Legality of Cannabis: Exploring the Debate

[nitsuj]

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.

Your reasoning is awesome!

I agree on your currency comment, absolutely right imo.

I tried to think of indisputable counters and can't think of any. Even fast food risk is in the cross hairs for "insurance premiums" (special tax). Salt is also on the block, regulating amounts of sodium...somehow. (could fast food fries salt content be any more inconsistent?)

 

[Hobin]

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.

I would like to add that total freedom is a bit of a misnomer, because this would include the freedom to take away other people's freedoms (aka monopolies 'n stuff), which then results in there actually being less total freedom.

 

[nitsuj]

I would like to add that total freedom is a bit of a misnomer, because this would include the freedom to take away other people's freedoms (aka monopolies 'n stuff), which then results in there actually being less total freedom.

freedoms come after morals

 

[sas3]

I think one reason it is not legal has a lot to do with the big textile and paper industries, they do not want to loose market share. Industrial hemp has a THC content of between 0.05 and 1%. Marijuana has a THC content of 3% to 20%. I got that info from this site.
http://naihc.org/hemp_information/hemp_facts.html

 

[Some Slacker]

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

Absolutely true, without the THC in the plant, there would be no reason to smoke it. My point was more to the point that it wasn't messed with by humans. (except by picking and choosing which plant or plants to continue in the next generation, so I guess I just argued with myself, I blame the pot)

This is true, tobacco and alcohol are more addictive and damaging than many recreational 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 legalization of other drugs. What it does highlight is a potential need to review the criteria by which drugs are rated.

My only real problem is with 'many'... I am really only here to present arguments for the legalization of cannabis, the rest of the wreckreational drugs I could care less about, to me it isn't about freedom or personal freedom or privacy or our children, its just about fairness, and I know life isn't fair, but our laws should be, otherwise what's the point of laws at all.

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 legalization but any debate must be honest about the risks, however small.

Yeah, I did go a bit far with the innocuousness of pot, if it weren't mind altering we wouldn't be havin this discussion, and I also agree long term abuse is bad (m'kay?) but I have never heard a term for falling down stoned.

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.

Yep, it was late (roll out the excuses) but I obviously knew that there are tests, but unfortunately the tests can only tell if you have ingested any in the last month or so not if you are under the influence RIGHT NOW, therein lies the problem, with a test that isn't specific to when the drug was ingested, it would make it very hard to legalize for many activities humans endeavor, so I think there is a bit of a catch-22 situation.

So, this time, let me get it right:

Someone PLEASE make a test that tests for the current level of impairment,

I don't see how, I can't even think of how it would work or could, but that is what dreaming is for... right?

With this (proposed) test I think cannabis could be legalized tomorrow.

(and Ryan I apologize for taking some liberties with your quotes, but I only fixed some misspellings and bolded a word, less innocuous than even pot I hope)

 

[nitsuj]

To your point regarding the tests...IF the government said "we will sell pot if there is a test for how high some one is..." you can bet there would be enough of a venture capital opportunity there to get something developed, patented and sold to the various law enforcement agencies.

It's guaranteed business. This whole thing is so win win...long term.

 

[Some Slacker]

To your point regarding the tests...IF the government said "we will sell pot if there is a test for how high some one is..." you can bet there would be enough of a venture capital opportunity there to get something developed, patented and sold to the various law enforcement agencies.

It's guaranteed business. This whole thing is so win win...long term.

I agree, but the gov't (of the US) will NEVER say that, there is WAY too much to be made fighting the war on drugs, I can imagine it contributes significantly to our GDP, something like $208b (USD).

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I agree, but the gov't (of the US) will NEVER say that, there is WAY too much to be made fighting the war on drugs, I can imagine it contributes significantly to our GDP, something like $208b (USD).

this is new to me, how does the war on terror contribute to the GDP?

 

[Some Slacker]

this is new to me, how does the war on terror contribute to the GDP?

I would think that runs closer to the trillions, far more than the piddly amount from fighting drugs.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I would think that runs closer to the trillions, far more than the piddly amount from fighting drugs.

oh whoops I meant drugs, not terror. My question is how exactly. My understanding is that fighting wars, of any kind, are not going to make money in general.

 

[TylerH]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Shafer Commission yet. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm

A congressional committee commissioned in 1972 by Nixon recommended legalization (with forfeiture as contraband if used in public) of small amounts, on the grounds that, while it is necessary to discourage use, the method of total prohibition is ineffective.

