View Poll Results: About pot in "personal" quantities (like 24grams or whatever) Marijuana should be legal & controlled like alcohol/tobacoo 81 74.31% Marijuana should be legal & open market 15 13.76% Marijuan should be illegal with fines as punishment (misdemeanor) 7 6.42% Marijuan should be illegal with jail as punishment 6 5.50% Voters: 109. You may not vote on this poll

Mentor
Blog Entries: 1

## Legality of cannabis

 Quote by nitsuj 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.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by nitsuj 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.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Pythagorean 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.

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?)

 Quote by Pythagorean 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.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Hobin 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
 Recognitions: Gold Member 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

 Quote by Ryan_m_b 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)

 Quote by Ryan_m_b 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 whats the point of laws at all.

 Quote by Ryan_m_b 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.

 Quote by Ryan_m_b 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)
 Recognitions: Gold Member 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.

 Quote by 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.
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).  Quote by Some Slacker 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?

 Quote by SHISHKABOB 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.

 Quote by Some Slacker 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.
 I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Shafer Commission yet. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../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.

 Quote by SHISHKABOB 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?

Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
 Quote by SHISHKABOB 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.
 Recognitions: Gold Member I'd be surprised if the GDP calculation includes government services...plus illegal drug business isn't included in GDP.
 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.

 Similar discussions for: Legality of cannabis Thread Forum Replies Calculus & Beyond Homework 2 Current Events 2 General Discussion 3 Current Events 11 General Discussion 32