giving your children alcohol. These laws are enforced! We don't just trust people (but we can't violate their privacy either). In Alaska, we make whole village go dry for too many domestic alcohol violations. The impact isn't taken lightly.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I thought I'd already explained this: just because something happens in private doesn't mean it stays "in private." I've given examples above regarding drug use, I'm not sure what you aren't understanding.

Your examples described a situation that wasn't private. Like smoking around children. If other people are around, that's not really private.

Yes; for instance, illegal activities puts family in danger and takes time away from them. That people are willing to take this risk is another indicator that people are irresponsible.

True, but again, that's not an intrinsic problem with marijuana itself.

Smoke is more elusive than rigid bodies. When you smoke a lot in the same place, ash and residue builds up. In the case of cigarettes, for instance, even if you don't smoke in your house, your children could have up to about 4x the nicotine levels in their blood as children of non-smoking households.

Whether such low nicotine levels (or alleged thc levels) cause significant effects is still an open question. Either way, it's definitely a respiratory hazard. Part of the regulation would be making people aware of this.

That's true, but if people smoked outside, like my parents did, then I never had to breathe cigarette smoke.

that's your second non-sequitor...

I don't know how it's a non-sequitor, or why it's the second one. Could you elaborate?

With alcohol, we have laws that strictly forbid watching your children drunk or giving your children alcohol. These laws are enforced! We don't just trust people (but we can't violate their privacy either). In Alaska, we make whole village go dry for too many domestic alcohol violations. The impact isn't taken lightly.

We trust them when they're in private, otherwise the law wouldn't allow them to even have alcohol in their house.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Your examples described a situation that wasn't private. Like smoking around children. If other people are around, that's not really private.

I don't think being solely alone is a reasonable definition of private, it certainly isn't a legal one. If I and a select group of friends are in my private property then we are "in private." If we were outside then we would be on public property.

Regardless that doesn't really alter the point of what I was saying. We can modify the example to be a person who faces peer-pressure in their life and goes back to their private property alone to make a poor decision (because they are not necessarily in full possession of the facts). This poor decision made and conducted alone on private property then still has far reaching effects. Just because something happens in private doesn't mean the effects remain private.

I think their is a contradicton in your beliefs leroy. On the one hand you agree that people should have freedom up until they infringe others (with reasonable argument as to whether or not certain infringements are justified e.g. freedom of speech vs freedom from offence) yet on the other you seem to think that anything in private is justified without acknowledging that the effects of things that happen in private aren't necessarily contained.

 

[nitsuj]

For example, if you choose to ride motorcycles and end up a paraplegic as a result, you are definitely a burden on society.

In ottawa, a couple years ago, some fairly renowned "brain" doctor/surgeon was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident.

An employee at my work found this out, through networks developed while caring for her son who has a sever brain injury.

Her concern was losing this local doctor with remarkable abilities in the "brain" field.

For me it raises the question; The doctor being so important to society, was he being irresponsible engaging in dangerous activities? (probably better asked as; Is the doctor responsible for the care of others.)

Just one of those neat food for thought moral dilemmas. Eastern / Western points of view on this "moral dilemma" would maybe be split, the individual or the whole.But my point, there is nothing to base an argument for "healthy lifestyle choices" reduce the tax burden on society. the context is far to dynamic to argue strictly for one side (money/tax).

I think "culture" is the only way to try & "curb" these morally grey areas, not black 'n white laws.

EDIT: just want to clarify, I am in favor of higher tax on unhealthy products. This is independent of the choice to buy them, similar to the brain surgeon & his motorcycle; I imagine his motor vehicle insurance reflected the added risk of commuting with a motorcycle..

 

[Ryan_m_b]

In ottawa, a couple years ago, some fairly renowned "brain" doctor/surgeon was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident...

Interesting dilemma, my answer to it would be that this man is just that; a man. He leaves his profession behind him when he leaves work. I hold that principle simply because of the impracticality of applying different laws to different people based on their "worth" to society. There are real life caveats to this though, I've heard that the UK Prime Minister is heavily restricted in their freedoms by government policy e.g. they can't just leave and walk down the street by themselves without body guards. I'm not sure if that's true or an urban myth but it's a similar issue.

Just one of those neat food for thought moral dilemmas. Eastern / Western points of view on this "moral dilemma" would maybe be split, the individual or the whole.

I don't even think you need to go that far, within various western cultures you would have big splits of opinion.

just want to clarify, I am in favor of higher tax on unhealthy products. This is independent of the choice to buy them, similar to the brain surgeon & his motorcycle; I imagine his motor vehicle insurance reflected the added risk of commuting with a motorcycle...

