Marijuana decriminalization

[npts2020]

Why is hemp better than cotton? Just curious.

 

Anyway, I agree there's a lot of spin surrounding this issue, but it's also spin to dismiss these arguments as moral policing. Reasonable arguments are being made here regarding impact on society that have to be taken into consideration as well. We can be totally free to F ourselves up, or we can compete in the global economy -- or we can try to figure out the right compromise that allows a reasonable degree of both. That's the real choice. Stamping our feet about specific freedoms is probably not going to be a winning solution in the 21st century. For good or bad, it's going to be about compromise, I'm afraid.

 

BTW, it's not just the right-wing Bible-thumpers who are "moral molesters". The organized special interest groups on the left are just as bad as the ones on the right in that regard. If you don't believe me, take off your seat belt the next time you get pulled over and see what happens.

 

 

I have read the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights on more than one occassion. They have a lot to say about personal freedom and the pursuit of happiness but I can't recall anything about competing in the global economy. If the goal is to make sure everyone maximizes their productivity, a ban makes sense but it seems to me diametrically opposed to the spirit and ideals embodied in the aforementioned documents.

[Pangloss]

I have read the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights on more than one occassion. They have a lot to say about personal freedom and the pursuit of happiness but I can't recall anything about competing in the global economy. If the goal is to make sure everyone maximizes their productivity, a ban makes sense but it seems to me diametrically opposed to the spirit and ideals embodied in the aforementioned documents.

 

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don't serve the purpose of making the United States a prosperous and successful nation, they serve the purpose of making it a free and equal one. They don't guarantee or promise squat when it comes to putting bread on your table and cash in your wallet.

 

We make this compromise all the time, on a myriad of issues. When it comes down to fundamentals, seatbelts and airport security are no different from drug bans. And if what you say is true then NO drug should be illegal for ANY reason, and I don't hear anyone on this forum advocating that position. Not one person.

[Mr Skeptic]

We make this compromise all the time, on a myriad of issues. When it comes down to fundamentals, seatbelts and airport security are no different from drug bans. And if what you say is true then NO drug should be illegal for ANY reason, and I don't hear anyone on this forum advocating that position. Not one person.

 

I think that removing all bans on drugs would be better than the current situation. I doubt that many more people would start using drugs, since it would still be socially unacceptable, and employers will likely retain or increase drug testing. The money we spend on hunting and jailing drug users could be spent treating their addiction (if they want to quit) instead -- ie improving their lives rather than destroying them. In any case, I don't see how the government is legally allowed to ban drugs.

 

However, I have other things I am more interested in advocating, and I doubt anyone would listen to decriminalization of all drugs if they won't decriminalize marijuana.

[iNow]

The issue is of ciminality instead of treatment. People should not be housed with murderers for smoking a joint or eating a mushroom. The same applies to cocaine, heroine, and others. Unless their drug related activity is related to evasion of taxes or money laundering or whatever, you don't send them to jail. For drugs, you send them to treatment... you get them help, you don't get them striped jersies and handcuffs.

 

Let me be the first to say it. I'm all for the decriminalization of usage of all drugs. I say this, though, with the caveat that treatment is the only reasonable option, and we need to significantly advance our efforts on that front.

 

 

Also, on the growth/farming issue, good pot smells really good when growing... It's like your eyes water it's so crystally... but hemp is just a weed, and those who see it more as a drug than a useful product openly demonstrate their ignorance on the topic.

[ParanoiA]

Victimless crime, in general, needs to be reviewed. One question I have is what it would do to prices of drugs for the users. Would crack suddenly cost 50 cents at QT? Would women actually have to whore themselves to maintain a habit, or could they just scheme for 20 bucks once a week?

 

Also, does it take the edge off the allure for teens? Seems if it's legal, it may be too legit for them to obsess over. Where's the functional need for the drug, gambling, prostitution thug element when they have no market to support them?

[iNow]

One question I have is what it would do to prices of drugs for the users. Would crack suddenly cost 50 cents at QT?

In all honesty, if drugs were legal, then crack wouldn't likely be as popular. People smoke crack because it's cheap and it maximizes the availability of limited drug. It's like adding rice to your dinner so you can feed the entire family on a small amount, or watering down the liquor so you can poor more drinks. If the real stuff were legal, people wouldn't really need to water it down as often. A side benefit would be that direct use is less addictive than things like crack.

