Dope: Should it be legalised.

[Berzerker]

H Tuttle -

I don't know if I can agree with your rational about illegal = punishment. I mean it could only be punishment if we were trying to make someone atone for what they did wrong.

And what do you propose doing to the millions of people who violate the pot law?

The only punishment with it being illegal is the kind given out when caught. By your definition I would say that we are punishing everyone by not allowing them the opportunity to smoke pot legally.

We are, but millions of people have decided not to use pot so they are sacrificing a freedom they choose not to use. And they are being hypocritical when they willingly give away this freedom but complain when the freedoms they do cherish come under attack by the very machine they've used to outlaw pot.

I don't understand what you mean. I was referring to the benefit and problems that are inherent with legalizing drug use such as pot. ie. no black market, possible addiction problems, etc...

I'll put it another way, what problem you associate with pot has been solved by prohibition? I can cite at least a couple dozen problems created by pot prohibition... Higher crime rates is probably the most obvious.

Woah! That is a big step don't you think? The Nazis killed based on race.

They began killing their own race, the mentally handicapped among others were the first to go. But you said "societal benefit" was your standard, so I was just pointing out where that standard has led in the past.

I was debating whether it's a good idea to legalize pot. My position now, after debating the issue, is that if it is no more harmful then the things we already have then legalize it.

Understood, but I reject "harm" as a standard as well. Politicians have spent decades lying about pot so "harm" becomes a fight over who can demagogue louder and longer than others... The American Medical Association opposed the the ban on pot back in 1937 so even the voices of the scientists and doctors were drowned out by the lying politicians.

And I'm a Republican/Conservative type. Nanny states don't sit well with me. I just want government to intervene on things that might be actually harmful to us because we have a hard problem saying no to them. If addiciton with pot is to much of a con for legalizing it then I say no.

From where did you obtain this power to decide for everyone else what harms them? Do you realise that is the same argument used by communists when they claim workers are exploited by employers even if the workers don't agree? That's the essence of a nanny state, you (or the communist) deciding for the rest of us...

[Sava]

The drug buyers should be aware of the dangers and its their own choice to go over the law to get it.

yes... prohibition is creating this VERY PROBLEM!

[Sava]

this is like a tag team... SLAP ME BERZ, I'm READY TO GO IN!

[Flip McWho]

I'm not saying totally irrelevant. But they do choose (in the case that they are forced into it then I do not hold this position) to work in there and so should hmmm suffer the circumstances.

[orange]

legalize it. And no, I've never smoked and likely never will.

[Sava]

Originally posted by orange
legalize it. And no, I've never smoked and likely never will.

*coughpussy*

if you don't believe in using any substances... caffeine, alcohol, tobacco.. then fine, I can respect it even if I don't agree with it. But if you get drunk, and don't ever smoke pot, you are a damn fool.

but if you do decide to smoke, ever... befriend a pot smoker and get him or her to give you some really good **** and teach you how to inhale it really well... it's like sex... your first time can be the best if you do it right.

but if you plan on ****ing some 2 dollar hooker, it will ruin the whole experience for you

[Ramo]

I'm not saying totally irrelevant. But they do choose (in the case that they are forced into it then I do not hold this position) to work in there and so should hmmm suffer the circumstances.

That's inane. Why should drug workers suffer the consequences of being gunned down when they complain about wages? Why should drug buyers suffer the consequences of dying because the drug they bought was laced with something nasty?

[Berzerker]

Flip -

I've been having some debates with people over the issue of dope legalisation. I keep getting mental blocks with ideas of why. Like I can think of them but can't quite put them into words so this is helping.

It's hard countering the "drugs are bad...umkay" argument with simple slogans because the media and the politicians are constantly focusing our attention on the tiny minority of drug users who do bad things and because there are so
many complexities involved, but just ask prohibitionists this question: what problem related to drugs has been solved by prohibition? You won't get an answer, just chicken little predictions about drug use
escalating. In response to that I always ask them what drug consumption rates were when all drugs were legal in the last century.

[Flip McWho]

Because it ain't regulated in anyway. You get the information about it and take the risks. Of course i don't advocate the gunning down thing, i'm not one for violence of any kind. Eh maybe the drug workers should band together and form a union. Hell once the industry gets legalised it'll be regulated and these conditions will improve.

