Should Cannabis Remain Illegal Amid Growing Debate?

[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.

 

[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.