 

However, we should be careful, because there are very clear differences between crack and marijuana.

 

Would women actually have to whore themselves to maintain a habit, or could they just scheme for 20 bucks once a week?

New thread idea... Should prostitution be decriminalized?

 

 

Also, does it take the edge off the allure for teens? Seems if it's legal, it may be too legit for them to obsess over.

Indeed. It is the forbidden fruit which is most craved. The criminalization of the culture makes it taboo, and therefore more alluring to kids trying to "stick it to the man" and "fight the system," to form an identity which is unique in a mostly conformist system.

 

 

</random ramblings>

[Pangloss]

Woven hemp cloth tends to be very stiff when brand new, so I doubt it would be a designer choice. Clothing manufacturers prefer something that's going to wear out quickly or shrink up so we have to buy more often. I had a pair of hemp jeans once and it took a while to break them in, but once they got softer they were fantastic.

 

I think that someone made a variety of hemp that contains negligible THC, so that this wouldn't be a problem. I think the real problem is that the police are afraid that if people grow hemp they won't be able to distinguish it from marijuana grown for high THC content.

 

I appreciate the insight on this.

[ParanoiA]

In all honesty, if drugs were legal, then crack wouldn't likely be as popular. People smoke crack because it's cheap and it maximizes the availability of limited drug. It's like adding rice to your dinner so you can feed the entire family on a small amount, or watering down the liquor so you can poor more drinks. If the real stuff were legal, people wouldn't really need to water it down as often. A side benefit would be that direct use is less addictive than things like crack.

 

Interesting. Thing is, crack isn't really cheap. Well, let's just say it's relative. Women strung out on crack will need a 100 bucks or more a day to keep it going - that's expensive, and is a big part of why they prostitute to maintain the habit.

 

So, with this 'direct use' you're talking about, could that lower the price to maintain a habit? Not that I like the idea of someone being addicted, but it would be nice to know that if people are addicted to something like this, that it's not necessarily going to mean losing their savings, house, automobiles, retirement accounts, kid's college money and finally selling themselves.

 

Smoking cigarettes doesn't do that, so I was kind of hoping that maybe that would be a similar benefit legalized drugs would gain, thereby adding another positive point - a reduction in prostitution, theft, and etc.

 

New thread idea... Should prostitution be decriminalized?

 

Absolutely. My issue is about motivation. When someone is clearly profiteering, utilizing their skills to make a living, then I don't see the issue. However, when someone is strung out on a substance, like the aforementioned crack/crank habit, then it's more out of desperation, and I find that distasteful. Again, I don't believe I have a right to restrict that person from following through, but I think it leaves them more subjugated, even if it's of their own choosing.

[npts2020]

If any and all drugs were legalized, the prices could be set through taxation and the government could keep far better track of those individuals who are users. I find it very difficult to believe that there would be much increase in use of any drug simply by it legalization. Did America suddenly become a nation of drunks with the end of prohibition? The main reason you see few advocates of legalizing all drugs is that incremental change is far more likely to happen, so advocates work on the most popular one.

 

I might add that prices of illegal items are nearly always much higher than if they were legal.

[Pangloss]

It's interesting to me that tobacco taxes and regulations are so widely perceived as a bad thing, because the government's making money off of a habit that's bad for your health, and safety regulations are seen as hypocritical because the only safe thing is to stop, but the legalization crowd takes the opposite view, citing those exact same practices as advantages.

 

What was that about the religious right and the moral police again, Phi? I can't hear you over the lefties arguing with one another.

[ParanoiA]

I might add that prices of illegal items are nearly always much higher than if they were legal.

 

And that's always been my take as well. The one exception though, is that we're talking about drugs. The high price of black market goods can be traced back to the added inherent risk due to being illegal. However, even being legal, there's still a legal risk to the product - liability claims if nothing else. I could see our legal structure ruining the potential for lower costs on decriminalized drugs.

 

And that's why I'm asking. I'd love to think that prices will plummet, usage will spike temporarily initially and then taper off, and related undesirables like subjugated prostitution will dramatically decrease, followed by a decrease in overall theft. I'd love to think that, but I'm just not sure that's how it will turn out. Not that it changes my mind any, but it could change my bullet points.

