Cannabis Sativa Legalization

[Gonçalo Ferreira]

I would like you to express your opinion on the following:

 

• Free Cannabis sativa recreational use legalization;
• Medical marijuana use authorization;
• Pros and cons of Cannabis sativa for our health;
• Pros and cons of its use to society.

 

Please leave only comments and responses that are legitimate, justified and serious. We want a serious discussion and we will despise any incentive to its illegal use. Make use of intelligent argumentation.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Gonçalo Ferreira

[Santalum]

I would like you to express your opinion on the following:

 

• Free Cannabis sativa recreational use legalization;
• Medical marijuana use authorization;
• Pros and cons of Cannabis sativa for our health;
• Pros and cons of its use to society.

 

Please leave only comments and responses that are legitimate, justified and serious. We want a serious discussion and we will despise any incentive to its illegal use. Make use of intelligent argumentation.

 

Fine legalise it and eliminate much of the crime associated with it. But in Australia people should be drug tested for it and paid less youth allowances etc and an increased medicare levi if they are users. I.E. In order to compensate society for their reduced productivity and increased long term health care costs that result from smoking it. Same principal as tobacco smokers and heavy drinkers etc.

[dimreepr]

I would like you to express your opinion on the following:

 

• Free Cannabis sativa recreational use legalization;
• Medical marijuana use authorization;
• Pros and cons of Cannabis sativa for our health;
• Pros and cons of its use to society.

 

Please leave only comments and responses that are legitimate, justified and serious. We want a serious discussion and we will despise any incentive to its illegal use. Make use of intelligent argumentation.

 

A month, or so, ago I was a Heavy user of cannabis, tobacco and alcohol, and would have argued vehemently to legalise the cannabis as all I wanted was to be left alone to essentially self destruct. Happily I had a moment of clarity and realised what I was doing to myself and have since stopped all of it. This does give me an insight into just how easy it is to justify its use. Why shouldn't I get high I'm doing nobody harm? This is true especially when compared to alcohol and that's legal. But it does do harm, it's just much more difficult to spot. As Santalum points out motivation is stripped from the user and so has to have a detrimental effect on society in general. Perhaps more harmful is that its effect on the brain can be associated to happiness in the user, as such is so much more addictive IMHO (and much much more difficult to give up) than other drugs including tobacco and I've used lots of drug types.

Edited February 14, 2012 by dimreepr

[CaptainPanic]

But it does do harm, [...]

We should disconnect the harm a drug can do with legalization, because there is no data to support the assumption that the consumption goes up when you legalize it. And since the harm done is proportional to the consumption, which shows no correlation to the legal status, the harm done is irrelevant.

 

I can back that up with this wikipedia site, which shows the "annual prevalence" of cannabis use. The Netherlands is in that list, and the annual prevalence is 2.5 times lower than in the USA, who have fought a bitter war against drugs since decades. The Netherlands has weed tolerated (sort of legalized) since the 70's: you can buy it in a shop, and you don't need any prescription or whatever... it's as easy as buying milk, when you're 18 or older.

 

The legalization did not dramatically increase consumption. It probably didn't increase it at all. It's equal or lower than in the neighboring countries.

[Phi for All]

I don't understand what you mean by "Free Cannabis sativa recreational use legalization". What's the free part? Free legalization? Free Cannabis?

 

Personally, I think it's wrong to treat pot differently than alcohol as far as legality. Having used both in the past, alcohol was far more addicting and its effects were more dangerous to others around me. I'd rather no one operate a vehicle while impaired, but I'd rather pass the slower-driving, paranoid stoner than be anywhere near the reckless, belligerent, speeding drunks.

 

Politically, rather than legalization, I'd just like to see Cannabis sativa taken off the Schedule I drug list. It relieves nausea in chemotherapy patients, so it has medicinal purposes, and the number of people who have used it and NOT become addicted far outweighs those who claim addiction. The number of people in US prisons just for marijuana possession sickens me. I suspect that if you were to do a study on all the privately-run, for-profit prisons, you'll find a preponderance of pot prisoners. Those types of prisons are allowed to kick violent and hard-to-deal-with prisoners back to state-run facilities, so having docile inmates who just want to serve their time and not make trouble means profit for these prisons.

