Should we legalise cannabis?

[Kuciwalker]

hypocrite?

I don't drink... or even use caffeine

[monolith94]

Never had a coke in your life???

[Kuciwalker]

I've had coke... but I prefer sprite, and REFUSE to use caffeine to stay awake.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Cruddy


They kill people? OK, cannabis doesn't kill, but the others do.

you know that smoking weed is worse than tobacco?

most tobacco products have filters and stuff

weed does not

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by monolith94
Never had a coke in your life???

in order to use caffiene on the level where it will effect you or be addictive you have to drink 3 cups of coffee in a relatively short time (an evening)

while people who drink a lot of caffeinated pop do do this, most do not

Jon Miller

[Dis]

nobody smokes 1 to 3 packs of joints a day.

[monolith94]

"most tobacco products have filters and stuff"

The tobacco companies are kind enough to include tar, as well.

"I've had coke"

Then you're JUST AS GUILTY! Plus, there's caffeine in tons of stuff, even where you'd least expect it. Read that in a consumer reports article.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Dissident
nobody smokes 1 to 3 packs of joints a day.

That's true, but I know a few potheads who smoke quite a bit.

skywalker: do you drink alcoholic beverages? or coffee? should they be illegal as well?

the simple fact is, abuse of anything, whether it's pot, coke, heroine, coffee, fast food, porn, bad language, altoids is bad...

addiction is the problem that afflicts people who abuse drugs, alcohol, excessive gamblers, etc... the substance itself is not the problem... and prohibition creates more problems than it solves... in fact, prohibition doesn't solve anything. Marijuana, and all drugs should be legalized, taxed, and the money should be used for addiction counseling programs.

[Berzerker]

Speer -

The use of illicit drugs is illegal because of their intoxicating effects on the brain, damaging impact on the body, adverse impact on behavior, and potential for abuse.

Not true, CERTAIN drugs are illegal because they lack the political clout to keep them legal. If these were really the criteria, tobacco and alcohol would be at the top of the list because of the millions who've died using them.

Their use threatens the health, welfare, and safety of all people, of users and non-users alike.

This is the kind of immoral generalisation used by racists, but apparently it's okay to lie about drug users. SOME drug users are a threat to others, and SOME sober people are a threat to others. If Hitler and Stalin smoked pot, maybe the world would not have seen 10's of millions die under their "sober" reigns.

Legalization would decrease price and increase availability.

Depending on the tax rate of course, but availability may not increase. The reason so many 3rd world farmers are growing drug crops is because of the black market prices. Remove that incentive to grow drug crops and many farmers will go back to growing food crops.

Availability is a leading factor associated with increased drug use.

And availability depends also on supply, and the drug war has increased supply (imagine that).

Increased use of addictive substances leads to increased addiction. As a public health measure, statistics show that prohibition was a tremendous success.

where are these statistics? The only statistics I've seen for pre-prohibition and prohibition consumption rates show that consumption was no higher before prohibition, if anything, consumption went up during prohibition.

Many drug users commit murder, child and spouse abuse, rape, property damage, assault and other violent crimes under the influence of drugs.

Many non-drug users commit murder, child and spouse abuse, rape, property damage, assault and other violent crimes under the influence of sobriety.

Drug users, many of whom are unable to hold jobs, commit robberies not only to obtain drugs, but also to purchase food, shelter, clothing and other goods and services.

Gee, you mean they rob people to pay for those really expensive drugs that wouldn't cost nearly as much if they were legal? Thanks for making us safer...

Increased violent crime and increased numbers of criminals will result in even larger prison populations.

Strange, the following is one of those stats your source has ignored:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../graphs/10.htm

Looks like violent crime also depends on the activities of politicians. I would have figured your esteemed source would actually provide something as important as homicide rates for the last century to make their case...if they had a case to make...

Legalizing drugs will not eliminate illegal trafficking of drugs, nor the violence associated with the illegal drug trade. A black market would still exist unless all psychoactive and addictive drugs in all strengths were made available to all ages in unlimited quantity.

But the black market would look like the one we see with minors and alcohol and tobacco, a minimal black market. We don't see alcohol dealers having shootouts over who gets to sell booze to the local kids. But back when adults couldn't legally sell and buy booze, that was when we saw the growth of gangsters and black market violence.

Drug laws deter people from using drugs.

Then why hasn't drug consumption declined?

Surveys indicate that the fear of getting in trouble with the law constitutes a major reason not to use drugs.

But the severe penalties are reserved for dealing large amounts, not possession of small amounts. Besides, there is a point at which enforcement inefficiencies create the atmosphere of immunity (which is why so many people exceed speed limits), and as long as children are given a slap on the hand for drug use, they won't be afraid of the laws.