 

[Some Slacker]

oh whoops I meant drugs, not terror. My question is how exactly. My understanding is that fighting wars, of any kind, are not going to make money in general.

Spending increases GDP, I thought we were all keynesians now?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

this is new to me, how does the war on drugs contribute to the GDP?

The argument is it is a Keynesian stimulus to the various departments, police forces and prison industrial complex.

On a different note it occurs to me that drug legalisation in the US and the UK is a good example of a failure mode in modern democracy. Being "tough on drugs" has entered the public consciousness as a positive thing and consequently no politician can afford to be seen as soft on the issue, if someone does table a more liberal policy it can be jumped on by rival politicians. There was a good example of this a few years ago in the UK when the head of the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs, Professor David Nutt, was dismissed for giving a talk and writing a paper regarding drug legalization that contradicted government policy. There was a brief media outcry followed by his dismissal followed by another scandel (not big enough IMO) that the government just got rid of an expert advisor because his advise didn't agree with them.

 

[nitsuj]

I'd be surprised if the GDP calculation includes government services...plus illegal drug business isn't included in GDP.

 

[ThomasT]

I voted that it should be legalized and controlled like alcohol and tobacco. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of people against this have never experienced it and know little or nothing about it. And that, imo, is why it remains illegal.

 

[ThomasT]

The argument is it is a Keynesian stimulus to the various departments, police forces and prison industrial complex.

On a different note it occurs to me that drug legalisation in the US and the UK is a good example of a failure mode in modern democracy. Being "tough on drugs" has entered the public consciousness as a positive thing and consequently no politician can afford to be seen as soft on the issue, if someone does table a more liberal policy it can be jumped on by rival politicians. There was a good example of this a few years ago in the UK when the head of the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs, Professor David Nutt, was dismissed for giving a talk and writing a paper regarding drug legalization that contradicted government policy. There was a brief media outcry followed by his dismissal followed by another scandel (not big enough IMO) that the government just got rid of an expert advisor because his advise didn't agree with them.

I currently agree with your take on this. And, thanks for the Nutt link.

 

[Galteeth]

First off, this link- http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana-abuse/marijuana-addictive

Really?

Secondly, in reply to the much earlier comment that most people do not want it legalized, that may no longer be true.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

 

[lisab]

First off, this link- http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana-abuse/marijuana-addictive

Really?

Secondly, in reply to the much earlier comment that most people do not want it legalized, that may no longer be true.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

The title of that link, "Record-High 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana Use". Where would we be without pun-ny headline writers.

 

[Evo]

The title of that link, "Record-High 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana Use". Where would we be without pun-ny headline writers.

Lol.

 

[xdrgnh]

Smoking pot causes cancer fact. People don't have the right to harm themselves. Smoking of all forms should be illegal including tobacco. Pot for recreational use should be illegal because it would just make young people more into stonner. Smoking pot is already rampart among inner city youth and legalizing it would just make the situation worse.

 

[Hobin]

Smoking pot causes cancer fact.

As do a great deal of other things that are not illegal.

People don't have the right to harm themselves.

I, and a great deal of other people, vehemently disagree with that statement. As long as it does not hurt others, I think you're free to do what you want. It's not illegal to hit yourself with a baseball bat, even if you enjoy it (which is NOT to say that this is a desirable state).

Pot for recreational use should be illegal because it would just make young people more into stonner. Smoking pot is already rampart among inner city youth and legalizing it would just make the situation worse.

Untrue. Pot is practically legal where I live, and it hasn't made us a bunch of stoners. Also, read this.

 

[Monique]

Pot for recreational use should be illegal because it would just make young people more into stonner. Smoking pot is already rampart among inner city youth and legalizing it would just make the situation worse.

That's not true (also see Hobin's comment). The following publication compared marijuana use in Amsterdam (condoned) vs San Francisco (illegal) and came to the following conclusion:

The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco

Proponents of criminalization attribute to their preferred drug-control regime a special power to affect user behavior. Our findings cast doubt on such attributions. Despite widespread lawful availability of cannabis in Amsterdam, there were no differences between the 2 cities in age at onset of use, age at first regular use, or age at the start of maximum use. Either availability in San Francisco is equivalent to that in Amsterdam despite policy differences, or availability per se does not strongly influence onset or other career phases.

source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448346/

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's not true (also see Hobin's comment). The following publication compared marijuana use in Amsterdam (condoned) vs San Francisco (illegal) and came to the following conclusion:

Thanks for posting that. For a long time I assumed the illegality of pot must be dampening its use but over the past few years I've come to realize the same thing that study concludes: it has no real effect.

