Is Legalizing Marijuana Worth the Risks?

[Adrian Baker]

Adrian! You're back! or I haven't seen you. Either way, welcome back to my world.

Thank you... Nice to be back. It is race season in the summer (I race motorcycles) and I've been a bit busy...

Anyway, back to the discussion, blah, blah, blah, bloody Govt, blah, freedom, blah, blah etc...

 

[Zantra]

Yes, of course it should all be legalised. Do you understand the meaning of FREEDOM?

In the UK all drugs are availiable pretty much everywhere at cheap prices - what difference does making them illegal make? All it does is pass all the profits to thugs and gangsters who fight territory wars over their 'rights' to sell the stuff. Remember Prohibition?

And what about quality control? Why should addicts be forced to buy gear laced with brickdust, talcum powder or whatever? If the Govt wants a role it should respect people's rights to do what they want to their bodies, but protect them from dodgy gear and protect the rest of the country from drug wars and the crime associated with junkies robbing and theiving to feed their habit.

Supply them with pure clean junk with sterile needles, and stop the criminality.

Live free!

You just made my point.. thanks

Some people have addictive personalities or children who don't know any better and they'll use cocaine just to try it. Or why not just remove all gun restrictions so kids can play with guns? Then we can just "assume" that they are smart enough not to shoot themselves. Please tell me at what point we say no. At what point do the social cost outweigh the limited restrictiveness on our freedoms? How many dead crack babies does it take for you to put down the pipe? I'm just curious..

My extreme point is that The only ones crying legalize are ther users and that isn't the majority, so it stays illegal. THis is in the same vein as the patriot act, only in the opposite direction. People, we have laws to protect us, not restrict us. If you deny the laws in the name of freedom, you just invite anarchy. When you get high and it affects someone else, it becomes a problem.

 

[Kerrie]

My extreme point is that The only ones crying legalize are ther users and that isn't the majority, so it stays illegal. THis is in the same vein as the patriot act, only in the opposite direction. People, we have laws to protect us, not restrict us. If you deny the laws in the name of freedom, you just invite anarchy. When you get high and it affects someone else, it becomes a problem.

how does it affect others when it is used responsibly? in order to be completely objective zantra, you have to address the issue of cigarrettes and alcohol affecting others and being legal. cigarettes and alcohol kill many people, should we make those illegal based on your point? it is not an objective argument.

 

[Loren Booda]

Some seem to believe that addiction is a willful choice. I "wasted" many years of my life self-medicating with marijuana. Some 20% of pot smokers do just that - ineffectively treat an underlying mental illness. By then it may be more than a habit, much like a true addiction.

 

[Zantra]

how does it affect others when it is used responsibly? in order to be completely objective zantra, you have to address the issue of cigarrettes and alcohol affecting others and being legal. cigarettes and alcohol kill many people, should we make those illegal based on your point? it is not an objective argument.

I made the extremist point because according to adrian we should legalize every drug and have zero drug laws. If you let the majority make their own choice, most will choose short term gratification over long term side affects. And people who are high do stupid stuff. That affects other people. Any time someone's personal freedom affects or harms the public at large it shouldn't be allowed. That's why they've banned smoking in public places. The problem with MJ, just like anything else is that people don't use it responsibly, and cause injury to other people. This gives it a bad vibe.

 

[Kerrie]

The problem with MJ, just like anything else is that people don't use it responsibly, and cause injury to other people. This gives it a bad vibe.

please back this up with statistics and show the comparison with alcohol.

 

[Zantra]

please back this up with statistics and show the comparison with alcohol.

I'll find the statistics, but just to clarify, you're saying that you don't believe that drugs like cocaine lsd and meth should be illegal because it restricts people's rights? I'm just making sure you want to allign yourself with Adrian's stance.

Here's a little teaser to get started. weed offers the same perils as regular ciggarrettes...