Fear of the American legal system is a major concern of foreign drug lords.

Foreign drug lords that wouldn't exist without prohibition, so naturally the drug war pushers blame the users while avoiding mirrors.

Drug laws have turned drug users to a drug-free lifestyle through mandatory treatment.

Nah, people don't quit using drugs unless they really want to quit. People who don't want to quit will go thru the motions of rehab and start using once they're out of the system (if not before).

40% - 50% are in treatment as a result of the criminal justice system.

As an alternative to jail. But there we see a new humungous bureaucracy born from the death and destruction called the "drug war".

A study of international drug policy and its effects on countries has shown that countries with lax drug law enforcement have had an increase in drug addiction and crime.

Oh please! What European country with lax drug laws has more crime and violence than the USA? Obviously if a small European nation legalised or decriminalised drugs, eventually some hardcore users from neighboring countries will migrate there. Portugal has about the most lenient policy of all, so we'll see what happens. We've seen what happened in the USA - doubled homicide rates, juvenile crime thru the roof, etc...

Btw, ever wonder why juvenile crime rates began skyrocketing in the mid 80's and have kept climbing ever since? Because Reagan, Congress, and then the states began increasing penalties for adults involved in the drug trade. What's the connection? Many adults wanting to avoid those harsher penalties recruited juveniles exempt from the penalties to take more of the risks of being involved in the drug trade. Presto! Juvenile crime starts doing up and so does juvenile drug use!

Conversely, those with strong drug policies have reduced drug use and enjoy low crime rates.

Then maybe the USA should execute drug users.

The United States and many countries would be in violation of international treaty if they created a legal market in cocaine, marijuana, and other drugs.

The USA is already in violation of it's own Constitution. The USA never had the authority to enter into such treaties because the USA lacks the constitutional authority to wage the drug war. Btw, the USA can pull out of treaties too, you know.

The U.S. is a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotics & the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and has agreed with other members of the United Nations to control and penalize drug manufacturing, trafficking, and use.

Would that be the United Nations the USA just ignored in Gulf War II?

[Sava]

Speer, as Berz just proved, you were wrong on every count...

[Berzerker]

you know that smoking weed is worse than tobacco?

most tobacco products have filters and stuff

weed does not

Ever see Pat Paulson of "Laugh-In" fame standing in a graveyard telling the viewers to come to Marlboro Country?

[Berzerker]

Speer, as Berz just proved, you were wrong on every count...

[takes a bow] But I was just responding to what Speer posted from some drug war outfit.

[monolith94]

I may disagree with you on alot of things, Berzerker, but I'm with you on legalization!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by monolith94
"most tobacco products have filters and stuff"

The tobacco companies are kind enough to include tar, as well.

"I've had coke"

Then you're JUST AS GUILTY! Plus, there's caffeine in tons of stuff, even where you'd least expect it. Read that in a consumer reports article.

No, I'm not. I drink coke when they don't have sprite or ginger ale or root beer. I usually only have 1 can. It's like saying that my dad, who MAY have beer every other month at some business function or whatever, is an alcoholic.

[Berzerker]

Nah, skywalker ain't a hypocrite for occasionally consuming caffeine given it's prevalence in society. Now, if he drinks 2 or 3 sodas a day, we might say his posts were submitted while under the influence.

[Zero]

Now why would I say No to this question?

[Zero]

Originally posted by monolith94
Never had a coke in your life???

no, not the kind ur asking.. I dont drink pepsi either. Now, where my bro zylka at when u need him?

[Berzerker]

However sky, I should respond to this:

I usually only have 1 can. It's like saying that my dad, who MAY have beer every other month at some business function or whatever, is an alcoholic.

Most drug users aren't addicts, i.e., the ~equivelant of the alcoholic.

[Sava]

I agree Berz, I use pot maybe a dozen times a year.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
you know that smoking weed is worse than tobacco?

most tobacco products have filters and stuff

weed does not

Jon Miller

Marijuana is illegal, therefore there are not companies that produce filters for them.

Tobacco that people roll for themselves also don't have a filter.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
Cutting out the demand is how you eliminate the supply.

Exactly, that's why I am for legalising - put the money elsewhere such as education.

Clearly, Driving under influence and such should still be a crime, but not selling, buying, and possessing.

[Berzerker]

Tobacco that people roll for themselves also don't have a filter.

And then there's chewing tobacco and all that mouth cancer, ugh.

[Kuciwalker]

Personally, I think it'd be cool to gene-engineer a virus that would be uber-fatal to, say cannabis or tobacco, etc. No more supply problems AT ALL

[Berzerker]

Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, one can do no more good for civilisation than introduce a new plant of value. Like it or not, hemp and tobacco have provided millions of people pleasure and capital for a long time. But you'd do the opposite?

