Cannabis legalisation

[Adriac]

I suspect you are right, but I remain to be firmly convinced.

Again, how do you want to be convinced? I can show you a guy who smoked ten joints in one night and didn't wind up choking to death on his own vomit. I can introduce you to the woman who got totally baked and didn't go wrap her car around a telephone pole. But clearly that kind of thing will never be sufficient. Can you see why this can't work this way?

For historical reasons alcholol is legal and marijuana is not. Historically and culturally they have not, and are not, treated in the same way.

I don't want to have to whip out examples of other things which used to be treated differently for historical reasons. I'm sure, however, you can imagine what I am not saying here.

 

[ebia]

Again, how do you want to be convinced? I can show you a guy who smoked ten joints in one night and didn't wind up choking to death on his own vomit. I can introduce you to the woman who got totally baked and didn't go wrap her car around a telephone pole. But clearly that kind of thing will never be sufficient. Can you see why this can't work this way?

Anecdotal evidence will never be suffient, you are quite correct.

I don't want to have to whip out examples of other things which used to be treated differently for historical reasons. I'm sure, however, you can imagine what I am not saying here.

We ignore historical and cultural differences at our peril. They are part of the mechanics of society, and law making is as much about society as individuals.

 

[ebia]

Well, to be fair.. for many many years in human history were have lived off of alcohol to survive as water wasn't safe. I'm talking purely in the drink to get drunk sense, and the over use of it that many modern people have. In small amounts alcohol is good for you

Abusing anything isn't good for you.

I know people who get high alot.. a bit of marijuana, no more than a cigarette worth is not going to give you psychosis - it makes you awfully clear-minded. Keep in mind, I've been high twice in my life. They did a test in Britain.. drivers who were high were paranoid and actually drove even safer.

Any links? They are actually 'random breath testing' drivers for drugs here now.

 

[Adriac]

Anecdotal evidence will never be suffient, you are quite correct.

Carry it out. I can provide you with clinical information of the toxicity of THC. I can give you statistical information on marijuana-related deaths, including adjusted for relative use rates.

But it's essentially the same information. I can't prove that marijuana is safe, especially on the large scale that legalized or decriminalized use would entail. It's just not possible.

What I can show you is a massive lack of evidence of any significant health or public safety risk posed by marijuana. And that has to be enough reason, simply because anything else is madness.

We ignore historical and cultural differences at our peril. They are part of the mechanics of society, and law making is as much about society as individuals.

I would say that it is our duty as enlightened men to defy tradition in the pursuit of a knowledgeable and empathic understanding of the world.

Again, I don't want to call in the cheap shots here. You know what I'm talking about.

 

[ebia]

Carry it out. I can provide you with clinical information of the toxicity of THC. I can give you statistical information on marijuana-related deaths, including adjusted for relative use rates.

But it's essentially the same information. I can't prove that marijuana is safe, especially on the large scale that legalized or decriminalized use would entail. It's just not possible.

I'm not stupid enough to expect proof. Just sufficient, large scale, solid research covering the broadest reasonable range of possible risks (including but not limited to mental health, and social risks), and ideally some data on the relative amount of study that has gone into marijuana use compared to (say) alcohol and tabacco.

And, given that some countries have experimented with varying degrees of criminalisation, some good, unbiased, studies into what the effects have been.

I would say that it is our duty as enlightened men to defy tradition in the pursuit of a knowledgeable and empathic understanding of the world.

Simply ignoring where we are currently at doesn't work - it's too dangerous. One doesn't create an ideal world overnight. That's all I'm saying. If one were starting from scratch one might well be consistant in how one treated alcohol and marijuana. But we are not - there is a whole heap of cultural baggage around both of them and you can't just ignore it - it must effect what you do and how you do it, or dangerous mistakes will be made. Reform is a complex process.

Again, I don't want to call in the cheap shots here. You know what I'm talking about.

I believe I do.