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0791.html

The long-term physiological and psychological effects of smoking pot are complicated. Further clouding this issue is the absence of a clear definition of "light," "moderate," and "heavy" use. Based on a range of research, however, a few joints a year can be considered light use, lighting up a few times a month constitutes moderate use, and daily hits or multiple uses per week spell heavy use. The duration of marijuana use over time may be the major player when it comes to unhealthy effects: long-term, heavy use of the drug may result in the illnesses and diseases associated with long-term cigarette smoking. Cigarettes have been linked to an increased incidence of heart disease and lung cancer (marijuana smoke contains the same cancer-causing chemicals as tobacco smoke -- actually four times as much tar); emphysema; gum disease; and cancers of the mouth, jaw, and tongue.

Additionally, short-term memory loss, reduced fertility in men and women, and personality changes may occur in some long-term pot smokers. The more immediate effects of moderate and heavy marijuana use are better known: congestion, sore throat, dry mouth, impaired thinking and motor skill ability (including reaction time essential for driving), fatigue, anxiety, dilated pupils, and more. Some research links a rare childhood leukemia with mothers who lit up while they were pregnant.

Storage-wise, about half of the marijuana metabolites -- the substances that result from pot's breakdown by the liver and kidneys -- pass through the body hours after the first hit. The rest of the metabolites are stored away, sometimes for weeks, in fatty tissue, where their effect is unknown. We do know that pot, by itself and not when it is combined with other unknown substances, is not physically addictive, nor does it appear to impair intelligence.

Is pot more dangerous than alcohol? On an individual level, it depends on many factors, including reasons for use (as part of a healthy celebration, or as an unhealthy coping crutch), family history of alcohol and other drug use (drugs are often more dangerous if one or both parents are/were abusers), and your comfort level in the environment and situation in which drug use occurs.

Let's go somewhere else with your pot query. Like cigarettes, pipes, and cigars, joints and bongs deliver second-hand smoke to nonusers around them -- through the air, under doors, and via air vents. And, a nonsmoker in a very smoky room theoretically can get high, too. Likewise, urine can test positive via a drug test for innocent bystanders within a day of breathing second-hand pot smoke. Weed and other drug use can also impact relationships with friends, roommates, parents, etc., in ways that you might not have predicted before you lit up.

P.S.:

Drug-Related Deaths in the United States


Every year in the United States, alcohol-related deaths total 100,000 and tobacco-related fatalities total 450,000. And, according to the Feds, all illicit drugs are linked to under 10,000 deaths per year. But, according to the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, "innocent" pot is increasingly laced with other drugs, like angel dust and heroin, sometimes unbeknownst to users. Obviously, mixing drugs can present big problems -- even to first-time users.

So pot smokers can line up for iron lungs right next to the smokers..

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is clear that drug laws don't work. They do cripple the justice system which makes it nearly impossible to keep the truly violent offenders in check. They also insure that children have access to dangerous drugs.

As mentioned earlier, drug laws actually result in the funding of organized crime.

Drug laws impose a huge burden on all aspects of society. When violent crime is considered - that is crime that results directly from the laws that make drugs valuable - the harm to society is far greater than the drug use alone.

Drug laws stand as a shield against those who might otherwise find help.

The government has no business [and has no means of] regulating personal behavior. Education is far more effective.

Whether or not pot is damaging makes no difference wrt legalization. Dangerous personal behavior is not only common it is popular. Extreme sports are certainly more dangerous than smoking pot. At least there is no doubt in my mind about what happens when your parachute doesn't open, or when you fall off of the side of a mountain, or when your bungee cord breaks.

I say legalize all drugs and offer free help to those who are willing. If they are not willing, so be it. We do not now nor can we ever save everyone from themselves.

 

[Kerrie]

I'll find the statistics, but just to clarify, you're saying that you don't believe that drugs like cocaine lsd and meth should be illegal because it restricts people's rights? I'm just making sure you want to allign yourself with Adrian's stance.


So pot smokers can line up for iron lungs right next to the smokers..

absolutely do not agree with adrian on the stance that all drugs should be legal Zantra...only marijuana because there are so many people who use...you would probably be surprised at how many use.

for your link, i take it to be as credible as the enquirer since it does not mention that smoking any plant is harmful to your lungs. also, those who smoke, don't do so in the same amount of those who smoke cigarettes on a regular basis.

my main point here is the decriminalization issue. the war on marijuana will never be won, why are we spending so much money on it when we can gain a whole lot more?