 

[Monique]

Right now I have a couple of tobacco smoking drunks on my roof terrace, who lost their bag of weed and instead are chewing mushrooms and accidentally drinking cans of beer with discarded cigarettes in it.. sigh.. they should forbid Queensday and it would've been a quiet day.

 

[Hobin]

Right now I have a couple of tobacco smoking drunks on my roof terrace, who lost their bag of weed and instead are chewing mushrooms and accidentally drinking cans of beer with discarded cigarettes in it.. sigh.. they should forbid Queensday and it would've been a quiet day.

*chuckles* We Dutch people would just find another excuse to party.

 

[Monique]

*chuckles* We Dutch people would just find another excuse to party.

I guess so, it was a great day to enjoy the sunshine: an excellent excuse not to work.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Right now I have a couple of tobacco smoking drunks on my roof terrace, who lost their bag of weed and instead are chewing mushrooms and accidentally drinking cans of beer with discarded cigarettes in it.. sigh.. they should forbid Queensday and it would've been a quiet day.

In contrast, when Tsu and I first got married, our Friday and Saturday night entertainment often involved watching the SWAT team invade a local apartment complex. Usually it was just entertaining, but when we found ourselves lying on the floor because of the automatic weapons fire, we decided that we needed new neighbors. I mean really! That is just rude!

Just another couple of hapless victims of the war on drugs.

 

[Monique]

Indeed, that's not how you treat your neighbors!

My guests have left, they were very polite and will be taking the train home.

 

[TylerH]

Right now I have a couple of tobacco smoking drunks on my roof terrace, who lost their bag of weed and instead are chewing mushrooms and accidentally drinking cans of beer with discarded cigarettes in it.. sigh.. they should forbid Queensday and it would've been a quiet day.

Dude, where do you live? We need to chill sometime.

 

[lisab]

Sorry if this has already come up in this thread (haven't been following closely ) but there is an alternative to legalizing pot: decriminalizing it.

The city where I live voted on this issue a while back. By initiative*, we instructed the local cops to move marijuana use far down on the priority list. No idea if what we did would pass judicial review, though.

*An initiative is a vote that goes straight to voters instead of legislators.

 

[OmCheeto]

Sorry if this has already come up in this thread (haven't been following closely ) but there is an alternative to legalizing pot: decriminalizing it.

The city where I live voted on this issue a while back. By initiative*, we instructed the local cops to move marijuana use far down on the priority list. No idea if what we did would pass judicial review, though.

*An initiative is a vote that goes straight to voters instead of legislators.

lisab for president.

 

[Monique]

Dude, where do you live? We need to chill sometime.

Thanks, but the occasion really is an exception.

 

[chaoseverlasting]

Here (India) it is relatively decriminalized. There are laws against it, but there are cities where its not looked upon as a crime to smoke. In fact, it is publicly distributed, largely in part to it being associated with Shiva.

Of course, the number of times I've seen stoners who have nothing to do with religion rationalize it that way is ironic.

 

[nitsuj]

Sorry if this has already come up in this thread (haven't been following closely ) but there is an alternative to legalizing pot: decriminalizing it.

The city where I live voted on this issue a while back. By initiative*, we instructed the local cops to move marijuana use far down on the priority list. No idea if what we did would pass judicial review, though.

*An initiative is a vote that goes straight to voters instead of legislators.

From a "use" perspective, in Canada this is pretty much the case. The smell is more an issue (similar to ciggs) than the "use".

From a production perspective it seems the laws are enforced according the revenue generated, and not "drugs are bad mmmkay, you're going to prison son."

Oh and we generally get a one time "get out of jail free" pass. Like a donation or required community service.

I have seen a case where a 19 yo, parents apparently deceased, had a house in his name, busted for growing hundreds of plants, some mature & ready to go. He got house arrest conditions. That's a very light punishment for making an illegal living. They didn't even address income tax issues (his house, i.e. he got to keep it, wild I know) Oh and very importantly, no prior records. The crown didn't make a peep outside of agreeing with the terms.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry if this has already come up in this thread (haven't been following closely ) but there is an alternative to legalizing pot: decriminalizing it.

The problem I see there is that this doesn't kill the black market, which is [I believe] ultimately the reason for most violent crimes associated with drug use.

I don't know if the qualifier "I believe" is needed or not. I think this is a well established fact. But it is so obvious to me that I may be making an assumption on that point.