[Berzerker]

That's inane. Why should drug workers suffer the consequences of being gunned down when they complain about wages? Why should drug buyers suffer the consequences of dying because the drug they bought was laced with something nasty?

Yes, notice how prohibitionists wash their hands of their complicity in creating the situation - the black market - and blame the bad results of their policy on others?

[Ramo]

Of course i don't advocate the gunning down thing, i'm not one for violence of any kind.

Then why are you saying they "should suffer the consequences?"

Eh maybe the drug workers should band together and form a union

That's a bit difficult while the industry is illegal.

[Berzerker]

Flip -

Because it ain't regulated in anyway. You get the information about it and take the risks. Of course i don't advocate the gunning down thing, i'm not one for violence of any kind. Eh maybe the drug workers should band together and form a union. Hell once the industry gets legalised it'll be regulated and these conditions will improve.

The violence is a result of prohibition, but do politicians admit this? No, they call it "drug-related violence". When was the last time you heard of alcohol dealers having shootouts over marketshare? Alcohol prohibition... Was that "alcohol-related violence"? No, it was prohibition-related violence...

[Flip McWho]

Yeah good point Berzerker. Never thought of it that way.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Sava
*coughpussy*

if you don't believe in using any substances... caffeine, alcohol, tobacco.. then fine, I can respect it even if I don't agree with it. But if you get drunk, and don't ever smoke pot, you are a damn fool.

And why can't you leave the decision to the people themselves? For my part, I've smoked pot and quit, I proved to be much more susceptible for weed than for alcohol. I also quit smoking. Not all drugs are for all people and if one decides to take or test one it doesn't mean he should test or take all. If orange decided not to test pot, but has no problem with alcohol, fine, why not.

Berzerker: The "prohibition-realted crimes" are a great argument, I use it myself a lot but now you gave me a good catchword.

[Dr Strangelove]

Dope already is legal. Just take a drive on a busy highway any evening, there will be plenty of dopes driving around perfectly legally!

One problem with dealing with prosecuting driving under the influence of marijuana is that unlike alcohol the relationship between blood levels of THC and the degree of intoxication is not linear or reliable. Alcohol freely distributes throughout the body and it's metabolism by the liver obeys first order kinetics. Marijuana has a higher affinity for fatty tissues, which act like a reservoir, and it's metabolism by the liver obeys more complex kinetics and has a higher variability from person to person. Since the brain is highly fatty the brain holds on to THC with a higher affinity than blood, thus the blood level doesn't reflect the level in the brain.

Marijuana cigarettes do indeed have the same carcinogens as tobacco cigarettes, and in much higher concentrations. Now that I've said that we'll soon be treated to the medical expertise of a dozen pro-marijuana websites, which after all are the leading sources of medical knowledge widely re3cognized by the scientific community.

[Whaleboy]

Its not impeding anyone, so yes!!!

Plus, you can tax it, and legalising it will remove the link between cannabis and harder drugs. The legal stuff will also be healthier, with the illegal stuff people put god knows what crap in hash its terrible.

[Whaleboy]

Doc: I know its highly unhealthy but thats for the individual to decide, and one generally uses it in far smaller doses that normal cigarettes. Kill your brain to free your mind...

[Peter Triggs]

@ Dr Strangelove. Is this an isolated opinion or is the link between cannabis and schizophrenia becoming more established? I've come across several articles about it over the past two or three years.

Robin Murray is professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, and consultant psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital.

As a consultant psychiatrist working in the Maudsley Hospital, which serves the Brixton area, I have been surprised that in all the recent discussions about cannabis, there has been virtually no mention of the drug's relationship to psychosis.

Psychiatrists have known for 150 years that heavy consumption of cannabis can produce hallucinations. This was thought to be rare and transient until the 1980s when, as cannabis consumption rose across Europe and the USA, it became apparent that people with chronic psychotic illnesses were more likely to be daily consumers of cannabis. Here in Britain, for example, people with schizophrenia do not take more alcohol, heroin, or ecstasy than the rest of us - but they are twice as likely to smoke cannabis regularly.

Since people with schizophrenia have a miserable life, most psychiatrists initially thought that if the odd spliff brought them some pleasure, what was the harm? Then, in the mid-90s, a Dutch psychiatrist named Don Lintzen from the University Clinic in Amsterdam noted that people with schizophrenia who used a lot of cannabis had a much worse outcome than those who didn't. This was confirmed by other studies, including a four-year follow-up at the Maudsley Hospital. Those who continued to smoke cannabis were three times more likely to develop a chronic illness than those who didn't.