 

[Harlan Norris]

Whether it is legal or not,it should be avoided.So, I voted other.The fact is it's not legal,so, for a christian it should be easy to see that for that reason alone it's use is not for them.There are definate health risks and it's most definately addictive.I know,I was a doper for the major portion of my life.I know there are studies that refute what I say,but,My personal experience and my knowledge of many many others who were also pot heads,are proof that those studies are incorrect.

 

[PastorMikeJ]

only if they went back to the grass that hadn't been genetically altered to make the tcp so powerful...Native Americans used cannabis as a treatment for stomache ailments...but native cannabis wasn't as strong...

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I vote for the legalisation of weed, since it's obviously a victimless drug. No one dies of weed overdose, nor do you hear about someone dying in a car accident because of a stoned driver. Marriages don't suffere because of an addiction to weed, and potheads are not exactly violent beings.

Besides, cigarettes kill more people than weed will.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Though of course it is important to take cultural, historical and social factors into consideration when it comes to law making, it seems reasonable to me that, to an extent, Adriac is right.

Not only is it acceptable to fight against certain historical and cultural factors, it is completely necessary to do so. It seems to me, furhtermore, that the greatest and most revered figures of history did exactly that. From Siddharta Guatama to Christ to Martin Luther King, positive change is driven by working against the outdated cultural assumptions that hold humanity back from progress.

And if we look at history, surely our culture is itself defined by counter-cultural movements? There may be flaws in the Hegelian cyclical thesis-antithesis-synthesis model of human history, but it seems to have an important point to make. We can never sit back and accept things the way they are. Our current situation is not to be all and end all but the mere starting point of something ever greater.

peace

 

[flicka]

Yes. I've never used it myself but I believe it should be legal.

 

[wagsbags]

Pot isn't nearly as damaging as alcohol. Therefore legalize and tax the crap out of it. That way the government gets another huge revenue source while the price of pot would still be lower. Only growers and dealers lose out. Not to mention how much room it would free up in our prison system.

 

[Adriac]

I'm not stupid enough to expect proof. Just sufficient, large scale, solid research covering the broadest reasonable range of possible risks (including but not limited to mental health, and social risks), and ideally some data on the relative amount of study that has gone into marijuana use compared to (say) alcohol and tabacco.

And, given that some countries have experimented with varying degrees of criminalisation, some good, unbiased, studies into what the effects have been.

It just seems to me as if you are saying that, if no further clinical information is ever collected on the effects of marijuana use, it should remain illegal. Meaning that the original justifications for it being criminalized are still sufficient reason, which is just wrong on the face of it.

 

[ARainySeptember]

Pot isn't nearly as damaging as alcohol.

Or cigarettes....

Or a few months living off of McDonald's Big Macs....

and yet people do it.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Yes, all illegal drugs should be legalised and controlled

1. Illegal drug trafficking is a major source of income for the mafia. It is sad that we have not learned this lesson from Prohibition in the 20's.

2. Both nicotine and alcohol are drugs, but these drugs are highly regulated.

3. Most of the drugs that have been made illegal today in the United States have had racist motivations (i.e. some drugs were claimed to make former slaves violent, etc.)

4. Overcrowding of prisons. Why send a drug addict to prison instead of a Betty Ford clinic? Violent criminals such as murders are what prisons are for.

There are several other reasons why drugs should be made legal, see this Libertarian site for more info.

 

[ebia]

Though of course it is important to take cultural, historical and social factors into consideration when it comes to law making, it seems reasonable to me that, to an extent, Adriac is right.

Not only is it acceptable to fight against certain historical and cultural factors, it is completely necessary to do so. It seems to me, furhtermore, that the greatest and most revered figures of history did exactly that. From Siddharta Guatama to Christ to Martin Luther King, positive change is driven by working against the outdated cultural assumptions that hold humanity back from progress.

And if we look at history, surely our culture is itself defined by counter-cultural movements? There may be flaws in the Hegelian cyclical thesis-antithesis-synthesis model of human history, but it seems to have an important point to make. We can never sit back and accept things the way they are. Our current situation is not to be all and end all but the mere starting point of something ever greater.

peace

I don't dispute that.

