Should Cannabis Remain Illegal Amid Growing Debate?

[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.

 

[Office_Shredder]

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.

Local cops can pretty much not do whatever they don't want to do. State laws and federal laws don't say "all cops must enforce these laws" to the best of their ability (except for the rare occasion). State police have to enforce state laws because that's what they're hired to do, but the local cops only have to do whatever the town tells them to do (as long as they aren't actively breaking any laws).

 

[SHISHKABOB]

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

I've heard from time to time the claim that most weed is grown near to the dealers. I have no idea if this is true or not. Maybe someone in this thread has any knowledge of how true or false this might be?



obviously it would not be true for things like cocaine or heroine

 

[Gokul43201]

People don't have the right to harm themselves.

Are you stating a moral position or a legal one? If the former, what's your argument supporting it? If the latter, where is this law valid?

The implications of your requirement that people be prevented from harming themselves:
- Alcohol and tobacco would be banned
- As would most soda, fast food and snacks
- In fact all personal diets would have to be approved by a government authority
- Any sport or physical activity where injury is a natural expectation (most all of them) would be banned
- too much TV and video games ...

... essentially, this amounts to the enslavement of the citizenry.

Perhaps you'd like to revise your statement?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've heard from time to time the claim that most weed is grown near to the dealers. I have no idea if this is true or not. Maybe someone in this thread has any knowledge of how true or false this might be?
obviously it would not be true for things like cocaine or heroine

Wars are still fought over pot. Perhaps the best example is the problem of the Mexican Cartels using US forest land for pot farms, which is a huge problem in California. Just a casual hike in the woods can be dangerous if you happen to stumble into a pot farm.

Any time you have a lot of money involved in a black market, you are going to have violent crime. What drives the crime is mostly the money, not the drugs.

 

[turbo]

Yep. Legalize and regulate cannabis and you'll cut the life-blood of the Mexican cartels (money). Drugs don't drive the violence - money and the fight for turf does. Prohibition in the US caused a great deal of damage.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Wars are still fought over pot. Perhaps the best example is the problem of the Mexican Cartels using US forest land for pot farms, which is a huge problem in California. Just a casual hike in the woods can be dangerous if you happen to stumble into a pot farm.

Any time you have a lot of money involved in a black market, you are going to have violent crime. What drives the crime is mostly the money, not the drugs.

right, and the violent crime behind drugs is the main reason why I am against their use in the current situation. I just wasn't sure of how bad it was because of weed.

 

[Hobin]

Wars are still fought over pot. Perhaps the best example is the problem of the Mexican Cartels using US forest land for pot farms, which is a huge problem in California. Just a casual hike in the woods can be dangerous if you happen to stumble into a pot farm.

Any time you have a lot of money involved in a black market, you are going to have violent crime. What drives the crime is mostly the money, not the drugs.

Wait... Pot, as in, cannabis? My apologies if this makes me sound ignorant, as I'm not from the USA, but people fight over freakin' POT? It's not like that's much of a dangerous drug to begin with... (Of course, it's bad for you. But not as bad as tobacco, to name but a single thing.)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I get the impression hobin that in the United States drug dealing is a far more organised affair that in turn is fought against with increasingly weaponised police forces (I'm thinking of images of DEA officers with machine guns though I may be misunderstanding the set up). In Europe things like cannabis are grown small scale all over the place in people's homes and there isn't so much organised gang crime, there's certainly a lot less armed gang crime.

EDIT: Just to clarify I'm not saying gang crime isn't a problem in Europe, far from it. But in the UK at least gangs are more often than not very small groups of individuals that partake in fairly unorganised levels of crime. In the US it seems that larger gangs with significant operations are in effect. For a comparison: I can't remember a single example of a drugs lab bust in the UK (I'm talking about MDMA, coke etc), I gather it's imported and simply distributed.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Wait... Pot, as in, cannabis? My apologies if this makes me sound ignorant, as I'm not from the USA, but people fight over freakin' POT? It's not like that's much of a dangerous drug to begin with... (Of course, it's bad for you. But not as bad as tobacco, to name but a single thing.)

no, like he said, it's the money that drives the crime, not the drugs

 

[turbo]

no, like he said, it's the money that drives the crime, not the drugs

Money fuels the criminal activity, and money allows the gangs to bribe and corrupt local law-enforcement. Go back to Chicago during alcohol prohibition and see how that works. I'd hate to live on the Mexican border.

Do-gooders who want to control the activities of others are only rarely cognizant of the damage they do. A now-deceased old friend of mine from Nova Scotia had a father who was a bootlegger, buying up cider and fermenting it. NS is not and was not then a hotbed of criminal activity, but when you make something that people want illegal, the demand can convince others to get into the supply-side, even though they risk legal sanctions.

 

[mathwonk]

Cannabis has both beneficial and harmful effects. it is worse for young people than older ones. I do not know whether the harmful effects wear off after 24 hours or so as do those for alcohol. The worst problem seems to be the enormous income provided to criminals who supply it, i.e. the prohibition effect. I conclude that legalization would probably cause fewer problems than the current situation. Presumably we could try that and then reassess after 10 years.

 

[TylerH]

Cannabis has both beneficial and harmful effects. it is worse for young people than older ones. I do not know whether the harmful effects wear off after 24 hours or so as do those for alcohol. The worst problem seems to be the enormous income provided to criminals who supply it, i.e. the prohibition effect. I conclude that legalization would probably cause fewer problems than the current situation. Presumably we could try that and then reassess after 10 years.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/ncchap2_40.htm

During the 21-day Boston free-access study, no harmful effects were observed on general bodily functions, motor functions, mental functions, personal or social behavior or work performance. Total sleep time and periods of sleep were increased. Weight gain was uniformly noted.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Regarding my argument about "sin" taxes, or what I like to call Risk Taxes, consider the alternative and the philosophy already being entertained.

The survey by doctors.net.uk, which claims nearly 192,000 members, found that 593, or 54 percent, of the 1,096 doctors who participated answered yes to this question: "Should the NHS be allowed to refuse non-emergency treatments to patients unless they lose weight or stop smoking?"...

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/29/11452500-in-uk-survey-doctors-support-denying-treatment-to-smokers-the-obese#.T52VTD7uUG8.email

 

[shalikadm]

Anything that make intoxication must be prohibited..It's my opinion..

 

[TylerH]

Regarding my argument about "sin" taxes, or what I like to call Risk Taxes, consider the alternative and the philosophy already being entertained.http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/29/11452500-in-uk-survey-doctors-support-denying-treatment-to-smokers-the-obese#.T52VTD7uUG8.email

Sin taxes, when used correctly, are reasonable, I believe. By "correctly," I mean that the tax is determined in an actuarial way to correspond to the exact cost of each unit of the "sin" and that the money is used to pay the exact expenditure created by the sin. For example, with tobacco, the tax should be exactly how much it costs to pay for the medical costs created by smoking whatever amount I buy and the money should go to public healthcare, but that's not generally what is done with tobacco taxes.

My argument against a sin tax on cannabis isn't a philosophical one; it's a practical one that is based in the reality of how the tax is actually going to be used. As a cannabis user, I shouldn't have to pay for all the random crap that the government wants to spend on but can't find another way to pay for. I'm totally okay with paying the extra healthcare bills I may cause, but that's not what I'll actually be paying.