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by elijah
Albert: No-one is denying that legalisation will increase usage, and that there are health risks associated with the happy leaf.

The Dutch would. They didn't legalise, just created tolerance zones. NOT that Holland doesn't have drug related problems (usually foreigners who come in for the "easier" drugs scene). As for the health risks, I still haven't seen any evidence of a death caused by cannabis.

Originally posted by elijah
Growing cannabis is harder than fermenting alcohol (how was I supposed to know that plants need water ), and if one was to get it from other sources, it would soon be far more expensive than legit sources.

Then how do you explain the massive amounts of tobacco smuggling into the UK? Most organised gangs don't do this because it's easier than smuggling dope - they do it because it's more profitable. So much for the "high tax will beat the dealers" argument.

Originally posted by elijah
Legalising, from societies point of view, would eliminate much of the dealer problem, and make those that remain easier to detect due to the supply and demand of those harder drugs, and provide a valuable source of tax revenue, which could easily cover the potential health costs in national health systems.

Very doubtful. The tax generated on alcohol and tobacco doesn't cover the problems those substances generate.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by Sava
That's true, but I know a few potheads who smoke quite a bit.

skywalker: do you drink alcoholic beverages? or coffee? should they be illegal as well?

the simple fact is, abuse of anything, whether it's pot, coke, heroine, coffee, fast food, porn, bad language, altoids is bad...

Then what role, if any, does the government ultimately have in deciding what's good and bad? Should the FDA be abolished? I think just because something is relatively less harmful than something else doesn't automatically qualify if for legalization. Prozac is less harmful than alcohol- should it be sold over the counter?

Very doubtful. The tax generated on alcohol and tobacco doesn't cover the problems those substances generate.

I agree with you completely on the whole "tax it and save the world" bit. Both alcohol and tobacco are taxed heavily in the US, and next to nothing has been done to address the massive health and safety problems they create. Let's have more of the same eh?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Sava
I agree Berz, I use pot maybe a dozen times a year.

that makes two of us. would i consumer more if it were legal? no. i prefer being sober and being able to be active to being stoned. although there are a few days a year where youre very stressed out and sometimes you need an 8th...

[Whaleboy]

One can be stoned on a spliff (weed+tobacco) for a day or two, depending on metabolism, strength of weed, tolerance etc etc. On a pure blunt, we're talking an effect lasting 4-5 days, perhaps up to a week. Its not addictive either, so one can fully control it.

A dozen times a year is perhaps average, which is equivalent to about 120 cigarettes, which is rougly equivalent in terms of health, to a cigarette every 3 days.

This of course, does not include anything related to the health benefits, but be that as it may, I don't see why the health issue should have anything to do with legalisation, as long as its in ones own home or private premises. Its the individuals choice, and the tax generated by sales could easily cover the healthcare costs in national health services like the UK.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
I agree with you completely on the whole "tax it and save the world" bit. Both alcohol and tobacco are taxed heavily in the US, and next to nothing has been done to address the massive health and safety problems they create. Let's have more of the same eh?

Maybe because the money goes to the *cough* drug war *cough*?

[Berzerker]

JdeM -

Then what role, if any, does the government ultimately have in deciding what's good and bad?

It can have a role (once the Constitution is amended to give it a role), but it shouldn't be able to compel us to accept what is called "good" and reject what is called "bad". Product information only...

Should the FDA be abolished?

It's policing powers should be limited to interstate fraud and product mis-representations in accordance with the Constitution, not deciding what we can or cannot consume.

I think just because something is relatively less harmful than something else doesn't automatically qualify if for legalization.

It's called hypocrisy, the sin condemned most often by Jesus.
Banning the less harmful and maintaining the legality of the more harmful negates ALL health related arguments wrt pot prohibition. How should a rational person view the following argument? "Ban pot because it's harmful, but don't ban alcohol and tobacco!" See? Kinda pathetic...

Prozac is less harmful than alcohol- should it be sold over the counter?

Yup.

I agree with you completely on the whole "tax it and save the world" bit. Both alcohol and tobacco are taxed heavily in the US, and next to nothing has been done to address the massive health and safety problems they create. Let's have more of the same eh?

First, legalising drugs would only reduce health care costs, not increase them. Much of the crime and violence in this country is a result of prohibition, and there is no evidence prohibition has reduced consumption. If anything, drugs are used much more widely than 100 years ago when they were legal. Second, the same people mis-appropriating our money wrt to your concern now are running prohibition. So maybe you answered your own question. And third, if the taxes collected ostensibly for health related matters involved with alcohol and tobacco use aren't being used for that purpose, it's probably going to education and other programs.

UR -

Maybe because the money goes to the *cough* drug war *cough*?