 

As far as an impact on society, CaptainPanic points out that usage doesn't necessarily increase with legalization. We already have all the laws in place for public intoxication, driving under the influence, littering (in case anyone is pitching those roaches on the street), you name it. There would be far greater impact in that the US would be able to grow hemp again. Hemp fields would also curb unauthorized outdoor growing of Cannabis sativa, in addition to providing a myriad of new products, industries and tax revenue.

[Gonçalo Ferreira]

It means Legalizing the use; if should it be legal to use freely.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "Free Cannabis sativa recreational use legalization". What's the free part? Free legalization? Free Cannabis?

 

Personally, I think it's wrong to treat pot differently than alcohol as far as legality. Having used both in the past, alcohol was far more addicting and its effects were more dangerous to others around me. I'd rather no one operate a vehicle while impaired, but I'd rather pass the slower-driving, paranoid stoner than be anywhere near the reckless, belligerent, speeding drunks.

 

Politically, rather than legalization, I'd just like to see Cannabis sativa taken off the Schedule I drug list. It relieves nausea in chemotherapy patients, so it has medicinal purposes, and the number of people who have used it and NOT become addicted far outweighs those who claim addiction. The number of people in US prisons just for marijuana possession sickens me. I suspect that if you were to do a study on all the privately-run, for-profit prisons, you'll find a preponderance of pot prisoners. Those types of prisons are allowed to kick violent and hard-to-deal-with prisoners back to state-run facilities, so having docile inmates who just want to serve their time and not make trouble means profit for these prisons.

 

As far as an impact on society, CaptainPanic points out that usage doesn't necessarily increase with legalization. We already have all the laws in place for public intoxication, driving under the influence, littering (in case anyone is pitching those roaches on the street), you name it. There would be far greater impact in that the US would be able to grow hemp again. Hemp fields would also curb unauthorized outdoor growing of Cannabis sativa, in addition to providing a myriad of new products, industries and tax revenue.

 

Personally, I think it's wrong to treat pot differently than alcohol as far as legality. Having used both in the past, alcohol was far more addicting and its effects were more dangerous to others around me.

 

 

 

Can't that mean that alcohol should be prohibited as well?

[Temporocitor]

It should be legal. It is probably the safest antidepressant known to man. Lack of motivation is a half-myth. One doesn't want to go anywhere because it might lead to problems associated with its illegality. Lack of motivation to do harm is a good thing. Fewer accidents, because people want to stay home and do things at home. Few people get stoned and go on a police chase, unless they might be chasing dowen the police to give them a flower. Legalizing pot will see less violence and crime. It will find some who react in different ways that may be negative, for instance someone doesn't feel like doing something he should. It was likely that he didn't want to in the first place; pot just became an excuse. Many people find themselves more adroit at certain skills, such as painting. Some find they are so relieved of external pressures they can write code comfortably. There are more goods than bads. Legalize it.

[Phi for All]

It means Legalizing the use; if should it be legal to use freely.

OK, thanks for clarifying.

 

Can't that mean that alcohol should be prohibited as well?

Prohibition failed in the US. It just created criminal empires based on liquor, much the same way drug cartels flourish now.

 

There are more success stories in legalization. Portugal doesn't jail people who have less than a 10 day supply of ANY drug. They use the savings to target users with therapy and education. Crime is down overall, adolescent drug use is down and HIV diagnoses among drug users is down. Even the street prices went down, which probably affected the need for criminal activity.

 

We know prohibition creates more problems than it solves. I'm still not convinced that legalization of all drugs is right for the US, but I think legalizing marijuana is a test we could pass. At the very least, as I said before, marijuana should NOT be a Schedule I controlled substance.

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

As far as an impact on society, CaptainPanic points out that usage doesn't necessarily increase with legalization. We already have all the laws in place for public intoxication, driving under the influence, littering (in case anyone is pitching those roaches on the street), you name it. There would be far greater impact in that the US would be able to grow hemp again. Hemp fields would also curb unauthorized outdoor growing of Cannabis sativa, in addition to providing a myriad of new products, industries and tax revenue.