Why does cannabis exacerbate psychosis? In schizophrenia, the hallucinations result from an excess of a brain chemical called dopamine. All the drugs that cause psychosis - amphetamines, cocaine and cannabis - increase the release of dopamine in the brain. In this way, they are distinct from illicit drugs such as heroin or morphine, which do not make psychosis worse.

The distraught parents of a young man diagnosed with schizophrenia tell me that their son was a very bright child with no obvious psychological problems. Then, in his mid-teens, his school grades deteriorated and he seemed to have trouble thinking clearly. He complained that people were talking about him behind his back.

After years of increasingly bizarre behaviour, he dropped out of school, job and university, and was finally admitted to a psychiatric unit, overwhelmed by paranoid fears and persecution by voices. The parents tell me that, at some point during this downward spiral, they realised their son was dependent on cannabis. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship (Rethink) is full of parents who see cannabis as the cause of their son's or, less commonly, daughter's madness.

Psychiatrists began to wonder if cannabis could actually cause psychosis as well as make established psychosis worse. A famous study interviewed 50,000 conscripts into the Swedish Army about their drug consumption and followed them up. Those who were heavy consumers of cannabis at 18 were six times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia over the next 15 years than those did not take it.

This year, Dutch epidemiologist Jim Van Os published the results of his study, in which 7,500 people were interviewed about their drug consumption and followed up for three years. Once again, regular consumers of cannabis were more likely to develop psychosis than those who didn't. Two other studies with similar findings are in progress.

It is perhaps surprising that it took the professionals so long to reach this conclusion. For example, it is widely accepted in Jamaica that too much ganja can cause paranoia. Several famous Rastafarians spent their last years incarcerated in Bellevue, the squalid mental hospital in Kingston, among them the legendary ska trombonist, Don Drummond.

Cannabis is now one of the biggest problems on in-patient psychiatric wards in England's major cities. It is common at Maudsley for those making progress to relapse suddenly. The explanation comes when a urine sample tests positive for cannabis. The same effect has been shown at Yale Medical School, where volunteers were given THC - the major active ingredient of cannabis - by injection. Psychotic symptoms could be produced in normal subjects, and people with schizophrenia had a brief exacerbation of their psychosis.

So will reclassifying cannabis cause more people to become psychotic? The incidence of schizophrenia in south London has doubled since the 1960s; the use of cannabis and cocaine could be a factor. The increase in the prevalence and the deteriorating outcomes of schizophrenia due to cannabis use is the main reason why psychiatric services in London are in such a mess.

Any public debate on cannabis needs to take account of the risks as well as the pleasure. Pro-marijuana campaigners claim, extrapolating from their Saturday-night joint, that cannabis is totally safe. Yet they would be unlikely to claim that a bottle of vodka a day is healthy on the basis of sharing a bottle of Chablis over dinner.

No drugs that alter brain chemistry are totally safe. Just as some who drink heavily become alcoholic, so a minority of those who smoke cannabis daily go psychotic. Society has to balance the enjoyment that the majority get from cannabis with the harm it causes to a vulnerable few.

[JohnT]

<--- Voted to legalize it.

[Al B. Sure!]

a pot is something you cook food in...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's right, I was meaning physical addiction. Which is generally far, far more serious a problem than chemical addiction. While chemical addiction isn't something to be dismissed out of hand, it isn't the sort of thing that will get one to smoke 15 joints a day.

God, you're ignorant. CHEMICAL ADDICTION = PHYSICAL ADDICTION = PHYSIOLOGICAL ADDICTION. They all mean the same thing - your body itself is addicted to the drug. Moreover, CHEMICAL ADDICTION IS THE WORST POSSIBLE FORM OF ADDICTION. The more minor form, psychological addiction, is solely a product of reasoning (or the lack thereof ) and is resistable. CHEMICAL ADDICTION IS NOT.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
marijuana is NOT CHEMICALLY ADDICTIVE!!! you are reaching Fez levels here skywalker

The American Medical Association opposed the banning of marijuana http://www.pdxnorml.org/AMA_opposes_1937.html

Marijuana is only addictive in the sense that really pleasant things in life are worth repeating.