 

[Adrian Baker]

Blimey, drugs can be harmful?? I didn't know that? People do silly things too? oh err!

Once again, FREEDOM. Who are you, I, the Govt, anyone, to dictate what a person does to their body if it harms no one else? No doubt similar arguments were put up in the past against homosexuality, votes for women, porn, freedom from slavery etc??

I see that in China Google has agreed to move all 'unofficial' sites (ie ones the Govt doesn't want the population to see) from its searches. Another great idea to prevent the people from 'harming themselves' with scary thoughts no doubt! The trouble is with many PC liberals is that freedom really means "freedom to behave in a way we approve of". I don't want to take crack, climb mountains, smoke tobacco, ride horses, be vegetarian, have affairs etc, but does this mean I should disapprove of others doing such things?? I don't think so. Whilst working as a motorcycle courier in London, three friends got killed in accidents in 2 months - does that mean motorcycling should be banned? No!

Alcohol was once banned in the US and organised crime thrived supplying it. Drugs are now banned and organised crime thrives supplying them. But what about the hypocracy of it all? In the UK 10 people die every day on the roads - and we have the lowest death rate in Europe! Should we ban driving 'to protect the people'?

Alcohol is a massive killer throughout the western world, tobacco more so - but why isn't that banned? Should the Govt really spend time and effort hassling and imprisoning smokers and drinkers? We are used to accepting these drugs and their associated problems, but suffer from upper hypocracy when it comes to other drugs. Why?

Stuff the nanny state! Freedom to the people. Inform and educate - That is true liberalism.

 

[olde drunk]

all drugs can be harmful. i hate to expose a secret, but a meaningful percentage of those in rehab are there because of perscription drugs; the majority women.

the war on drugs is lost! the pushers (and many doctors) are getting rich while we are wasting tax dollars. let's collect taxes, not waste them.

cars kill also, we don't make them illegal we make them safer. education, not hearsay and myths, will make it safer to use them properly.

i often wonder how many of our past ideas and inventions came from expanded consciousness via drugs, booze.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Zantra]

i often wonder how many of our past ideas and inventions came from expanded consciousness via drugs, booze.

love&peace,
olde drunk

You mean scholarly works like "dude where's my car"? lol

 

[Zantra]

Blimey, drugs can be harmful?? I didn't know that? People do silly things too? oh err!

Once again, FREEDOM. Who are you, I, the Govt, anyone, to dictate what a person does to their body if it harms no one else? No doubt similar arguments were put up in the past against homosexuality, votes for women, porn, freedom from slavery etc??

I see that in China Google has agreed to move all 'unofficial' sites (ie ones the Govt doesn't want the population to see) from its searches. Another great idea to prevent the people from 'harming themselves' with scary thoughts no doubt! The trouble is with many PC liberals is that freedom really means "freedom to behave in a way we approve of". I don't want to take crack, climb mountains, smoke tobacco, ride horses, be vegetarian, have affairs etc, but does this mean I should disapprove of others doing such things?? I don't think so. Whilst working as a motorcycle courier in London, three friends got killed in accidents in 2 months - does that mean motorcycling should be banned? No!

Alcohol was once banned in the US and organised crime thrived supplying it. Drugs are now banned and organised crime thrives supplying them. But what about the hypocracy of it all? In the UK 10 people die every day on the roads - and we have the lowest death rate in Europe! Should we ban driving 'to protect the people'?

Alcohol is a massive killer throughout the western world, tobacco more so - but why isn't that banned? Should the Govt really spend time and effort hassling and imprisoning smokers and drinkers? We are used to accepting these drugs and their associated problems, but suffer from upper hypocracy when it comes to other drugs. Why?

Stuff the nanny state! Freedom to the people. Inform and educate - That is true liberalism.

Why not just come out as an anarchist now?

 

[gerben]

Some people have addictive personalities or children who don't know any better and they'll use cocaine just to try it. Or why not just remove all gun restrictions so kids can play with guns? Then we can just "assume" that they are smart enough not to shoot themselves.