 

It's interesting to me that tobacco taxes and regulations are so widely perceived as a bad thing, because the government's making money off of a habit that's bad for your health, and safety regulations are seen as hypocritical because the only safe thing is to stop, but the legalization crowd takes the opposite view, citing those exact same practices as advantages.

 

Yeah, I've noticed that too which is why I steer clear of that argument. It's an appeal to the motivations of the opposition at the expense of being consistent about our principles. The only exception I'd grant is citing revenue benefit from general product taxation, not health and safety motivated taxation. The federal government would have to roll out a national sales tax to enjoy that particular channel of revenue, in my opinion. But the states could finally start receiving sales tax revenue from a product that's currently untaxed. I don't like taxes, but I also don't like cherry picking taxes.

Edited January 2, 2009 by ParanoiA

[Sisyphus]

And that's always been my take as well. The one exception though, is that we're talking about drugs. The high price of black market goods can be traced back to the added inherent risk due to being illegal. However, even being legal, there's still a legal risk to the product - liability claims if nothing else. I could see our legal structure ruining the potential for lower costs on decriminalized drugs.

 

That's an interesting point, and I guess you're right that they might not get cheaper (though I still think they almost certainly will). But what you're paying for is different, and that matters, too. If prices are high because of potential liability, then you're essentially paying for a safety guarantee (or at least a guarantee that it really is what the seller says it is). That has real value. So even if it costs the same, you're getting more for your money: a known, guaranteed product vs. a mystery product with an unaccountable producer.

[ParanoiA]

That's an interesting point, and I guess you're right that they might not get cheaper (though I still think they almost certainly will). But what you're paying for is different, and that matters, too. If prices are high because of potential liability, then you're essentially paying for a safety guarantee (or at least a guarantee that it really is what the seller says it is). That has real value. So even if it costs the same, you're getting more for your money: a known, guaranteed product vs. a mystery product with an unaccountable producer.

 

Very true, great point. There is added value to the higher price in a legal atmosphere as opposed to nil value to the high price in the currect criminal environment. Cool, I still have a bullet point on the matter.

[Phi for All]

It's interesting to me that tobacco taxes and regulations are so widely perceived as a bad thing, because the government's making money off of a habit that's bad for your health, and safety regulations are seen as hypocritical because the only safe thing is to stop, but the legalization crowd takes the opposite view, citing those exact same practices as advantages.

Well, I don't see tobacco taxes as a bad thing. If Medicare has to pay out more for people who smoked then the government has an obligation to make that up somehow, and it makes sense to get it from tobacco rather than anywhere else. I also don't think it's hypocritical to regulate pot and alcohol the same way, in fact it's hypocritical not to. People who smoke pot are going to have increased heath risks so taxing it like tobacco and alcohol would seem logical to me. Especially since I wouldn't have to pay any of those taxes.

 

What was that about the religious right and the moral police again, Phi? I can't hear you over the lefties arguing with one another.

I'll say it louder, and use different words this time. The moral molesters are being used to justify legislation which helps several different markets avoid the strain legalizing hemp would put on those market's profits. The businesses in those markets are using the moral molester arguments to perpetuate a fallacy about marijuana so hemp will remain illegal.

 

The compromise you're looking for, Pangloss, is to legalize hemp in all it's forms. Marijuana would be the only substance that would need reclassification, not *all* drugs. Get the parents out of prison, stop penalizing something that is much less detrimental to society than alcohol, allow growers of all sizes to compete for products ranging from biomass fuel to copier paper, and start thinking green in a way that everyone can participate with. Look at how popular and profitable recycling has become! Hemp can be the same way as it makes us less reliant on foreign oil, helps cut down on fertilizers and pesticides, saves wood and ozone by reducing trees cut down, and opens the doors to many home-grown legitimate small businesses.

 

After a reasonable amount of time, we can see if the war on other drugs is still feasible, if legalizing hemp has had a favorable impact on society and if crime has been affected as well.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Phi for All

[ajb]

Sorry I have been away.

 

I think we can see that this is a very complicated issue. Yes, life and the law is full of double standards. Alcohol and tobacco is legal while pot and other drugs are not. That is a fact, but it does not mean we should automatically open the floodgates to all substances. And certainly not without massive debate.

 

I still get the feeling that a lot of the argument is to make the law more "fair". As alcohol and tobacco have ill effects, yet are legal, everything else with similar (or indeed less) ill effects should automatically be allowed. I sympathise with this to an extent.

