Let's Talk Marijuana Legalization

[Acme]

...Incidentally, in the context of the thread the point about driving while stoned is irrelevant.

...

Phi brought it up in post #6; I gave the study.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Acme

[John Cuthber]

Interesting.

You say it doesn't matter that there are other active materials in weed alongside the THC because they are in there anyway.

Yet you don't take the same view with alcohol and dope which are almost always present together (according to phi's post and I'm sure it's true).

 

It still doesn't affect the legality issue; at a pinch you could say that anyone driving under the influence of any substance (legal or otherwise) is driving without due care and attention since they could (simply by abstaining from the drug or from driving) pay more attention.

The drunk in charge/ driving under the influence laws are a convenience but not strictly needed.

 

Would the potential revenue from taxing cannabis enable the state to provide amenities for those who are adversely affected by the drug?

Would it be better to treat those problems as medical rather than legal?

Is the decision to keep the stuff illegal a political (Right vs Left) issue and does that cloud people's decision?

[Acme]

Interesting.

You say it doesn't matter that there are other active materials in weed alongside the THC because they are in there anyway.

No that is not what I said.

 

Yet you don't take the same view with alcohol and dope which are almost always present together (according to phi's post and I'm sure it's true).

I never gave a view on alcohol or other drugs, whether related to driving or not.

 

Would the potential revenue from taxing cannabis enable the state to provide amenities for those who are adversely affected by the drug?

Depends on how they write the legislation.

 

Would it be better to treat those [adverse] problems as medical rather than legal?

Yes, insofar as the only crime involved is using marijuana.

 

Is the decision to keep the stuff illegal a political (Right vs Left) issue and does that cloud people's decision?

Laws are political issues, yes. Is it right/left divided? I don't know.

[John Cuthber]

Well, three of those 5 replies are about the topic, so I guess that's progress.

Re the first, you said "The drivers smoked marijuana and drove, so whatever else the weed contained it was part-and-parcel of the driving tests."

The same is true of the people stopped by the police and found to have been smoking dope. They didn't just contain THC, they contained another psychoactive material- alcohol.

 

Re

"I never gave a view on alcohol or other drugs, whether related to driving or not."

Actually, you did. You said that the other drugs present in the dope were not important.

[Phi for All]

I haven't finished reading this recent study, but it seems to enforce the things I've heard about young people being affected adversely, something the current laws take into consideration in treating MJ like alcohol. But some of those tested were of legal drinking age as well. What about neurological damage? Are the changes noted similar to changes one might have neurologically from drinking, or the use of other drugs, legal or not?

[Moontanman]

This short video is very informative as to how and why drugs were criminalized, most people would seem to think that some group of researchers came up with which drugs were bad and which drugs could be used but as it turns out this is not true. Some of this i have read before but the video sums it up quite well. As for my opinion I would much rather be around stoners than drunks any day. In fact if I was to decide alcohol would be illegal way before cannabis...

 

[Acme]

I haven't finished reading this recent study, but it seems to enforce the things I've heard about young people being affected adversely, something the current laws take into consideration in treating MJ like alcohol. But some of those tested were of legal drinking age as well. What about neurological damage? Are the changes noted similar to changes one might have neurologically from drinking, or the use of other drugs, legal or not?

From the study:

...Longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether marijuana exposure explicitly leads to the differences observed in this study. Furthermore, this study did not include quantifiable marijuana metabolite levels, which would have provided further information about the amount of marijuana exposure. This measure could be incorporated into future studies as a complementary measure to detailed timeline follow-back measures of drug use. Finally, age of onset was collected for marijuana use only. Early exposure to alcohol may have also affected brain structure (although no participant met criteria for past alcohol abuse or dependence).

 

The results of this study indicate that in young, recreational marijuana users, structural abnormalities in gray matter density, volume, and shape of the nucleus accumbens and amygdala can be observed. Pending confirmation in other cohorts of marijuana users, the present findings suggest that further study of marijuana effects are needed to help inform discussion about the legalization of marijuana. These results extend prior studies showing that drugs of abuse that are known to elevateDArelease are associated

with structural abnormalities in the brain and related disruptions in behavior (Makris et al., 2004; Makris et al., 2008). The multimodal convergence of these findings also points to the salience of structural differences in the brain related to drug exposure and strongly argues that human addiction research, if not all psychiatric study, must move past a predominant focus on neurotransmission. ...

So it sounds to me like there hasn't been much of this type of study, i.e. measuring gray matter density and size/shape changes of accumbens and amygdala, for alcohol or other drugs. Comparisons you suggest would then seem to be premature.

 

...

My last and final thoughts on this rant, people should have a right to ingest whatever they want. Until they harm someone or act in a socially unacceptable manner

due to their intoxicant, they should not be considered to have committed a crime. Drug abuse is the only crime in which a person is the victim and the perpetrator of the crime.

This is perhaps the most important thought. It's been some years since I read Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country by Peter McWilliams, but I recall finding the arguments sound & compelling. The complete book is free online here: >> http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc0.htm

 

Below is a review @ Wiki.

 

source: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't_Nobody's_Business_If_You_Do

Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country (ISBN 0-931580-58-7) is a book by Peter McWilliams in which he presents the history of legislation against what he feels are victimless crimes, or crimes that are committed consensually, as well as arguments for their legalization.

 

The book is divided into five sections.