I agree but not for all things. Some dangerous products and activities should be banned either in part or totally e.g. making it illegal to ride a motorbike without a helmet.

 

[nitsuj]

Interesting dilemma, my answer to it would be that this man is just that; a man. He leaves his profession behind him when he leaves work. I hold that principle simply because of the impracticality of applying different laws to different people based on their "worth" to society. There are real life caveats to this though, I've heard that the UK Prime Minister is heavily restricted in their freedoms by government policy e.g. they can't just leave and walk down the street by themselves without body guards. I'm not sure if that's true or an urban myth but it's a similar issue.

I don't even think you need to go that far, within various western cultures you would have big splits of opinion.

I agree but not for all things. Some dangerous products and activities should be banned either in part or totally e.g. making it illegal to ride a motorbike without a helmet.

I agree with all you said, I differ slightly on the first point. I think it must be the individual first because we are free. You raised a perfect example regarding the UK Prime Minister.

Similar to the Hippocratic Oath a doctor pledges to (or whatever) here is an example; "I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm." (NOTE: this is from wikipedia)

I don't quite get what that last part means " those sound of mind & body, as well as the infirm." Is probably just those who are healthy & those who are sick. (is "...those sound of mind & body..." a grammar error? Those of sound mind & body...)

2.) I like East/West social contrasts
3.) Yup, wearing a helmet when riding a motorbike is not a "morally grey" area.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I think their is a contradicton in your beliefs leroy. On the one hand you agree that people should have freedom up until they infringe others (with reasonable argument as to whether or not certain infringements are justified e.g. freedom of speech vs freedom from offence) yet on the other you seem to think that anything in private is justified without acknowledging that the effects of things that happen in private aren't necessarily contained.

I acknowledge that no matter where your actions take place, they're never in a vacuum, but that's no reason to take those freedoms away from people.
So far we've established that it can be harmful to smoke around children. That shouldn't be allowed, even if you're in private, because it does infringe on other people's rights.
And we've established that you can get in trouble with the law for smoking in private, if they catch you somehow. Well, if someone were to argue that that's a reason for it to be regulated by law, then that's a circular argument.

You're arguing that it should be regulated, right? Just like alcohol? I agree with that.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I acknowledge that no matter where your actions take place, they're never in a vacuum, but that's no reason to take those freedoms away from people.

That really depends on the freedom and how it infringes on others doesn't it? Also there are more steps than having and taking away, a myriad of different regulatory options exist.

You're arguing that it should be regulated, right? Just like alcohol? I agree with that.

I'm not really arguing anything though I outlined my attitude earlier on in the thread. All I have to add to that is that if we wish to go further with some drugs and have them decriminalised there should be a regulatory body set up to approve drugs along scientific criteria in a similar way to medicinal drugs are. For the assessment criteria I would go along with something similar to what the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs proposed a few years ago (but was later rejected), essentially all drugs would be given a score based on their addictiveness, harm to self and harm to society. Building on top of that I would prefer to see a hierarchy of regulations ranging from very relaxed (available over-the-counter with age restrictions and taxed: like alcohol/tobacco) to very controlled (available only in select establishments where it must be consumed on site, possibly with a system wherein valid ID must be produced and frequency of visits to any establishment is controlled).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree but not for all things. Some dangerous products and activities should be banned either in part or totally e.g. making it illegal to ride a motorbike without a helmet.

How do you draw the line? When does an activity become too dangerous to allow? How about mountain climbing, skydiving, scuba diving, base jumping, bungee jumping, or even a reckless sexual lifestyle...? Should we ban sex without a "helmet" as well, except for married couples?

 

[zoobyshoe]

How do you draw the line? When does an activity become too dangerous to allow? How about mountain climbing, skydiving, scuba diving, base jumping, bungee jumping, or even a reckless sexual lifestyle...? Should we ban sex without a "helmet" as well, except for married couples?

I was going to ask something along the same lines. Why is it acceptable to risk becoming a quadripalegic by riding a motorcycle but not acceptable to risk brain damage? Helmets reduce injuries, but why is that any sort of obvious limit on how far to go to be safe?

Also, isn't it irresponsible not to ride a motorcycle when soldiers have died in Iraq to protect our oil supply?

Why, really, is it acceptable to risk any car accident injuries or deaths? Cars hit pedestrians now and then. Who indulged in the risky behavior there, the car driver or the pedestrian, and should they both have been required to wear helmets?