 

 

I don't know what is going on in the US, but here in the UK there does seem to be some feeling that alcohol an tobacco is "on the way out". By this I mean the smoking ban in public places, the raising of the age to buy tobacco, the placing of tobacco out of sight in shops, the increase in taxes on both alcohol an tobacco, the debate about lower cost "budget" drinks in supermarkets etc. Well, if not exactly banning them, the idea is simply to make it more difficult. For instance, the number of pubs closing every week is worrying to the industry (and British culture?).

 

I think the idea is to make smoking and excessive drinking culturally unacceptable, rather than illegal. Maybe that ethos should be applied to drugs also?

 

Hemp seed is a great fishing bait, by the way.

Edited January 8, 2009 by ajb

[padren]

Well, I don't see tobacco taxes as a bad thing. If Medicare has to pay out more for people who smoked then the government has an obligation to make that up somehow, and it makes sense to get it from tobacco rather than anywhere else.

 

I was told that it's the exact opposite: They did a study in Canada to find out how much smokers were costing the tax payer in extra medical, and were shocked to find the lifetime cost of health care for a smoker was actually less than a non smoker.

 

Apparently, smokers tend to die and have cheaper, shorter end of life care than healthy people.

 

That study is well over 10 yrs old though, no idea what the stats are now.

 

/offtopic

[CaptainPanic]

[...]That is a fact, but it does not mean we should automatically open the floodgates to all substances. And certainly not without massive debate.[...]

I advocate the distinction between "harddrugs" and "softdrugs".

Softdrugs is almost only marijuana. The rest is often either synthetic (therefore not safe, because drugs labs are a mess) or drugs that will ultimately melt your brain, and that have severe physical effects.

I was told that it's the exact opposite: They did a study in Canada to find out how much smokers were costing the tax payer in extra medical, and were shocked to find the lifetime cost of health care for a smoker was actually less than a non smoker.

 

Apparently, smokers tend to die and have cheaper, shorter end of life care than healthy people.

 

That study is well over 10 yrs old though, no idea what the stats are now.

 

/offtopic

Yup. A similar study in the Netherlands - published only about 1 year ago in the newspaper (article in Dutch, sorry) concluded the same. The study was done by the Dutch research institute for health and environment (RIVM).

 

/offtopic

[ajb]

CaptainPanic, maybe so. Here in the UK things are classified according an old Victorian Poisons rating. We know so much more about chemistry and medicine since then, to me it makes sense to devise a new system.

[Phi for All]

Apparently, smokers tend to die and have cheaper, shorter end of life care than healthy people.

I remember that, but I also remember hearing just a few years ago that overall it costs the government more. I think they were factoring in producing public service spots for their anti-smoking ads. Good point though.

 

Have their been any studies done on a link between marijuana smoking and cancer? I would imagine the instances of emphysema would be less, unless the smoker was puffing up what the average cigarette smoker goes through every day. That seems excessive, even if weed were cheaper due to decriminalization.

[iNow]

Phi - Practically any smoke that we inhale is going to increase our chances for getting cancer... lung, mouth, throat, tongue, etc. are all to be expected, but the act of smoking anything also increases the risk of other forms of cancer (like colon, pancreatic, and others). The link is rather interesting, and it's a rich story, but suffice it to say that it's there. Even when we are cooking BBQ, the smoke from the coals and meats increase cancer incidence among those inhaling the fumes.

 

Specific to marijuana, the American Cancer Soceity has this to say:

 

 

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Marijuana.asp

Many researchers agree that marijuana contains known carcinogens (chemicals that can cause cancer). They caution that smoking marijuana may decrease reproductive function and cause lung disease, as well as increase the risk of cancers of the lungs, mouth, and tongue. It may also suppress the body's immune system, and increase the risk of leukemia in children whose mothers smoked marijuana during pregnancy. Women who are pregnant or breast-feeding should not use marijuana.

 

The symptoms of a marijuana overdose include nausea, vomiting, hacking cough, disturbances to heart rhythms, and numbness in the limbs. Chronic use can also lead to laryngitis, bronchitis, and general apathy. With chronic (long-term, frequent) use, the ability to learn and remember new information may become impaired.

 

Although rare, severe shutdown of blood circulation to the arms or legs has been reported in young people who smoked marijuana. In some cases, it was so severe that amputation was required. Marijuana may also serve as a trigger for heart attack on rare occasions, usually within an hour after smoking. Allergic reactions have been reported, some of which were severe.