Something else that could be touched on, that you came close with above, is the criminal activity between the US and Mexico. A legalization of cannibus probably wouldn't break the cartels bank but it would put a hefty dent in it with that being their major cash crop. It would dramatically reduce the amount of attention spent on it when other areas could be covered with greater detail like harder drugs and gun trafficking Edited February 14, 2012 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

Phi,

 

Something else that could be touched on, that you came close with above, is the criminal activity between the US and Mexico. A legalization of cannibus probably wouldn't break the cartels bank but it would put a hefty dent in it with that being their major cash crop. It would dramatically reduce the amount of attention spent on it when other areas could be covered with greater detail like harder drugs and gun trafficking

Absolutely. And if we could get the Mexican government to cooperate, we could fly over the outdoor Cannabis sativa fields we see on satellite photos and simply drop a bunch of industrial hemp seeds on them. From what I've read, within a few plant generations, their pot would become normal hemp.

[doG]

As a libertarian I support the legalization of all drugs. There is no data to support the belief that regulation significantly effects the percentage of the population that use recreational drugs. Even with heroin I don't think legalizing it would cause people to go out and become heroin users. Legalization would prevent all of the crime users perpetrate in order to get their overpriced black market goods. I also believe abuse treatment would cost us far less than the drug war itself and would be much more effective at reducing drug abuse. Prohibition drives a sector of society we would be better off without.

[Moontanman]

Absolutely. And if we could get the Mexican government to cooperate, we could fly over the outdoor Cannabis sativa fields we see on satellite photos and simply drop a bunch of industrial hemp seeds on them. From what I've read, within a few plant generations, their pot would become normal hemp.

 

 

I have my doubts about that, smoking quality cannabis is no more grown from seeds that are scattered and just happen to come up anymore than corn is grown that way. Seeds are intentionally grown in small sets and transferred to the fields to insure high quality plants in a way that is very similar to the way tomatoes are grown.

[Gonçalo Ferreira]

There is no data to support the belief that regulation significantly effects the percentage of the population that use recreational drugs.

 

There is not either data to support that the lack of regulation would be benneficiall. We must not try to change something if we don't know if our solution will be better.

[CaptainPanic]

We must not try to change something if we don't know if our solution will be better.

That's an approach.

 

Some othre people would say: "If we don't know the benefits, but it's also not very difficult to change, why don't we just try it?".

[Xittenn]

It is probably the safest antidepressant known to man.

 

This is not a truth or a supportable fact in any way, and heavy pot use causes both severe depression as well as having the potential to induce low levels of psychosis. This isn't an attempt to belittle any efforts here, I don't care either way really, this is just a completely wrong statement!

 

Also look up the definition of depressant, I think you might have an incorrect definition as related to the topic of drug use.

[Gonçalo Ferreira]

OK, thanks for clarifying.

 

 

Prohibition failed in the US. It just created criminal empires based on liquor, much the same way drug cartels flourish now.

 

There are more success stories in legalization. Portugal doesn't jail people who have less than a 10 day supply of ANY drug. They use the savings to target users with therapy and education. Crime is down overall, adolescent drug use is down and HIV diagnoses among drug users is down. Even the street prices went down, which probably affected the need for criminal activity.

 

We know prohibition creates more problems than it solves. I'm still not convinced that legalization of all drugs is right for the US, but I think legalizing marijuana is a test we could pass. At the very least, as I said before, marijuana should NOT be a Schedule I controlled substance.

 

I Know prohibition can easily fail, but, in your post, it lookes like you meant that there should be prohibition.

[Arete]

It is probably the safest antidepressant known to man.

 

Proponents of decriminalization often gloss over the side effects of marijuana use: it's got them -

 

A link between THC and schizophrenia/psychosis has been shown:

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/192/4/306.abstract

http://www.springerlink.com/content/a321772xw6056h34/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...06322304013101 etc:

 

Chronic use impairs cognitive function permanently:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...95.2010.535505

 

And smoking pot increases your risk of cancer - particularly early onset testicular cancer in men, and each year of regular use increases your risk of lung cancer by ~8% (which is slightly more than regular tobacco use ):

http://www.ersj.org.uk/content/31/2/280.short

http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v9...l/nrc2617.html

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20028743

 

I'm not saying it's all bad, it has some definite therapeutic benefits:

 

THC:CBD is an effective analgesic and nausea medication:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...85392409007878

http://gradworks.umi.com/NR/53/NR53976.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...970.x/abstract

 

Scientific evidence suggests that THC may be effective in symptomatically treating and preventing dementia:

http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8247/3/8/2689

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...1.01238.x/full

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00006/art00003

 

As for the criminality of drug use - it seems fairly convincingly shown, at least to me, that criminalization of drugs is expensive, ineffective and promotes a host of other antisocial behaviors which piggyback along with criminality.