 

[ebia]

It just seems to me as if you are saying that, if no further clinical information is ever collected on the effects of marijuana use, it should remain illegal. Meaning that the original justifications for it being criminalized are still sufficient reason, which is just wrong on the face of it.

That's not what I'm saying, but I can't think of anything to add to what I've said that would make it clearer.

 

[Adriac]

That's not what I'm saying, but I can't think of anything to add to what I've said that would make it clearer.

You're not saying what-- that if no further information were collected you'd be against decriminalization? I'm sorry, that's just the impression I've gotten.

 

[ebia]

You're not saying what-- that if no further information were collected you'd be against decriminalization? I'm sorry, that's just the impression I've gotten.

A. No I haven't said that. I have said, quite clearly in at least one post if memory serves, that I'm not currently convinced either way.

B. I don't agree at this follows from anything I said:

... Meaning that the original justifications for it being criminalized are still sufficient reason, which is just wrong on the face of it.

The original reasons could be complete and utter ........ (they probably were) and it could still be a good idea to keep it criminalized for completely different ones.

The current situation, the status-quo, is that it is criminal. If you want me to actively support a change I need to be convinced that the change would, overall, improve the situation.

 

[Adriac]

A. No I haven't said that. I have said, quite clearly in at least one post if memory serves, that I'm not currently convinced either way.

Like you've said, it's currently illegal. An abstention is a vote for (continued) criminalization.

I assume you've been exposed to most of the relevant information. It's pretty straightforward. No one is going to come along with some new interpretation of existing data which will significantly change anyone's mind. You say that you are unconvinced by the body of evidence which presently exists. That's a vote against decriminalization given our current understanding.

Do you disagree?

The original reasons could be complete and utter ........ (they probably were) and it could still be a good idea to keep it criminalized for completely different ones.

Completely different ones which do not exist at this time. The support for these laws remains the original politics of their institution.

Perhaps it would be more honest of me to simply ask outright: for as long as no further clinical information is collected, will you remain unconvinced?

The current situation, the status-quo, is that it is criminal. If you want me to actively support a change I need to be convinced that the change would, overall, improve the situation.

I can't convince you of that. Would widespread marijuana use be better for society? Hah. Widespread alcohol use certainly isn't. Many civil rights have not, especially in the short term, improved the relevant situation overall-- objectively, that is. You kind of need to buy into the idea that civil rights are desirable of themselves.

 

[ebia]

Like you've said, it's currently illegal. An abstention is a vote for (continued) criminalization.

I assume you've been exposed to most of the relevant information. It's pretty straightforward. No one is going to come along with some new interpretation of existing data which will significantly change anyone's mind. You say that you are unconvinced by the body of evidence which presently exists. That's a vote against decriminalization given our current understanding.

I'm not sure whether it should be decriminalised or not. You can't make me sure by playing hypothetical games based on a referrendum that hasn't been (and isn't likely to be) put.

Completely different ones which do not exist at this time. The support for these laws remains the original politics of their institution.

It doesn't look that way to me.

Perhaps it would be more honest of me to simply ask outright: for as long as no further clinical information is collected, will you remain unconvinced?

If nothing new is put on the table it's hard to see what would change my mind. I wouldn't care to say that it would have to be more clinical information, but I would certainly like to see more, particularly relating to areas of concern in mental health such as schizophrenia. At the very least I would like to see some meta-data about how well studied it is compared to "like substances" such as alcohol and tabacco.

I can't convince you of that. Would widespread marijuana use be better for society? Hah. Widespread alcohol use certainly isn't. Many civil rights have not, especially in the short term, improved the relevant situation overall-- objectively, that is. You kind of need to buy into the idea that civil rights are desirable of themselves.

They are desirable, but not the exclusion of all else. I'm sure legalising the stuff would produce benefits and increase some other problems. I would like to some good indicators that the balance is in the right direction.
How one measures the value of, say, civil rights is a hard one of course.