##Part I gives a definition of victimless and consensual crime and outlines the difference between personal morality and governmentally-imposed morality.

##Part II presents arguments against the criminalization of victimless crimes.

##Part III gives a closer look into some of the individual activities which the author classifies as consensual crimes, such as prostitution and marijuana use, but which the majority of criminologists would classify as victimless.

##Part IV gives historical examples of the treatment of consensual and victimless crimes, such as Prohibition, and Biblical examples.

##Part V advises readers on what to do to change the laws.

...

He also claims that they are un-American, as they attempt to homogenize the country to a certain group's idea of morality, and that they create an oppressive society, restricting personal freedoms without justification. Another claim is that they teach irresponsibility, by not letting people deal with the natural consequences of their actions, but rather penalizing them whether or not their actions harmed anyone else.

 

Other objections are practical: catching the "criminals" involved is an expensive affair. Victimless crimes draw manpower and funds away from crimes that do hurt innocent parties, and enforcement of the laws is not consistent enough to be an effective deterrent. He also argues that actions to help people deal with problems caused by these illegal activities are effectively prevented by their criminalizationfor example, no one could be helped about their drinking problems during Prohibition. Additionally, he details how laws against victimless crimes paved the way for organized crime.

...

Edited May 7, 2014 by Acme

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

Everybody,

Please remember that participation in a thread isn't always about winning. It is ok to agree to disagree on a political topic which is often partially subjective.

The discussion has become rather unfriendly at times, which is totally unnecessary since all those involved are very capable members with a good track record.

 

Also, you do not have to attack each and every small detail that you disagree with. And if someone said something just a little bit wrong, then sometimes it helps to open a comment with a positive note before pointing out the small issue. Try to discuss the main topic.

 

In short: I want everybody to be extra extra extra nice in the next number of posts. And that's an order.

 

[Phi for All]

Good morning, everyone!

 

The Colorado state Senate just passed a bill that will allow a banking coop to be set up for MJ and hemp growers. The Federal Reserve has final say, and this will be a very interesting showdown.

 

One of the big hurdles for growers is that Federal law is still being enforced, and banks are subject to the Fed. Banks have been reluctant to open accounts for growers that may end in seizures and penalties. The dispensaries can't accept credit cards so they have to have ATM machines which need to be stocked multiple times per day, security to protect the cash they take in, and other costly considerations most businesses take for granted, because they have a bank.

[John Cuthber]

This short video is very informative as to how and why drugs were criminalized, most people would seem to think that some group of researchers came up with which drugs were bad and which drugs could be used but as it turns out this is not true. Some of this i have read before but the video sums it up quite well. As for my opinion I would much rather be around stoners than drunks any day. In fact if I was to decide alcohol would be illegal way before cannabis...

 

A good point about "our" drugs are ok but "their" drugs are bad.

But in terms of cannabis the prohibition in mots of the West came about pretty much by accident.

The egyptians had a cannabis problem and wanted to control it. To do that, they needed international cooperation.

To "buy" that cooperation they asked the West to agree to ban cannabis in much the same way as the opiates.

 

"Egypt, with support from China and United States, recommended that a prohibition on hashish be added to the Convention, and a sub-committee proposed the following text:

The use of Indian hemp and the preparations derived therefrom may only be authorized for medical and scientific purposes. The raw resin (charas), however, which is extracted from the female tops of the cannabis sativa L, together with the various preparations (hashish, chira, esrar, diamba, etc.) of which it forms the basis, not being at present utilized for medical purposes and only being susceptible of utilisation for harmful purposes, in the same manner as other narcotics, may not be produced, sold, traded in, etc., under any circumstances whatsoever."

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Opium_Convention

 

Now that seems fair enough until you ask what this problem was.

A researcher there had found that many of the people in the "lunatic asylums" in Egypt were habitual dope smokers adn came to the conclusion that the dope caused the mental health problems.

 

He failed to take account of the fact that much of the population outside those institutions also smoked cannabis.

 

As far as the UK China and the US were concerned, they had scarcely heard of cannabis- it didn't trouble them much.

But the Egyptians refused to sign up to the opiates treaty unless the committee agreed to add cannabis to the list of banned drugs.

So - for the sake of an easy life, the rest of the group added dope to the list.

 

That's the basis of the banning of cannabis in the UK and US (and other places).

Not on the basis of race or harm, but for political expediency based on a mistaken explanation of the mental health problems in Egypt.

 

Now, I accept that it's possible that they were "right for the wrong reason" and that the stuff should be banned.

But, if so, let's at least have the debate rather than carrying on a "tradition" based on an error and which is certainly a source of racial tension today.

[Phi for All]

That's the basis of the banning of cannabis in the UK and US (and other places).

Not on the basis of race or harm, but for political expediency based on a mistaken explanation of the mental health problems in Egypt.

 

Now, I accept that it's possible that they were "right for the wrong reason" and that the stuff should be banned.

But, if so, let's at least have the debate rather than carrying on a "tradition" based on an error and which is certainly a source of racial tension today.

 

Very, very interesting, and I'd not heard that. I'd heard that certain US interests at the time lobbied to have hemp in general banned, namely the liquor, lumber and cotton barons, but I have nothing to back that up. It just seemed likely, and it seems just as likely even if the impetus came from Egypt.

[John Cuthber]

You can certainly see why the liquor barons wouldn't like dope to be legal.