[CaptainPanic]

Proponents of decriminalization often gloss over the side effects of marijuana use:

 

[long list of many, many, many links]

I have already said that this is only relevant if you assume that legalization will increase consumption. But there is nothing to support that, so all your links are irrelevant.

 

If consumption does not go up, there are no unhealthy side effects to legalization.

[Santalum]

Prohibition failed in the US. It just created criminal empires based on liquor, much the same way drug cartels flourish now.

 

 

Yeah, we have substituted that problem with wide spread alcohol fueled violence, particularly among young males, increased road trauma, foetal alcohol syndrome and partially brain damaged adults due them having continuously binged on alcohol while adolescents, etc, etc, etc.

 

Perhaps all these drugs should be legalised but governments run a supply monopoly, being illegal for anyone else to supply them, to keep the prices relatively high so that affordability is limited along with consumption.

 

A potentially win, win formula.

 

An excelent source of revenue for governments, full control over supply and demand but unprofitable for criminals.

 

The trick would be in getting the balance right. If prices are too high you will make illegal supply profitable again. If they are too low then consumption will increase too much.

 

Then again if criminal did start supplying then the government could drop the price of the legal supply until they are out of business and then raise the price again to reduce consumption..............

Edited February 16, 2012 by Santalum

[CaptainPanic]

Yeah, we have substituted that problem with wide spread alcohol fueled violence, particularly among young males, increased road trauma, foetal alcohol syndrome and partially brain damaged adults due them having continuously binged on alcohol while adolescents, etc, etc, etc.

How can you make such a comparison when there were hardly any cars during the prohibition, which also greatly affects the road trauma. You might as well blame cars, or oil companies for road trauma. There is a far stronger correlation over such a time period.

 

Perhaps all these drugs should be legalised but governments run a supply monopoly, being illegal for anyone else to supply them, to keep the prices relatively high so that affordability is limited along with consumption.

 

A potentially win, win formula.

 

An excelent source of revenue for governments, full control over supply and demand but unprofitable for criminals.

 

The trick would be in getting the balance right. If prices are too high you will make illegal supply profitable again. If they are too low then consumption will increase too much.

 

Then again if criminal did start supplying then the government could drop the price of the legal supply until they are out of business and then raise the price again to reduce consumption..............

I strongly doubt that consumption and price are strongly correlated.

 

Look at beer (alcohol) prices: countries with the most expensive alcohol are often the largest consumers per capita.

And cheap beers in supermarkets do not sell better than more expensive brands.

[Arete]

I have already said that this is only relevant if you assume that legalization will increase consumption. But there is nothing to support that, so all your links are irrelevant.

 

If consumption does not go up, there are no unhealthy side effects to legalization.

 

If you have a closer look you might notice I was responding to the statement that marijuana is the "safest antidepressant in the world" which it quite clearly is not, as shown by the research I cited. You also might notice I actually agreed with your points regarding the criminality of drugs

Edited February 16, 2012 by Arete

[Gonçalo Ferreira]

...And since the harm done is proportional to the consumption, which shows no correlation to the legal status, the harm done is irrelevant.

 

The damage is not irrelevant, I think that legalizing it reduces damage as countries that legalized it (such as the Nederlands ) have lower rates os heavy drugs consuption.(Image 1 and 2)

Also, making it legal prevents indirect damage, the damage related to traffic king.

In sum, I think that legalizing Cannabis reduces damage and related expenditures.

Image1 - guardian.co.uk

Iamge2 - ihra.net

[Marqq]

If you have a closer look you might notice I was responding to the statement that marijuana is the "safest antidepressant in the world" which it quite clearly is not, as shown by the research I cited.

