Should Cannabis Remain Illegal Amid Growing Debate?

[Ryan_m_b]

In ottawa, a couple years ago, some fairly renowned "brain" doctor/surgeon was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident...

Interesting dilemma, my answer to it would be that this man is just that; a man. He leaves his profession behind him when he leaves work. I hold that principle simply because of the impracticality of applying different laws to different people based on their "worth" to society. There are real life caveats to this though, I've heard that the UK Prime Minister is heavily restricted in their freedoms by government policy e.g. they can't just leave and walk down the street by themselves without body guards. I'm not sure if that's true or an urban myth but it's a similar issue.

Just one of those neat food for thought moral dilemmas. Eastern / Western points of view on this "moral dilemma" would maybe be split, the individual or the whole.

I don't even think you need to go that far, within various western cultures you would have big splits of opinion.

just want to clarify, I am in favor of higher tax on unhealthy products. This is independent of the choice to buy them, similar to the brain surgeon & his motorcycle; I imagine his motor vehicle insurance reflected the added risk of commuting with a motorcycle...

I agree but not for all things. Some dangerous products and activities should be banned either in part or totally e.g. making it illegal to ride a motorbike without a helmet.

 

[nitsuj]

Interesting dilemma, my answer to it would be that this man is just that; a man. He leaves his profession behind him when he leaves work. I hold that principle simply because of the impracticality of applying different laws to different people based on their "worth" to society. There are real life caveats to this though, I've heard that the UK Prime Minister is heavily restricted in their freedoms by government policy e.g. they can't just leave and walk down the street by themselves without body guards. I'm not sure if that's true or an urban myth but it's a similar issue.

I don't even think you need to go that far, within various western cultures you would have big splits of opinion.

I agree but not for all things. Some dangerous products and activities should be banned either in part or totally e.g. making it illegal to ride a motorbike without a helmet.

I agree with all you said, I differ slightly on the first point. I think it must be the individual first because we are free. You raised a perfect example regarding the UK Prime Minister.

Similar to the Hippocratic Oath a doctor pledges to (or whatever) here is an example; "I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm." (NOTE: this is from wikipedia)

I don't quite get what that last part means " those sound of mind & body, as well as the infirm." Is probably just those who are healthy & those who are sick. (is "...those sound of mind & body..." a grammar error? Those of sound mind & body...)

2.) I like East/West social contrasts
3.) Yup, wearing a helmet when riding a motorbike is not a "morally grey" area.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I think their is a contradicton in your beliefs leroy. On the one hand you agree that people should have freedom up until they infringe others (with reasonable argument as to whether or not certain infringements are justified e.g. freedom of speech vs freedom from offence) yet on the other you seem to think that anything in private is justified without acknowledging that the effects of things that happen in private aren't necessarily contained.

I acknowledge that no matter where your actions take place, they're never in a vacuum, but that's no reason to take those freedoms away from people.
So far we've established that it can be harmful to smoke around children. That shouldn't be allowed, even if you're in private, because it does infringe on other people's rights.
And we've established that you can get in trouble with the law for smoking in private, if they catch you somehow. Well, if someone were to argue that that's a reason for it to be regulated by law, then that's a circular argument.

You're arguing that it should be regulated, right? Just like alcohol? I agree with that.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I acknowledge that no matter where your actions take place, they're never in a vacuum, but that's no reason to take those freedoms away from people.

That really depends on the freedom and how it infringes on others doesn't it? Also there are more steps than having and taking away, a myriad of different regulatory options exist.

You're arguing that it should be regulated, right? Just like alcohol? I agree with that.

I'm not really arguing anything though I outlined my attitude earlier on in the thread. All I have to add to that is that if we wish to go further with some drugs and have them decriminalised there should be a regulatory body set up to approve drugs along scientific criteria in a similar way to medicinal drugs are. For the assessment criteria I would go along with something similar to what the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs proposed a few years ago (but was later rejected), essentially all drugs would be given a score based on their addictiveness, harm to self and harm to society. Building on top of that I would prefer to see a hierarchy of regulations ranging from very relaxed (available over-the-counter with age restrictions and taxed: like alcohol/tobacco) to very controlled (available only in select establishments where it must be consumed on site, possibly with a system wherein valid ID must be produced and frequency of visits to any establishment is controlled).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree but not for all things. Some dangerous products and activities should be banned either in part or totally e.g. making it illegal to ride a motorbike without a helmet.

How do you draw the line? When does an activity become too dangerous to allow? How about mountain climbing, skydiving, scuba diving, base jumping, bungee jumping, or even a reckless sexual lifestyle...? Should we ban sex without a "helmet" as well, except for married couples?

 

[zoobyshoe]

How do you draw the line? When does an activity become too dangerous to allow? How about mountain climbing, skydiving, scuba diving, base jumping, bungee jumping, or even a reckless sexual lifestyle...? Should we ban sex without a "helmet" as well, except for married couples?

I was going to ask something along the same lines. Why is it acceptable to risk becoming a quadripalegic by riding a motorcycle but not acceptable to risk brain damage? Helmets reduce injuries, but why is that any sort of obvious limit on how far to go to be safe?