There are no restrictions on cleaning products, the way we make sure that children do not drink from it is by putting it in closets they cannot reach and when they come to the age that they can reach it they are well informed that drinking cleaning products is very dangerous...

Parents should not hand their children guns, cleaning products or cocaine, and will probably not do so, no law is needed for that

Please tell me at what point we say no. At what point do the social cost outweigh the limited restrictiveness on our freedoms? How many dead crack babies does it take for you to put down the pipe? I'm just curious..

The social costs of strictly prohibiting are probably much higher. As has been said the alcohol prohibition in the beginning of the twentieth century is a clear example of how crime rises under prohibition. The drug related problem in major cities nowadays is also a clear example of the negative effects of the “war against drugs”. In many neighborhoods young children are tempted to go into the drug business, just because it seems an easy way to make something of their lifes. It is not easy to be a criminal in most senses, but buying and selling drugs is very easy, no matter how fierce the war against it.

The existence of the ghetto’s where many crack baby’s are born, is mainly caused by the fact that such easy and abundantly available substances are worth as much as gold, which is caused by laws that keep it away from those who want it, and that by doing so drive up the prices artificially.

We should not try to “protect people against themselves”, that is simply synonymous with oppressing them and you will have a “war against your own civilians”.

People, we have laws to protect us, not restrict us. If you deny the laws in the name of freedom, you just invite anarchy. When you get high and it affects someone else, it becomes a problem.

The laws should protect us from harm done to us by others, by things we cannot control. We should not be “protected” against what we want ourselves; that is contradictory.

 

[Kerrie]

Next time you complain at the gas pump...

this link is another informative site of why i claim that marijuana is truly illegal...and you the tax payer gets to bear the brunt of it and pay for those in jail because of it...

http://www.jackherer.com/index.html

 

[decibel]

well that site's a little interesting...

 

[Moonbear]

Here's another interesting site.

http://eartheasy.com/wear_hemp_clothing.htm

The hemp plant commercially grown for fiber has no significant value as a recreational drug.

And here is an article that describes the genetics of low-THC containing Cannabis.

de Meijer EP, Bagatta M, Carboni A, Crucitti P, Moliterni VM, Ranalli P, Mandolino G.
The inheritance of chemical phenotype in Cannabis sativa L.
Genetics. 2003 Jan;163(1):335-46.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/163/1/335

This would suggest that if you're arguing marijuana should be legalized in order to re-establish the hemp fiber industry, you don't need to legalize the drug because strains of the plant grown for fiber and for drugs are different.

 

[Kerrie]

Here's another interesting site.

http://eartheasy.com/wear_hemp_clothing.htm



And here is an article that describes the genetics of low-THC containing Cannabis.

de Meijer EP, Bagatta M, Carboni A, Crucitti P, Moliterni VM, Ranalli P, Mandolino G.
The inheritance of chemical phenotype in Cannabis sativa L.
Genetics. 2003 Jan;163(1):335-46.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/163/1/335

This would suggest that if you're arguing marijuana should be legalized in order to re-establish the hemp fiber industry, you don't need to legalize the drug because strains of the plant grown for fiber and for drugs are different.

i am well aware that hemp is far different then marijuana and as stated in my previous posts, marijuana the drug needs to be legalized because we are wasting tax dollars on a drug war that will never be won...if hemp is legalized for industrious use, then marijuana isn't that far away from being legalized either. the stigma of marijuana being so horrible for you is generated by the uneducated-i bet most of them don't realize that hemp is the fibers of the plant and the marijuana is the flower of the plant. i see hemp clothing and specialty products all the time, yet there are so many more uses for it that would save billions of dollars in industries that are wasteful and reap huge profits off the average american-you and i mostly.

moonbear, i have done my homework on the subject, and i feel strongly about it for political reasons. when having done some reading on why it is illegal, it makes me angry since we as an american society love our alcohol and yet it causes way more destruction then marijuana ever would if it were legal. it seems hypocritical of our society. there are some studies out currently that suggest marijuana also could be the next green prozac based on "anecdotal evidence"-the same evidence that was used when marijuana was legalized for medicinal purposes that helps Alzheimer's, Krohn's, MS, AIDS, glaucoma, and those unable to eat due to nausea from medication they must take. bottom line, it is illegal mostly due to interfering with big corporations most likely sponsering the anti-marijuana ads (and by the way, watch one of those and note how subjective they are in stirring up the "loser" stigma).

just curious, did you read the link?