 

I read a few of your links, and I have to say:

The suggested correlation to schizophrenia is bogus. Those were all studies about how pot aggravates schizophrenia symptoms. All I learned is not to pass to the schizo.

You pointed to confirmed long-term mental deficiencies caused by marijuana use with your next 3 links. Those studies, however, were short studies done on heavy users who had abstained from use (supposedly) for less than a month, and the 3rd was only a study comparing the effects of 13mg vs. 17mg usage on the day of use. Badly mislabeling your studies here, guy.

After reading your first six links, I skipped the ones about nut cancer, as I figured they'd hold about as much water.

 

I have heard of studies that show a correlation (not a causation, if you didn't know) between long-term marijuana use and depression. Here, I can only quote the nurses and a doctor in a psych ward where I was vacationing, but even nut-jobs like myself know that correlation doesn't necessitate cause. People in deserts love water, don't they? I can't confirm or deny the usefulness of marijuana as an antidepressant, except in the short term (confirm!!!), but I can VERY definitely say it's safer than celexa and effexor, the two with which I've been unsuccessfully treated. Side effects of legal drugs are so often worse than that which they treat... Sure, marijuana does leave you functioning at slightly diminished capacity for a period relative to the regularity with which you use it (ranging from the next few hours for 1-time use to 1 or 2 months for daily use), but the difference is so minor it takes biased observers to point it out.

[Arete]

I read a few of your links, and I have to say:

The suggested correlation to schizophrenia is bogus. Those were all studies about how pot aggravates schizophrenia symptoms. All I learned is not to pass to the schizo.

 

Wait, so the correlation is bogus because you learned to stop before the onset of symptoms?

 

Go to Google scholar. Type "marijuana schizophrenia" into the search bar. 19,500 matches. I guess every single one is bogus right?

 

You pointed to confirmed long-term mental deficiencies caused by marijuana use with your next 3 links. Those studies, however, were short studies done on heavy users who had abstained from use (supposedly) for less than a month, and the 3rd was only a study comparing the effects of 13mg vs. 17mg usage on the day of use. Badly mislabeling your studies here, guy.

 

And the correlation between long term mental deficiency is bogus because it only happens in heavy users who you're inferring "probably didn't stop smoking anyway"?

 

After reading your first six links, I skipped the ones about nut cancer, as I figured they'd hold about as much water.

 

 

Did you even read beyond the abstract of the other studies anyway?

 

I have heard of studies that show a correlation (not a causation, if you didn't know) between long-term marijuana use and depression. Here, I can only quote the nurses and a doctor in a psych ward where I was vacationing, but even nut-jobs like myself know that correlation doesn't necessitate cause. People in deserts love water, don't they? I can't confirm or deny the usefulness of marijuana as an antidepressant, except in the short term (confirm!!!), but I can VERY definitely say it's safer than celexa and effexor, the two with which I've been unsuccessfully treated. Side effects of legal drugs are so often worse than that which they treat... Sure, marijuana does leave you functioning at slightly diminished capacity for a period relative to the regularity with which you use it (ranging from the next few hours for 1-time use to 1 or 2 months for daily use), but the difference is so minor it takes biased observers to point it out.

 

And after all that refutation of scientific articles as bollocks we get a personal anecdote as proof of your position? You do understand how uncompelling that is right?

[Santalum]

How can you make such a comparison when there were hardly any cars during the prohibition, which also greatly affects the road trauma. You might as well blame cars, or oil companies for road trauma. There is a far stronger correlation over such a time period.

 

Well cars and legal alcohol have combined, in modern times, to create a rather large problem.

Perhaps the benefits of prohibition in modern times would greater than they were in the 20s given the number of cars on the road these days.

 

I strongly doubt that consumption and price are strongly correlated.

 

Look at beer (alcohol) prices: countries with the most expensive alcohol are often the largest consumers per capita.

And cheap beers in supermarkets do not sell better than more expensive brands.

 

I will give you one recent example that contradicts your assertion. In Australia the federal government whacked a large tax on alcopops (alcoholic soft drinks) and their consumption by teenagers dropped signficantly. So it is quite likely that increased cost, combined with restriction of supply, will have some impact the consumption of a variety of drugs.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Santalum