 

Although, for context, readers should note that the above was written more as a means to provide existing cancer patients with information on use of marijuana to treat their pain and lack of appetite during cancer treatment, not as a method of describing the direct effects marijuana use has on causing new cancers.

 

 

With that said, this other study suggests that marijuana is unlikely to cause cancers.

 

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer

Marijuana, unlike tobacco and alcohol, does not appear to cause head, neck, or lung cancer, says a researcher from Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore who presented findings from a study here recently at a meeting of internal medicine physicians.

 

There has been an ongoing debate about whether marijuana is as dangerous as tobacco in terms of cancer development. Daniel E. Ford, MD, tried to sort out the evidence by the lifestyles -- including marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol use -- of 164 persons who were newly diagnosed with head, neck, or lung cancer compared to a group of 526 healthy persons living in the same area. The average age of patients was 49, while the average age of the healthy volunteers was 44. The cancer patients were all treated at four Baltimore-area hospitals, and the "controls" (healthy comparison group) were selected from a large group of people living in the Baltimore area who had been participating in an ongoing study. Ford tells WebMD that he wanted to find out whether the cancer patients were more likely to smoke marijuana or tobacco or to drink than were the healthy volunteers.

 

According to Ford, he thought he would find an association between marijuana use and cancer, but "that the association would fall away when we corrected for tobacco use. That was not the case. The association was never there." And that surprised him because of the way marijuana is smoked: deep inhalations, with the smoke held in for effect. "It seemed natural that there would be some connection," he tells WebMD.

 

Based on these findings, Ford says that cancer prevention efforts should "remain focused on tobacco and alcohol, two known carcinogens."

 

He says his conclusions differ from another study reported recently. That study linked marijuana use to cancer, but Ford says he thinks the difference can be explained by the fact that the healthy volunteers in that study "had very, very low use of marijuana." That contrasts to his study, in which "we were investigating the effect of marijuana as it is commonly used in the community," he says. Use of all substances -- tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana -- was common among both cancer patients and controls, he says.

 

"We attempted to assess both lifetime and current use of substances," he says. Participants were also asked to differentiate between use of marijuana cigarettes, marijuana pipes, or consumed marijuana. Distinctions were also made between weekend and weekday use of marijuana, he says.

 

"Ever use of marijuana was 66% among controls and 60% among the cases," he says. "Daily marijuana use for a month or more was not associated with increased risk, nor was age at first use, depth of inhalation, or use of a pipe." Surprisingly, using marijuana was not associated with increased cancer risk, even among those who never used tobacco, he says.

 

 

 

Here is a metastudy which reviewed findings in 19 different research endevours on this topic:

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/166/13/1359

 

These 19 diverse studies offer biological evidence for the potential association between marijuana smoking and lung cancer. Most studies support an association between marijuana smoking and premalignant lung cancer findings, although small observational studies fail to demonstrate such an association. In particular, all of the studies that measure tar exposure support increased tar retention with marijuana smoking compared with tobacco smoking. The higher lung tar burden associated with the longer breath-holding characteristic of marijuana smoking may enhance carcinogenic risk based on prior studies that have demonstrated an association between tar exposure from tobacco smoking and lung cancer.35-37

 

In addition, there were more cytomorphologic changes, in particular metaplasia, alveolar macrophage tumoricidal dysfunction, enhanced oxidative stress, and histopathologic/molecular alterations associated with marijuana smoking compared with controls or those who smoked tobacco. These findings offer biological evidence that marijuana smoking could be associated with the development of lung cancer in humans, as has been suggested by animal studies and cell line experiments. Specifically, metaplastic cellular changes may lead to malignant transformation. Abnormal macrophage tumoricidal function may result in unchecked cellular proliferation, and enhanced oxidative stress has been described as a mechanistic link in carcinogenesis presumably via mutagenic oxidative DNA damage.38-41 Bronchial histopathologic and molecular alterations, such as those involving Ki-67 and epidermal growth factor receptor, may represent a harbinger of malignant conversion. Despite these findings, the small number of observational studies fail to demonstrate a clear association between marijuana smoking and diagnoses of lung cancer. Therefore, we must conclude that no convincing evidence exists for an association between marijuana smoking and lung cancer based on existing data.

Edited January 10, 2009 by iNow