I'm not one, but a motorcycle aficionado might well ask such questions, and anyone deciding to lay out rules and regulations ought to see that the limits are often idiosyncratic and arbitrary.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For that matter, following the logic of "for the sake of public health and the general welfare", perhaps adultery laws should be enforced. Consider the impact this would have on STDs and unwanted pregnancies. How many people die of sexually transmitted diseases each year?

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are among the most common infectious diseases in the United States today. More than 20 STDs have been identified and they affect an estimated 19 million men and women in this country each year. The annual treatment cost of STDs in the United States is estimated to be in excess of $14 billion.

...STDs can be passed from a mother to her baby before, during or immediately after birth. Some of these newborn infections can be cured easily, but others may cause a baby to be permanently disabled or even die.

http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/womenshealth/factsheets/std.htm

At the end of 2006 there were an estimated 1,106,400 people living with HIV/AIDS in the U.S. with over 617,025 deaths as of 2008.13 Having other STDs can increase a person’s risk of becoming infected with AIDS as much as 5 times...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...uIHSDw&usg=AFQjCNHrrUDcsyB8b-4BhhZVXB2SnCxxZA

When we apply the logic of "our duty" to issues of public health and what it cost us as a society, or when society dictates what is in the best interest of the individual, I see no end to it. And since the cost of health care is one of the greatest financial issues facing the US, I don't see how these issues can be avoided in the years to come. But it mostly comes down to money. To a large extent I think taxes can fix that problem without the need or justification for regulating our personal choices. It seems to me that many or most of the objections beyond money are really just the relics of religion, and personal biases that define the concept of "acceptable" lifestyles, for each of us.

Consider the notion of residue from smokers and the effect it might have on children [one I hadn't heard before]. If that is such a concern, then why don't we arrest pregnant women who drink alcohol? [It may be that a glass of wine is considered to be okay, I don''t know, but I mean in excess. At some point drinking alcohol poses a danger to a developing fetus]

Should a pregnant woman be allowed to ride a motorcycle? Should parents be allowed to take their children boating [a relatively dangerous activity]?

 

[nanolaser]

Consider the notion of residue from smokers and the effect it might have on children. If that is such a concern, then why don't we arrest pregnant women who drink alcohol?

I'm happy to see people (like you) doing their best to be objective.

The rules are, from a modern perspective, arbitrary with respect to drugs; historically, they were rooted in racial motives or at least were marketed in that vein. I'm not posting them here (but if required, I will), but the posters of the time when Harrison was pushing for Cannabis bans were not shy about the perceived effect of it on black people and their alleged sexual relationships to white women. Opiates were linked heavily to the growing group of Chinese immigrants who kept to themselves and, almost all of them male and lonely, spent large amount of times in opium dens, at that time most widely spread in San Francisco. Accordingly, there were local bans on such institutions before nationwide calls for bans. This was not doable without actually changing the Constitution, so they went the tax route and the "licence" route.

It is not to say that there could not have been a drug problem; it just wasn't that big, and it was linked to bigger problems in questionable ways. There was the Temperance Movement, too, which ultimately led to the Prohibition (which they did through a change in the constitution (the famous 18th Amendment).

This article on Wikipedia is quite interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act

They basically turned a problem of health care and ineffective regulation (and complete lack of regulation - just about every widely used "patent medicine" contained morphine and/or cocaine, without being marked as such on the bottle, which led to widely spread misuse and abuse) into a criminal law problem. Then, of course, decades later, Nixon turned it up to eleven.

Well, to better show what I mean, here's an example of an "information" flyer: http://whyisweedillegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/killerdrug.jpg

And this was the tone of the time in mass media:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy"

"Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis."

There's also this guy, and the site with the sources for those quotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
and this listing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States
for some background information.

 

[zoobyshoe]

...I see no end to it.

Society seems to be being shepherded toward mass OCD. Everyone is going to end up like Monk.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

How do you draw the line? When does an activity become too dangerous to allow? How about mountain climbing, skydiving, scuba diving, base jumping, bungee jumping, or even a reckless sexual lifestyle...? Should we ban sex without a "helmet" as well, except for married couples?

Just because it is hard to draw a line doesn't mean it can't be done Whilst I find this thread interesting I have no desire to go down the facetious road of arguing over a myriad of activities. Suffice to say with any activity there has to be criteria with which to judge the balance between personal freedom, personal harm and societal harm. Ideally politicians with advisors would constantly work on this at the behest of the public.

EDIT: Just to quickly add to this the link I provided above for a proposed new drug classification scheme features a score system with specific criteria for how to measure. The task then becomes one of determining what regulations apply to what scores which can be done semi-empirically e.g. "The goal is to ensure X, studies show that applying regulations A to scores 10-20 aid/detract from this goal."