 

[Adrian Baker]

Hemp is not illegal in the UK - crops are grown, under license, in many areas - it is a superb material and should be more widely used. It is v. low THC and you'd need to smoke a field full to get high.

Cannabis based products are undergoing medical trials here in the UK too. Without a doubt it is a very useful drug for MS sufferers as well as for those with severe nausea from chemotherapy for example. The Govt seems reluctant to agree to its use though as it 'doesn't like to condone the use of illegal drugs'. Hmm... Let the ill suffer as it isn't good politics not to?? Strange argument! They do seem to be moving towards allowing medicinal use though, so fair enough.

Zantra, I'm happy to admit to Anarchist tendencies, ("Anarchy for the UK, It's coming sometime and maybe..." - Sex Pistols, 1976) but rather an Anarchist than a Hypocrite. (if you ever drink alcohol, smoke tobacco or drink coffee that is).

It is a strange society that allows high profile adverts on TV and in papers for addictive and harmful drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, yet persecutes and imprisons people who prefer other drugs (some more dangerous, some less so).

Gerben, your comments above are exactly right - I wish I could have expressed myself so well.

 

[Zantra]

It's a lost cause. It's like talking to a brick wall. People who smoke weed do so no matter what damage it does, so they obviously don't care about the legality or morality surrounding it's use. I didn't expect to convince anyone. To each his own.

Cheers.

 

[Kerrie]

It's a lost cause. It's like talking to a brick wall. People who smoke weed do so no matter what damage it does, so they obviously don't care about the legality or morality surrounding it's use. I didn't expect to convince anyone. To each his own.

Cheers.

i wouldn't assume anyone advocating this smokes ...what i am advocating is how ridiculous it is for this substance to be illegal so the common taxpayer dollars can house those in prison for it and the police waste their time on these users. you are right, it won't change-so why do we continue to keep it illegal and pay for a system that will never change? i agree with adrian..if you drink or smoke, you are a hypocrite if you claim that marijuana is horrible for you-sure, if you consume 20 joints a day! users who smoke will smoke maybe 1-2 a day average...recreational users, that in a week! in my opinion, those who assert the "claim" that it is a dangerous drug (assuming you are not operating a motor vehicle) are completely brainwashed by the stigma society has cast upon you...think for yourselves

 

[Zantra]

No the problem is that since it's illegal, the people who DO use the drug are more often than not irresponsible, and the kind of people who DO do stupid stuff like drive high...legalizing it wouldn't improve the situation because then you'd just have responsible people and MORE irresponsible people using it.

que sera sera

 

[Adrian Baker]

No the problem is that since it's illegal, the people who DO use the drug are more often than not irresponsible

Hmm... interesting point backed up by what?? Your personal prejudices maybe? Quick Question - is it better to take a dangerous and harmful legal drug promoted and taxed by the Govt, or an illegal drug that is less dangerous?

and the kind of people who DO do stupid stuff like drive high...legalizing it wouldn't improve the situation because then you'd just have responsible people and MORE irresponsible people using it.

You were correct earlier - it is like banging your head against a brick wall!
My arguments are based on principles such as freedom, and evidence such as lawlessness due to Prohibition, prisons full of drug users, streets with territorial drug wars going on, and our present drug laws.
Your arguments seem to be based on what you think may or may not be good for people, and on rash statements about people being irresponsible if 'allowed' to take drugs that are already availiable on every street corner and in every school (I speak from experience here).

Must go now, being irresponsible I'm off to smoke some crack and then race around the roads at 100mph...

 

[Zantra]

Hmm... interesting point backed up by what?? Your personal prejudices maybe? Quick Question - is it better to take a dangerous and harmful legal drug promoted and taxed by the Govt, or an illegal drug that is less dangerous?