Also, isn't it irresponsible not to ride a motorcycle when soldiers have died in Iraq to protect our oil supply?

Why, really, is it acceptable to risk any car accident injuries or deaths? Cars hit pedestrians now and then. Who indulged in the risky behavior there, the car driver or the pedestrian, and should they both have been required to wear helmets?

I'm not one, but a motorcycle aficionado might well ask such questions, and anyone deciding to lay out rules and regulations ought to see that the limits are often idiosyncratic and arbitrary.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For that matter, following the logic of "for the sake of public health and the general welfare", perhaps adultery laws should be enforced. Consider the impact this would have on STDs and unwanted pregnancies. How many people die of sexually transmitted diseases each year?

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are among the most common infectious diseases in the United States today. More than 20 STDs have been identified and they affect an estimated 19 million men and women in this country each year. The annual treatment cost of STDs in the United States is estimated to be in excess of $14 billion.

...STDs can be passed from a mother to her baby before, during or immediately after birth. Some of these newborn infections can be cured easily, but others may cause a baby to be permanently disabled or even die.

http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/womenshealth/factsheets/std.htm

At the end of 2006 there were an estimated 1,106,400 people living with HIV/AIDS in the U.S. with over 617,025 deaths as of 2008.13 Having other STDs can increase a person’s risk of becoming infected with AIDS as much as 5 times...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...uIHSDw&usg=AFQjCNHrrUDcsyB8b-4BhhZVXB2SnCxxZA

When we apply the logic of "our duty" to issues of public health and what it cost us as a society, or when society dictates what is in the best interest of the individual, I see no end to it. And since the cost of health care is one of the greatest financial issues facing the US, I don't see how these issues can be avoided in the years to come. But it mostly comes down to money. To a large extent I think taxes can fix that problem without the need or justification for regulating our personal choices. It seems to me that many or most of the objections beyond money are really just the relics of religion, and personal biases that define the concept of "acceptable" lifestyles, for each of us.

Consider the notion of residue from smokers and the effect it might have on children [one I hadn't heard before]. If that is such a concern, then why don't we arrest pregnant women who drink alcohol? [It may be that a glass of wine is considered to be okay, I don''t know, but I mean in excess. At some point drinking alcohol poses a danger to a developing fetus]

Should a pregnant woman be allowed to ride a motorcycle? Should parents be allowed to take their children boating [a relatively dangerous activity]?

 

[nanolaser]

Consider the notion of residue from smokers and the effect it might have on children. If that is such a concern, then why don't we arrest pregnant women who drink alcohol?

I'm happy to see people (like you) doing their best to be objective.

The rules are, from a modern perspective, arbitrary with respect to drugs; historically, they were rooted in racial motives or at least were marketed in that vein. I'm not posting them here (but if required, I will), but the posters of the time when Harrison was pushing for Cannabis bans were not shy about the perceived effect of it on black people and their alleged sexual relationships to white women. Opiates were linked heavily to the growing group of Chinese immigrants who kept to themselves and, almost all of them male and lonely, spent large amount of times in opium dens, at that time most widely spread in San Francisco. Accordingly, there were local bans on such institutions before nationwide calls for bans. This was not doable without actually changing the Constitution, so they went the tax route and the "licence" route.

It is not to say that there could not have been a drug problem; it just wasn't that big, and it was linked to bigger problems in questionable ways. There was the Temperance Movement, too, which ultimately led to the Prohibition (which they did through a change in the constitution (the famous 18th Amendment).

This article on Wikipedia is quite interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act

They basically turned a problem of health care and ineffective regulation (and complete lack of regulation - just about every widely used "patent medicine" contained morphine and/or cocaine, without being marked as such on the bottle, which led to widely spread misuse and abuse) into a criminal law problem. Then, of course, decades later, Nixon turned it up to eleven.

Well, to better show what I mean, here's an example of an "information" flyer: http://whyisweedillegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/killerdrug.jpg

And this was the tone of the time in mass media:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy"

"Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis."

There's also this guy, and the site with the sources for those quotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
and this listing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States
for some background information.

 

[zoobyshoe]

...I see no end to it.

Society seems to be being shepherded toward mass OCD. Everyone is going to end up like Monk.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

How do you draw the line? When does an activity become too dangerous to allow? How about mountain climbing, skydiving, scuba diving, base jumping, bungee jumping, or even a reckless sexual lifestyle...? Should we ban sex without a "helmet" as well, except for married couples?

Just because it is hard to draw a line doesn't mean it can't be done Whilst I find this thread interesting I have no desire to go down the facetious road of arguing over a myriad of activities. 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. Ideally politicians with advisors would constantly work on this at the behest of the public.

EDIT: Just to quickly add to this the link I provided above for a proposed new drug classification scheme features a score system with specific criteria for how to measure. The task then becomes one of determining what regulations apply to what scores which can be done semi-empirically e.g. "The goal is to ensure X, studies show that applying regulations A to scores 10-20 aid/detract from this goal."

 

[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.

 

[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.