 

[Some Slacker]

YAY! I'm wronger than both! Oblate spheroid ftw!

To the subject at hand...

Pot isn't a drug, its a plant, requiring sunlight and water (just as God intended, which makes me laugh as I'm not a believer). The fact that its illegal and not alcohol, which is FAR more debiltating, addictive and deadly makes me cry. There isn't a mechanism to OD on pot, you will forget to take another hit long before yer going to die from it (assuming you aren't smoking brak in which case, smoke away the headache is your own). Do I want my surgeon wasted before he operates on me? Probably not. And I think therein lies most of the problem, testing, and having a reason to test. If there were a simple set of tests and a simple machine that a non-scientist can use for this purpose I think that would go a long way towards the legalization of marijuana (read sobriety test/breath test for alcohol). This is where I think the focus on legalization should be, finding out how to tell if someone is under the influence easily, PLEASE someone come up with a way! (simply sayin someone is too chatty or giggly isn't good enough (heh) and though yer pupils will do funny things under lighting, again, just not good enough (imo)).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Pot isn't a drug, its a plant,

THC is a drug, the active component of the plant.

requiring sunlight and water (just as God intended, which makes me laugh as I'm not a believer). The fact that its illegal and not alcohol, which is FAR more debiltating, addictive and deadly makes me cry.

This is true, tobacco and alcohol are more addictive and damaging than many rectreational drugs (caveat being that data on personal and societal effects of T&A is far greater than that of other drugs). This in itself is not an argument for or against legalisation of other drugs. What it does highlight is a potential need to review the criteria by which drugs are rated.

There isn't a mechanism to OD on pot, you will forget to take another hit long before yer going to die from it (assuming you aren't smoking brak in which case, smoke away the headache is your own).

You are portraying cannabis use as entirely risk free which is not the case, even moderate use has been linked to cases of schizophrenia and heavy use can lead to mild, non-permanent mental impairment. Note that I'm not arguing that this is a dealbreaker for legalisation but any debate must be honest about the risks, however small.

Do I want my surgeon wasted before he operates on me? Probably not. And I think therein lies most of the problem, testing, and having a reason to test. If there were a simple set of tests and a simple machine that a non-scientist can use for this purpose I think that would go a long way towards the legalization of marijuana (read sobriety test/breath test for alcohol). This is where I think the focus on legalization should be, finding out how to tell if someone is under the influence easily, PLEASE someone come up with a way! (simply sayin someone is too chatty or giggly isn't good enough (heh) and though yer pupils will do funny things under lighting, again, just not good enough (imo)).

There are a variety of tests for cannabis use however they involve urine, blood, saliva or hair samples. If it were legalised then it would be simple to argue that employers have the right to send home employees suspected of being under the influence of a drug and potentially work in a system whereby samples can be sent through the mail to testing facilities. The invention of a hand-held/all-in-one device is also not a dealbreaker.

 

[turbo]

Let's not derail this thread by putting biker-helmet canards into it. Anybody that wants to research the results of helmet laws can do so quite easily.

 

[nitsuj]

YAY! I'm wronger than both! Oblate spheroid ftw!

To the subject at hand...

Pot isn't a drug, its a plant, requiring sunlight and water (just as God intended, which makes me laugh as I'm not a believer). The fact that its illegal and not alcohol, which is FAR more debiltating, addictive and deadly makes me cry. There isn't a mechanism to OD on pot, you will forget to take another hit long before yer going to die from it (assuming you aren't smoking brak in which case, smoke away the headache is your own). Do I want my surgeon wasted before he operates on me? Probably not. And I think therein lies most of the problem, testing, and having a reason to test. If there were a simple set of tests and a simple machine that a non-scientist can use for this purpose I think that would go a long way towards the legalization of marijuana (read sobriety test/breath test for alcohol). This is where I think the focus on legalization should be, finding out how to tell if someone is under the influence easily, PLEASE someone come up with a way! (simply sayin someone is too chatty or giggly isn't good enough (heh) and though yer pupils will do funny things under lighting, again, just not good enough (imo)).

To your point in the difficulty of "detecting" if someone is high on pot, the effects from the high must be subtle, so subtle the difference between this person is high and this person isn't is...meh. What's the difference? A change in personality that is still within the variance of normalcy, big deal.

You should see me after some red bull...or around a hot girl...or the night before Christmas...and on long weekend Fridays...

However the "drug" is made available/produced is irrelevant. That's like saying poison ivy isn't poisonous because it's a plant. Called begging the question, implying all drugs are man made.