You're going to refute something that is common knowledge? Turn on the news and watch for the reports of "accident was caused by intoxicated or under the influence driver".

How many examples would you like? I can probably go to any local paper's website and get you some links in about 5 minutes. It's common knowlege.

You were correct earlier - it is like banging your head against a brick wall!
My arguments are based on principles such as freedom, and evidence such as lawlessness due to Prohibition, prisons full of drug users, streets with territorial drug wars going on, and our present drug laws.
Your arguments seem to be based on what you think may or may not be good for people, and on rash statements about people being irresponsible if 'allowed' to take drugs that are already availiable on every street corner and in every school (I speak from experience here).

Must go now, being irresponsible I'm off to smoke some crack and then race around the roads at 100mph...

Not every user is irresponsible...No I didn't say that.. but let's think about it.. if you're using an illegal drug, what other laws do you see as "loose guidelines?" You can't assume that though they may use illegal drugs, they are upstanding and smart enough not to use the illegal drugs responsibly.

Crack and guns are available widely too... should I pick some up for you? Just because it's there, doesn't mean you need to have it. You're the one going wth the anarchist "screw everyone else as long as I get mine" premise. Of course if you accidentally take my weed and I kill you for it, I shouldn't be punished, because that would restrict my personal freedom

But I guess I'm just trying to annoy you with all this talk about laws and moral and such. I have to run too as I'm late for my bible thumper meeting where we talk about your satanic misogynistic ways, and how to use prayer to change things

 

[Kerrie]

You're going to refute something that is common knowledge? Turn on the news and watch for the reports of "accident was caused by intoxicated or under the influence driver".

How many examples would you like? I can probably go to any local paper's website and get you some links in about 5 minutes. It's common knowlege.




Not every user is irresponsible...No I didn't say that.. but let's think about it.. if you're using an illegal drug, what other laws do you see as "loose guidelines?" You can't assume that though they may use illegal drugs, they are upstanding and smart enough not to use the illegal drugs responsibly.

Crack and guns are available widely too... should I pick some up for you? Just because it's there, doesn't mean you need to have it. You're the one going wth the anarchist "screw everyone else as long as I get mine" premise. Of course if you accidentally take my weed and I kill you for it, I shouldn't be punished, because that would restrict my personal freedom

But I guess I'm just trying to annoy you with all this talk about laws and moral and such. I have to run too as I'm late for my bible thumper meeting where we talk about your satanic misogynistic ways, and how to use prayer to change things

zantra, still waiting for your statistics on your opinion of "The problem with MJ, just like anything else is that people don't use it responsibly, and cause injury to other people. This gives it a bad vibe."

i doubt you have any personal experience with the plant yourself...and if you did, most likely you would remain sitting home watching a good movie eating cheetohs...marijuana does not make anyone feel aggressive-in fact, many people use recreationally because of how relaxed they feel. honestly zantra, you need more OBJECTIVE understanding of it before you spout off how irresponsible users are. i am not comfortable having people with no objective understanding of the substance making the laws of it-thus why we have our drug war problem. i have supplied plenty of evidence of why marijuana being illegal IS a big problem, and i am still waiting for your evidence to show that marijuana causes injuries to others. if you are unable to provide evidence, then i can assume you have a moral and uneducated perspective against it-something this science forum ironically does not endorse.

we all know religion is not a way to run a free government such as america-why let those who are religiously against a substance that is less harmful then alcohol dictate the law? if marijuana suddenly became legal zantra, where would you then stand on the subject? are you against it because it is illegal, or because of a percpetion that has been planted within you by what others have told you? i am confident it is not because of any evidence you have, otherwise i am sure you would have provided by now.

 

[Zantra]

I gave up- as it there's no point. Even if I post these statistics it won't change anyone's mind, so I'm not wasting anymore space. For me the topic is closed. I stated my opinion, and that's good enough for me.

Oh and FYI, I've burned down my share of fatties, thank you very much-Way more than you, I'd wager. I know exactly what it does...though I personally prefer ritz and cheese to cheetos... but I digress..