Even though Marijuana is not chemically addictive, the following substances are: caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, chocolate, prescription drugs...

Sava, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm taking a college-level neurobiology course from a guy with a doctorate in biology. Doubt me at your own peril.

Marijuana is a psychoactive drug; that is, it acts by inducing the release of abnormal amounts of certain neurotransmitters. The brain is a very pliant system, and it is constantly adjusting itself. Because of this, regular use will cause it to adjust itself to these abnormal levels, percieving them as normal. When you are not using the drug, you return to those normal levels, but your brain percieves them as abnormal. To get a high, you are required to use more and more of a drug. However slow the effect is, it is there, and it is an unavoidable consequence of the drug's mechanism. While cannabis may or may not cause withdrawal symptoms (besides a "low"), it still causes a CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY or ADDICTION.

[Al B. Sure!]

I dont get this... Sava says weed is not chemically addictive based on a 1937 AMA report... a 66 year old report... sava, go back a few more years and you'll expose the truth that the negro has a small brain which is why he is less intelligent than whites.

[oedo]

Originally posted by skywalker
Marijuana (except for an EXTREMELY LIMITED medical application) can basically do nothing but f*** up your body. You want to do it, fine with me. Someone who plays sports can expect to get a physical benefit from it. If someone smokes all their life and gets lung cancer, hey, it's THEIR FAULT. If you drink yourself to death, it's YOUR FAULT. Don't make ME pay.

have you ever thought about how many people have to suffer for your plenty life? children losing their childhood because you want to wear the latest stylish sport shoes. rain forests are destroyed for your burgers. the enviroment gets polluted by your car and your full climated apartment. you better get off your high horse, since you, me and most other posters here are parasites who make others pay for our comfort.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
I dont get this... Sava says weed is not chemically addictive based on a 1937 AMA report... a 66 year old report... sava, go back a few more years and you'll expose the truth that the negro has a small brain which is why he is less intelligent than whites.

!!!!

[Whaleboy]

People, lets get the facts straight here.

The general scientific view is that cannabis is harmful to ones health and possibly ones psyche. Conceded. However, this is with prolonged heavy usage.

It is not a clear cut argument, but against the negative health argument, there is also the medical benefits, the sociological benefits, the artistic benefits, the economic benefits, the crime benefits and of course the libertarian benefits.

Weigh it up, like scales. The argument against cannabis legalisation is not tenable.

May I recommend to the anti-cannabis people, the argument that it is annoying to others, i.e. passive smoking?

[Al B. Sure!]

be consoled, skywalker... the drug legalization camp is made up entirely of upper middle class white college students. they are crazy anyway and I'm sure will grow out of their ignorance. they also lack the numbers to change anything.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by oedo

have you ever thought about how many people have to suffer for your plenty life? children losing their childhood because you want to wear the latest stylish sport shoes. rain forests are destroyed for your burgers. the enviroment gets polluted by your car and your full climated apartment. you better get off your high horse, since you, me and most other posters here are parasites who make others pay for our comfort.

I don't do those things, and it isn't my fault - or my responsibility - if others do them in order to acquire things to sell to me. Punish them, dumbass.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
People, lets get the facts straight here.

The general scientific view is that cannabis is harmful to ones health and possibly ones psyche. Conceded. However, this is with prolonged heavy usage.

It is not a clear cut argument, but against the negative health argument, there is also the medical benefits, the sociological benefits, the artistic benefits, the economic benefits, the crime benefits and of course the libertarian benefits.

Weigh it up, like scales. The argument against cannabis legalisation is not tenable.

May I recommend to the anti-cannabis people, the argument that it is annoying to others, i.e. passive smoking?

The medical benefits don't require that it be legalized for general usage, just prescription usage. And in that case, I would hope heavy controls would be put on how it's prescribed. To my knowledge, it is only useful to ease the pain of a few arthritics.

[oedo]

Originally posted by skywalker


I don't do those things, and it isn't my fault - or my responsibility - if others do them in order to acquire things to sell to me. Punish them, dumbass.

so you´re a vegetarian, live in a shabby, unheated flat and your clothes were knitted by your grandma? (I assume you´re too young to drive a car, yet but you don´t plan to have one sometime anyway). impressive.