The testing for it issue is purely from a prosecution perspective. There needs to be quantitative data (evidence) to prosecute. This is available, however the timeline doesn't coincide with the "high" accurately enough to hold up in court. In Ontario, the police can pull your license for 12hrs without "evidence", merely based on the officers judgement. I think this is good enough.

I remember a case in California, around the time they were going to vote on legalizing pot for budget purposes. A car accident involving some deaths, the driver that caused the accident apparently had marijuana in his system or something.

Automatically it is an accident caused by the impairment from being high on marijuana. Automatically the legislation falls flat on it's face in light of this timely evidence on the negative aspect of marijuana.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Just because it is hard to draw a line doesn't mean it can't be done... ... Suffice to say with any activity there has to be criteria with which to judge the balance between personal freedom, personal harm and societal harm.

Anyone can draw a line. The trouble is all these risks are on a gradient and where the line is drawn ends up being arbitrary. The criteria are essentially rationalizations. Helmets are safer than no helmets, but safer still, if you're serious about safety, is no motorcycles. (That's where I am: I won't drive or ride one.) What is a minor accident for a car can be a major accident for a motorcyclist. That being the case, I can easily see a ban on motorcycles being pushed by safety zealots if the issue of preventable medical costs becomes more acute. Such a ban would create a lot of trouble, though, and be vigorously resisted. There's this pragmatic consideration that we ran up against during prohibition: enforcing certain laws creates more trouble than the trouble the laws were created to prevent. No motorcycles, the only really safe option, isn't going to happen. Therefore, the line that is drawn will be arbitrary and rationalized. That's going to be true in just about all cases.

Drawing the line between alcohol and pot with the one being legal and the other not is about as arbitrary and rationalized as such decisions can possibly be, which makes it a clear example.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Anyone can draw a line. The trouble is all these risks are on a gradient and where the line is drawn ends up being arbitrary. The criteria are essentially rationalizations.

I dispute the claim that this is always the case and that it must be the case. There are objective ways of measuring risk, return and cost. One could, for example, measure how a trial of a regulation effects a group economically and socially via measurements of economic performance and social metrics e.g. HDI. It's also a matter of values i.e. is the cost of X deaths and Y disablements worth the freedom of riding without a helmet/riding full stop?

 

[Pythagorean]

I agree, the lines aren't arbitrarily drawn. A whole business has been designed around measuring risk and giving it value: insurance.

 

[nitsuj]

I agree, the lines aren't arbitrarily drawn. A whole business has been designed around measuring risk and giving it value: insurance.

Just because they are not arbitrarily doesn't mean they makes sense in the context of individual freedoms.

Their "risk" assessment is purely monetary risk.

It is not from the perspective of individual freedoms and their effect on society as a whole. The two do correlate, but not always.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Just because they are not arbitrarily doesn't mean they makes sense in the context of individual freedoms.

Their "risk" assessment is purely monetary risk.

It is not from the perspective of individual freedoms and their effect on society as a whole. The two do correlate, but not always.

True but monetary assessments are not the only way to measure cost/benefit. Look at funding and purchases for medicines and medical devices, people in that field are constantly having to judge how to spend finite resources for the most gain e.g. "we can either fund/buy Product A which will save the lives of 100 patients per year or Product B which will increase the quality of life of 1000 patients per year by X." The discussions over how to measure QOL are constant and there are many proposed methods but it can be far more empirical than arbitrary.

 

[Pythagorean]

Just because they are not arbitrarily doesn't mean they makes sense in the context of individual freedoms.

Their "risk" assessment is purely monetary risk.

It is not from the perspective of individual freedoms and their effect on society as a whole. The two do correlate, but not always.

The point is only that risk can be quantified and that arbitrary is too discrediting of a word.

But, monetary risk is strongly coupled to all other forms of risk. It's currency; it's a way to compare values of all kinds of things: time, energy, sentiment; don't forget that economics is a social science. Individual freedoms are taken into account; that's the whole argument behind a free market. In the era of Hobbes and Lock, they figured out that allowing people to own their own property makes them more productive and the general question of freedoms as an influence on economy was brought up.

From there, the extreme ends of the two political camps essentially divide the issue between total and complete freedom, or total and complete control; at least, they divide the issue this way in retort, but the successful emergent outcome is generally a moderate response: Allow a socially defined core of freedoms, but regulate social interactions to reduce impact. If people are too free, they cost the rest of society a lot of time, energy, and sentiment. From the dishonest political economies of Wall Street to the people that would endanger brain development in children.